I think that while the overall shape of corporate media that Chomsky and you describe is accurate, there are pockets of difference (if not resistance) within the structure, depending on the perspective of the individual reporter and the nature of the outlet.
The Shorenstein Center’s analysis of media coverage of the 2016 primary found that during the primaries, Hillary Clinton received primarily negative coverage, while Sanders and Trump received primarily positive coverage:
During 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in an unusual way given his low initial polling numbers — a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in polls.
Trump’s coverage was positive in tone — he received far more “good press” than “bad press,” largely in the context of the “horserace,” centering on his growing crowds and momentum. The coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race, partly as a result of journalists’ focus on Trump.
Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as he began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic.
Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to her increasingly unfavorable poll ratings in 2015. Source
Of the two Democratic candidates, Clinton was clearly the more “corporate.” Early in the primary, it wasn’t clear whether Trump would go populist or corporate, but he seemed generally less tied to corporate America than the other Republican hopefuls.
I haven’t followed thoroughly the mainstream coverage of the current pre-primary; coverage of Sanders does seem more negative than in 2015–2016. Perhaps Sanders is perceived by corporatists as more of a threat this go-round, but I don’t see many negative op-eds etc. against Elizabeth Warren.
From the evidence you provide, it does sound as if Ember is not just biased against Sanders but dishonest in her reporting. That doesn’t mean, however, that everything she says about Sanders is false. Her observation “ he has grounded his campaign in championing ideas rather than establishing human connections” squares with what I saw in 2016. Just one example: At the Telemundo Democratic debate, the moderators (who if anything seemed slightly more pro-Sanders introduced a woman (from Guatemala if I remember correctly) who had two children and whose husband was going to be deported. The moderators asked each candidate what they would do to help the woman. Sanders’ first statement was that the New York Times had endorsed his immigration policy. He then said that as president, he would make sure the woman was not separated from her children (apparently he misheard or misunderstood the introduction). The woman looked worried (there was never any question of that happening). She was not reassured by anything Sanders said. Clinton expressed concern for the situation of the woman’s husband, and then told her about to programs (DACA and another) that would help protect the status of the woman’s children. The woman seemed calmer and thanked Clinton. I’m not complaining about Sanders’ ideas themselves; I agree more with him than with Clinton or most people for that matter. But I think his first priority is the ideas — not because he’s insincere but because he thinks expounding on ideas is the best way to help people. Sometimes it is, but not always.
If you’re promoting Sanders as a candidate, it’s important to be aware of his limitations, even if they are touted by corporate media.
