Joey, the honorable Bernie Sanders is concerned with the way the news is being presented by network news--increasingly as entertainment-- and by what isn't covered -- economics affecting continued financial disparity.

The media once treated news as serious stuff. This changed when large corporations bought those channels delivering news. And so did the issues they were willing to investigate, and those they were not.

Additionally, there are plenty of channels, and there are plenty of newspapers, but the owners of the major news content are still controlled by few hands, and they own lots of other things as well (GE/NBC) which is part of the problem. 

 Look at the immigration issue, as this is a perfect example. We hear day in and day out concern about resistance to immigration in terms of 1) race race race race race
and 2) process: legal vs. illegal

What we never hear about is perhaps the primary reason working and middle class people are resisting mass immigration and amnesty -- they are concerned that an increased labor supply will translate into lower wages for working and even middle class people, in accordance with the economic laws of supply and demand.

 Why don't we hear about that except from Lou Dobbs? Because it isn't in the corporate interests who own the major networks and the major newspapers to amplify that argument.

Senator Sanders is the first socialist in the senate, and was elected long after socialism supposedly considered discredited in this country. This is no small achievement, and there is good reason he was the one to achieve it. Do not dismiss this great man as a wacko. He is a serious person with serious concerns, even as he comes from a very different perspective and focus than most senators.

 Let's take a look at this video to tie it all up nice and neat:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38M9vfg4TPE

I think you're taking his “the function of the media is to educate you to live in a democracy” statement much too literally. The First Amendment is documented proof that the framers believed the same general idea. Citizens of a democracy need excellent information with which to make their decisions -- not just in the voting booth, but in everyday life. That's why the First Amendment is more commonly interpreted as a sword and not a shield, at least for individual journalists. It generally flips to being a shield, or what lawyers call a negative definition of a free press ("the press should not be penalized for" as opposed to the positively phrased "the press is entitled to") in cases of larger media conglomerates. Put simply, individual journalists feel their oats because they often have nothing to lose, while media corporations play it safe because they have a 20 percent profit margin to protect.

The solution to this whole state of affairs has been figured out for a few years, it's just that few media outlets have the cojones, or the patience of their investors, to pull it off: aim for 10-12 percent, and call it a day. With that sort of profit margin, media companies would still beat the market (both stocks & bonds), and keep more money for investigative and compelling reporting.

Here's another awesome fact, somewhat tangential but nonetheless important. Hiring more reporters makes a newspaper more profitable:

http://journalism.missouri.edu/news/2007/02-15-newsroom-profitability.html 

"The First Amendment is documented proof that the framers believed the
same general idea. Citizens of a democracy need excellent information
with which to make their decisions -- not just in the voting booth, but
in everyday life."

I would say the electoral college is proof that they didn't trust most citizens to make the decisions. The barriers to a universal, informed citizenry were (and are) far from an issue of civil rights.