MikkelJSmith2 (talk | contribs) Reverted to revision 932667985 by Selvydra: I talked to one of the most experience editors on the site and there's nothing that states deletion holds priority, so I'm reverting to this due to the lack of consensus for the changes that followed. This is where things stand at the moment due to the lack of consensus. Furthermore, the following edit by another user did not have to do with media coverage, which is why it was removed. (TW) Tags: Undo nowiki added |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use American English|date=December 2019}} |
|||
{{Multiple issues| |
{{Multiple issues| |
||
{{POV|date=December 2019}} |
{{POV|date=December 2019}} |
||
Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
The Bernie Sanders campaign and certain [[alternative media]] sources have alleged that the [[mainstream media]] in the United States is biased against [[Bernie Sanders]], primarily concerning both his [[Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign|2016]] and [[Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign|2020 presidential campaign]]s; this has variously been either disputed or validated by studies and analyzes. Accusations of bias often revolve around corporate ownership of news organizations, misleading graphics, and a perceived lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders. Organizations like [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)]], [[alternative media]] such as [[Krystal Ball]] and [[Saagar Enjeti]]'s ''Rising with Krystal and Saagar'' (by ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]''), ''[[Jacobin (magazine)|Jacobin]]'', ''[[Vox (website)|Vox]]'', and ''[[Common Dreams]]'', and others have alleged media bias against Bernie Sanders. The campaign runs its own media platforms, many of which also allege media bias. The most prominent media organizations accused of bias have been ''[[MSNBC]]'', ''[[The Washington Post]]'', and ''[[The New York Times]]''. |
The Bernie Sanders campaign and certain [[alternative media]] sources have alleged that the [[mainstream media]] in the United States is biased against [[Bernie Sanders]], primarily concerning both his [[Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign|2016]] and [[Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign|2020 presidential campaign]]s; this has variously been either disputed or validated by studies and analyzes. Accusations of bias often revolve around corporate ownership of news organizations, misleading graphics, and a perceived lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders. Organizations like [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)]], [[alternative media]] such as [[Krystal Ball]] and [[Saagar Enjeti]]'s ''Rising with Krystal and Saagar'' (by ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]''), ''[[Jacobin (magazine)|Jacobin]]'', ''[[Vox (website)|Vox]]'', and ''[[Common Dreams]]'', and others have alleged media bias against Bernie Sanders. The campaign runs its own media platforms, many of which also allege media bias. The most prominent media organizations accused of bias have been ''[[MSNBC]]'', ''[[The Washington Post]]'', and ''[[The New York Times]]''. |
||
Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls.<ref name=": |
Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|title=Identity Crisis|last=|first=|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2018|isbn=978-0-691-17419-8|location=|pages=8, 99, 104-107|language=en}}</ref> Analysis of the language used also concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=Thomas E. Patterson|title=Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump|date=February 19, 2018|pages=6-7|location=Lanham, Maryland|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8}}</ref> However, during the 2016 election, all candidates received vastly less media coverage than Donald Trump, and the Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.<ref name=":3" /> |
||
During the 2020 election, |
During the 2020 election, there have been renewed allegations that the media has covered Sanders unfairly,<ref name=":5">{{Citation|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/02/the-washington-post-picking-up-where-they-left-off.html |title=The Washington Post, Picking Up Where They Left Off in 2016, Runs Four Negative Bernie Sanders Stories in Two Days |author=Shane Ryan | work=Paste |date=February 21, 2019 }}</ref> including claims that distorted data and falsehoods have been used to portray him negatively.<ref name="Halper2019-07">{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-makes-it-forget-how-to-do-math/ |title=MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math |author=Katie Halper | publisher=FAIR |date=July 26, 2019 }}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Citation|author=Glenn Greenwald|title=MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About Bernie Sanders's Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them|date=March 3, 2019|url=https://theintercept.com/2019/03/03/msnbc-yet-again-broadcasts-blatant-lies-this-time-about-bernie-sanders-opening-speech-and-refuses-to-correct-them/|publisher=The Intercept}}</ref>Sanders himself became involved in a dispute with ''The Washington Post''. He charged that it treated him inequitably due to the influence of its owner, [[Jeff Bezos]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fair.org/home/heres-the-evidence-corporate-media-say-is-missing-of-wapo-bias-against-sanders/|title=Here's the Evidence Corporate Media Say Is Missing of WaPo Bias Against Sanders|last=Hollar|first=Julie|date=August 15, 2019|website=FAIR|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post|title=Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'|last=Montanaro|first=Dominico|date=August 13, 2019|publisher=NPR|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2019}}</ref> a claim that has been disputed by the ''Post.''<ref name=":7" />{{Citation|author=Morgan Gstalter|title=Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory'|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457191-washington-post-editor-calls-sanders-claim-about-campaign-coverage-conspiracy|publisher=The Hill}}</ref> Studies by [[Northeastern University]]'s School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.<ref name=":8">{{citation|last1=Frandsen|first1=Alexander|title=Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media|date=April 24, 2019|url=https://www.storybench.org/women-on-the-2020-campaign-trail-are-being-treated-more-negatively-by-the-media/|publisher=Storybench|last2=Bajak|first2=Aleszu}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{citation|last=Bajak|first=Aleszu|title=Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months|date=September 30, 2019|url=https://www.storybench.org/gabbard-booker-and-biden-get-most-negative-media-coverage-over-last-four-months/|publisher=Storybench}}</ref> |
||
== Background== |
== Background== |
||
Line 33: | Line 32: | ||
== 2016 primary campaign == |
== 2016 primary campaign == |
||
{{See also|2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign}} |
{{See also|2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign}} |
||
On April 28, 2015, [[Vermont Public Radio]] reported that Sanders would announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on April 30.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Murray |first1=Mark |title=Bernie Sanders to Announce Presidential Bid on Thursday |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-announce-presidential-bid-thursday-n349896 |accessdate=April 30, 2015 |publisher=NBC |date=April 30, 2015}}</ref> In an interview with ''[[USA Today]]'' on April 29, Sanders stated that he was "running in this election to win," and launched a campaign website, effectively beginning his run.<ref name="USAToday">{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-interview-democratic-presidential-race/26576639/|title=Bernie Sanders: 'I am running in this election to win'|date=April 30, 2015|newspaper=USA Today|last1=Kelly|first1=Erin}}</ref> Sanders said he was motivated to enter the race by what he termed "obscene levels" of income disparity and the campaign finance system.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gram |first1=Dave |title=Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'I am running for president' |url=https://news.yahoo.com/vermont-sen-bernie-sanders-am-running-president-000144179--election.html |accessdate=April 30, 2015 |publisher=Yahoo! News |date=April 30, 2015}}</ref> On May 26, 2015, Sanders officially announced his candidacy at Burlington's Waterfront Park.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/05/26/berniesanders/27955299/ |title=Video: Bernie Sanders announces run for president |archive-url=https://archive.today/20150701200800/http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/05/26/berniesanders/27955299/ |archive-date=July 1, 2015 |url-status=live |work=The Burlington Free Press |date=May 26, 2015 |access-date=May 27, 2015 }}</ref> In an interview with [[National Review]]'s Jamie Weinstein,<ref group=note>The interview has since been redacted on the National Review website. (See [https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-jamie-weinstein-show/episode-55-ed-shultz/ ''Episode 55: Ed Schultz.''] National Review April 13, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2019. [https://web.archive.org/web/20180414152513/https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-jamie-weinstein-show/episode-55-ed-shultz/ Archived at WayBack Machine] on April 14, 2018.)</ref> MSNBC host, [[Ed Schultz]] stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC [[Phil Griffin]] that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders".<ref name="Adams2018">{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ed-schultz-msnbc-was-in-the-tank-for-hillary-clinton|title=Former MSNBC host says network 'in the tank' for Hillary Clinton|author=Becket Adams |date=April 17, 2018|website=Washington Examiner}}</ref><ref name="Rutz2018">{{Cite web|url=https://freebeacon.com/politics/ed-schultz-msnbc-fired-supporting-bernie-sanders-tank-hillary-clinton/|title=Ed Schultz: MSNBC Fired Me for Supporting Bernie Sanders, 'They Were in the Tank for Hillary Clinton'|last=Rutz|first=David|date=April 16, 2018|website=Washington Free Beacon}}</ref> 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/ed-schultz-blames-msnbc-firing-on-his-support-for-bernie-sanders/|title=Ed Schultz Blames MSNBC Firing on His Support for Bernie Sanders|date=April 17, 2018|website=Accuracy in Media}}</ref> |
|||
[[Vox (website)|Vox]] has claimed that in some situations in the 2016 campaign, Sanders actually received overly positive bias.<ref name="twobiases">{{cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11378858/sanders-media-bias|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?|last1=Klein|first1=Ezra|date=April 7, 2016|work=Vox|accessdate=December 9, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
=== Academic analyses of media coverage === |
|||
According to the 2018 book ''Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America'' by political scientists John Sides (of Vanderbilt University), Michael Tesler (of University of California at Irvine), and [[Lynn Vavreck]] (of University of California, Los Angeles), "Sanders’s appeal, like Trump’s, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." Sanders benefitted from media coverage in 2015, which was more positive than media coverage of Clinton. The amount of news coverage he received exceeded his share in the national polls at that time. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis shows that "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
=== Early campaign months === |
|||
In her 2018 book, ''The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election'', Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Bitecofer|first=Rachel|year=2018|title=The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election|url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7|publisher=Palgrave|pages=36–38, 48|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7}}</ref> Matthew Yglesias of ''Vox'' made a similar point, arguing that the media was biased in favor of Sanders because it had an interest in exaggerating how close the democratic primary was.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11377008/wisconsin-results-sanders-delegate|title=After Wisconsin, Sanders is worse off than ever in the delegate race|last=Yglesias|first=Matthew|date=April 6, 2016|website=Vox|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref> According to Bitecofers's analysis, Trump received more extensive media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.<ref name=":1" /> |
|||
In September 2015, [[Margaret Sullivan (journalist)|Margaret Sullivan]] wrote an opinion piece in the ''New York Times'' covering the ''Times''' coverage of Bernie Sanders. Sullivan wrote that she had received many complaints from readers who either believed that Sanders had not received enough attention from the ''Times'' or that the articles written about Sanders were overly "derogatory or dismissive". She then argued that in August 2015, the ''Times'' had given roughly the same amount of articles dedicated to Sanders as they did to similarly-polling Republican candidates (barring Donald Trump), while conceding that some of the articles written were "fluff" and "regrettably dismissive".<ref name="sultimes">{{cite web |last1=Sullivan |first1=Margaret |title=Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders? |url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/has-the-times-dismissed-bernie-sanders/ |website=The New York Times |accessdate=December 16, 2019 |date=September 9, 2015}}</ref> |
|||
That same month, amid momentum in the Sanders campaign, ''The Washington Post'' wrote, "Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bernie-sanders-is-plotting-his-path-to-the-democratic-nomination/2015/09/11/08ddb472-573c-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html|title=How Bernie Sanders is plotting his path to the Democratic nomination|year=2015|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> |
|||
A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School [[Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy|Shorenstein Center]] on Media, Politics, and Public Policy on media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.<ref name=":3" /> The report found that Trump received inordinate amounts of media coverage in relation to his standing in the polls and that the media coverage "helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls". The Democratic race "received less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Regarding Sanders, the analysis found that his campaign was "largely ignored in the early months" when he was barely ahead of the other lagging Democratic contenders, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb. However, as the Sanders campaign "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." Throughout the 2016 primaries, "five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did." The analysis found that "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 the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015." |
|||
John Sides, a Political Science Professor at Vanderbilt University, found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was also consistent with his polling, noting that candidates who poll well get more news coverage.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really.|last=Sides|first=John|year=2015}}</ref> Sides, using data and social analytics tools provided by consumer insights company [[Crimson Hexagon]], also concluded that the coverage Sanders received was proportionally more positive than that received by Clinton.<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
The report's review of ''[[Fox News]]'' found that Sanders was the subject of 79 positive reports and 31 negative reports while his opponent Hillary Clinton had 291 negative reports and 39 positive ones.<ref name="n-decosta-klipa 2016">{{cite web|url=https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media|title=This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media|author=n-decosta-klipa|date=June 14, 2016|website=Boston Globe|access-date=December 6, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Shorenstein Center 2016">{{cite web|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|title=Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle|date=June 13, 2016|website=Shorenstein Center|access-date=December 6, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
In October 2015, Story Hinckley of the ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'' published an article discussing what he called a "near-blackout from major TV news sources". He indicated that, at the time, Sanders was polling high and bringing in significant donations, yet the mainstream media was giving insufficient coverage of the campaign.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1001/Bernie-who-Why-does-TV-media-ignore-Sanders-even-as-he-tops-polls |title=Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he tops polls? |author=Story Hinckley | work=The Christian Science Monitor |date=October 1, 2015 }}</ref> According to an analysis by ''[[Media Matters for America]],'' media networks overwhelmingly covered Hillary Clinton's email controversy, while ignoring Sanders' campaign. According to an analysis by Andrew Tyndall, ''[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]]'', ''[[CBS]]'', and ''[[NBC]]'' devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race, with 338 minutes devoted to the Republican race, 128 minutes to the Democratic race, and a total of 8 minutes devoted to Bernie Sanders (compared to 145 minutes for Trump, 82 minutes for Clinton, 83 minutes for Clinton's email controversy, and 43 minutes for Jeb Bush).<ref>{{cite web |last1=Boehlert |first1=Eric |title=Network Newscasts' Campaign Priorities: Obsess Over Clinton Emails, Virtually Ignore Sanders |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/nbc/network-newscasts-campaign-priorities-obsess-over-clinton-emails-virtually-ignore-sanders?redirect_source=/blog/2015/09/24/network-newscasts-campaign-priorities-obsess-ov/205767 |website=Media Matters for America |accessdate=December 4, 2019 |date=September 24, 2015}}</ref> |
|||
In her book ''A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump'', Colleen Elizabeth Kelly noted that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias, citing the Shorenstein Center report on the media's outsized coverage of the Republican primary, but noting that Sanders' coverage was the most favorable of any candidate.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
That same month, Bernie Sanders supporters accused the media of being biased against Sanders after a debate when he won online polls while pundits claimed that Clinton won the debate. [[Josh Voorhees]] wrote for ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' that the polls cited by Sanders supporters were "informal and unscientific" "instant online polls" impacted by [[selection bias]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/bernie-won-polls-not-the-debate-hillary-won-the-debate.html|title=Yes, Bernie Won Every Poll on the Internet. Hillary Still Won the Debate.|last=Voorhees|first=Josh|date=October 15, 2015|website=Slate|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
John Sides, a Political Science Professor at Vanderbilt University, found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was also consistent with his polling, noting that candidates who poll well get more news coverage.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really.|last=Sides|first=John|year=2015}}</ref> Sides, using data and social analytics tools provided by consumer insights company [[Crimson Hexagon]], also concluded that the coverage Sanders received was proportionally more positive than that received by Clinton.<ref name=":0" /> Jonathan Stray, a scholar of computational journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for the [[Nieman Lab]] in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders received coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2016/01/how-much-influence-does-the-media-really-have-over-elections-digging-into-the-data/|title=How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data|website=Nieman Lab|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
In January 2016, [[Bob Garfield]] of [[WNYC]] explained the phenomenon; ". . . because the media only care about frivolous issues, serious candidates become victims of virtual media blackouts . . . Trump daily offers up fresh meat – fresh outrages. And the media just pile on. In other words, Trump understands how the media work, he exploits our tendencies. Sanders understands how media work, he has said so, and yet stubbornly ignores our tendencies."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/bernie-538-tk|title=Has There Been A Bernie Sanders Blackout? | On the Media|website=WNYC Studios}}</ref> |
|||
=== Allegations of media bias === |
|||
In 2015, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR responded to an influx of emails regarding a "Morning Edition" segment. Jensen said that she does not "find that NPR has been slighting his campaign. In the last two days alone, NPR has covered the Democrats' climate change stances and reactions to the Republican debate and Sanders has been well in the mix."<ref>{{Citation|author=Elizabeth Jensen|title=Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage|date=August 7, 2015|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2015/08/07/430363570/feelin-the-bern-sanders-devotees-speak-out-about-nprs-coverage|publisher=NPR}}</ref> NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders in April 2016 saying that Sanders had appeared three times on NPR whereas Clinton had only done so once, that media outlets saw a Sanders win as a "long shot" early in the campaign, and that by April 2016, she appeared very likely to win the nomination.<ref>{{Citation|author=Mitch Wertlieb & Kathleen Masterson|title='Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques|date=April 1, 2016|url=https://www.vpr.org/post/bernie-bias-news-nprs-media-correspondent-responds-your-critiques#stream/0|publisher=VPR}}</ref> |
|||
In the same month, [[Glenn Greenwald]] published an article entitled, ''The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition'', arguing that "the political and media establishment" would become increasingly hostile and shrill against Sanders and his supporters as both the electoral support for his campaign and the sense of threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination increased. The article proposes the existence of seven distinct stages in the way in which both the political class and the media respond to campaigns of theretofore poorly recognized socialist politicians against establishment-favored candidates, starting with Stage 1 ("polite condescension...") and ending on Stage 7 ("full-scale meltdown..."). At the time of his publication, Greenwald estimated that, "The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6". Stage 5 amounts to, "Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize...", and Stage 6 to, "Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected".<ref name=seven>{{cite website|date=January 21, 2016|url=https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/|title=The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition|author=Glenn Greenwald|website=The Intercept}}</ref> |
|||
In September 2015, [[Margaret Sullivan (journalist)|Margaret Sullivan]], public editor of the ''New York Times,'' wrote that she had received many complaints from readers about purported bias against Sanders. She responded that the ''Times'' had given roughly the same amount of articles dedicated to Sanders as they did to similarly-polling Republican candidates (barring Donald Trump), while conceding that some of the articles written were "fluff" and "regrettably dismissive".<ref name="sultimes">{{cite web |last1=Sullivan |first1=Margaret |title=Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders? |url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/has-the-times-dismissed-bernie-sanders/ |website=The New York Times |accessdate=December 16, 2019 |date=September 9, 2015}}</ref> That same month, amid momentum in the Sanders campaign, ''The Washington Post'' wrote, "Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bernie-sanders-is-plotting-his-path-to-the-democratic-nomination/2015/09/11/08ddb472-573c-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html|title=How Bernie Sanders is plotting his path to the Democratic nomination|year=2015|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> |
|||
=== Later campaign months === |
|||
In October 2015, Story Hinckley of the ''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'' said there was "near-blackout from major TV news sources" about the Sanders campaign, despite Sanders polling high and bringing in significant donations.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1001/Bernie-who-Why-does-TV-media-ignore-Sanders-even-as-he-tops-polls |title=Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he tops polls? |author=Story Hinckley | work=The Christian Science Monitor |date=October 1, 2015 }}</ref> According to an analysis by Andrew Tyndall, ''[[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]]'', ''[[CBS]]'', and ''[[NBC]]'' devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race, with 338 minutes devoted to the Republican race, 128 minutes to the Democratic race, and a total of 8 minutes devoted to Bernie Sanders. The analysis found that the media devoted more time to Clinton's email controversy than all other coverage of her campaign.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Boehlert |first1=Eric |title=Network Newscasts' Campaign Priorities: Obsess Over Clinton Emails, Virtually Ignore Sanders |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/nbc/network-newscasts-campaign-priorities-obsess-over-clinton-emails-virtually-ignore-sanders?redirect_source=/blog/2015/09/24/network-newscasts-campaign-priorities-obsess-ov/205767 |website=Media Matters for America |accessdate=December 4, 2019 |date=September 24, 2015}}</ref> |
|||
In an article published by the progressive media watchdog FAIR, Adam Johnson documented that the ''Washington Post'' ran 16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period between a "crucial" debate and primary, all of which were allegedly presented "in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he's a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/Washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ |title=Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours |author=Adam Johnson | publisher=FAIR |date=March 8, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/headlines/washington_post_runs_16_anti_sanders_ads_in_16_hours |title=Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours | publisher=Democracy Now! |date=March 11, 2016}}</ref> The ''Washington Post'''s Callum Borchers responded to the FAIR piece, writing that FAIR used an overly broad definition of negative, and noting that all the stories with the exception of two were commentary and analysis pieces. Of the two news articles, one was an Associated Press wire story, and the other was about the Sanders campaign's struggle to connect with African-American primary voters in 2016 and its implications for 2020.<ref name="WaPoFAIR">{{cite news|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=March 8, 2016|author=Callum Borchers|title=Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/has-the-washington-post-been-too-hard-on-bernie-sanders-this-week/}}</ref> Borchers alleged that, after the earlier-mentioned primary had passed, ''The Washington Post'' ran 16 stories which presented Sanders in a positive light.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/now-the-washington-post-ran-16-positive-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/|title=Now The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours! #bias|year=2016|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> Johnson replied by mocking the idea of the Washington Post investigating itself for bias, and said that Borchers was unduly narrowing the definition of negative history; he added that the evidence of bias on the part of the Washington Post was so overwhelming that Borchers, unable to refute it, tries instead to justify the bias.<ref>{{cite website|url=https://fair.org/home/shocker-wapo-investigates-itself-for-anti-sanders-bias-finds-there-was-none/|title=Shocker: WaPo Investigates Itself for Anti-Sanders Bias, Finds There Was None|date=March 9, 2016|website=Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|author=Adam Johnson}}</ref> |
|||
The ''New York Times'' was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to an article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.<ref name="Halper2019-06">{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/sidney-embers-secret-sources/ |title=Sydney Ember's Secret Sources |author=Katie Halper | publisher=FAIR |date=June 28, 2019 }}</ref><ref>Felix Hamborg, Norman Meuschke, Akiko Aizawa, & Bela Gipp. (2017) Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles. In: Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. ''Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science'' (ISI 2017). Humbolt-Universität Zu Berlin. https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2098/hamborg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y</ref> The article was originally titled "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors"<ref>{{Citation|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss |title=Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors |author=Jennifer Steinhauer | work=The New York Times |date=March 14, 2016 }}</ref> but was subsequently changed to "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html |title=Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories |author=Jennifer Steinhauer | work=The New York Times |date=March 14, 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hamborg |first1=Felix |title=Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles |journal=Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science |year=2017 |doi=10.18452/1446}}</ref> In addition to the revised title, several paragraphs were added.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-189129/ |title=How the ‘New York Times’ Sandbagged Bernie Sanders |author=Matt Taibbi | work=Rolling Stone|date=March 15, 2016 }}</ref> Margaret Sullivan at the ''New York Times'' said that the changes were clear examples of "stealth editing" and that "the changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders's legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/ |title=Were Changes to Sanders Article ‘Stealth Editing’? |author=Margaret Sullivan | work=The New York Times |date=March 17, 2019 }}</ref> Katie Halper from FAIR interpreted that, according to ''New York Times'' editors in their defense of the changes, "in its original form, the article didn't cast enough doubt on Sanders' viability and ability to govern."<ref name="Halper2019-06"/> |
|||
That same month, Bernie Sanders supporters accused the media of being biased against Sanders after a debate when he won online polls while pundits claimed that Clinton won the debate. [[Josh Voorhees]] wrote for ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' that the polls cited by Sanders supporters were "informal and unscientific" "instant online polls" impacted by [[selection bias]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/bernie-won-polls-not-the-debate-hillary-won-the-debate.html|title=Yes, Bernie Won Every Poll on the Internet. Hillary Still Won the Debate.|last=Voorhees|first=Josh|date=October 15, 2015|website=Slate|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
Jonathan Stray, a scholar of computational journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for the [[Nieman Lab]] that, "at least online", Sanders received coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2016/01/how-much-influence-does-the-media-really-have-over-elections-digging-into-the-data/|title=How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data|website=Nieman Lab|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
Claire Malone of FiveThirtyEight rejected that Sanders was the subject of a "media blackout," saying that he received sizable and rising article coverage.<ref>https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/bernie-538-tk</ref> Ezra Klein writing for [[Vox (website)|Vox]] said that in some situations in the 2016 campaign, Sanders actually received overly positive bias.<ref name="twobiases">{{cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11378858/sanders-media-bias|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?|last1=Klein|first1=Ezra|date=April 7, 2016|work=Vox|accessdate=December 9, 2019}}</ref> [[Glenn Greenwald]] said that "the political and media establishment" would become increasingly hostile towards Sanders as the chances of him winning the Democratic primary increased.<ref name=seven>{{cite website|date=21 January 2016|url=https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/|title=The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition|author=Glenn Greenwald|website=The Intercept}}</ref> |
|||
==== Harvard Kennedy School report ==== |
|||
A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy on media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.<ref name=":2" /> The report found that, |
|||
{{Quote |
|||
|text=...during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump's rise in the polls. Trump's coverage was positive in tone—he received far more "good press" than "bad press." The volume and tone of 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. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it 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. For her part, 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 the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015. |
|||
In a March 2016 piece for the progressive media watchdog FAIR, Adam Johnson wrote that the ''Washington Post'' ran 16 negative stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/Washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ |title=Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours |author=Adam Johnson | publisher=FAIR |date=March 8, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/headlines/washington_post_runs_16_anti_sanders_ads_in_16_hours |title=Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours | publisher=Democracy Now! |date=March 11, 2016}}</ref> The ''Washington Post'''s Callum Borchers responded to the FAIR piece, writing that FAIR used an overly broad definition of negative, and noting that all the stories with the exception of two were commentary and analysis pieces. Of the two news articles, one was an Associated Press wire story, and the other was about the Sanders campaign's struggles to connect with African-American primary voters in 2016 and its implications for 2020.<ref name="WaPoFAIR">{{cite news|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=March 8, 2016|author=Callum Borchers|title=Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/has-the-washington-post-been-too-hard-on-bernie-sanders-this-week/}}</ref> Borchers later wrote that ''The Washington Post'' ran 16 stories within 16 hours which presented Sanders in a positive light.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/now-the-washington-post-ran-16-positive-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/|title=Now The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours! #bias|year=2016|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
Patterson stated that, |
|||
{{Quote |
|||
|text=Less coverage of the Democratic side worked against Bernie Sanders’ efforts to make inroads on Clinton's support. Sanders struggled to get badly needed press attention in the early going. With almost no money or national name recognition, he needed news coverage if he was to gain traction. His poll standing at the beginning of 2015 was barely more than that of the other lagging Democratic contenders, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton's leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did. |
|||
|sign=|source=}} |
|||
A review of ''[[Fox News]]'' found that Sanders was the subject of 79 positive reports and 31 negative reports while his opponent Hillary Clinton had 291 negative reports and 39 positive ones.<ref name="n-decosta-klipa 2016">{{cite web|url=https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media|title=This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media|author=n-decosta-klipa|date=June 14, 2016|website=Boston Globe|access-date=December 6, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Shorenstein Center 2016">{{cite web|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|title=Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle|date=June 13, 2016|website=Shorenstein Center|access-date=December 6, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
The ''New York Times'' was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to an article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.<ref name="Halper2019-06">{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/sidney-embers-secret-sources/ |title=Sydney Ember's Secret Sources |author=Katie Halper | publisher=FAIR |date=June 28, 2019 }}</ref><ref>Felix Hamborg, Norman Meuschke, Akiko Aizawa, & Bela Gipp. (2017) Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles. In: Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. ''Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science'' (ISI 2017). Humbolt-Universität Zu Berlin. https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2098/hamborg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y</ref> In addition to the revised title, several paragraphs were added.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-189129/ |title=How the ‘New York Times’ Sandbagged Bernie Sanders |author=Matt Taibbi | work=Rolling Stone|date=March 15, 2016 }}</ref> Margaret Sullivan at the ''New York Times'' said that the changes were clear examples of "stealth editing" and that "the changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Sanders' legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/ |title=Were Changes to Sanders Article ‘Stealth Editing’? |author=Margaret Sullivan | work=The New York Times |date=March 17, 2019 }}</ref> Katie Halper from FAIR wrote that, according to ''New York Times'' editors in their defense of the changes, "in its original form, the article didn't cast enough doubt on Sanders' viability and ability to govern."<ref name="Halper2019-06"/> |
|||
In her book ''A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump'', Colleen Elizabeth Kelly wrote that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias, citing the Shorenstein Center report on the media's outsized coverage of the Republican primary, but noting that Sanders' coverage was the most favorable of any candidate.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
[[Nate Silver]] and Harry Enten of [[FiveThirtyEight]] wrote in their article "The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders" that primaries were far more likely than caucuses to predict who would be the 2016 Democratic nominee. Although Sanders was winning some state caucuses, Clinton was doing better in the primaries, leading them to claim that more Democrats wanted Clinton to be the nominee.<ref name="FiveThirtyEight">{{cite web |last1=Enten |first1=Harry |last2=Silver |first2=Nate |title=The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/ |website=FiveThirtyEight |accessdate=27 December 2019 |date=26 May 2016}}</ref> |
|||
=== ''Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America'' === |
|||
== 2020 primary campaign == |
|||
According to the 2018 book ''Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America'' by political scientists John Sides (of Vanderbilt University), Michael Tesler (of University of California at Irvine), and Lynn Vavreck (of University of California, Los Angeles), "Sanders’s appeal, like Trump’s, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." Sanders benefitted from media coverage in 2015, which was more positive than media coverage of Clinton. The amount of news coverage he received exceeded his share in the national polls at that time. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis shows that "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|title=Identity Crisis|last=|first=|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2018|isbn=978-0-691-17419-8|location=|pages=8, 99, 104-107|language=en}}</ref> |
|||
{{See also|2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign}}According to a March 2019 analysis by [[Northeastern University]]'s School of Journalism, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary. An updated analysis in April placed him third out of eight candidates;<ref name=":8" /> a further update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.<ref name=":9" /> |
|||
=== ''The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election'' === |
|||
In August 2019, Sanders said that ''The Washington Post'' "doesn't write particularly good articles about me" and suggested that it was because he frequently mentioned that [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] (which is owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns the Washington Post) did not pay taxes.<ref>{{Citation|author=Travis Irvine|title=Media's Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling|date=September 3, 2019|url=https://columbusfreepress.com/article/medias-anti-bernie-bias-mind-boggling|publisher=Columbia Free Press}}</ref><ref name=":7" /> [[Martin Baron|Marty Baron]], executive editor of ''The'' ''Washington Post,'' stated in response, "Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."<ref name=":7" /><ref>{{Citation|author=Michael Calderone|title=Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders’ ‘conspiracy theory’|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/washington-post-editor-attacks-bernie-sanders-conspiracy-theory-1460597|work=Politico}}</ref> Sanders rejected that his claim was a conspiracy theory.<ref name="Montanaro2019">{{Citation|author=Domenico Montanaro|title=Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post|publisher=NPR}}</ref> NPR wrote that Sanders's attack on the Washington Post bore similarities to Trump's criticism of the media.<ref name="Montanaro2019" /> CNN columnist Chris Cillizza said that Sanders had no evidence for his claims.<ref>{{Citation|author=Chris Cillizza|title=Bernie Sanders isn't sorry|date=August 14, 2019|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/bernie-sanders-media-2020/index.html|publisher=CNN}}</ref> Washington Post columnist [[Katrina vanden Heuvel]] wrote that Sanders was making a smart case of media bias that was uniquely different from Trump's explicit criticism.<ref>{{Citation|author=Katrina vanden Heuvel|title=Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media bias|date=August 20, 2019|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/20/bernie-sanders-has-smart-critique-corporate-media-bias/|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> |
|||
In her 2018 book, ''The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election'', Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up.<ref name=":46">{{Cite journal|last=Bitecofer|first=Rachel|year=2018|title=The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election|url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7|publisher=Palgrave|pages=36–38, 48|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7}}</ref> Matthew Yglesias of ''Vox'' made a similar point, arguing that the media was biased in favor of Sanders because it had an interest in exaggerating how close the democratic primary was.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11377008/wisconsin-results-sanders-delegate|title=After Wisconsin, Sanders is worse off than ever in the delegate race|last=Yglesias|first=Matthew|date=April 6, 2016|website=Vox|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
Bitecofer did note the disparity in the amount of coverage for each candidate. According to her analysis, Trump received more extensive media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.<ref name=":46" /> |
|||
== 2020 primary campaign == |
|||
{{See also|2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign}}In March 2019, a preliminary study by [[Northeastern University]]'s School of Journalism found that Sanders was receiving the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary, while an expanded, updated analysis in April placed him third out of eight candidates;<ref name=":8" /> a further update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.<ref name=":9" /> |
|||
''[[Politico]]'' put forth the idea that the Sanders campaign's perception of bias may be an artifact of Sanders propensity to decline informal interviews at "press gaggles" after events and his reluctance to focus on breaking news.<ref name="Calderone2019-07">{{Citation|author=Michael Calderone|title=Sanders campaign: Media ‘find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness’|date=July 15, 2019|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-media-reject-1415832|work=Politico}}</ref> Dan Pfeiffer of Crooked Media, quoted by Politico, questioned the effectiveness of critiquing the media coverage by the press over the Sanders campaign. "Unfortunately for the Sanders campaign, the press too often considers complaints from the left as validation of their objectivity and complaints from the right as something worth addressing to prove their objectivity" Pfeiffer said when comparing the accusations with the technique of the right-wing having, "unbelievable success working the refs by calling the mainstream media biased against them".<ref name="Calderone2019-07" /> |
''[[Politico]]'' put forth the idea that the Sanders campaign's perception of bias may be an artifact of Sanders propensity to decline informal interviews at "press gaggles" after events and his reluctance to focus on breaking news.<ref name="Calderone2019-07">{{Citation|author=Michael Calderone|title=Sanders campaign: Media ‘find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness’|date=July 15, 2019|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-media-reject-1415832|work=Politico}}</ref> Dan Pfeiffer of Crooked Media, quoted by Politico, questioned the effectiveness of critiquing the media coverage by the press over the Sanders campaign. "Unfortunately for the Sanders campaign, the press too often considers complaints from the left as validation of their objectivity and complaints from the right as something worth addressing to prove their objectivity" Pfeiffer said when comparing the accusations with the technique of the right-wing having, "unbelievable success working the refs by calling the mainstream media biased against them".<ref name="Calderone2019-07" /> |
||
Line 73: | Line 88: | ||
''Vox'' proposed a similar explanation stating that the "media circus" is not something that Sanders and his campaign prefer to participate in. They also contend that the media may find his position in the polls and his popularity as "boring" because it "doesn't fit into the horserace" like some of their other candidates campaigns do.<ref>{{Citation|author=Tara Golshan|title=Bernie Sanders versus the "corporate media," explained|date=August 14, 2019|url=https://www.vox.com/2019/8/14/20802129/bernie-sanders-2020-corporate-media-bias-explained|publisher=Vox}}</ref> Paul Heintz suggested that Sanders' solution to his concern about media bias would be complete, verbatim coverage of his pronouncements.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/|title=I’ve reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won't give him what he wants.|author=Paul Heintz|date=February 26, 2019|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> Emma Specter at ''[[Vogue (magazine)|Vogue]]'' doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. However, she listed several examples of bias and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as slightly unfair.<ref>{{Citation|author=Emma Specter|title=Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren't More People Talking About Him?|date=November 8, 2019|url=https://www.vogue.com/article/bernie-sanders-progressive-presidential-candidate-2020-blackout|work=Vogue}}</ref> |
''Vox'' proposed a similar explanation stating that the "media circus" is not something that Sanders and his campaign prefer to participate in. They also contend that the media may find his position in the polls and his popularity as "boring" because it "doesn't fit into the horserace" like some of their other candidates campaigns do.<ref>{{Citation|author=Tara Golshan|title=Bernie Sanders versus the "corporate media," explained|date=August 14, 2019|url=https://www.vox.com/2019/8/14/20802129/bernie-sanders-2020-corporate-media-bias-explained|publisher=Vox}}</ref> Paul Heintz suggested that Sanders' solution to his concern about media bias would be complete, verbatim coverage of his pronouncements.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/|title=I’ve reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won't give him what he wants.|author=Paul Heintz|date=February 26, 2019|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> Emma Specter at ''[[Vogue (magazine)|Vogue]]'' doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. However, she listed several examples of bias and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as slightly unfair.<ref>{{Citation|author=Emma Specter|title=Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren't More People Talking About Him?|date=November 8, 2019|url=https://www.vogue.com/article/bernie-sanders-progressive-presidential-candidate-2020-blackout|work=Vogue}}</ref> |
||
Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron characterized Sanders' suggestions that Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, was influencing the ''Washington Post''<nowiki/>'s coverage as a "conspiracy theory."<ref>{{Citation|author=Michael Calderone|title=Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders’ ‘conspiracy theory’|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/washington-post-editor-attacks-bernie-sanders-conspiracy-theory-1460597|work=Politico}}</ref> Washington Post columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that Sanders was making a smart case of media bias that was uniquely different from Trump's explicit criticism; indicating that,<ref>{{Citation|author=Katrina vanden Heuvel|title=Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media bias|date=August 20, 2019|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/20/bernie-sanders-has-smart-critique-corporate-media-bias/|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> "the gatekeepers of established opinion no longer hold as much sway, when new forms of communication and independent media challenge the old. It's not surprising that the corporate media gives Sanders bad press. Thankfully, though, that matters less and less." |
|||
A controversy arose between the Sanders campaign and the Washington Post in August 2019 over its determination that Sanders's claim that "500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills" was false. Journalists disputed the article's finding and said that the claim was true, citing a study in the American Journal of Public Health.<ref>{{Citation|author=Tim Dickinson|title=The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something|date=August 29, 2019|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/|work=Rolling Stone}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/|title=Sanders’s flawed statistic: 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year|last=|first=|date=2019|work=The Washington Post|access-date=|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
A controversy arose between the Sanders campaign and the Post in late August concerning fact-checking. The Post gave Sanders "Three Pinocchios" (meaning mostly false) for his claim on medical debt. Sanders has consistently maintained that, "500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills". Journalists disputed the article's finding and said that the claim was true. The Post then claimed that the paper was not peer-reviewed. Upon inspection it was found that the paper was peer reviewed.<ref>{{Citation|author=Tim Dickinson|title=The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something|date=August 29, 2019|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/|work=Rolling Stone}}</ref> |
|||
Domenico Montanaro of NPR claimed that Sanders sounded like Trump in his criticism of the media, quoting Trump's tweet, "...[T]he failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements – and they will never change!"<ref name="Montanaro2019" /> In 2015, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR responded to an influx of emails regarding a "Morning Edition" segment. Jensen said that she does not "find that NPR has been slighting his campaign. In the last two days alone, NPR has covered the Democrats' climate change stances and reactions to the Republican debate and Sanders has been well in the mix."<ref>{{Citation|author=Elizabeth Jensen|title=Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage|date=August 7, 2015|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2015/08/07/430363570/feelin-the-bern-sanders-devotees-speak-out-about-nprs-coverage|publisher=NPR}}</ref> NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders in April 2016 by saying that Sanders had appeared three times on NPR whereas Clinton had only done so once, that media outlets saw a Sanders win as a "long shot" early in the campaign, and that by April 2016, she appeared very likely to win the nomination.<ref>{{Citation|author=Mitch Wertlieb & Kathleen Masterson|title='Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques|date=April 1, 2016|url=https://www.vpr.org/post/bernie-bias-news-nprs-media-correspondent-responds-your-critiques#stream/0|publisher=VPR}}</ref> |
|||
=== February === |
|||
Shane Ryan from ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]'' reported that 48 hours after Sanders' declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author, [[Jennifer Rubin (journalist)|Jennifer Rubin]]. Rubin had criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate, predicting that his launch would be a resounding failure; the next day Sanders reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier."<ref name=":5" /> |
|||
=== July === |
|||
Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll reporting and distortions of graphics.<ref name="Halper2019-07">{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-makes-it-forget-how-to-do-math/ |title=MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math |author=Katie Halper | publisher=FAIR |date=July 26, 2019 }}</ref> In her article, she starts with an MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53 percent, Sanders at 49 percent, and Warren and Kamala at 48 percent. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being in second numerically. On May 24, [[Chuck Todd]] of ''[[Meet The Press]]'' reported a Quinnipiac Poll that found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27 percent polling with white voters and Biden at 25 percent. The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28 percent; a three-point difference not in accordance with the poll. In a segment by Rachel Maddow on April 29, she showed a graphic with candidates leading with female donations. Kirsten Gillibrand was highest at 52 percent with women while Sanders was at the bottom at 33 percent. Maddow did not mention that the data was only based on donations of $200 or more (the only data that is itemized based on gender).<ref name="Halper2019-07"/> According to the Sanders campaign, in the first quarter of his campaign, 46 percent of his donations were from women.<ref name="Halper2019-07"/> MSNBC panelist Zerlina Maxwell said that Sanders, "did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech" in his kickoff speech.<ref name="Halper2019-07"/> Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept described her claim as a blatant lie;<ref name=":6" /> [[Politifact]] also ruled her claim as "false".<ref>{{cite website|url=https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/mar/05/zerlina-maxwell/was-bernie-sanders-mute-race-gender-top-his-2020-k/|title=Was Bernie Sanders mute on race, gender at the top of his 2020 kickoff speech?|website=Politifact|date=March 5, 2019}}</ref> Maxwell later retracted her statement on Twitter after her claims were widely criticized on the social media platform, where many brought up that Sanders mentioned the issue of race and gender within the first five minutes of his speech.<ref name="Halper2019-07"/><ref name=":6" /> Greenwald criticized MSNBC for not retracting the claim on air, where it was made.<ref name=":6" /> |
|||
=== August === |
|||
Sanders along with various members of his campaign have spoken out directly about the media bias. After Sanders led the movement to pressure [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] to pay its employees $15 an hour, "I talk about [Amazon's taxes] all of the time... And then I wonder why ''The Washington Post'', which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://columbusfreepress.com/article/medias-anti-bernie-bias-mind-boggling |title=Media's Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling |author=Travis Irvine | publisher=Columbia Free Press |date=September 3, 2019 }}</ref> According to CNN, Sanders said, "We have pointed out over and over again that Amazon made $10 billion in profits last year. You know how much they paid in taxes? You got it, zero! Any wonder why ''The Washington Post'' is not one of my great supporters, I wonder why?" He added, "''New York Times'' not much better". An executive editor of ''Washington Post'' stated in response, "Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."<ref name=":7">{{Citation|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457191-washington-post-editor-calls-sanders-claim-about-campaign-coverage-conspiracy |title=Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory' |author=Morgan Gstalter | publisher=The Hill |date=August 13, 2019 }}</ref> |
|||
Around the same time, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir told CNN,<ref>{{cite episode|transcript=President Trump's Pattern of Racist Tweets; Mueller hearings Reinforced America's Media Bunkers|network=CNN|air-date=July 28, 2019|series=Reliable Sources|transcript-url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1907/28/rs.01.html }}</ref> |
|||
{{Quote |
|||
|text="In about, you know, a minute or so or two minutes or so you’re going to cut to commercial breaks and you’re going to see some pharmaceutical ads. You’re going to see a lot of ads that are basically paying your bills and the bills of the entire media enterprise. And what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure that you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas." |
|||
}} |
|||
Sanders responded to the entire discourse in the end by stating, |
|||
{{Quote |
|||
|text="So this is not into conspiracy theory. We are taking on corporate America. Large corporations own the media in America, by and large, and I think there is a framework, about how the corporate media focuses on politics. That is my concern. It's not that Jeff Bezos is on the phone every day; he's not." |
|||
}} |
|||
Chris Cillizza from CNN opined that Sanders and Shakir,<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/bernie-sanders-media-2020/index.html |title=Bernie Sanders isn't sorry |author=Chris Cillizza | publisher=CNN |date=August 14, 2019 }}</ref> |
|||
{{Quote |
|||
|text="have zero evidence to back up these big claims is beside the point for many supporters of the independent senator from Vermont. They believe deeply in Sanders and see anyone who disagrees with them as a corporate shill or part of the Big Bad Establishment. |
|||
Which is their right. But it doesn't make these claims true." |
|||
}} |
|||
Domenico Montanaro from NPR opined that, "the remark [by Sanders] sounded an awful lot like the kind of criticism leveled by someone else" indicating that Sanders mimicked Trump's criticism of the media. However, in the same interview where Bernie Sanders criticized ''The Washington Post'', he explicitly stated that Trump was undermining American democracy and that, "There are some really great articles out there, like investigations, which we use, so I don't think media is fake news."<ref name="Montanaro2019">{{Citation|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post |title=Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post' |author=Domenico Montanaro | publisher=NPR |date=August 13, 2019 }}</ref> |
|||
=== November === |
|||
On November 20, 2019, Politico released an analysis of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary which showed that, like Donald Trump in 2015, Biden received more coverage than his rivals, receiving nearly three times the amount of cable news coverage as Sanders and Warren, and eight times as much coverage as Buttigieg.<ref name=politico2020>{{Cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020-democratic-candidates-rethinking-the-presidential-field/|title=Where 2020 Democrats shine and stumble|last=Jin|first=Beatrice|date=November 20, 2019|work=Politico|access-date=December 15, 2019|last2=Heath|first2=Ryan}}</ref> |
|||
==== ''In These Times'' analysis ==== |
|||
In November 2019, the Chicago left-wing magazine ''[[In These Times]]'' published an in-depth article analyzing the coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019.<ref name="Marcetic2019">{{Citation|url=http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html |title=MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It's Ignoring Bernie Sanders |author=Branco Marcetic | work=In These Times |date=November 3, 2019 }}</ref><ref name="Savage">{{Citation|url=https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/corporate-media-bernie-sanders-bias-msnbc-warren-biden |title=The Corporate Media's War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real |author=Luke Savage |publisher=Jacobin |date=November 20, 2019 }}</ref> They focused primarily on Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden. The analysis covered ''[[The 11th Hour with Brian Williams]]'', ''[[All in with Chris Hayes]]'', ''[[The Beat with Ari Melber]]'', ''[[Hardball with Chris Matthews]]'', ''[[The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell]]'' and ''[[The Rachel Maddow Show]]'' while categorizing positive, neutral, and negative discussion of the candidates. The analysis found that Sanders was discussed 36 percent of the time, compared to 43 percent for Warren and 64 percent Biden. The author wrote that part of this discrepancy may be attributed to the [[Trump-Ukraine scandal]]. As for positive and negative mentions, 12.9 percent were positive towards Sanders, while 20.7 percent were negative—the most likely of the three. Most of the negative mentions came from two shows, ''Hardball'' and the ''11th Hour,'' whereas he had no negative mentions on Rachel Maddow's show and only a handful on O’Donnell's, Melber's and Hayes’. In comparison, 11.3 percent of mentions towards Biden were negative, with 23.3 percent positive. The analysis found numerous inaccurate claims made by various political commentators regarding all candidates. Almost all the coverage discussed polls.<ref name="Marcetic2019"/> |
|||
=== December === |
|||
[[PBS NewsHour|''PBS News Hour'']] hosted a segment discussing a presidential primary election that excluded Sanders while focusing on candidates with less successful campaigns and polling numbers.<ref>{{cite web |title=December 2, 2019 – PBS NewsHour full episode |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/december-2-2019-pbs-newshour-full-episode |access-date=December 4, 2019 |work=PBS NewsHour |date=December 2, 2019 |format=video}}</ref> Left leaning magazine [[Current Affairs (magazine)|Current Affairs]] wrote that even though the segment "found time to talk about Joe Sestak and Steve Bullock, plus plenty of candidates struggling to get out of single-digit poll numbers" it did not include "even a photo of Bernie Sanders."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/12/manufacturing-consent-in-action|title="Manufacturing Consent" In Action ❧ Current Affairs|last=Affairs|first=Current|website=Current Affairs|access-date=December 4, 2019}}</ref> This article later was cited in an article by Common Dreams which levied the same accusation, describing it as part of the supposed "Bernie Blackout".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/03/hes-justerased-pbs-2020-segment-finds-time-klobuchar-sestak-and-bullock-completely|title='He's Just...Erased': PBS 2020 Segment Finds Time for Klobuchar, Sestak, and Bullock—But Completely Ignores Bernie Sanders|website=Common Dreams|access-date=December 4, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
[[Ryan Grim]] of ''[[The Intercept]]'' used examples of media coverage and the [[Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders#In_These_Times_analysis|''In These Times'' analysis]] to argue that the media misreported on or omitted coverage of Sanders instead of treating him as a "top-tier candidate." He hypothesized that this alleged "Bernie Blackout" was a positive for Sanders, as it could prevent Sanders from receiving the level of scrutiny that other front-running candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, have received.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Abowd |first1=Paul |last2=Grim |first2=Ryan |title=The 'Bernie Blackout' Is in Effect – and It Could Help Sanders Win |url=https://theintercept.com/2019/12/08/the-bernie-blackout-is-in-effect-and-it-could-help-sanders-win/ |website=The Intercept |accessdate=December 17, 2019 |date=December 8, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
An article by [[Business Insider]] referred to an analysis by [[The New York Times]], which showed that Bernie Sanders received less media coverage than other top-tier candidates like former Vice President [[Joe Biden]] and Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]].<ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-could-be-most-underestimated-2020-candidate-2019-12|title=Bernie Sanders could be the most underestimated 2020 candidate, as he surges in the polls and nabs big-name endorsements 2 months after a heart attack|last=Haltiwanger|first=John|date=December 12, 2019|website=Business Insider|access-date=December 15, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212233831/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html?action=click&module=STYLN_menu_election_live&pgtype=Article®ion=header|title=Which Democrats Are Leading the 2020 Presidential Race?|date=December 10, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=December 15, 2019|archive-date=December 12, 2019}}</ref> Although, the author of the article argued that it was possible that Biden was mentioned more often due to the [[Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump]] and the [[Trump–Ukraine scandal]].<ref name=":10" /> The next day, ''[[Fox News]]'' reported on a Twitter thread started by Sanders' campaign advisor [[David Sirota]] requesting supporters to post examples of inaccurate or misleading coverage. He started the thread with a CNN graphic showing a poll of California Latino voters showing Biden with 27 percent, Sanders 25 percent and Warren 10 percent and the headline: "Biden, Warren lead among California Latino voters."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/bernie-sanders-snubbed-cnn-cbs-news-graphics|title=Bernie Sanders snubbed on separate graphics by CNN, CBS News|last=Wulfsohn|first=Joseph A.|date=December 13, 2019|publisher=Fox News Channel|access-date=December 16, 2019}}</ref> On December 15, 2019, [[Nate Silver]], an American statistician and writer who analyzes elections, also mentioned that Bernie Sanders "got less media coverage than the other front-runners" in an analysis segment for [[ABC News]] discussing the presidential primary election.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1206234793106526208|title=Sen. Bernie Sanders came closer to winning the Democratic nomination in 2016 than many expected. Does he have a chance in 2020?|date=December 15, 2019|website=ABCPolitics|access-date=December 15, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
In November 2019, the Chicago left-wing magazine ''[[In These Times]]'' analyzed coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019.<ref name="Marcetic2019">{{Citation|url=http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html |title=MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It's Ignoring Bernie Sanders |author=Branco Marcetic | work=In These Times |date=November 3, 2019 }}</ref><ref name="Savage">{{Citation|url=https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/corporate-media-bernie-sanders-bias-msnbc-warren-biden |title=The Corporate Media's War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real |author=Luke Savage |publisher=Jacobin |date=November 20, 2019 }}</ref> The analysis covered ''[[The 11th Hour with Brian Williams]]'', ''[[All in with Chris Hayes]]'', ''[[The Beat with Ari Melber]]'', ''[[Hardball with Chris Matthews]]'', ''[[The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell]]'' and ''[[The Rachel Maddow Show]]''. According to the analysis, Sanders was discussed 36 percent of the time, compared to 43 percent for Warren and 64 percent Biden. The author wrote that part of this discrepancy may be attributed to the [[Trump-Ukraine scandal]]. As for positive and negative mentions, 12.9 percent were positive towards Sanders, while 20.7 percent were negative—the most likely of the three.{{clarify|date=December 2019}} Most of the negative mentions came from two shows, ''Hardball'' and the ''11th Hour,'' whereas he had no negative mentions on Maddow's show and only a handful on O’Donnell’s, Melber’s and Hayes’. In comparison, 11.3 percent of mentions towards Biden were negative, with 23.3 percent positive.<ref name="Marcetic2019"/> In December 2019 [[Ryan Grim]] of ''[[The Intercept]]'' hypothesized that the "Bernie Blackout" was a positive for Sanders, as it could prevent Sanders from receiving the level of scrutiny that other front-running candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, have received.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://theintercept.com/2019/12/08/the-bernie-blackout-is-in-effect-and-it-could-help-sanders-win/|title=The 'Bernie Blackout' Is in Effect – and It Could Help Sanders Win|last1=Abowd|first1=Paul|last2=Grim|first2=Ryan|date=December 8, 2019|website=The Intercept|accessdate=December 17, 2019}}</ref> |
|||
In |
In an [[2020 Democratic Party presidential debates|post-debate]] analysis, [[David Axelrod (political consultant)|David Axelrod]], an analyst and senior political commentator for CNN, opined that CNN never talks about Bernie Sanders and that the Senator was doing well in the polls.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1912/19/se.04.html|title=CNN LIVE EVENT - Transcript|date=December 19, 2019|publisher=CNN|access-date=December 21, 2019}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/26/can-bernie-sanders-win-2020-election-president-089636|title=Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination|website=Politico|access-date=December 26, 2019}}</ref> An article by ''Politico'' stated that statements like Axelrod's llustrated a shift in how Sanders is being perceived in the media.<ref name=":11" /> |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
*[[Media bias in the United States]] |
*[[Media bias in the United States]] |
||
*[[Trump derangement syndrome]] |
|||
*[[Hostile media effect]] |
*[[Hostile media effect]] |
||
Revision as of 21:28, 27 December 2019
The Bernie Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources have alleged that the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Bernie Sanders, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns; this has variously been either disputed or validated by studies and analyzes. Accusations of bias often revolve around corporate ownership of news organizations, misleading graphics, and a perceived lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders. Organizations like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), alternative media such as Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti's Rising with Krystal and Saagar (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, and Common Dreams, and others have alleged media bias against Bernie Sanders. The campaign runs its own media platforms, many of which also allege media bias. The most prominent media organizations accused of bias have been MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.
Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls.[1] Analysis of the language used also concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage.[1][2][3] However, during the 2016 election, all candidates received vastly less media coverage than Donald Trump, and the Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.[3]
During the 2020 election, there have been renewed allegations that the media has covered Sanders unfairly,[4] including claims that distorted data and falsehoods have been used to portray him negatively.[5][6]Sanders himself became involved in a dispute with The Washington Post. He charged that it treated him inequitably due to the influence of its owner, Jeff Bezos,[7][8] a claim that has been disputed by the Post.[9]Morgan Gstalter (August 13, 2019), Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory', The Hill</ref> Studies by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.[10][11]
Background
Sanders is a self-styled democratic socialist[12] and the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history, avoiding party affiliation[13] throughout his political career. In the U.S. two party system, Sanders is ideologically closer to the Democratic Party,[13] which considers itself primarily ranging from centrist to liberal and even progressive, depending on regional political landscape. While serving in the Congress, Sanders has caucused with the Democrats,[13] which has made him eligible for participation in congressional committees as if he were a member of the Democratic Party. In addition, Sanders received support from Democratic party organizations in Vermont[13] as well as from the Vermont Progressive Party, which also endorses some Democratic candidates in the state.
2016 primary campaign
On April 28, 2015, Vermont Public Radio reported that Sanders would announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on April 30.[14] In an interview with USA Today on April 29, Sanders stated that he was "running in this election to win," and launched a campaign website, effectively beginning his run.[15] Sanders said he was motivated to enter the race by what he termed "obscene levels" of income disparity and the campaign finance system.[16] On May 26, 2015, Sanders officially announced his candidacy at Burlington's Waterfront Park.[17] In an interview with National Review's Jamie Weinstein,[note 1] MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders".[18][19] 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC.[20]
Vox has claimed that in some situations in the 2016 campaign, Sanders actually received overly positive bias.[21]
Early campaign months
In September 2015, Margaret Sullivan wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times covering the Times' coverage of Bernie Sanders. Sullivan wrote that she had received many complaints from readers who either believed that Sanders had not received enough attention from the Times or that the articles written about Sanders were overly "derogatory or dismissive". She then argued that in August 2015, the Times had given roughly the same amount of articles dedicated to Sanders as they did to similarly-polling Republican candidates (barring Donald Trump), while conceding that some of the articles written were "fluff" and "regrettably dismissive".[22]
That same month, amid momentum in the Sanders campaign, The Washington Post wrote, "Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience."[23]
John Sides, a Political Science Professor at Vanderbilt University, found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was also consistent with his polling, noting that candidates who poll well get more news coverage.[24] Sides, using data and social analytics tools provided by consumer insights company Crimson Hexagon, also concluded that the coverage Sanders received was proportionally more positive than that received by Clinton.[24]
In October 2015, Story Hinckley of the The Christian Science Monitor published an article discussing what he called a "near-blackout from major TV news sources". He indicated that, at the time, Sanders was polling high and bringing in significant donations, yet the mainstream media was giving insufficient coverage of the campaign.[25] According to an analysis by Media Matters for America, media networks overwhelmingly covered Hillary Clinton's email controversy, while ignoring Sanders' campaign. According to an analysis by Andrew Tyndall, ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race, with 338 minutes devoted to the Republican race, 128 minutes to the Democratic race, and a total of 8 minutes devoted to Bernie Sanders (compared to 145 minutes for Trump, 82 minutes for Clinton, 83 minutes for Clinton's email controversy, and 43 minutes for Jeb Bush).[26]
That same month, Bernie Sanders supporters accused the media of being biased against Sanders after a debate when he won online polls while pundits claimed that Clinton won the debate. Josh Voorhees wrote for Slate that the polls cited by Sanders supporters were "informal and unscientific" "instant online polls" impacted by selection bias.[27]
In January 2016, Bob Garfield of WNYC explained the phenomenon; ". . . because the media only care about frivolous issues, serious candidates become victims of virtual media blackouts . . . Trump daily offers up fresh meat – fresh outrages. And the media just pile on. In other words, Trump understands how the media work, he exploits our tendencies. Sanders understands how media work, he has said so, and yet stubbornly ignores our tendencies."[28]
In the same month, Glenn Greenwald published an article entitled, The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition, arguing that "the political and media establishment" would become increasingly hostile and shrill against Sanders and his supporters as both the electoral support for his campaign and the sense of threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination increased. The article proposes the existence of seven distinct stages in the way in which both the political class and the media respond to campaigns of theretofore poorly recognized socialist politicians against establishment-favored candidates, starting with Stage 1 ("polite condescension...") and ending on Stage 7 ("full-scale meltdown..."). At the time of his publication, Greenwald estimated that, "The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6". Stage 5 amounts to, "Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize...", and Stage 6 to, "Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected".[29]
Later campaign months
In an article published by the progressive media watchdog FAIR, Adam Johnson documented that the Washington Post ran 16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period between a "crucial" debate and primary, all of which were allegedly presented "in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he's a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women."[30][31] The Washington Post's Callum Borchers responded to the FAIR piece, writing that FAIR used an overly broad definition of negative, and noting that all the stories with the exception of two were commentary and analysis pieces. Of the two news articles, one was an Associated Press wire story, and the other was about the Sanders campaign's struggle to connect with African-American primary voters in 2016 and its implications for 2020.[32] Borchers alleged that, after the earlier-mentioned primary had passed, The Washington Post ran 16 stories which presented Sanders in a positive light.[33] Johnson replied by mocking the idea of the Washington Post investigating itself for bias, and said that Borchers was unduly narrowing the definition of negative history; he added that the evidence of bias on the part of the Washington Post was so overwhelming that Borchers, unable to refute it, tries instead to justify the bias.[34]
The New York Times was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to an article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.[35][36] The article was originally titled "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors"[37] but was subsequently changed to "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."[38][39] In addition to the revised title, several paragraphs were added.[40] Margaret Sullivan at the New York Times said that the changes were clear examples of "stealth editing" and that "the changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders's legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later."[41] Katie Halper from FAIR interpreted that, according to New York Times editors in their defense of the changes, "in its original form, the article didn't cast enough doubt on Sanders' viability and ability to govern."[35]
Jonathan Stray, a scholar of computational journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for the Nieman Lab that, "at least online", Sanders received coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.[42]
Harvard Kennedy School report
A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy on media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.[2] The report found that,
...during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump's rise in the polls. Trump's coverage was positive in tone—he received far more "good press" than "bad press." The volume and tone of 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. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it 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. For her part, 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 the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
Patterson stated that,
Less coverage of the Democratic side worked against Bernie Sanders’ efforts to make inroads on Clinton's support. Sanders struggled to get badly needed press attention in the early going. With almost no money or national name recognition, he needed news coverage if he was to gain traction. His poll standing at the beginning of 2015 was barely more than that of the other lagging Democratic contenders, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton's leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did.
A review of Fox News found that Sanders was the subject of 79 positive reports and 31 negative reports while his opponent Hillary Clinton had 291 negative reports and 39 positive ones.[43][44]
In her book A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Colleen Elizabeth Kelly wrote that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias, citing the Shorenstein Center report on the media's outsized coverage of the Republican primary, but noting that Sanders' coverage was the most favorable of any candidate.[3]
Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America
According to the 2018 book Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America by political scientists John Sides (of Vanderbilt University), Michael Tesler (of University of California at Irvine), and Lynn Vavreck (of University of California, Los Angeles), "Sanders’s appeal, like Trump’s, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." Sanders benefitted from media coverage in 2015, which was more positive than media coverage of Clinton. The amount of news coverage he received exceeded his share in the national polls at that time. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis shows that "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."[1]
The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election
In her 2018 book, The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up.[45] Matthew Yglesias of Vox made a similar point, arguing that the media was biased in favor of Sanders because it had an interest in exaggerating how close the democratic primary was.[46]
Bitecofer did note the disparity in the amount of coverage for each candidate. According to her analysis, Trump received more extensive media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.[45]
2020 primary campaign
In March 2019, a preliminary study by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders was receiving the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary, while an expanded, updated analysis in April placed him third out of eight candidates;[10] a further update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.[11]
Politico put forth the idea that the Sanders campaign's perception of bias may be an artifact of Sanders propensity to decline informal interviews at "press gaggles" after events and his reluctance to focus on breaking news.[47] Dan Pfeiffer of Crooked Media, quoted by Politico, questioned the effectiveness of critiquing the media coverage by the press over the Sanders campaign. "Unfortunately for the Sanders campaign, the press too often considers complaints from the left as validation of their objectivity and complaints from the right as something worth addressing to prove their objectivity" Pfeiffer said when comparing the accusations with the technique of the right-wing having, "unbelievable success working the refs by calling the mainstream media biased against them".[47]
Vox proposed a similar explanation stating that the "media circus" is not something that Sanders and his campaign prefer to participate in. They also contend that the media may find his position in the polls and his popularity as "boring" because it "doesn't fit into the horserace" like some of their other candidates campaigns do.[48] Paul Heintz suggested that Sanders' solution to his concern about media bias would be complete, verbatim coverage of his pronouncements.[49] Emma Specter at Vogue doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. However, she listed several examples of bias and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as slightly unfair.[50]
Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron characterized Sanders' suggestions that Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, was influencing the Washington Post's coverage as a "conspiracy theory."[51] Washington Post columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that Sanders was making a smart case of media bias that was uniquely different from Trump's explicit criticism; indicating that,[52] "the gatekeepers of established opinion no longer hold as much sway, when new forms of communication and independent media challenge the old. It's not surprising that the corporate media gives Sanders bad press. Thankfully, though, that matters less and less."
A controversy arose between the Sanders campaign and the Post in late August concerning fact-checking. The Post gave Sanders "Three Pinocchios" (meaning mostly false) for his claim on medical debt. Sanders has consistently maintained that, "500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills". Journalists disputed the article's finding and said that the claim was true. The Post then claimed that the paper was not peer-reviewed. Upon inspection it was found that the paper was peer reviewed.[53]
Domenico Montanaro of NPR claimed that Sanders sounded like Trump in his criticism of the media, quoting Trump's tweet, "...[T]he failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements – and they will never change!"[54] In 2015, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR responded to an influx of emails regarding a "Morning Edition" segment. Jensen said that she does not "find that NPR has been slighting his campaign. In the last two days alone, NPR has covered the Democrats' climate change stances and reactions to the Republican debate and Sanders has been well in the mix."[55] NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders in April 2016 by saying that Sanders had appeared three times on NPR whereas Clinton had only done so once, that media outlets saw a Sanders win as a "long shot" early in the campaign, and that by April 2016, she appeared very likely to win the nomination.[56]
February
Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author, Jennifer Rubin. Rubin had criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate, predicting that his launch would be a resounding failure; the next day Sanders reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier."[4]
July
Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll reporting and distortions of graphics.[5] In her article, she starts with an MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53 percent, Sanders at 49 percent, and Warren and Kamala at 48 percent. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being in second numerically. On May 24, Chuck Todd of Meet The Press reported a Quinnipiac Poll that found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27 percent polling with white voters and Biden at 25 percent. The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28 percent; a three-point difference not in accordance with the poll. In a segment by Rachel Maddow on April 29, she showed a graphic with candidates leading with female donations. Kirsten Gillibrand was highest at 52 percent with women while Sanders was at the bottom at 33 percent. Maddow did not mention that the data was only based on donations of $200 or more (the only data that is itemized based on gender).[5] According to the Sanders campaign, in the first quarter of his campaign, 46 percent of his donations were from women.[5] MSNBC panelist Zerlina Maxwell said that Sanders, "did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech" in his kickoff speech.[5] Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept described her claim as a blatant lie;[6] Politifact also ruled her claim as "false".[57] Maxwell later retracted her statement on Twitter after her claims were widely criticized on the social media platform, where many brought up that Sanders mentioned the issue of race and gender within the first five minutes of his speech.[5][6] Greenwald criticized MSNBC for not retracting the claim on air, where it was made.[6]
August
Sanders along with various members of his campaign have spoken out directly about the media bias. After Sanders led the movement to pressure Amazon to pay its employees $15 an hour, "I talk about [Amazon's taxes] all of the time... And then I wonder why The Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why."[58] According to CNN, Sanders said, "We have pointed out over and over again that Amazon made $10 billion in profits last year. You know how much they paid in taxes? You got it, zero! Any wonder why The Washington Post is not one of my great supporters, I wonder why?" He added, "New York Times not much better". An executive editor of Washington Post stated in response, "Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."[9]
Around the same time, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir told CNN,[59]
"In about, you know, a minute or so or two minutes or so you’re going to cut to commercial breaks and you’re going to see some pharmaceutical ads. You’re going to see a lot of ads that are basically paying your bills and the bills of the entire media enterprise. And what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure that you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas."
Sanders responded to the entire discourse in the end by stating,
"So this is not into conspiracy theory. We are taking on corporate America. Large corporations own the media in America, by and large, and I think there is a framework, about how the corporate media focuses on politics. That is my concern. It's not that Jeff Bezos is on the phone every day; he's not."
Chris Cillizza from CNN opined that Sanders and Shakir,[60]
"have zero evidence to back up these big claims is beside the point for many supporters of the independent senator from Vermont. They believe deeply in Sanders and see anyone who disagrees with them as a corporate shill or part of the Big Bad Establishment. Which is their right. But it doesn't make these claims true."
Domenico Montanaro from NPR opined that, "the remark [by Sanders] sounded an awful lot like the kind of criticism leveled by someone else" indicating that Sanders mimicked Trump's criticism of the media. However, in the same interview where Bernie Sanders criticized The Washington Post, he explicitly stated that Trump was undermining American democracy and that, "There are some really great articles out there, like investigations, which we use, so I don't think media is fake news."[54]
November
On November 20, 2019, Politico released an analysis of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary which showed that, like Donald Trump in 2015, Biden received more coverage than his rivals, receiving nearly three times the amount of cable news coverage as Sanders and Warren, and eight times as much coverage as Buttigieg.[61]
In These Times analysis
In November 2019, the Chicago left-wing magazine In These Times published an in-depth article analyzing the coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019.[62][63] They focused primarily on Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden. The analysis covered The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, All in with Chris Hayes, The Beat with Ari Melber, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell and The Rachel Maddow Show while categorizing positive, neutral, and negative discussion of the candidates. The analysis found that Sanders was discussed 36 percent of the time, compared to 43 percent for Warren and 64 percent Biden. The author wrote that part of this discrepancy may be attributed to the Trump-Ukraine scandal. As for positive and negative mentions, 12.9 percent were positive towards Sanders, while 20.7 percent were negative—the most likely of the three. Most of the negative mentions came from two shows, Hardball and the 11th Hour, whereas he had no negative mentions on Rachel Maddow's show and only a handful on O’Donnell's, Melber's and Hayes’. In comparison, 11.3 percent of mentions towards Biden were negative, with 23.3 percent positive. The analysis found numerous inaccurate claims made by various political commentators regarding all candidates. Almost all the coverage discussed polls.[62]
December
PBS News Hour hosted a segment discussing a presidential primary election that excluded Sanders while focusing on candidates with less successful campaigns and polling numbers.[64] Left leaning magazine Current Affairs wrote that even though the segment "found time to talk about Joe Sestak and Steve Bullock, plus plenty of candidates struggling to get out of single-digit poll numbers" it did not include "even a photo of Bernie Sanders."[65] This article later was cited in an article by Common Dreams which levied the same accusation, describing it as part of the supposed "Bernie Blackout".[66]
Ryan Grim of The Intercept used examples of media coverage and the In These Times analysis to argue that the media misreported on or omitted coverage of Sanders instead of treating him as a "top-tier candidate." He hypothesized that this alleged "Bernie Blackout" was a positive for Sanders, as it could prevent Sanders from receiving the level of scrutiny that other front-running candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, have received.[67]
An article by Business Insider referred to an analysis by The New York Times, which showed that Bernie Sanders received less media coverage than other top-tier candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.[68][69] Although, the author of the article argued that it was possible that Biden was mentioned more often due to the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and the Trump–Ukraine scandal.[68] The next day, Fox News reported on a Twitter thread started by Sanders' campaign advisor David Sirota requesting supporters to post examples of inaccurate or misleading coverage. He started the thread with a CNN graphic showing a poll of California Latino voters showing Biden with 27 percent, Sanders 25 percent and Warren 10 percent and the headline: "Biden, Warren lead among California Latino voters."[70] On December 15, 2019, Nate Silver, an American statistician and writer who analyzes elections, also mentioned that Bernie Sanders "got less media coverage than the other front-runners" in an analysis segment for ABC News discussing the presidential primary election.[71]
In an post-debate analysis, David Axelrod, an analyst and senior political commentator for CNN, opined that CNN never talks about Bernie Sanders and that the Senator was doing well in the polls.[72][73] An article by Politico stated that statements like Axelrod's llustrated a shift in how Sanders is being perceived in the media.[73]
See also
References
- ^ a b c Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. 2018. pp. 8, 99, 104–107. ISBN 978-0-691-17419-8.
- ^ a b Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
- ^ a b c Colleen Elizabeth Kelly (February 19, 2018), A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, pp. 6–7, ISBN 978-1-4985-6458-8
- ^ a b Shane Ryan (February 21, 2019), "The Washington Post, Picking Up Where They Left Off in 2016, Runs Four Negative Bernie Sanders Stories in Two Days", Paste
- ^ a b c d e f Katie Halper (July 26, 2019), MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math, FAIR
- ^ a b c d Glenn Greenwald (March 3, 2019), MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About Bernie Sanders's Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them, The Intercept
- ^ Hollar, Julie (August 15, 2019). "Here's the Evidence Corporate Media Say Is Missing of WaPo Bias Against Sanders". FAIR. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Montanaro, Dominico (August 13, 2019). "Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'". NPR. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ a b Morgan Gstalter (August 13, 2019), Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory', The Hill
- ^ a b Frandsen, Alexander; Bajak, Aleszu (April 24, 2019), Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media, Storybench
- ^ a b Bajak, Aleszu (September 30, 2019), Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months, Storybench
- ^ Golshan, Tara (June 12, 2019). "Bernie Sanders's definition of democratic socialism, explained". Vox. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
A democratic socialist is one of the leading candidates in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
- ^ a b c d Qiu, Linda (February 23, 2016). "Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat?". PolitiFact. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat," he said in a 1985 New England Monthly profile, according to Politico.
- ^ Murray, Mark (April 30, 2015). "Bernie Sanders to Announce Presidential Bid on Thursday". NBC. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
- ^ Kelly, Erin (April 30, 2015). "Bernie Sanders: 'I am running in this election to win'". USA Today.
- ^ Gram, Dave (April 30, 2015). "Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'I am running for president'". Yahoo! News. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
- ^ "Video: Bernie Sanders announces run for president". The Burlington Free Press. May 26, 2015. Archived from the original on July 1, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
- ^ Becket Adams (April 17, 2018). "Former MSNBC host says network 'in the tank' for Hillary Clinton". Washington Examiner.
- ^ Rutz, David (April 16, 2018). "Ed Schultz: MSNBC Fired Me for Supporting Bernie Sanders, 'They Were in the Tank for Hillary Clinton'". Washington Free Beacon.
- ^ "Ed Schultz Blames MSNBC Firing on His Support for Bernie Sanders". Accuracy in Media. April 17, 2018.
- ^ Klein, Ezra (April 7, 2016). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?". Vox. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
- ^ Sullivan, Margaret (September 9, 2015). "Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?". The New York Times. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
- ^ "How Bernie Sanders is plotting his path to the Democratic nomination". The Washington Post. 2015.
- ^ a b Sides, John (2015). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really".
- ^ Story Hinckley (October 1, 2015), "Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he tops polls?", The Christian Science Monitor
- ^ Boehlert, Eric (September 24, 2015). "Network Newscasts' Campaign Priorities: Obsess Over Clinton Emails, Virtually Ignore Sanders". Media Matters for America. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
- ^ Voorhees, Josh (October 15, 2015). "Yes, Bernie Won Every Poll on the Internet. Hillary Still Won the Debate". Slate. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
- ^ "Has There Been A Bernie Sanders Blackout? | On the Media". WNYC Studios.
- ^ Glenn Greenwald (January 21, 2016). "The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition". The Intercept.
- ^ Adam Johnson (March 8, 2016), Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours, FAIR
- ^ Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours, Democracy Now!, March 11, 2016
- ^ Callum Borchers (March 8, 2016). "Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?". The Washington Post.
- ^ "Now The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours! #bias". The Washington Post. 2016.
- ^ Adam Johnson (March 9, 2016). "Shocker: WaPo Investigates Itself for Anti-Sanders Bias, Finds There Was None". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
- ^ a b Katie Halper (June 28, 2019), Sydney Ember's Secret Sources, FAIR
- ^ Felix Hamborg, Norman Meuschke, Akiko Aizawa, & Bela Gipp. (2017) Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles. In: Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017). Humbolt-Universität Zu Berlin. https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2098/hamborg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
- ^ Jennifer Steinhauer (March 14, 2016), "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors", The New York Times
- ^ Jennifer Steinhauer (March 14, 2016), "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories", The New York Times
- ^ Hamborg, Felix (2017). "Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles". Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science. doi:10.18452/1446.
- ^ Matt Taibbi (March 15, 2016), "How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders", Rolling Stone
- ^ Margaret Sullivan (March 17, 2019), "Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?", The New York Times
- ^ "How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data". Nieman Lab. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
- ^ n-decosta-klipa (June 14, 2016). "This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media". Boston Globe. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
- ^ "Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump's Rise, Sanders' Emergence, Clinton's Struggle". Shorenstein Center. June 13, 2016. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
- ^ a b Bitecofer, Rachel (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38, 48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ Yglesias, Matthew (April 6, 2016). "After Wisconsin, Sanders is worse off than ever in the delegate race". Vox. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
- ^ a b Michael Calderone (July 15, 2019), "Sanders campaign: Media 'find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness'", Politico
- ^ Tara Golshan (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders versus the "corporate media," explained, Vox
- ^ Paul Heintz (February 26, 2019). "I've reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won't give him what he wants". The Washington Post.
- ^ Emma Specter (November 8, 2019), "Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren't More People Talking About Him?", Vogue
- ^ Michael Calderone (August 13, 2019), "Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders' 'conspiracy theory'", Politico
- ^ Katrina vanden Heuvel (August 20, 2019), "Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media bias", The Washington Post
- ^ Tim Dickinson (August 29, 2019), "The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something", Rolling Stone
- ^ a b Domenico Montanaro (August 13, 2019), Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post', NPR
- ^ Elizabeth Jensen (August 7, 2015), Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage, NPR
- ^ Mitch Wertlieb & Kathleen Masterson (April 1, 2016), 'Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques, VPR
- ^ "Was Bernie Sanders mute on race, gender at the top of his 2020 kickoff speech?". Politifact. March 5, 2019.
- ^ Travis Irvine (September 3, 2019), Media's Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling, Columbia Free Press
- ^ Reliable Sources. July 28, 2019. CNN. President Trump's Pattern of Racist Tweets; Mueller hearings Reinforced America's Media Bunkers.
- ^ Chris Cillizza (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders isn't sorry, CNN
- ^ Jin, Beatrice; Heath, Ryan (November 20, 2019). "Where 2020 Democrats shine and stumble". Politico. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
- ^ a b Branco Marcetic (November 3, 2019), "MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It's Ignoring Bernie Sanders", In These Times
- ^ Luke Savage (November 20, 2019), The Corporate Media's War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real, Jacobin
- ^ "December 2, 2019 – PBS NewsHour full episode" (video). PBS NewsHour. December 2, 2019. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
- ^ Affairs, Current. ""Manufacturing Consent" In Action ❧ Current Affairs". Current Affairs. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
- ^ "'He's Just...Erased': PBS 2020 Segment Finds Time for Klobuchar, Sestak, and Bullock—But Completely Ignores Bernie Sanders". Common Dreams. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
- ^ Abowd, Paul; Grim, Ryan (December 8, 2019). "The 'Bernie Blackout' Is in Effect – and It Could Help Sanders Win". The Intercept. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
- ^ a b Haltiwanger, John (December 12, 2019). "Bernie Sanders could be the most underestimated 2020 candidate, as he surges in the polls and nabs big-name endorsements 2 months after a heart attack". Business Insider. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
- ^ "Which Democrats Are Leading the 2020 Presidential Race?". The New York Times. December 10, 2019. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
{{cite news}}
:|archive-date=
requires|archive-url=
(help) - ^ Wulfsohn, Joseph A. (December 13, 2019). "Bernie Sanders snubbed on separate graphics by CNN, CBS News". Fox News Channel. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
- ^ "Sen. Bernie Sanders came closer to winning the Democratic nomination in 2016 than many expected. Does he have a chance in 2020?". ABCPolitics. December 15, 2019. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
- ^ "CNN LIVE EVENT - Transcript". CNN. December 19, 2019. Retrieved December 21, 2019.
- ^ a b "Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination". Politico. Retrieved December 26, 2019.
- ^ The interview has since been redacted on the National Review website. (See Episode 55: Ed Schultz. National Review April 13, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2019. Archived at WayBack Machine on April 14, 2018.)