If you’ve been following the democratic primaries at all this year, then you already know that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and mainstream news media has been having a torrid love affair with Hillary Clinton.

You want fewer debates so your competition can’t gain exposure?

Of course, Senator Clinton. We’re happy to purposefully limit our democracy. Anything for you!

Other candidates are rising in the polls?

Well, that’s never going to actually happen. We already know who our candidate is! Stop trying to pretend there are options.

The Clinton bias in the media and DNC leadership has not been subtle, but it has been very wrong.

Many people have cried oligarchy in response to Clinton’s presidential campaign and, while exaggerated fear mongering is detrimental to a healthy democracy, it’s hard not to notice the hints of truth in what they’re saying.

The media’s response to the first DNC debate on Oct. 13 has only strengthened the opposition’s argument.

During and after that first debate, focus groups results, social media posts and online polls all poured in. The reviews were mixed, but Clinton was not a clear winner by any standards.

In fact, she regularly came in second, after other democratic front-runner Bernie Sanders.

Despite this response from the public, almost every big-time mainstream media outlet proclaimed Clinton as the deniable champion of the debate.

CNN, who hosted the debate, claimed that Hillary “triumphed” and was “poised, passionate and in command.”

The separation between the public and media’s opinion is staggering. In response, many have tried to explain why.

Ultimately, it’s a complicated issue to tackle; explaining bias isn’t always clear-cut and there are a lot of factors at play.

First off is name recognition. Though not her only selling point, the Clinton name has played a big role in Clinton’s initial popularity, especially in the press.

Hillary Clinton is already well-known and not generally disliked. As much as Americans love an underdog story, we also like to know what we’re getting into. It’s the “I’ll support Hillary because she’s the only one I’ve heard of” mindset.

Which is what makes the DNC’s refusal to broaden debate opportunities seem very much like a bid for Clinton and why so many people were upset about this perceived “coronation” of a candidate eight months before the primaries.

Perhaps a bit more damning are Clinton’s donation records. Clinton is rather predictably primarily funded by a string of multi-million dollar corporations.

Number seven on her list of top donors is Time Warner. Time Warner owns many subsidiaries and one of those is CNN.

CNN has proven to be a big supporter of the Clinton campaign.

The question of vested corporate interest in politics is brought up once again and it doesn’t reflect well on Clinton or CNN.

News outlets shouldn’t be tied to any candidates or all their coverage will be inherently bias. It’s basically asking for more corruption and corporate control in our already problematic democracy.

Others argue that the real issue is the media’s perspective versus the public’s perspective.

According to Bill Curry in an article on Salon, both Clinton and the national press fail to even understand the issues that are central to this presidential election.

“Having spent the ’90s promoting globalization, and her adult life raising money from those who profit from it, she’s too wed to the system to see its fatal flaws,” Curry said. “It’s a big reason why…the national press says Clinton won: they see the world as she does.”

I believe that Curry is right. The media sides with Clinton largely side with her because they share her perspective.

And, as far as I’m concerned, they aren’t right.