ELECTIONEERING: Rachel Maddow blamed Bernie Sanders for anonymous online attacks

I watch Rachel Maddow every night. I admire her 95% of the time, but at critical points in Democratic primaries I’ve been disappointed to see on-air electioneering.

Maddow is one of the least anti-Bernie personalities on MSNBC, but that isn’t saying much for a network owned by mega-telecom Comcast, who donated heavily to the Hillary campaign in 2016 without on-air disclosure.

Like CNN, The Washington Post and The NY Times, MSNBC has a history of broadcast bias against Sanders going back to the “Bernie Blackout” of 2016 where they blacklisted pro-Bernie guests and whitewashed huge rallies just as Bernie was gaining in name recognition.

This cycle, MSNBC has featured an imbalanced parade of “establishment” Democrats dragging Bernie. They have repeatedly been caught fudging graphics, cherry-picking polls (or simply erasing Bernie from polls), and as always, fail to disclose pertinent financial conflicts of guests.

Maddow herself has editorialized against Senator Sanders, in 2016 urging him on air to drop out and support Hillary, and perhaps most controversially, airing a “thrown chairs” episode in which her show aired false narratives of Bernie supporters getting violent during the Nevada primary.

As it turned out, leaked emails showed secret meetings with MSNBC and biased DNC officials just days before, indicating the DNC’s designs to have Maddow carry their message to her large millennial audience. They also celebrated getting talking points onto her Maddowblog, but the officials all resigned once the leaks were made public.

This year, Maddow has been much more objective, right up until her exclusive interview with Elizabeth Warren on the night the senator dropped out of the presidential race.

Maddow asked a visibly touchy Warren repeatedly to respond to vicious online attacks she attributed to Bernie supporters. She pressed the point, stressing that Bernie was himself responsible, even though there is no way to know who is actually behind anonymous online accounts.

Twitter users are not always who they seem and if they are NOT being civil online, they are expressly defying Bernie who has repeatedly insisted his supporters remain civil as they debate policies and issues.

As detailed in the Mueller Report, social media manipulations were prevalent in 2016, and so veteran news hounds like Maddow should be a bit more circumspect drawing conclusions about intentionally divisive internet postings.

But Maddow should also be even-handed — every candidate (including Warren) has vitriolic “supporters” on and offline. Vast quantitative research has shown Bernie supporters are no different from anyone else’s, as the “Bernie Bro” myth has now spanned two elections.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters have also been one of the biggest targets of ad hominem and unsupported charges of sexism, “communism” or Russian collusion for years.

In fact, the same night Maddow blamed Bernie for the anti-Warren vitriol on the internet, he was harassed by venom spewing neo-nazis who unfurled a swastika banner during a live rally.

Even before the 2020 race began, several high-profile online accounts have been smearing Bernie with personal attacks. One account is run by Sally Albright, a professional political consultant who worked for Newt Gingrich before switching parties — she will not reveal who is currently paying her to shitpost. Albright was already caught running a network of sock puppet accounts, but continues unabated.

Albright also smears Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives regularly. A similar anonymous account featuring a profile picture of a black man is @EclecticBrotha, who derides Bernie’s surrogates of color but also won’t say whether “he” is paid (it’s pretty apparent this is also a pro) or by who.

If I were a corporate Democrat hoping to keep big money in US elections, I would want as much friction as possible between Warren and Sanders. Before she stepped up to advocate for policies like Medicare for All, free public colleges, free childcare and paid family leave, Bernie stood alone in the wilderness.

If I were a billionaire like Mike Bloomberg, the Waltons, Kochs or Mercers, I would spend copious amounts to make sure Warren and Sanders never joined forces.

If I were a Trump Republican afraid these populist/outsider messages could gain traction in swing states, I could easily whip up or purchase a raft of fake accounts. And if I were a Russian intelligence officer, or a Macedonian teen working to re-elect Trump, it wouldn’t be hard to again instigate discord among Democratic factions.

To be fair to Rachel, there are doubtlessly some actual Bernie voters online who simply ignore his call for civility. I have gone online and found them and engaged, asking why they claim to be for Bernie, yet intentionally hurt his chances.

Some are self-described “anarchists” which explains a lot, but even this I take with a healthy grain of salt. Some claim righteous indignation, claiming Warren is a “faux progressive” planted by the corporatists, while others claim the other side did it first.

If this sounds juvenile, I would add no one even knows if we’re dealing with adults in the anonymous Wild West of the internet. Maybe it’s just lack of discipline — an acute unawareness of civics, election strategy and any successful campaign’s need for bridge-building. But after the backlash to toxic insults made headlines, it became clear the continuing organized swarms weren’t carried out by true adherents, rather they were sabotage.

Also significant as we ponder the motivations of these nameless, unidentifiable tweeters is the profound effect the current president has had on national discourse over the last five years, from the “Trump effect” cited by teachers of impertinent and intolerant youngsters to the televised spectacle of serial misogynist Rush Limbaugh being awarded the Medal of Freedom during a farcical State of the Union address, an event punctuated by Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump’s whopper-laden speech.

This brings us to Senator Sanders’ response to the charges. The night before Maddow’s interview with Warren, she had an exclusive sit-down with Bernie in Burlington in which she asked him directly about the pernicious posts.

Bernie condemned them in strong terms, saying again he wanted supporters to concentrate on the issues. He also reminded Rachel how often and how viciously he himself is attacked, but it seemed to be a subject Bernie did not want to dwell on, perhaps inured to the constant firehose of chaotic bad-faith chatter. Bernie apparently doesn’t let himself get too distracted by the daily barrage of unending internet insults.

As ever, Bernie’s focus is always on his message, his issues. Perhaps it’s fair to say Bernie could’ve shown more empathy for Warren during a rough week, but in terms of corrosive personal attacks this Democratic primary will be nothing compared to the general election when Trump and Putin’s shock troops fully engage.

Sadly, Maddow’s excessive needling sensationalized this issue now, only hurting America’s chances of electing a progressive.

All this to say neither I, nor Rachel Maddow, nor anyone else knows who is behind all the mean tweets and exactly why. But for one of the nation’s most credible “news” hosts, it’s disappointing to see her again taking sides.