Photo contributed by David Blow

Presidentail candidate Bernie Sanders speaks to Dave Wolk during his visit
to Castleton in 2014.

Someone must not like Bernie.

Flipping and flicking through news channels, Bernie is seldom to be seen. Millions upon millions of Americans believe Sen. Bernie Sanders is the best presidential candidate, but major media is actively squashing Sanders’ growing momentum.

A study done by Andrew Tyndall monitoring ABC, NBC, and CBS found that by Oct. 2, a titanic eight minutes had been dedicated to talking about Senator Sanders…

Donald Trump was discussed 18 times more than Sanders, for a total of 145 minutes.

Hilary Clinton was talked about 20 times more than Sanders, for a total of 165 minutes; half of that total was talking about her email controversy.

A study by national media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) revealed that newspapers also continue to clearly cut Sanders’ coverage in relation to other candidates. July and August statistics showed that, on average, Trump was mentioned three times more than Sanders in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times and USA Today.

Specifically, the Wall Street Journal covered Trump almost five times more than it did Sanders. What’s Wall Street’s beef with Bernie?

Maybe Bernie’s face should replace Waldo’s, since all we have been doing is searching to find Vermont’s senator.

We believe this election process has brought to light a severe problem within America. Why do we go to our major media outlets for news, when they grossly misrepresent the reality of the electoral race? With a simple Google search, one can learn that 90 percent of America’s media is controlled by only six corporations.  

I guess that’s what you’d call a monopoly over our sources of information, as a country. But why does Wall Street, and why do these big, rich corporations not like Bernie?

Maybe it’s because Sanders is standing up against wealth inequality, against the leviathan of corporate oligarchy. His funding reflects just whose side Sanders is on, and it is not the side of the super-rich.

By October of this year, Sanders had raised close to $26 million in funding support (right behind Clinton’s $28 million). The difference between the two, you ask?

Clinton’s donors are mainly individuals and corporations with deep pockets.

Sanders, on average, has received small online donations averaging $30.  

The Spartan asks, shouldn’t you contemplate whether we really are being delivered the news, or whether we are just being fed information that is tailored to promote the agenda of the super-rich? Can we, and should we do something about it?

Edward R. Murrow was an American journalist, television and radio figure, who passed away in 1965.

He once wrote, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”