2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEzra Klein - Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?
Very interesting and nuanced piece on a subject matter that does not lend itself to nuance. There is the media's bias towards so-called serious candidates versus the media's bias toward promoting a close, contested race in order to generate ratings. In California, for a change, primary turnout is expected to break records since both the Democratic and Republican primaries are contested. Personally, being from California, it is exciting that to be a pivotal state. We are the largest State, yet the California primary is seen as nothing more than a coronation of a nominee who has locked up the nomination.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders/ar-BBrtYtC?ocid=spartanntp
Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?
His supporters certainly think so. Hundreds of them recently picketed CNN, and I'm regularly deluged by emails from Bernie backers who feel the press including Vox is biased against their candidate.
I think there are ways in which the media tilts against Sanders, and that some of the reasons for that bias exist primarily as subtext, rather than text, which makes coverage of the candidate confusing for anyone reading it. That said, there are also important ways in which the media tilts toward Sanders and against Hillary Clinton.
The past few days offered good examples of all these dynamics. But they also spoke to deeper realities realities that we don't often discuss about the way the media covers all presidential candidates, and how the models that shape media narratives are often invisible to the public.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)Hence the constant spinning every victory into momentum when the delegate count hasnt changed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Tell us which media outlets get talking points from Bernie's campaign and repeat them they way they do with Hillary's.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I can link you to hundreds of stories by reputable journalists about what a raw deal media has given Sanders, some of which links are in the post I mentioned in Reply 16. How many stories can you link me to saying media's been biased in his favor?
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)facts seem to annoy some Hillary supporters so much.
No, I cannot tell a lie. I'm not the least bit sorry facts annoy some people.
Response to merrily (Reply #24)
Post removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)He did criticize elements of TPP, but felt on whole it was a good thing.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Seriously. Who defined that Klein or Krugman or whoever was ever on my side in the first place? I never saw it that way, ever. Many years ago. Give it a rest. We can criticize people's views and statements without this "bus" nonsense.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and every other Democrat that didn't support your candidate. Heck, some of you even bashed Elizabeth Warren for not officially endorsing him. I guest rather than "throwing them under the bus," we could say you guys "st on good Democrats who happen to differ with you."
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)And like most people who usually vote for Democratic candidates (and never Republicans), I don't particularly value the New Democrats or the Democratic machines where everything's fixed and paid for in advance.
Who says Klein is a Democrat at all?
Klein and Krugman were always (mostly) full of shit as far as I was ever concerned. Long before I ever imagined Sanders would be running for president.
And I guess John Lewis and James Clyburn shouldn't have talked all that bullshit in the present day, in the form of ridiculous attacks that they started (about how one never saw Sanders in 1966 and the other's claims that he is out to destroy historic black colleges, etc.).
revbones
(3,660 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Countless examples...
merrily
(45,251 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)In 2015, TV news coverage of Trump:Clinton:Sanders was about 20 :1 (where the 1 is rounding up from 0.4). This is why Trump is where he is today. This is why Sanders despite the enormous crowds he was attracting, the money he was raising, and his constant rise in the poll still had shockingly low name recognition as the campaigns started.
Even right now, the TV shows anything Trump does in full, and I can see right now how the NY media (it was obvious today on NY1, owned by Time-Warner) does not give the Sanders campaign coverage nearly equal in time to Clinton's, or allow Sanders or his surrogates the same time to speak.
The pretense of sophisticated analysis can hide the obvious. "Bias" is first of all structural, top-down, and ideological. Does Klein talk about ownership? Who gets hired? Who gets promoted? These affect ideological direction over the middle term at the latest. How are the terms and issues are defined in the first place? How did it turn out that status-quo conservatives like himself and M. Yglesias seriously get to be depicted as though they were on the liberal (i.e., left) side of the acceptable spectrum of discourse?
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Anyone who uses the term "conspiracy theory" seriously is suspect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710043
http://jackpineradicals.org/entry.php?154-Conspiracy-theories-Give-Ockham-s-Razor*-a-rest-now-and-again-will-ya
(The replies on both threads are great.)
But Smigel rarely uses any term seriously--except "for me to poop on"-- which he always means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Smigel
merrily
(45,251 posts)along with many stories about the Tyndall Report and about media coverage of Bernie, some of which are also cited in that post, say yes, media has given Bernie a raw deal. Some Hillary supporters will deny that to the death, though.
Response to TomCADem (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
revbones
(3,660 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)longislandAnnie
(13 posts)Here in New York, I listened to the local TV news and AM radio stations this morning and they all reported on Hillary's visits to black churches today and not one report on Bernie's 11:00 rally in Coney Island on the boardwalk. If I had not seen it on DU, I would not have even known about it. So is Bernie's campaign reaching out to local news media who are then actively ignoring him and censoring his message?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I saw the notice, and like all reporters, except for the traveling media, we contacted the Sanders Campaign We did the same with Cruz last Friday... I shall know tomorrow I guess. And no, I do not get hives or break into cooties.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Then the answer is clearly yes.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Are we lumping the Guardian online together with CNN together with Breitbart?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)which is funny in the first place.
Yes, the corporate-owned media for which Klein works are biased against anything that doesn't fit into the very narrow bandwidth of establishment "liberal" to "conservative" ideology.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it means that they know they are screwing the pooch. That said, his statements on decisions and models and that many in the media like Sanders... is very correct. I have seen this myself