Let's talk about the "left" online media.
As you may or may not know, I originally supported Bernie. Actually, to me he was a compromise. I generally got my news from places like Alternet, Counterpunch, Common Dreams, and other lefty news outlets. Places like DailyKos and Salon were *too moderate* for me. Coupled with social media, that all added up to create a picture of Hillary and the Democrats as sellouts, turncoats, and "DINOs" for their "abandonment of liberal politics". I read a lot of books from Chomsky and the like (who I certainly still respect). But all of that added up to a distrust of normal politics, a feeling that the system was "rigged" (gee where have you heard that before), that both parties were corporate (see above), that the Dems didn't really care about helping working people, etc,etc. Also that the media is rigged and biased, won't cover "real issues" for their "corporate masters" etc etc. Sound familiar?
When you hear this stuff from the Berners, this is why. They're getting their news and information from those kinds of sources. But more importantly, it's the tone. Not only does it portray mainstream Dems as sellouts for everything that even smacks of compromise, but it allows them to paint the progressive things they DO get done as "insufficient", "pandering", "token" or all kinds of other delegitmizers. This fires up the outrage, makes people feel fearful and angry, and rakes in the big bucks. So when Hillary, who is "establishment" because she's devoted her adult life to the Party, runs for President and has broad support within the Party, she gets smeared as being "coronated". Her progressive accomplishments are thrown under the mud because they weren't "big enough". Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders gets to hold a bunch of rallies, make a few progressive noises, and use "socialist" as an edge-lord label, and suddenly he's a rebel.
The one thing about this primary is that it brought me out of the echo chamber. When you start following and getting involved in real world politics, you can't stay in the echo chambers. Lefty media doesn't tell you that Hillary marched in Pride in the 90s, or that conservatives exist to block even the faintest hint of left politics., or that changing the political culture takes years, hell decades of work even if you're on the right side (just ask black people and LGBT people) They tell you that there are millions of nonvoters in each state who would turn out for far left policy (debatable, and turnout is a LOT more than that) and that elected Democrats don't make the country Europe because they're sold out to corporations and only care about enriching themselves.
So in the long run, I think the kind of media we have on the "Left" will continue to be a problem going forward. Bernie Sanders gaining so much traction despite being heavily unqualified, lacking a mature temperament, not truly understanding movement politics and being and short on policy detail wasn't an accident, it was a product of misinformation from an "independent" media designed not to inform the public, but to outrage them to generate more ad buys. I know that from experience.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I think it's fair to say that the VRWC finds it useful to attack from the left as well as the right and publishers and writers have to pay their rent and postal fees. And when long-running mastheads outlive their founders they are at the mercy of market forces like other media.
WE are the Winners!
