Claims of biased media coverage on Bernie Sanders from his top campaign advisors

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,250
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.
Yep it depends on how it's asked or explained.


 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326

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.
That spreadsheet basically says the largest polling firm Quinnipac got the lions share of coverage. Thats kind of expected and not indicative of bias so much as Quinnipac’s prestige.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
Try looking at the other polls with higher coverage; they're not all 'prestigious'.
The only other ones near the coverage of Quinnipac are all state specific polls(IA and NH) and IA in particular is an important state in the primaries.

So where’s the apples to apples comparison (either polls for same state or polling firms on a national stage with similar prestige)?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
The importance of the early states in the primary doesn't boost the validity of polls that aren't prestigious.
It does boost the chance it gets coverage though.

National polls from a firm like Quinnipac will get the most coverage followed by coverage of IA polls. There’s been no similar positive poll for IA at this point in time.
 

Sciz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,490
Bernie is the same guy in 2019 as he was in 2016. He's a known entity and there's nothing new to report about him beyond the difference in his support.

I'll entertain arguments that the media should be running policy-driven coverage instead of chasing the horse race incessantly, but in the current environment I wouldn't expect to see anything better for an also-ran candidate's second swing at it.
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,325
What do you expect from MSNBC parent company holding a fundraiser for Joe Biden?
Or CNN fabrication of Bernie on how much we pay double on health insurance?


He's a threat to the establishment.
 

Wonderment

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
9,553
As long a candidate has a significant enough amount of supporters, media will respond in turn - unfavorably to the candidate at times - expressly to get those people to consume their media. So sometimes it's not against Sanders or other candidates per se, it's more to attract some of their supporters to said media.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
As long a candidate has a significant enough amount of supporters, media will respond in turn - unfavorably to the candidate at times - expressly to get those people to consume their media. So sometimes it's not against Sanders or other candidates per se, it's more to attract some of their supporters to said media.
This is a lot more reasonable than pretending like the media is perfectly fair and balanced in their reporting.
 

Wonderment

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
9,553
This is a lot more reasonable than pretending like the media is perfectly fair and balanced in their reporting.
And some of it isn't even reporting. It can be argued that headlines aren't reporting, and certainly daily dedicated space for opinions and editorials isn't either. Those spaces need to be filled daily, too, completely aside from any reporting that may occur during that time.

I can't think of an organization that is perfectly balanced - or imperfect but 100% equivocal or even fair. One needs to look no further than 2016 general election coverage, empty stages for an hour or more at a time waiting for candidate Trump. Or coverage of any presidency - whatever message is sent out by the admin usually gets transmitted verbatim first before any in-depth reporting takes place.

But with media, it's also true that the squeaky wheels get the grease, so this many work out in Sanders' favor yet.
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
4,325
Bernie is the same guy in 2019 as he was in 2016. He's a known entity and there's nothing new to report about him beyond the difference in his support.

I'll entertain arguments that the media should be running policy-driven coverage instead of chasing the horse race incessantly, but in the current environment I wouldn't expect to see anything better for an also-ran candidate's second swing at it.

Yes we need more like Kamala who flip flops on her stance and also takes billions in settlements from Bank CEOs. Like your everyday politician.

We also need a candidate that's nostalgia for the good old days like Biden, who was VP in the Obama administration. It will be like 2016 all over again but even worse.

Bernie should switch it up. Screw being a Social Democrat, it's time to go full Authoritarian because time has changed and we don't want 2016 Bernie Sanders.
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,250
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.
Source: https://towardsdatascience.com/which-democratic-candidate-gets-the-most-news-coverage-aa4312fb53db

I guess it's interesting that despite the story itself being more positive than not, the average headline towards Bernie is more negative?

 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
Bernie passed Biden in a NH poll today. Should I expect tons of coverage from it in the following days?
You mean Gravis Marketing right?

Notoriously off in ‘16


Notoriously off in ‘14
 

Maolfunction

Member
Oct 27, 2017
997
You mean Gravis Marketing right?

Notoriously off in ‘16


Notoriously off in ‘14
Yeah, 538 rates them a C+

Not sure any big news organization would be looking at any polls out of Gravis Marketing.

So you are saying data has stayed the same over the last 15 weeks, receipts please
You're the one with the onus of proof to prove otherwise, my dude.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
You mean Gravis Marketing right?

Notoriously off in ‘16

Notoriously off in ‘14
My point was that the quality of the poll obviously matters, even with early state polls, but that doesn't stop the press from selecting polls based on which ones would garner the most interest or sensationalism.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
My point was that the quality of the poll obviously matters, even with early state polls, but that doesn't stop the press from selecting polls based on which ones would garner the most interest or sensationalism.
Yes given two polls of with similar prestige and covering similar regions, media will go with the one most likely to result in higher traffic/ad revenue. That’s indisputable but that doesn’t suggest bias. Thus far, polling firms of a similar level of quality have mostly produced similar results and the polls most cited at this point have been from Quinnipac.
 

BowieZ

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,344
Yes, I know that, but if that is the situation (and it is) then that basically conflicts with the idea that they were "boosting" Clinton over Sanders.

When in reality, the media likes money and ratings, and that's what they chase after. It's not a conspiracy to attack specific candidates, it's what ever makes them the most money in the 24 hour new cycle.
Sanders winning is a way bigger threat to their ratings and pharma company ad dollars than minimising his competition with Clinton in 2016 ever could be.

You said it yourself, money and ratings IS the bottom line, but you just haven’t thought it through fully.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,562

Also the idea that all criticism of corporate media = Trump rhetoric is both stupid and dangerous.
 

TheLostBigBoss

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
8,638
Sanders winning is a way bigger threat to their ratings and pharma company ad dollars than minimising his competition with Clinton in 2016 ever could be.

You said it yourself, money and ratings IS the bottom line, but you just haven’t thought it through fully.
Marketing and editorial doesn't work together.

This is basic 101 shit that would be blown wide open if there was such a blatant conflict of interest that was being propagated.
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,331
I mean, can’t it be both? Can’t there be inherent issues with the way news is run in this country that leads to hyperbole being pushed over the mundane, while also true that demonizing the media with conspiracy theories based on spurious evidence is not a good thing for a major politician to be doing?

Essentially, maybe everyone is the asshole.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,356
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.

A lot of those articles aren’t necessarily negative at all. That list is ridiculous. This is the thing that really annoys me about Sanders supporters. Their inability to handle any type of potential criticism of Sanders.
 

loquaciousJenny

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,860
A lot of those articles aren’t necessarily negative at all. That list is ridiculous. This is the thing that really annoys me about Sanders supporters. Their inability to handle any type of potential criticism of Sanders.
You can't criticize that which is perfect, so obviously it's the illuminati pulling strings to give Sanders the same combination of good and bad coverage that other top candidates receive
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
I mean, can’t it be both? Can’t there be inherent issues with the way news is run in this country that leads to hyperbole being pushed over the mundane, while also true that demonizing the media with conspiracy theories based on spurious evidence is not a good thing for a major politician to be doing?

Essentially, maybe everyone is the asshole.
Sure, but we should also stop calling everyone a conspiracy theorist who calls out bias against a candidate that we don't like.

It doesn't absolve any candidate of the responsibility to run the best campaign they can just because they experience the negative effects of media bias, but there's nothing wrong with them pointing it out.
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
1,631
I mean, can’t it be both? Can’t there be inherent issues with the way news is run in this country that leads to hyperbole being pushed over the mundane, while also true that demonizing the media with conspiracy theories based on spurious evidence is not a good thing for a major politician to be doing?

Essentially, maybe everyone is the asshole.
Could also be a matter of the evidence not being so spurious but I can tell we are going to agree to disagree here.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,281
I think that was the purpose, notice how the person who originally posted the graph didn't provide a source.
Just stirring the pot, as they say.
Confirmation bias indeed.
A lot of those articles aren’t necessarily negative at all. That list is ridiculous. This is the thing that really annoys me about Sanders supporters. Their inability to handle any type of potential criticism of Sanders.
Functionally the majority of them are negative framing, if you feel otherwise you can make an argument. This isn’t my inability to accept reality or criticism of Sanders nor am I saying that the arguements made in those articles are without merit!

You can't criticize that which is perfect, so obviously it's the illuminati pulling strings to give Sanders the same combination of good and bad coverage that other top candidates receive
We have data showing that none of that is true, nor is Sanders remotely perfect.

Not as negative as Biden’s the front runners.
Honestly I’m impressed (not surprised) that Biden’s is only that low considering his repeated gaffes and defence of bussing.
 
Last edited:

Tracygill

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,446
The Left

The interview with Sam Seder where he talks about his experience with being on MSNBC was really interesting. There really is a lack of voices from the left in mainstream media.
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,331
Sure, but we should also stop calling everyone a conspiracy theorist who calls out bias against a candidate that we don't like.

It doesn't absolve any candidate of the responsibility to run the best campaign they can just because they experience the negative effects of media bias, but there's nothing wrong with them pointing it out.
Everyone should view their media with a critical eye.

That doesn't change the fact that what Bernie said about Bezos controlling WP coverage was completely inappropriate and, frankly, dangerous.

The problem isn't calling out the media, the problem is using a conspiracy theory to advance your narrative.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
Everyone should view their media with a critical eye.

That doesn't change the fact that what Bernie said about Bezos controlling WP coverage was completely inappropriate and, frankly, dangerous.

The problem isn't calling out the media, the problem is using a conspiracy theory to advance your narrative.
I don't have a problem with what Bernie said. At no point did he suggest there were clandestine meetings in smoke filled rooms where the corporate elite plotted to systematically take him down, nor did he claim that Washington Post was fake news.

And Bezos wields influence over WP in the same sense that most CEOs do over their sub-ordinates; the invisible hand of power-dynamics. Bezos doesn't need to bark out orders to make sure that WP makes content that positively effects his bottom line at the end of the day, it's already inherent in the interest of the company.
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,331
I don't have a problem with what Bernie said. At no point did he suggest there were clandestine meetings in smoke filled rooms where the corporate elite plotted to systematically take him down, nor did he claim that Washington Post was fake news.

And Bezos wields influence over WP in the same sense that most CEOs do over their sub-ordinates; the invisible hand of power-dynamics. Bezos doesn't need to bark out orders to make sure that WP makes content that positively effects his bottom line at the end of the day, it's already inherent in the interest of the company.
No, what he did was say it without actually saying it, in a fine example of political double speak:

"I talk about that all of the time," Sanders said of Amazon paying "nothing" in taxes. "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,"
This is a conspiracy theory. Bernie has no evidence that there is any connection between Bezos and WP reporting. But, he doesn't like either of them, so why not throw out some red meat?

It doesn't matter that I agree with Bernie on virtually all his policy points, he is employing dangerous rhetoric designed to shake our confidence in the free press. It's dirty pool, and I don't like it.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,123
Minnesota
No, what he did was say it without actually saying it, in a fine example of political double speak:



This is a conspiracy theory. Bernie has no evidence that there is any connection between Bezos and WP reporting. But, he doesn't like either of them, so why not throw out some red meat?

It doesn't matter that I agree with Bernie on virtually all his policy points, he is employing dangerous rhetoric designed to shake our confidence in the free press. It's dirty pool, and I don't like it.
Then we'll disagree on the interpretation of his statement and I'll leave it at that.