Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes Hillary got a lot of negative press. We can see you don't think it was deserved. We can agree to disagree on that. Sanders, by contrast was routinely ignored, and when he was mention, it was also usually negatively and based on nothing; Bernie Bros, etc. I recall one night when the press all focused on an empty podium where Trump was supposed to be, while Bernie was giving a live speech (ignored of course). In 2016 Bernie was portrayed as the crazy outsider kook (communist) with policies that should be ignored. This time around that was Williamson and Yang until Yang recently shifted into being seen as more of a serious contender. Williamson isn't as nutty as she's made out to be either (though she is kinda out there).

 

[PyramidHead]

Or you are hearing specifically about the Sanders examples. In last election cycle we had some statistics showing Bernie was not covered as well as Hillary by like an order of magnitude. Do we have objective statistics again from a disinterested source? I am open minded to this based on past bias, but anecdotes told by Bernie supporters tweetng to other Bernie supporters is not convincing to me.

I'm willing to agree that the media is biased or slanted against many individuals and ideas. This thread is about showing the instances of their bias against a particular individual, and hopefully tying it to explanations of why they engage in this behavior. When you talk about a hypothetical "disinterested source", it gets to the heart of the matter. All reporting of information is ideological, past a certain threshold of exposure. Back in August, Doug Johnson Hatlem showed that polls with unfavorable results for Sanders were disproportionately more reported in the media:



Is Hatlem a Bernie supporter posting on Twitter? Yes! But he lays out his methodology and provides the raw numbers in spreadsheet form if you want to check his work.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which turned out to be false.

evidence?

Already posted, but here it is in a nut:

Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy released a report this week that says the top news outlets hammered Clinton in 2015 far more than any other presidential candidate.

According to the report, eight of America’s most influential news outlets wrote coverage "negative in tone" about Clinton 84 percent of the time — compared to just 43 percent for Donald Trump, and 17 percent for Bernie Sanders.

In every month of 2015 but one — October, when Clinton was widely praised for her handling of the Benghazi hearings — those eight outlets devoted far more negative than positive coverage to Clinton, the report found...Of course, that wouldn't be particularly telling in isolation. But the report also found that the media gave Bernie Sanders — on balance — positive coverage in almost every month over the same time period...The Harvard researchers’ findings match those of Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics firm in Boston. As we reported in April, Crimson Hexagon, when looking at top-tier news outlets, also found that the media had slammed Clinton more than any other candidate.

The methodology of the Harvard study is different. But it also supports the notion that, if the media has been biased against Sanders, it’s not because they’ve been particularly kind to Clinton..."Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, their complaint lacks substance," writes Harvard government professor Thomas E. Patterson in the report.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes Hillary got a lot of negative press. We can see you don't think it was deserved. We can agree to disagree on that.

It's not a matter for "agreement." It's an objective, measurable fact as the Harvard study alone proves.

Sanders, by contrast was routinely ignored

"Ignored" implies that he had some sort of right to be focused on and/or that there was some sort of conspiracy against him, a common tactic for an underdog to imply he's a threat and that's why no one pays him any attention instead of the fact that he was a nobody and his policy proposals impractical as he himself affirmed several times. No one in the press knew or cared who he was initially and for good reason. He hadn't yet earned the right to be a focus of their attention.

It's the exact same strategy Perot and Nader pulled. Hell, it was the same thing with Obama when he first started. No one knew who the fuck he was until he made people aware and earned the right to be a focus of attention.

It's not the press' job to give equal weight to everything everyone says at all times. Just because someone announces they're running does not just axiomatically mean they get equal attention from the press. That's idiotic.

and when he was mention, it was also usually negatively and based on nothing

We can see you didn't think it was deserved. We can agree to disagree on that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's not a matter for "agreement." It's an objective, measurable fact as the Harvard study alone proves.

It proves that she got a lot of negative press. Nothing you quoted goes to how much negative press she brings onto herself. I disagree with you on that.

"Ignored" implies that he had some sort of right to be focused on

When he was the only opponent Hillary had.... yeah... it makes sense that he should have gotten some focus.... at least more than an empty podium on which Trump was to later stand.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If anyone should be whinning about lack of coverage or fair coverage, it should be Pete. Dude is working it hard. Focusing on fixing problems. He consistently polling in the top 4. But he never whines or mopes. And this is his first election. I think that he's going far...

 

[PyramidHead]

If anyone should be whinning about lack of coverage or fair coverage, it should be Pete. Dude is working it hard. Focusing on fixing problems. He consistently polling in the top 4. But he never whines or mopes. And this is his first election. I think that he's going far...

0% with black voters lol

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Nothing you quoted goes to how much negative press she brings onto herself.

Had you bothered to actually read the Harvard study you would have noted the following:

To journalists, the real issues of presidential politics are not the candidates’ policy commitments but instead the controversies that ensnare them. The 2016 campaign fit the pattern to a tee. Everything from Clinton’s emails to Trump’s taxes was grist for the media mill. They accounted for 17 percent of the coverage—one in every six news reports.
...
Controversies are a candidate’s nightmare. Opponents and journalists alike have a stake in keeping a controversy alive, so the candidate’s only hope is that the revelation is small enough or transient enough to die down on its own. When it’s in the news, there’s no upside for the candidate. During the 2016 general election, more than 90 percent of the news coverage of controversies was negative in tone.
...
Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused. Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clinton’s alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most heavily covered policy position.
...
No aspect of Clinton’s coverage, however, was more negative than the controversies that enveloped her campaign. The tone of this coverage was ten times more negative than positive—91 percent to 9 percent. The state of her health was one such controversy. It ran four to one negative over positive. The bulk of the controversies took the form of a “scandal”— emails, Benghazi, ongoing investigations, and the like. News reports on this topic ran 19-to-1 negative over positive. Figure 17 provides an indication of just how fully Clinton’s coverage was fueled by the scandal allegations. There was no week in which the subject accounted for less than 7 percent of her coverage and, in the campaign’s final week, it consumed more than a third of her coverage.

As has literally been chronicled to death and beyond, there never was any issue with her emails; her health; she committed no wrong-doing in Benghazi; and the "ongoing investigations" were also in regard to her emails and some bullshit about their charitable foundation that also was not legitimate. Not to mention the endless horseshit about the audacity of being paid to give speeches when she was no longer in office, thus ironically rendering her independently wealthy and therefore equal to Trump in his claims that he couldn't be "bought" because he was already rich.

Iow, she never did anything to warrant any of the "controversies" that others made up about her, while Trump otoh actually did and yet she was the more vilified. She never said she was against "gay marriage"; she never said black kids were "super predators"; her "basket of deplorables" comment was fully qualified in the very next paragraph of her speech that was never referenced; and, of course, "pizzagate" is just idiotic.

So, no, we cannot just agree to disagree. What was done to her in just the 2016 election--let alone the decades of identical smear tactics prior--makes this thread look like a five year old's understanding of politics and also betrays the fact that she was so desperately feared by the right and for good reason. She won the election by millions of votes and would have been our first female POTUS had it not been for several variables, the least of which had to do with her personality as is readily proved (once again) by not only the record setting outcome of her raw votes, but also in the follow up PEW study of validated voters that uncovered a 37% preference for Hillary Clinton among those who were registered to vote, but did not for various non-partisan reasons.

In that same study, Trump garnered 30%, which meant that a full 7% of registered voters who did not end up voting--or approximately 8 million votes--would have washed to Clinton, making her final tally over ten million more votes. A preferential landslide and more than enough to have wiped the floor with Trump in the electoral.

As Nate Silver noted, the Comey letter alone accounted for the differential shift in late voters and had the election been conducted just one month earlier, Clinton would have taken the WH as well, so were it not for fake controversies and the supposedly "left biased press" (including the Washington Post, btw, which the Harvard study showed accounted for 77 percent negative to 23 percent positive coverage of her and was only outdone by Fox news with 81 percent negative to 19 percent positive), she would be POTUS.

"Ignored" implies that he had some sort of right to be focused on

When he was the only opponent Hillary had

No one knew who the fuck he was or what he was about and he had to earn focus, not just magically be granted full and equal time. And he wasn't the "only opponent she had." There were four others who you don't seem to give a flying fuck about. Former Governor of Maryland Martin O'Malley, former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig.

Where is the fake outrage over their lack of equal coverage that never exists and is not a legitimate argument to make about any nobody stepping into the national spotlight regardless?

The press owes no one automatic and equal attention just because they have decided to run for office. That is a two year old's understanding of the press, so congratulations. You Benjamin Buttoned yourself in one post.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If anyone should be whinning about lack of coverage or fair coverage, it should be Pete. Dude is working it hard. Focusing on fixing problems. He consistently polling in the top 4. But he never whines or mopes. And this is his first election. I think that he's going far...

He has managed to secure his spot well, yes. And when Biden falls, he stands to make some significant gains as the fallback for the "moderate" Democrats who aren't comfortable with big change like Bernie and Warren are talking about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, no, we cannot just agree to disagree.

Sure we can. Or at least I can choose to disagree with you. We don't all share your religion of the exalted Hillary and her web of political insiders. And this thread is about Bernie. Hillary is only relevant here insofar as it relates to him or others relevant to him (ie, other outsiders facing Hillary's gang).

 

[PyramidHead]

From Nick Coltrain of the Des Moines Register, this curious observation:

As @BernieSanders wraps up, crowd breaks into a “Not me, Us” chant, coincidentally to the tune of “lock her up”

I mean. Given the words "not me, us"... what possible way is there to chant them without matching the cadence of any other three words? Let's go, Mets? Four more years? U-S-A? All suspiciously similar to "lock her up", I wonder what this could mean

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If anyone should be whinning about lack of coverage or fair coverage, it should be Pete. Dude is working it hard. Focusing on fixing problems. He consistently polling in the top 4. But he never whines or mopes. And this is his first election. I think that he's going far...

0% with black voters lol

That can change, especially if and when Biden drops out. I agree with Harry that Pete had a good shot here. Biden may fall down, and then Warren and Bernie will have to go head to head. At that point either Warre moves closer to the establishment Democrats or she or Bernie become the clear progressive candidate while the other drops down. That leaves Pete perfectly positioned to take the establishment side and possibly the nomination if he plays his cards right. He's the only one poised for it now that Harris had fallen and Klobuchar cant get a footing.

Pete also has a ton of money now behind him. That is so a factor.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, no, we cannot just agree to disagree.

Sure we can.

Once again, it's not a matter of agreement. These are objective facts vetted by institutions like the FBI and Harvard. There was no issue at all with her emails; no wrongdoing in regard to Benghazi; no "pizzagate." Etc. These were all completely non-controversial and some outright fake stories that people like you desperately misconstrued--and continue to misconstrue--for biased political reasons. Full stop.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

From Nick Coltrain of the Des Moines Register, this curious observation:

As @BernieSanders wraps up, crowd breaks into a “Not me, Us” chant, coincidentally to the tune of “lock her up”

I mean. Given the words "not me, us"... what possible way is there to chant them without matching the cadence of any other three words? Let's go, Mets? Four more years? U-S-A? All suspiciously similar to "lock her up", I wonder what this could mean

That's brilliant lol

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, no, we cannot just agree to disagree.

Sure we can.

Once again, it's not a matter of agreement. These are objective facts vetted by institutions like the FBI and Harvard.

Yes. Her sense of self-entitlement, taking of money from wall street, empty platitudes, pro-war and other conservative policies, and attempts to hold progressives or othess she is sore at back are well documented.

Now ago ahead and give your last whine about how hard done by she is. This is a Bernie thread, so I won't respond about her again (unless and until she inserts herself into this election again, targetting another of her perceived rivals).

 

[PyramidHead]

If anyone should be whinning about lack of coverage or fair coverage, it should be Pete. Dude is working it hard. Focusing on fixing problems. He consistently polling in the top 4. But he never whines or mopes. And this is his first election. I think that he's going far...

0% with black voters lol

That can change, especially if and when Biden drops out. I agree with Harry that Pete had a good shot here. Biden may fall down, and then Warren and Bernie will have to go head to head. At that point either Warre moves closer to the establishment Democrats or she or Bernie become the clear progressive candidate while the other drops down. That leaves Pete perfectly positioned to take the establishment side and possibly the nomination if he plays his cards right. He's the only one poised for it now that Harris had fallen and Klobuchar cant get a footing.

Black voters have many different priorities, but none of the reasons they tend to back Biden really apply to Pete. Biden seems like a safe bet to get rid of Trump, and is associated with Obama because of his time as VP. Pete is just awful on everything related to race and has yet to answer for his multiple instances of questionable behavior toward blacks in his hometown as mayor. He continues to suggest that he doesn't poll well with blacks purely because of their homophobia, which is about as insulting a take as I can think of.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is a Bernie thread

No, it's a thread about alleged media mistreatment of Bernie, which is endlessly ironic in regard to the far worse media mistreatment I've outlined in regard to Hillary Clinton and the fact that the Bernie bros participated in, initiated and were useful idiots for much of that mistreatment.

But thanks for being the post police! It's so important and you're such a noble, faultless champion of truth.

 

[PyramidHead]

Once again, it's not a matter of agreement. These are objective facts vetted by institutions like the FBI and Harvard.

Yes. Her sense of self-entitlement, taking of money from wall street, empty platitudes, pro-war and other conservative policies, and attempts to hold progressives or othess she is sore at back are well documented.

Now ago ahead and give your last whine about how hard done by she is. This is a Bernie thread, so I won't respond about her again (unless and until she inserts herself into this election again, targetting another of her perceived rivals).

Imagine thinking "vetted by institutions like the FBI and Harvard" is a hallmark of unbiased and objectively sourced information, especially about anything to do with a socialist

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Once again, it's not a matter of agreement. These are objective facts vetted by institutions like the FBI and Harvard.

Yes. Her sense of self-entitlement, taking of money from wall street, empty platitudes, pro-war and other conservative policies, and attempts to hold progressives or othess she is sore at back are well documented.

Now ago ahead and give your last whine about how hard done by she is. This is a Bernie thread, so I won't respond about her again (unless and until she inserts herself into this election again, targetting another of her perceived rivals).

Imagine thinking "vetted by institutions like the FBI and Harvard" is a hallmark of unbiased and objectively sourced information, especially about anything to do with a socialist

Fuckin freshmen. Just the worst. And Bernie is in no way shape or form a "socialist," so who is that even in reference to?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Bernie Bros" was one of the ways Hillary and her media friends tried to attack Sanders, as if Bernie is some sort of sexist. He clearly isn't, but it was a button "I'm with her" (not she's with us) tried to use. She couldn't use that against Tulsi. I wonder what her comrades will use against Warren.