When Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I–Ariz.) announced that she would not seek re-election in 2024, few of her constituents likely mourned. After launching her political career with the Green Party and running for Senate as a moderate Democrat, Sinema veered ever rightward, carving out a reputation for cozying up to industry lobbyists while leaving her voters out in the cold. (She left the Democratic Party in December 2022.) But corporate media, whose commitment to centrism over the public interest mirrors Sinema’s own, offered praise for her supposed achievements, and bemoaned the “partisanship” they blamed for bringing her down.
Axios (3/5/24) painted Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s retirement as “the latest in a series of crushing blows to Senate bipartisanship.”
“Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s (I-Ariz.) decision not to seek re-election has dealt the latest in a series of crushing blows to Senate bipartisanship,” wrote Axios‘s Zachary Basu (3/5/24), “hollowing out a centrist core that has suffered under years of intensifying polarization.”
Ignorant voters just don’t understand Sinema’s value, Axios suggested: “Despite her broad unpopularity, Sinema will leave Congress with a virtually unparalleled record as a bipartisan negotiator.”
“Sinema has been an influential yet polarizing figure in the Senate and has frequently worked to broker compromise between Democrats and Republicans,” declared CNN (3/5/24), citing the recent bipartisan border deal. (Ultimately rejected by the GOP, that bill would have shredded immigrant rights, enabling mass deportations and restoring the Trump administration’s asylum ban, in exchange for funding the US-backed wars in Gaza and Ukraine—Truthout, 12/21/23).
The Washington Post (3/5/24) described Sinema as “central to many bipartisan pieces of legislation that have become law.” Alas, “people close to Sinema said she had begun to worry that her bipartisan brand of dealmaking was no longer in demand with voters in a polarized era.”
The AP‘s Jonathan Cooper (3/6/24) offered a similar diagnosis: “Sinema’s border-security ambitions, and her career in Congress, were swallowed by the partisanship that has paralyzed Congress.”
Sinema’s real record
The New York Times (3/5/24) called Sinema “an enigmatic figure who often kept colleagues guessing about her intentions and defied convention.”
But what is this “unparalleled record” of Sinema’s, really? What did her “bipartisan brand of dealmaking” accomplish?
Many articles quoted from Sinema’s video announcement, which she posted to social media: “Because I choose civility, understanding, listening, working together to get stuff done, I will leave the Senate at the end of this year.”
Sinema’s record demonstrated the exact opposite. She became notorious for not listening or trying to understand or work with the people she was supposed to represent: holding no press conferences or town halls, and consistently refusing to meet with or speak to constituents when approached (Mother Jones, 10/7/21). Possibly her most viral moment—giving a cutesy thumbs-down to doom a $15 minimum wage amendment to the 2021 Covid relief bill—was an expression of neither civility nor understanding.
The New York Times‘ Kellen Browning and Kayla Guo (3/5/24) mentioned the thumbs-down, explaining that it “infuriated progressives.” That’s true enough, but to suggest that only “progressives” would be upset at the then-Democrat’s refusal to vote for a policy that had the support of 61% of Arizona’s voters (and a whopping 89% of the state’s Democrats) falsely makes the policy itself seem left-wing—and Sinema, therefore, a “moderate.”
NPR (3/5/24) offered a similar skew:
Sinema often found herself at odds with the more progressive wing of her party. She opposed raising taxes on the wealthy and ending the filibuster to make it easier for Democrats to pass legislation in the Senate.
But astute listeners would recall that it wasn’t just “the more progressive wing of her party” she was at odds with on those issues; it was every Democrat in the Senate, save for Joe Manchin. Sinema and Manchin were the only Democrats standing in the way of raising taxes on the wealthy and ending the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation, which strong majorities of Democratic voters also supported.
The Times continued, “Activists have criticized what they say is her eagerness to side with business interests over the campaign promises she made to Arizona voters.”
The Guardian (10/11/21)recounted how the one-time progressive activist became the pharmaceutical industry’s “lead blocker in the fight to prevent the government from negotiating drug prices.”
One might think that the job of a newspaper would be to evaluate such criticisms, so that readers know whether or not they’re substantiated. In fact, the Times itself (9/27/21) reported in 2021 that Sinema held fundraisers with industry opponents of the Build Back Better bill even as she played a central role in negotiations over the legislation. Politico (10/15/21) noted at the time that only 10% of her campaign fundraising that quarter came from Arizona residents; Data for Progress (10/27/21) found that Sinema and Manchin took in three times as much lobbying money as the average senator.
During her Senate campaign, one of Sinema’s key popular positions was cutting prescription drug prices. But once in the Senate, and with Big Pharma dollars lining her pockets, she blocked a bill to do just that (Guardian, 10/11/21).
Corporate media seem to think running an occasional piece revealing a politician’s actual influences satisfies their responsibility to hold the powerful to account—while surrounding that reporting with an avalanche of coverage that blithely ignores those revelations. The end result is an overall picture of an admirable moderate who defends tradition and keeps extremists on both left and right from mucking things up (FAIR.org, 10/6/21).
To our most influential journalists, reaching across the aisle to election deniers is a greater good than securing the public’s right to vote, right to healthcare or right to a living wage.
Move to the ‘center’
Politico (3/6/24) described Arizona as state where “centrist maverick Sen. John McCain dominated politics for decades”—echoing a myth that has dominated political reporting for decades (Extra!, 5–6/08).
Sinema’s exit had journalists speculating about what impact it will have on the swing state’s Senate race. To benefit, Republican candidate Kari Lake and Democratic candidate Ruben Gallego “will likely be forced to pivot hard to the center,” Politico‘s Ally Mutnick and Ursula Perano (3/6/24) wrote.
They continued: “Both candidates, however, face clear hurdles in selling those moderate bona fides to an unabashedly swing state.” You see, Lake has “vehemently denied the validity of the 2020 election election. And she is still sticking to some of the rhetoric.”
What about Gallego? Well, Politico explained:
Senate Republicans—even the relative moderates among them—say Gallego’s progressive record will be a tough sell in his home state.
Gallego decided to challenge Sinema, after all, out of anger that the Arizona independent was stymieing key Democratic legislative priorities. And he was urged on by progressives when he did so.
So the “right” is refusing to accept election results and the “left” is…well, Politico doesn’t bother to tell readers anything about Gallego’s actual policy positions, just that he recently left the Progressive Caucus, and that Republicans say he has a “progressive record.” And, since corporate media equate progressives with extremism—despite most of their policy ideas garnering widespread popular support—that means Lake and Gallego are just two sides of the same coin.
The post Voters Won’t Miss Sinema—but Corporate Media Already Do appeared first on FAIR.
This post was originally published on FAIR.
