Media Bias against Bernie Sanders

[booley]

No doubt that this will spark some .. discussion

What some would say is blatantly obvious others will say is false.
And yes it is a Wiki page. (though like any Wiki page it has citations and one should direct criticisms on the facts there)

Still, I thought it important to provide examples of why people say there is a Bias in the media.

Various media outlets have raised concerns that the mainstream media in the United States have made a concerted effort to downplay, underreport, or ignore the popularity of Bernie Sanders, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Accusations have ranged from explicit media bias, journalistic malpractice, and distortions of information and data. Alternative media such as Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, Common Dreams, Medium, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, prominent YouTube political commentators, among others have published articles, videos, and reports discussing what they see as an alleged media bias against Bernie Sanders. Online communities on websites such as Twitter and Reddit have played a role in documenting what they see as bias in reporting as well. The campaign runs its own media platforms such as the online newsletter Bern Notice, the Hear the Bern podcast, a channel on Twitch, as well as Twitter and Facebook—many of which discuss media bias and what they call the Bernie Blackout.

Link

[itsrobert]

1. Citations are opinions

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

[booley]

3. Not all of them

The link tot Fair for instance.

I also would not put this in as mere opinion. Either it happened or it didn't.

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".[5][6] 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC.

[brooklynite]

55. Citing a Russian propagandists? Always a solid choice...

[msongs]

2. omg the media is out to get all our candidates, no doubt about it. just ask them lol nt

[booley]

5. Media isnt a monolith

And it has watchdogs which can also be considered part of the media

So yes, you actually can "ask them"

The real question is has the media as a whole treated Sander differently then it has other Democratic candidates

[booley]

7. Maybe. But Clinton isnt running now

And the article shows examples from both 2016 and this current election cycle.

[sheshe2]

43. It was written today.

Are you the author?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

6. I agree with you on this

There are only a few candidates they seem to recognize as legit, and they rarely mention the others.

[booley]

12. Buttigieg a strong fourth"

That was an actual headline.

And it's still inexplicable to me.

And nothing against Klobuchar supporters but she is at 2% in the polls.

So how does she deserve he media coverage she gets?

Yeah I am probably going to get flamed now.

[JoeOtterbein]

8. K n R ! Thanks for posting!

[beastie boy]

9. The first thing that jumped out at me when I clicked on the link, right below the title:

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."

Ok, I think I will wait a while with my premature comments...

[booley]

13. which means someone recommended it for that

Which is why I then went to the discussion portion to see what people were actually saying.

There are reasons a page is considered for deletion that have nothing to do with validity or accuracy.

And as I said, criticisms on facts should be directed at the citations. That's where the information is being drawn from.

Are there facts there that are untrue? WHat are they and how do you know?

[lapucelle]

26. The majority of citations concern either the 2016 primary or reports that BS

and his supporters are claiming bias.

[beastie boy]

29. Some reasons may have nothing to do with validity or accuracy, others may have everything to

do with it. Without speculating on the reasons why it was recommended for deletion, and all anyone can do at this point is speculate, I would still wait a while with my comments until the decision is made on whether this entry has any validity at all.

[LanternWaste]

59. I'd pretend as much too... nt

[George II]

10. Note at the top of your link's wikipedia page (I see others have noticed that):

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

[Hortensis]

37. And I did.

[sheshe2]

11. Lol

Various media outlets have raised concerns that the mainstream media in the United States have made a concerted effort to downplay, underreport, or ignore the popularity of Bernie Sanders

Those media outlets are Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, Common Dreams, Medium, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Fair and balanced outlets.

What they see as an alleged media bias against Bernie Sanders.

It is called vetting the candidate and their qualifications to become President.

The campaign runs its own media platforms such as the online newsletter Bern Notice, the Hear the Bern podcast, a channel on Twitch, as well as Twitter and Facebook—many of which discuss media bias and what they call the Bernie Blackout.

What other candidate has done this? Rail against the media and then purchases their very own media outlets?

[NurseJackie]

14. I know, right??

[sheshe2]

17. Ha!

[booley]

16. not sure how not talking about a candidate is vetting

we may have to disagree on that

[sheshe2]

20. He is all over the media.

Chuckie has him on every other day.

The Plum Line
Opinion
Bernie Sanders’s real media problem

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is not happy with his media coverage.
This gives him something in common with pretty much every candidate, not to mention every president. Because they’re human, they fixate on the stories that get something wrong or characterize something in ways they don’t like, and they lament it when the things they do and say don’t get the level of attention they believe they deserve.

But Sanders and his campaign are alleging that there is a broad bias against him, and he has aimed some of his displeasure at The Post in particular in recent days, suggesting that unsatisfactory coverage in The Post could be a result of his criticisms of Amazon (The Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and chief executive.) Noting this week that he has been critical of the taxes Amazon pays (or doesn’t), Sanders said: “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. But I guess maybe there’s a connection.”

But if that analysis were correct, those getting savaged by The Post would include Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has proposed both breaking up Amazon and a wealth tax that Bezos would have to pay.

On Tuesday, Sanders clarified that he is not alleging that Bezos calls up the newsroom to dictate coverage about him, but instead was making a point about how his anti-corporate message won’t be received well in media largely controlled by corporations. The trouble is that there isn’t much of a case to be made that Sanders is getting singled out for mistreatment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/14/bernie-sanderss-real-media-problem/

[Me.]

31. Plus That Nina Person Was On Rev Al Tonight

[sheshe2]

33. There ya have it.

Sanders and staff are all over the media.

This wiki entry was written today, good catch from lapucelle. I am awaiting to find out how booley caught it so quickly.

[betsuni]

42. True: If that analysis were correct, Warren would be the biggest threat.

The creator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau! Doesn't make any sense to be worried about Bernie when there's someone more progressive with a history of getting things done.

[sheshe2]

44. Yep.

Doesn't make any sense to be worried about Bernie when there's someone more progressive with a history of getting things done.

Correct. She doesn't just talk the talk. My Senator walks the walk. The CFPB was her baby and it was built to protect the middle class. She did not just talk about the middle class, she put her money where her mouth is.

[betsuni]

46. He should be grateful to the media. Ask Joe "gaffe machine" Biden, John "flip-flopper" Kerry,

Hillary "emails" Clinton, Howard "The Scream" Dean and others. He could be Bernie "heart attack" Sanders but isn't.

[sheshe2]

47. No kidding.

You nailed it, Betsuni.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. + a million!

[Alpeduez21]

15. Isn't the deletion citation

Just more evidence of the media bias?

😂 sarcasm

[Hoyt]

18. Every candidate's supporters say the same thing and complain about bad press.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Poor widdle Bernie--big bad Media's out to get him....

Isn't that Kamala's problem?

Liz's problem?

Pete's problem?

And, horror of all horrors-- Tulsi's problem?

40 years in Washington and he hasn't figured this out yet?

(If I say "grow the fuck up" -- ya'll gonna alert? Asking for a friend.)

[TidalWave46]

21. "Please look at this...."

“Please look at this Wiki page I put together before it gets deleted.”

[betsuni]

22. ...

[sheshe2]

27. Bazinga!

[sheshe2]

35. ;)

[YOHABLO]

23. I honestly so do not think we're getting an accurate account.

I'm sure corporate entities do have a filter on what they perceive as their best or worst interest. They are not going to promote a candidate with their 'bottom line $$' in the cross hairs.

[Uncle Joe]

24. There is simply no denying that the corporate media conglomerates have

inherent conflicts of interest against the concept of a public good over private corporate profits.

It's also highly logical and basic common sense that Bernie's aggressive pro public good policy proposals threaten the CMC's own personal bottom lines and the structure of the status quo which has been highly lucrative for them over decades although the nation as a whole has greatly suffered.

There is also no doubt that Trump is the corporate media conglomerates' creation having no qualifications whatsoever to be President and wouldn't be in the highest office in the land were it not for them and their love for the status quo as dysfunctional as that is.

Thanks for the thread booley.

[TexasTowelie]

41. I see that you have fallen back on the blame corporations hype again.

Was Satan reincarnated as a corporate entity?

There are plenty of Americans that receive their paychecks from corporations--I did too. This is an old boogeyman and it isn't very effective.

[Uncle Joe]

45. How do the five corporate media conglomerates which own 90% of everything

the American People see, hear or read make their money?

(snip)

In 1984, fifty independent media companies owned the majority of media interests within the United States. As of 2019, 90% of the United States's media is controlled by five media conglomerates: Comcast (via NBCUniversal), Disney, Viacom & CBS (both controlled by National Amusements), and AT&T (via WarnerMedia).[6][7]

(snip)

Main article: Concentration of media ownership

Critics have accused the large media conglomerates of dominating the media and using unfair practices. During a protest in November 2007, critics such as Jesse Jackson spoke out against consolidation of the media.[2] This can be seen in the news industry, where corporations refuse to publicize information that would be harmful to their interests. Because some corporations do not publish any material that criticizes them or their interests, media conglomerates have been criticized for limiting free speech or not protecting free speech.[31] These practices are also suspected of contributing to the merging of entertainment and news (sensationalism[32]) at the expense of the coverage of serious issues. They are also accused of being a leading force behind the standardization of culture (see globalization,[31] Americanization) and are frequently criticized by groups that perceive news organizations as being biased toward special interests of the owners.[31]

Because these conglomerates have so much power and influence, critics[who?] bring up the question of whether that amount of power is justifiable. It can and is easily abused. Some[who?] wonder if it's better to lessen the amount of conglomerates to reduce the likeliness of unfair practices.[31]

There is also criticism[weasel words] that the concentration of media ownership reduces diversity in both ownership and programming of TV shows and radio programs. Because there are fewer independent media, there is less diversity in news and entertainment[ambiguous] and therefore less competition. This can result in the reduction of different points of view as well as vocalization about different issues.[33] There is also a lack of ethnic and gender diversity as a majority of those in media[where?] are white, middle-class men. There is a concern that their views are being shared disproportionately more than other groups, such as women and ethnic minorities[which?].[34] Women and minorities also have less ownership of media.[34] Women have less than 7 percent of TV and radio licenses, and minorities have around 7 percent of radio licenses and 3 percent of TV licenses.[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate

Being employed by a monopoly or trust has nothing to do with the power of said monopoly or trust.

[TexasTowelie]

48. So what? Anybody can post information to Wikipedia.

You greatly underestimate the ability of Americans to view and evaluate the influence of the media.

Blaming corporations for problems is a ruse that you repeatedly employ. It's like the boy yelling wolf--after time people ignore it.

[sheshe2]

50. +1

[Uncle Joe]

60. How about PBS?

Like all reliable watchdogs, the media are expected to bark, but when its many-faceted voice is owned by a small number of corporate masters, concerns about its willingness to keep barking arise.

The trend of media conglomeration has been steady. In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most of the American media, including magazines, books, music, news feeds, newspapers, movies, radio and television. By 1992 that number had dropped by half. By 2000, six corporations had ownership of most media, and today five dominate the industry: Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany and Viacom. With markets branching rapidly into international territories, these few companies are increasingly responsible for deciding what information is shared around the world.

There are also major news organizations not owned by the “big five.” The New York Times is owned by the publicly-held New York Times Corporation, The Washington Post is owned by the publicly-held Washington Post Company and The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times are both owned by the Tribune Company. Hearst Publications owns 12 newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as magazines, television stations and cable and interactive media.

But even those publications are subject to the conglomerate machine, and many see the “corporatizing” of media as an alarming trend. Ben Bagdikian, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley and author of The New Media Monopoly, describes the five media giants as a “cartel” that wields enough influence to change U.S. politics and define social values.

(snip)

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/mediaownership.html

[TexasTowelie]

61. Well,

if anybody has the right to complain about how the media treated him it was Beto O'Rourke. Neither Bernie or you aren't going to get any sympathy from me complaining about the media, particularly since Bernie's campaign staff played a role instigating the attacks. That was one of the primary reasons why I volunteered to host the O'Rourke Group because I saw that Beto was not being treated fairly.

Also, if you look at one of the posts below mentions that five independent media conglomerates pretty much nullifies the idea that there is a monopoly that is trying to suppress news about Bernie. Could it be that Bernie isn't getting the attention that you believes he deserves because Bernie is boring and gives the same stump speech everywhere he goes? Bernie's stump speech isn't news so that is why he doesn't get any coverage.

[TwilightZone]

51. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "monopoly"

Five independent media organizations, by definition of the word independent and the fact that there are five, precludes a monopoly.

[LanternWaste]

57. Blame the media, question the polls, rinse, lather, repeat as necessary.

[lapucelle]

25. This wiki article was written and posted today. How did you find it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders&action=history

[sheshe2]

28. Good catch!

I await their answer.

[Me.]

32. This

[lapucelle]

36. There may be meatpuppetry afoot!

Azcolvin429, are you the same person who posted this article to multiple pro-Bernie Reddit sites? (Redacted) Because if so I would strongly warn you against violating WP:MEATPUPPET, and dissuade canvassing/meatpuppetry attempts by other accounts in all 3 threads you posted - as in my (non-admin) opinion keeping links up is indirect meatpuppetry. Buggie111 (talk) 22:39, 1 Decem

ber 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders

[Me.]

38. Meat Puppets Often Get BBQed

[Hortensis]

34. Very on point. Especially since it's a fact-free collection of

accusations from mostly far-left illiberal ideologues, including many dirty-politics propagandists.

Suuure, Sanders isn't doing poorly because a majority people don't like him or his politics, or his acceptance of Russia's lift to his campaign, or even the role he played in our dreadful losses of 2016, it's because the liberal media are out to get him. Again!

Once the primaries are underway, are we once again going to have to listen to months of accusations that the state Democratic parties are stealing every election he doesn't win? If the media don't find and report the dozens of blatant election thefts wherever Sanders goes around the nation, lying liars will loudly proclaim that as proof of more evil Democratic conspiracy against The One True Choice of the People.

Sanders is going to do poorly in a lot of states not just because of all the competition but because this time the media and Russia aren't sabotaging Hillary to boost him and aren't burying so much they had a duty to report about him.

[MH1]

39. LOL, good catch.

An awful lot of effort went into that page. Someone seems to have a mite too much time on their hands.

[Me.]

30. This Again

Is there never an end to the complaints when I can't turn the set on without seeing him or one of his? At some point this becomes a huge backfire. That Nina was just on Rev Al tonight.

[betsuni]

40. He knows how to get press coverage: hold a big rally with AOC; slow jam the news with Jimmy Kimmel.

I thought anything good had to be grassroots, anyway. He has his own media.

What was supposed to happen was that when people heard his message of economic equality they would understand that Bernie is the only uncorrupted authentic person who ever talks about these issues and will fight for them. The scales will fall from their eyes and they will stop voting against their own interests and follow him. But this is not happening! Why? Must be because an opinion piece in The New York Times said something mean about him because they're so scared of Bernie's stump speech.

[sheshe2]

56. Woot!

[Joe941]

52. This has been a real problem for years.

[Jamaal510]

53. People like Krystal Ball

ought to be glad that Sanders has been "ignored" by cable and online media, and that 45's impeachment has sucked up most of the coverage. The Senator has his own flaws and skeletons in the closet that pundits very briefly touch on (in the rare instances that they do scrutinize his campaign). His campaign would've been done long ago if there was actual digging.

[sheshe2]

54. Bravo, Jamaal.

Good to see ya.

[LanternWaste]

58. And we're back to step one in our Closed-Set Victories: blame the media.

[TidalWave46]

62. Booley! NT