Thenightaway (talk | contribs) →In These Times analysis: trim. the in these times piece has already been covered Tag: Visual edit |
Thenightaway (talk | contribs) →2016 primary campaign: trim for concision Tag: Visual edit |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The Bernie Sanders campaign and [[alternative media]] 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 invalidated by studies and analyses. 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 [[alternative media]] 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 invalidated by studies and analyses. 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=":2" /> 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=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /> 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" /> |
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=":2">{{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=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /> 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, 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" /><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" /> 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> |
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" /><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" /> 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> |
||
Line 32: | 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}} |
||
⚫ | 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" /> |
||
⚫ | 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" /> |
||
[[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> |
[[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> |
||
Line 58: | Line 62: | ||
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> |
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> |
||
==== Harvard Kennedy School report ==== |
==== 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=":3">{{Citation|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 |author=Thomas E. Patterson }}</ref> 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". |
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=":3">{{Citation|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 |author=Thomas E. Patterson }}</ref> 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." |
||
{{Quote |
|||
|text=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... 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=}} |
|||
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> |
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 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">{{Citation|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump |author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly |date=February 19, 2018 |publisher=Lexington Books |location=Lanham, Maryland |isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8 |pages=6-7 }}</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">{{Citation|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump |author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly |date=February 19, 2018 |publisher=Lexington Books |location=Lanham, Maryland |isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8 |pages=6-7 }}</ref> |
||
=== ''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."<ref name=":2" |
||
=== ''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.<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" /> |
||
== 2020 primary campaign == |
== 2020 primary campaign == |
Revision as of 09:55, 24 December 2019
The Bernie Sanders campaign and alternative media 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 invalidated by studies and analyses. 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.[2]
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] 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
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]
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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[14]
Vox has claimed that in some situations in the 2016 campaign, Sanders actually received overly positive bias.[16]
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."[17] NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders in April 2016 by noting 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.[18]
Early campaign months
In September 2015, 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".[19]
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."[20]
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.[21] 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.[21]
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.[22] 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. The analysis found that the media devoted more time to Clinton's email controversy than all other coverage of her campaign.[23]
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.[24]
In January 2016, while interviewed on WNYC, Claire Malone of FiveThirtyEight rejected that Sanders was the subject of a "media blackout," saying that he received sizable and rising article coverage.[25]
In the same month, 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.[26]
Later campaign months
In a 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 between a "crucial" debate and primary.[27][28] 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.[29] Borchers later wrote that The Washington Post ran 16 stories within 16 hours which presented Sanders in a positive light.[30] Johnson said that his article had gone viral on Reddit and Facebook, and covered in "TruthDig, The Young Turks, USUncut and the Daily Caller", and 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.[31]
The New York Times was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to an article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.[32][33] The article was originally titled "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors"[34] but was subsequently changed to "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."[35][36] In addition to the revised title, several paragraphs were added.[37] Margaret Sullivan at the New York Times opined 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."[38] 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."[32]
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.[39]
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 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."
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.[40][41]
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.[3]
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.[42] 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".[42]
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.[43] Paul Heintz suggested that Sanders' solution to his concern about media bias would be complete, verbatim coverage of his pronouncements.[44] 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.[45]
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.[46][47]
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
According to a July 2019 piece by Katie Halper in FAIR, MSNBC displayed three distortions of graphics in April and July that indicated that Sanders was doing worse in polls than he actually was.[5] The piece also said that a CNN graphic in May 2019 included a mistake that made Sanders look worse in one poll.[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] Politifact said her claim was "false".[48] Maxwell later retracted her statement on Twitter.[5][6] Greenwald criticized MSNBC for not retracting the claim on air, where it was made.[6]
August
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 (which is owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns the Washington Post) did not pay taxes.[49][9] 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."[9][50] Sanders rejected that his claim was a conspiracy theory.[51] NPR wrote that Sanders's attack on the Washington Post bore similarities to Trump's criticism of the media.[51] CNN columnist Chris Cillizza said that Sanders had no evidence for his claims.[52] 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.[53]
November
A November 2019 analysis in Politico found that 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.[54]
In These Times analysis
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.[55][56] 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% of the time, compared to 43% for Warren and 64% Biden. The author notes that part of this discrepancy may be attributed to the Trump-Ukraine scandal. As for positive and negative mentions, 12.9% were positive towards Sanders, while 20.7% 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 Maddow's show and only a handful on O’Donnell’s, Melber’s and Hayes’. In comparison, 11.3% of mentions towards Biden were negative, with 23.3% positive.[55]
December
On December 2, 2019, 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.[57] 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."[58] 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".[59]
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.[60]
On December 12, 2019, 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.[61][62] 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.[61]
In December 2019, David Sirota tweeted what he said was a misleading CNN graphic of a poll of California Latino voters showing Biden with 27%, Sanders 25% and Warren 10% and the headline: "Biden, Warren lead among California Latino voters."[63] That same month, Nate Silver said that Bernie Sanders "got less media coverage than the other front-runners" in an analysis segment for ABC News discussing the presidential primary election.[64] That same month, in an post-debate analysis, CNN commentator David Axelrod opined that CNN never talks about Bernie Sanders and that the Senator was doing well in the polls.[65]
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 c Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
- ^ a b 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 Katie Halper (July 26, 2019), MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math, FAIR
- ^ a b c 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 c 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Klein, Ezra (April 7, 2016). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?". Vox. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
- ^ 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
- ^ 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.
- ^ https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/bernie-538-tk
- ^ 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 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
- ^ Tim Dickinson (August 29, 2019), "The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something", Rolling Stone
- ^ "Sanders's flawed statistic: 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year". The Washington Post. 2019.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ "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
- ^ Michael Calderone (August 13, 2019), "Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders' 'conspiracy theory'", Politico
- ^ a b Domenico Montanaro (August 13, 2019), Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post', NPR
- ^ Chris Cillizza (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders isn't sorry, CNN
- ^ Katrina vanden Heuvel (August 20, 2019), "Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media bias", The Washington Post
- ^ 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.