Yep it depends on how it's asked or explained.
-
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
Yep it depends on how it's asked or explained.
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.
Try looking at the other polls with higher coverage; they're not all 'prestigious'.
On that note, Citations Needed is a great podcast to listen to
It's also interesting that we are examining something posted nearly 5 months ago
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or CNN fabrication of Bernie on how much we pay double on health insurance?
He's a threat to the establishment.
Bernie passed Biden in a NH poll today. Should I expect tons of coverage from it in the following days?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, thank you for pointing out that the source is less than 4 months old for the, like, third time. I'm sure the whole dataset has changed in 15 weeks.
You mean Gravis Marketing right?
Notoriously off in '16
Notoriously off in '14
So you are saying data has stayed the same over the last 15 weeks, receipts please
Yeah, 538 rates them a C+
Not sure any big news organization would be looking at any polls out of Gravis Marketing.
You're the one with the onus of proof to prove otherwise, my dude.
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.
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.
Bias is inherent to it and unavoidable. Selection bias does not necessarily mean that the press does or doesn't like the person they're writing about, but there is bias by necessity of producing content that is in the best interest of the company responsible for producing it.
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.
It shouldn't even be objectionable at all so I'm not understanding all these people jumping to the defense of corporate media as if they're quintessential examples of unbiased journalistic sources.
New lows every single day indeed.
But then again, the ability to feign blindness and ignorance is something that somehow comes very naturally to lib pundits.
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.
Essentially, maybe everyone is the asshole.
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
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.
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?
Not as negative as Biden's the front runners.
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
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.
Could also be a matter of the evidence not being so spurious but I can tell we are going to agree to disagree here.
Confirmation bias indeed.
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!
We have data showing that none of that is true, nor is Sanders remotely perfect.
Honestly I'm impressed (not surprised) that Biden's is only that low considering his repeated gaffes and defence of bussing.
Last edited:
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.
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.
You don't think he's implying Bezos is manipulating or controlling WaPo's coverage because Bernie criticizes Amazon for not paying taxes? How else can that statement possibly be interpreted?
Joke post or what? Can we not be that place that gets this delusional about an election 15 months away.