In his phenomenal HBO series The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin wrote that the role of the news media should be to "inform and educate the American electorate." While that line was aired in 2012, the importance of the news media to our national discourse hasn't changed at all. With primary season in full swing, and the November elections looming, thousands of people, from first time voters to seasoned political veterans, are turning to the news to inform their decisions in the voting booth.

I've made no secret to this point of my own political leanings (in fact, the very first piece I ever wrote for the Odyssey was a ringing endorsement of Bernie Sanders). And I will continue to come to the Senator's defense until the nomination is decided, especially when shenanigans occur. And, dear readers, shenanigans are indeed occurring.

Take, for example, the recent Democratic Debate in Flint, MI (which aired on the March 6). I'll forgive my fellow Badgers if they missed the first part, as it was on at the same time as the Purdue game, but even if you didn't watch it, you should know that compared to the most recent Republican Debate, the Democratic debate was downright civil. Though it may not have produced such incredible headlines as "Donald Trump Defends Size Of Penis (no, seriously), Clinton and Sanders dug in on the issues and attacked each other on their politics. The real winner of the debate, many news outlets (including NBC and Vox) agreed, was simply 'democrats.' In fact, the aforementioned Vox article called both candidates winners, as they entered the debate with clear goals, and managed to accomplish them. Sanders continued to debate well, demonstrating his passion and consistency on the issues. Clinton, meanwhile, focused on her experience and, as the leader in delegates, avoided any mistakes that would allow the trailing Sanders a resurgence.

What is perplexing, then, is the avalanche of negative press that Sen. Sanders received following that debate, if he's alleged to have tied for the win. The Washington Post, traditionally a liberal leaning paper, published almost one article every ninety minutes that criticized Bernie in the 24 hours after the debate.

(via Adam H Johnson on Twitter)

In the same time period, the paper published only 2 negative pieces on Hillary Clinton: This one, which criticized her plan to remove all lead from US pipes within 5 years, and this one, that remarks that Clinton is, in fact, not more electable than Sanders, per national polls.

Reddit user /u/TempleKingOne made the following comment on the story: "Clinton was touted by the media as the inevitable democratic nominee even when she and Sanders had the same number of won states and delegates. I found this to be ridiculous and believe this type pro-Hillary reporting was because the corporations who own the media (Comcast, etc) support Hillary. When the masses repeatedly hear from the major media that Sanders chances of winning are over, they start believing it and get discouraged."

I refuse to be discouraged. I will still donate to, phonebank for, and support Senator Sanders until he's the nominee.

If you're interested in Bernie, check out his stance on the issues, and remember to vote in the Wisconsin Primary on April 5th!