-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Claims of biased media coverage on Bernie Sanders from his top campaign advisors
- Thread starter Troast
- Start date
Asking people for their own personal definitions that drives their views on a topic != not understand a topic.
I ask questions because I want to know how people are actually thinking and where their views are being fueled from. Knowing such things makes it far easier to dissect a persons post.
Just like how I'm always interested in hearing what people define as "neoliberal" or "corporate Democrat". The former being almost always an inherently incorrect usage of the word and the latter just basically being a catch all phrase for someone who they don't really support. So when I hear "corporate _______", my sceptic alarm goes off.
Got it -- My bad, I thought your reply was in response to me criticizing Sanders' for wanting more praiseworthy articles in the Washington Post.
Oh boy, here we go. Anytime a Bernie voter speaks up about the utter bullshit that the media pulls on him, they get labeled as whiners/complainers. I guess you're just not allowed to point out shenanigans when you see them if you're in Bernie's camp. Just be good boys and girls and lay down and wait for those boots to step on your necks and don't fight back, ok?
Idk I just wish people had higher standards. The CNN that spent months perpetuating Hillary's email scandal before it miraculously stopped being significant when Trump's daughter did the same thing now is the paragon of journalistic integrity and we can't imagine criticizing them for being shit. Which they are. The same goes for NYT and others. These companies aren't allies, they're mostly terrible and it's not a stretch that some of their staff hate one candidate in particular more than the others.
This local news man working for a publication owned by a large conglomerate doesn't seem reflexively offended by this criticism for some reason.
Maybe he needs a properly decorous liberal to explain it to him, I dunno
He is right. And the media and liberals will get away with nominating Warren (and losing again).
Oh well, Bernie will die so AOC can live.
Oh well, Bernie will die so AOC can live.
CNN is shit, a lot of the media is shit.
As a Clinton supporter I lambast CNN for milking the email story while aiding in the rise and current normalization of Trump. Don't mistake my criticism of the idea that there is a seemingly industry wide conspiracy to target Sanders that the media is "fine"
The AI may or may not catch certain biases, but the onus of proof is on the claimants. Show me the case that Weaver is correct, with a rigorous study and not just examples that confirmation bias would handily explain.
I think it's wrongheaded in an ahistoric way to say that criticism of mass media is a conservative complaint that's infected the left. The media in this country is strongly rightward-leaning, a fact that's been pointed to and commented on from left activism and academia for many decades. The conservative parroting of this point in some cases is another example of the "projection" that we on Era like to point out in so many other places when confronting conservative propaganda. Just as the right wing promote the idea that the white middle class majority is persecuted in defiance of the facts and in mockery of truth, they also promote the idea that the American mass media is leftist (or liberal, by which they mean the same thing).
It's kinda true. Lot of media leans to the center, so a candidate that leans far left is a threat to them and the status quo. That's why when more Dem candidates started to look into various things Bernie's been pushing for, you see folks at CNN and MSNBC get a little annoyed. The last debate was full of Centrists using "Republican talking points" to stick it to those trying to sell more progressive proposals.
I'm at the point where, if it is the will of the people that Bernie is the candidate (or Warren, for that matter), centrist media, the DNCC and such shouldn't stand in the way of it, but embrace it. The winds of change are blowing...
If it it's the will of the people that Bernie isn't the candidate, then let it be, but like I said, DNCC ESPECIALLY, don't get in the way of the will of the people. Don't try to push a centrist narrative. If that's what the people want, don't interfere, let it be as it is.
I'm at the point where, if it is the will of the people that Bernie is the candidate (or Warren, for that matter), centrist media, the DNCC and such shouldn't stand in the way of it, but embrace it. The winds of change are blowing...
If it it's the will of the people that Bernie isn't the candidate, then let it be, but like I said, DNCC ESPECIALLY, don't get in the way of the will of the people. Don't try to push a centrist narrative. If that's what the people want, don't interfere, let it be as it is.
right this is the other thing. Like this is basic info about how institutions work. If you're an economist working for the cato institute - no one has to come down the ladder and explain that your work has to match up with their ideology. For one thing, there is already a selection process that weeds out people that don't fit a specific mold. And if somehow you get through that process, you know where your bread is buttered - what lines you can't cross etc. without ever being explicitly told. People have such an odd view when there is criticism of bias against certain ideas or, in this case, presidential candidates.
This ought to be the second post.
Sanders is right in the middle, with the other top-4 candidates. Weaver is a garbage person who dragged down Sanders' campaign last time and will again if he's allowed influence.
'Story sentiment' is a very subjective metric that doesn't become more objective just because it's visualized with a graph; you'd need an aggregate of independent sources all referencing a standardized metric before that kind of data could actually allow us to make a reliably objective inference about biased sentiment towards or against certain candidates.
Furthermore, 'sentiment' isn't the only factor. Biased selections of stories that are neutral in sentiment but are nonetheless inaccurate can still negatively affect a candidate; biased journalism isn't necessarily overt, or based on a strong feeling, or indicative of a conspiracy theory. Just because there aren't blatant hit pieces for a candidate doesn't many there isn't any bias.
When we see more news coverage of Bernie when he polls badly than we do whenever his numbers improve (something that happens here on Era as well, btw), it's evidence of bias; not necessarily negative sentiment, could just be that the press finds it more lucrative to sensationalize negative stories about Bernie (or other candidates) than it is to do so with positive stories.
And finally, bias against a candidate does not equate bias in favor of another candidate. Even if Bernie was running for president without anyone else in the race, the press could still be biased against him. Likewise, the press could be biased against all the candidates; the bias doesn't go away just because the press' shitty reporting affects everyone, that's not how this works.
yes, I do expect that. I will, and he's not on my primary voting radar.
the goal at this point is to fucking win and stop the bleeding at the least, which will let us work towards something decent in the meantime.
if that's too much to ask because you didn't get your way, then it would be real cute if you don't consider yourself part of the problem
by all means though, muddy the waters to the fullest extent when it's non-bernie dem vs trump. be proud of that shit.
CNN would endorse Trump over Sanders. Look inside your heart, you know it's true.
even trash like cnn wouldn't stoop that low.
they aren't gonna be helpful though.
If Trump won, Wolf would announce Trump winning with glee if it came to that. They literally wouldn't be able to contain their excitement.
The linked article addresses a lot of this. But regardless, its better data than perception based takes.
It has nothing to do with the argument though. The argument isn't that the press is mean to Bernie.
Well I figured we would agree on at least that part. I think it's certainly a bad look for Bernie to criticize the coverage he gets if only because of the types of reactions we're seeing in response to it in general: "Is Bernie exactly like Trump, they both criticize the media?".
I would really like it if Bernie supporters could actually figure out what the problem actually is. Because apparently my reading comprehension of what Weaver said is absolute garbage.
Because she's a nerd and a policy honk that has incredible experience in government that would be one of the most well suited people in America to handle the Executive Branch and further American geopolitical liberalism vs. the regional rise of China in Asia and Russia flailing around as they try to stay remotely relevant in their own region.
There is a reason the GOP was fearing her for 20+ years domestically and why Russia did what they did in 2016
All true. Trump does it to distract from actual issues. No idea why Sanders is doing it.
We're literally in a thread full of examples of shoddy coverage of Sanders' campaign, none of which you addressing in any way. Lukewarm meta commentary about how such complaints amount to "entitlement" is pretty superfluous.
What Weaver said is objectively true: the worse Bernie does in the polls, the more the press will cover it. The better he does, the less they will cover it; the data tells us that this is true.
At the same time, the news covering Bernie's bad poll numbers is not going to be considered stories of negative sentiment because that's not what they are; the stories aren't even focusing on Bernie, but it doesn't change the fact that the bias still affects Bernie negatively.
Eh Quinnipac is a much bigger and well known polling company compared to Democracy Corps. As well, quinnipac has an established reputation of accurately reflecting voter sentiment. democracy corps does not.
so are Weaver and you suggesting to treat all polls the same? should we cite Rasmussen to determine how popular or not Trump is?
Bernie Sanders lost in 2016 because he ran a bad campaign that ignored a critical Democratic voting demographic despite people within his campaign warning him that he couldn't win without changing course. Rather than actually adapt to a national Democratic electorate that was far more diverse than his native Vermont, he and the campaign continued to do what was easy and comfortable instead.
Bernie could have won, but refused to actually do even consider doing what it took to win. But for some, this is a truth they're unable to face- that Bernie could have won if he had run a campaign that wasn't off-putting to so many. Instead they must blame one or more of
"The DNC"
Superdelegates
Biased Media
"Uninformed voters"
and all sorts of other nonsense despite 2016 having been a winnable race with Bernie squandering a clear opportunity. Which is why the reception to this stuff is so hostile- these grievances are their attempts at rationalizing the loss in a way that completely avoids placing any blame on Sanders himself.
(edited link, I put in the wrong article which didn't have the specific story I needed.)
Bernie could have won, but refused to actually do even consider doing what it took to win. But for some, this is a truth they're unable to face- that Bernie could have won if he had run a campaign that wasn't off-putting to so many. Instead they must blame one or more of
"The DNC"
Superdelegates
Biased Media
"Uninformed voters"
and all sorts of other nonsense despite 2016 having been a winnable race with Bernie squandering a clear opportunity. Which is why the reception to this stuff is so hostile- these grievances are their attempts at rationalizing the loss in a way that completely avoids placing any blame on Sanders himself.
(edited link, I put in the wrong article which didn't have the specific story I needed.)
This campaign cycle has shown that Weaver wasn't the problem, it was always Sanders himself. He surrounds himself with toxic sycophants like Gray and Sirota by choice, not because he's being tricked into it.
Last edited:
Bernie hasn't made any noteworthy jumps up in any poll all his campaign. He's been solidly behind Biden by ten points or more. I don't see why any news organization needs to report that he's made a two to five point jump in some random poll when overall, he's still trailing Biden by an insane degree.
What you're saying isn't something that only affects Bernie (as Weaver implies it does) it affects every candidate whose name isn't Joe Biden.
Of course they're gonna report when his poll numbers drop. Every top candidate gets a piece when their numbers drop. You'll see more stories covering poll number increases when or if someone ever jumps Biden.
I'm talking about the positive polls Weaver cites. they tend to be from less well-known/established polling companies.
The complaints about bias were evident long before the campaign made a big fuss about it.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt in this case, but I do agree.
I'm not arguing that no other candidate has been affected by the bias reporting, and the assumption that that is the main argument is why this thread hasn't went anywhere.
idk Kirblar, I talked to a lot of very naive Bernie supporters in 2016 who all thought he even had a chance at winning. Very surprised that this is your stance as well.
The Bernie bro narrative. The narrative that erases all of his black, women supporters and so on. Was a smear campaign not of his own design. That's what put people off. And frankly it's bizarre that people put so much weight on their online interactions. I don't hold toxic liberals responsible for my opinions on Kamala or Hillary or whoever - not sure why they do.
Yep, people have learned nothing about the far reaching implications of corporate media and its power.
Yes there are a lot of great people working in journalism at many of these big news outlets. There is no denying that, but some of you act like it never occurred to you how who is paying the bills can alter and steer what and how things get coverage.
Also apparently none of you are familiar with Manufacturing Consent.
What's the argument and where's the data-based case for it?
This smacks of the way Christians complain of being persecuted in the media, picking up on every slight and ignoring all positive portrayals.
Somebody posted actual data that Sanders is treated like other candidates. Post your data if you have it.
Give me half a day of free time and I can make the case that the media is unfair to any candidate. Give me an internet following with a predilection for that view and it will build itself.
Maybe Sanders' campaign people should stop looking for bias and start figuring out how to win over more people.
That's not my stance. My stance is that had Sanders run a better campaign, that 2016 was winnable. Sanders proved incapable of actually adapting and trying to campaign directly to a critical Dem demographic in a way that wasn't going to alienate them.
The campaign he chose to run in 2016 was dead in the water after South Carolina, his team knew that without major changes they were going to inevitable lose, and instead of changing paths they continued along one that they knew was domed. All while claiming they could win far after they knew they couldn't, allowing them to keep raking in the campaign donations.
When the entire thread is framed around Bernie Sanders as if it's a thing that only affects him and you have Weaver saying things like it affects Bernie specifically, yeah, I can see why people think that Bernie appears to be pushing this idea that the entire news media conglomerate is out to make him look worse off than he really is.
Bernie Passes Biden in NH Poll - The Hill
Figured I'd drop this in here. Let's see if NYT reports that?
Figured I'd drop this in here. Let's see if NYT reports that?
I think we're off topic, but I was donating to Bernie and I never thought he could have won. I think I tried making this point in another thread, but Bernie's run did a lot for left-leaning organizations - and people dismissed that because it hurt or didn't benefit the Democratic Party - which wasn't my main concern. I was glad to support him to see him through the debates, for him to do town halls on issues people care about. There was more to his run than actually winning the nomination.
Like I remember reading one of your posts about how Iowa was an upset for Bernie - or something to that effect. And it's like, for real, you weren't more surprised about how close he came to win over Hillary Clinton?
You realise that even if that comparison was true in any way....that Trump is president right now?
This is more about the television media. How many regular commentators are unironic supporters of Bernie's policies? Can be counted on one hand.
M4A and Cancelling Student Debt and massively taxing the wealthy are all very popular ideas. Some are even bipartisan.
That depends greatly on what you're actually describing and the details of M4A
And nothing is "bipartisan", the moment something comes out of a Democrats mouth it's DOA for the right and the moment you tell your average GOP white voter people of color will likely "get more" out of this than they will, they will vote against it.
The argument is that there is some selection bias that favors polls where Bernie isn't doing too well. Doesn't mean the same thing doesn't happen to other candidates, but this thread isn't about them.
I'll dig into it but I'm highly dubious they could come up with those values without excluding the Washington post.
Edit: It indeed does exclude
Of course this kind of bias can or can not be Sanders specific
How the Washington Post Ran 16 negative Sanders stories in 16 hours.
Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours - FAIR
In what has to be some kind of record, the Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours—a window that includes the crucial Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, and the next morning’s spin.
fair.org
Last edited: