“GO TO HELL, CHUCK”: How Politico’s Most Recent Media Hit Piece on Bernie Sanders Gets it All Wrong ZB Follow Feb 14 · 12 min read

In a week that has seen the members of the media call Bernie Sanders a cult leader and sound the alarm about Sanders leading public executions in Central Park, Politico editor John Harris adds another chapter to the growing anti-Sanders tome authored by the mainstream media powers that be.

Harris opens his piece de resistance by describing an exchange between Senator Sanders and Chuck Todd that took place last weekend on the latter’s show, Meet the Press, in which Todd asks Sanders about his promise to release his medical records. The reason Todd asks this question is, of course, that Sanders suffered a heart attack last Fall. He wants to press the candidate on disclosing information useful to voters before they cast their ballots. This was a fair enough question for Todd to ask. But what follows, John Harris’ interpretation of Sanders’ answer and subsequent proselytizing about the danger Sanders poses to the free press, is patently unfair.

Harris tells his readers that “Sen. Bernie Sanders sounded polite enough, as he exhaled a puffy cloud of obfuscation,”. Harris then plays the role, not of a journalist reporting the facts, but of an interpreter who tells readers what Bernie actually meant, offering little room for independent judgment. “It was not hard to translate Sanders’ word cloud: Go to hell, Chuck.”, Harris says. He continues to opine that “[a] much larger question is raised by Sanders’ willingness to tell Todd — and the rest of us — to pound sand, seemingly confident in his belief that there is not much price to be paid for doing so.” Sanders exchange with Todd is then compared to President Donald Trump failing to release his tax returns, dodging questions about his own health, and intervening in the DOJ prosecution of campaign aide Roger Stone.

The article then delves into the crux of Harris’ problem with Bernie Sanders. First, Harris claims that Bernie Sanders is following Trump’s precedent of being icy with the media. Bernie, according to Harris, is “ready to follow trails [Trump] has blazed in taking flight from public accountability.” This statement equates Sanders’ exchange with Todd over his medical records with the behavior of a man who calls the press the enemy of the people.

Second, Harris laments that Sanders’ “evasion highlights the dilution of mainstream media’s institutional power,” and again equates Sanders and Trump by saying “[t]here has been no aspirant or occupant of the White House during the modern presidency who has not wished to say “Go to hell” to uncomfortable inquiries about health, finances, or aspects of personal lives that affect public duties. Trump and Sanders are hardly the first to do so.” Harris closes his second argument by implying that it is no longer costly for politicians to “be in the crosshairs of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or a major broadcast network like NBC.”

Finally, Harris suggests that there is “little public comprehension of the historic shift in political culture away from transparency, accountability and the traditional levers used to enforce both,” and complains, without a hint of irony, that “[t]he old power to shape reality — by some editor’s decision to put a story on the upper right hand corner of the front page or at the top of a 22-minute broadcast watched by tens of millions — is largely defunct.” Harris caps this point: “Obscured in the heat and noise of conflict is how much institutional power to set the agenda and enforce minimum standards of public conduct has shifted away from the news media”

Luckily for us all, John Harris has a path forward that will absolve us of the totally equal and comparable sins of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Media outlets must “clang their bells as loudly as possible on matters of disclosure and accountability,”. Harris ends by outlining what the media would look like in a John Harris utopia: “The journalism that…I want depends on reporters and editors staying disciplined on important questions. It depends also on an audience that regards transparency, truthfulness and accountability for people in power as important values in all cases — not only when useful as weapons against the opposition,” Sandwiched in between these statements is a quote from former Washington Post editor Robert Kaiser, offered without comment, that states “[w]hat are the chances that what [Sanders] is hiding shows him to be unusually healthy and ready to go four or eight years at top speed…He’s holding stuff back because it will cause him political problems — isn’t that by far the safest presumption? The most logical?” The bottom line is that Harris offers us a worldview where the media, and its readers, value the truth, accountability, and the free flow of information. If only John Harris could follow his own advice.

Recall that Harris said Bernie “exhaled a puffy cloud of obfuscation”, and told Chuck Todd and the American people to “go to hell”. For those who read Harris’ article (and I encourage that you do, I believe that I have fairly broken down Harris’ piece, but don’t take my word for it), you will eventually notice that Harris never actually tells his readers what exactly Bernie Sanders said. Harris gives us his version of Sanders’ statement, assuring us that Bernie wants us to pound sand and go to hell, but he never provides his source material. Below is the unedited transcript of what transpired between Sanders and Todd. Watch the interview for yourself. Listen to Bernie’s tone of voice, pay attention to the dynamic between Todd and Sanders.

CHUCK TODD: The first votes have already been cast, you did not release your medical records. You released a few letters. Nobody interviewed your doctors. You did have a heart attack, apparently. Shouldn’t voters see your medical records —

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We have released as much —

CHUCK TODD: — before Super Tuesday?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: — documentation, I think, as any other candidate.

CHUCK TODD: But no other candidate has had a heart attack.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, look, I am — yeah, no other candidate’s doing four or five events a day, running all over this country —

CHUCK TODD: I hear you. No, you have proven —

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We are —

CHUCK TODD: — I mean, no doubt, you’ve proven your mettle here. But voters, you heard voters have been concerned about your age.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I mean, you can start releasing medical records and it never ends. We have released a substantive part — all of our background. We have doctors who have — cardiologists who are confirming that I am in good health. I am in good health.

CHUCK TODD: What changes have you — did the doctors ask you to make that you’ve made?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I’m trying to walk a little bit more, but the schedule doesn’t allow me. They didn’t say — I’m trying to sleep a little bit better, sometimes that’s hard. But I’m feeling great. Thanks.

CHUCK TODD: My guess is winning will help you sleep a little bit better?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Winning will make me sleep a lot better, and I think we’re going to do just that.

CHUCK TODD: All right, Senator Bernie Sanders, Democrat — the independent Democrat from Vermont. Thanks for coming on and sharing your views. Be safe on the trail, sir —

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Good, nice to see you —

CHUCK TODD: Glad to see you —

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: — thank you.

This is my interpretation of what occured between Bernie and Chuck Todd. And feel free to disagree with me because, unlike John Harris, my point does not rely on whether Bernie had a coded message for Chuck Todd and his viewers.

Does Bernie say anywhere that he is backing out of his promise to release his medical records? Not quite. Sure, Sanders danced around Todd’s question a bit and did not make any guarantees about releasing further medical records. But, in a campaign filled with absurd missteps and miscalculations, can you blame Bernie for not wanting to make any hard and fast commitments on live TV? Can you fault Bernie for not wanting to make any promises to a man who compared his supporters to Nazis and openly mocked and doubted his campaign during live coverage of a primary he won? Finally, does Bernie ever say anything that could be taken as telling Todd to “go to hell” or “pound sand”? That suggests he thinks himself above accountability and transparency? That he believes he does not have to be honest to the American people? Does anything in this interview warrant a comparison to President Trump? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no.

That brings us to my first point, the above is my own analysis of what Bernie Sanders meant in his interview with Chuck Todd. I do not care if you agree with me, and in fact, it is my sincere hope that you come to your own conclusions about what this all means. Maybe you agree with John Harris. That’s perfectly ok. But the problem is, shouldn’t have John Harris let you come to that decision by yourself? Why is John Harris, who wants so badly for his readers to value truth and accountability, not telling you what Bernie Sanders actually said? Why is he telling you what you should think, without exposing you to the underlying events that are supposed to form this opinion?

Whatever your views on Bernie Sanders are, whether you think he is America’s messiah or a filthy communist, that view should be yours to make. It is entirely reasonable that a person seeks out another’s interpretation of moments during this campaign, but those doing the interpreting, if they really care about the truth, should at the very least tell people what was actually said. I don’t want to be unfair to John Harris here either, it’s not just him who obfuscates the truth. Both left and right wing media outlets are making a fuss about Bernie’s appearance on Meet the Press, and they misrepresent what actually happened either through misleading headlines or outright lies. This is a problem bigger than John Harris, he just happened to be the guy who made me most upset today.

The second problem with Harris’ exposition on Bernie Sanders’ shortcomings is that his main premise is based on a deafening logical fallacy. Harris’ whole article relies on the idea that Bernie Sanders is following the precedent set by Trump. A precedent where politicians disrespect the media and shirk their responsibility to be honest to the American people.

There are two reasons why this is a false equivocation on Harris’ part. First, while Bernie and Donald Trump may both be brash and rude in media appearances, the fact that they share this characteristic does not mean that they hold the exact same intentions when displaying this characteristic.

Bernie Sanders is a curmudgeon. He openly admits that he “does not tolerate bullshit terribly well,”. He will not call you on your birthday. So does he sound annoyed during the above exchange with Chuck Todd? Absolutely. Does he talk over Todd at certain points? Yes. But this is a feature, not a flaw, of Bernie Sanders’ campaign. His supporters know that he is a grumpy New Yorker, but his message is sincere enough that it doesn’t matter. If he comes off as rude in his interviews, it is because he just doesn’t have time to play the media’s game. He is too busy trying to bring radical change to the country. With Bernie, being rude to the media is incidental, but it is not the entire point.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is just an asshole. Trump isn’t rude to the media on accident. He is, at his core, a petulant piece of shit who genuinely doesn’t respect anyone. So to say that, because Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have both been rude to the media they both disrespect the media and see themselves above transparency to the American people, is just plain wrong. John Harris and David Duke have both appeared in Politico, so does that mean John Harris is also a white supremacist? Of course it doesn’t. And just as that conclusion is ridiculous, so is the one that deems Bernie on the same level as Donald Trump because he happens to be rude to the media from time to time.

Second, to compare Bernie Sanders’ being dodgy about his health records to something like Donald Trump refusing to release his tax returns, is both misleading and malicious. Harris’ initial premise is fine: the American public should have enough information to make an informed decision about who they are voting for. But his next premise, that the disclosure of Bernie Sanders’ health records are of the same importance as Donald Trump’s tax returns, is absolutely ridiculous.

There are benefits to Bernie Sanders keeping the public appraised of his health situation. At no point in his interview with Chuck Todd did Sanders signal he would not do so. In fact, he already released a batch of medical records in December, two months after his heart attack. It is true that Bernie did not commit to releasing any further records. And it is true that Bernie said “you can start releasing medical records and it never ends.” But, this hardly means Bernie is “ready to follow trails [Trump] has blazed in taking flight from public accountability” Ask yourself, is there really any added benefit to the voter if Bernie continually releases medical records throughout the campaign?

Bernie could release records every day from here until November that say he is in perfect health, and he could still die unexpectedly the next day. That is just a fact of life. Would it have given any benefit to the American voter to know John F. Kennedy was in perfect health the day before he was assassinated? The point is, Bernie has disclosed as much, if not more, than other candidates. Would continually releasing records really add that much to the voter’s knowledge?

This might be an election between two septuagenarians, both are going to inevitably face questions about longevity. So it makes plenty sense why Bernie does not want to make his health the issue of the primary campaign. He wants to focus on his actual policy platform while he has the chance. Constantly releasing medical records distracts from his actual message and gives an undue advantage to his competitors, who do not face similar scrutiny. Joe Biden had two brain aneurysms during the 1988 presidential campaign. Why is John Harris not demanding monthly medical records from Joe Biden? Why is it somehow an affront to the American people if Bernie is not constantly updating them on his health, but it is ok that other candidates are not? It quickly becomes clear, to me at least, that John Harris’ outrage over Bernie’s health records really does not have much to do with accountability, transparency, or an informed electorate.

Now compare the likely minimal importance of disclosing Bernie’s health records, to the importance of disclosing Donald Trump’s tax returns. Trump’s tax returns may reveal he is a criminal. They may reveal he is enriching himself at the expense of the American taxpayer. They may show that foreign powers are blackmailing the President of the United States. To draw a direct comparison between Bernie’s health and Donald Trump’s tax returns, to pretend that they are of equal importance to an informed citizenry, to claim that both candidates refusal to make complete disclosures is on the same level is an actual disservice to the American voter.

Here, I will again do what John Harris will not. I will make clear that this is my opinion and that I don’t expect anyone to take what I say as gospel, or pretend that I am some great arbiter of truth and accountability. I don’t want you to agree with me, but I do want you to know that John Harris is lying to you.

When John Harris makes the comparison between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, he does so to lay the foundation for his point that the media is not as influential and respected as it was in past elections. No longer does the media hold the power to set the agenda and dictate public discourse. He cloaks this point in crocodile tears about wanting to hold public officials accountable and desiring to deliver the truth to an open minded audience. But the truth is, contrary to what John Harris says, it ought to be celebrated that no one is scared of the New York Times or NBC anymore. When media outlets produce willfully dishonest purposefully misleading content like Harris’ most recent article, they deserve to be shamed and ridiculed and ignored. Bernie Sanders wasn’t obfuscating the truth when Chuck Todd interviewed him, but John Harris sure was when he told the American people about it. Why should we trust the media to hold public officials to a higher standard than the one they hold themselves to?

Even as Bernie Sanders continues to win support, and secures the most votes in the early voting states, the media portrays him as nothing more than a sideshow freak. They tell us he will ruin our economy. They misrepresent his successes. And when they are not actively working against him, they simply pretend he does not exist. So, even if John Harris is right and the media is supposed to be some sort of umpire during our elections, why should Bernie Sanders play by their rules? Why should he waste time and energy playing a game where the cards are stacked against him? John Harris wants us to believe in the principle that he, and others like him, are to be trusted with providing important information during this election, while they do the exact opposite in practice. He wants us to rely on his reporting to make decisions about voting, without ever telling us what is really going on.

To that I say what Bernie Sanders did not: Go to Hell, John Harris.