There certainly is a kind of mutually entrenching equilibrium between the major political parties and media conglomerates. There are certainly structural factor

There certainly is a kind of mutually entrenching equilibrium between the major political parties and media conglomerates. There are certainly structural factors in terms of how our political and media systems work that arguably disfavored Bernie Sanders. The media believes that establishment candidates are most likely to be elected, and they therefor cover them more than candidates they deem to be less likely, such as Sanders. I think this is a perverse approach that distorts elections, but I have no sense that this is done in bad faith by the thousands of people who make editorial decisions like this every day. I can disagree with the conventions of political coverage in the United States without impugning the motives of an entire industry. Further, the incredibly contingency of all of this means that we can't actually prove such vague cause and effect relationships. We can't know that the media unilaterally crushed Bernie's candidacy. Maybe if the media had covered Bernie more, it would have led to more scrutiny or some kind of gaffe that destroyed his campaign. Maybe if he had gotten one more news story he would have been reading it on his phone, slipped on a banana peel, and broken his neck. I have no idea if more coverage would have made Bernie more popular, or if the "the media is ignoring me!" narrative was actually a key engine of his campaign's growth. Collusion means "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others" according to Google. DNC collusion is fair—there are arguments that this is less than nefarious, but I disagree with them. Multi-corporation media conspiracy with the purpose of anointing Hillary over Bernie? Still waiting to see any evidence of that.