Sanders Received Most Favorable Media Coverage

[DavidDvorkin]

A new study from the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government found that Sen. Bernie Sanders received the most “overwhelmingly positive” media coverage of any presidential candidate.

https://politicalwire.com/2016/06/15/sanders-received-most-favorable-media-coverage/

[Else You Are Mad]

1. Well..

I guess when a person had wide spread media black out for 8 months or so, it is hard to have any negative coverage -- or positive coverage for that matter.

[peace13]

2. This news just in from Comedy Central!

what a joke!

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Because it disagrees with your subjective impression?

[peace13]

8. Well if someone knew there were two Dem candidates running for President....

...and that person watched the MSM and never heard a word about one of them, their superior power of deduction would lead them to believe that something was wrong with the system. You can call it what you want. It matters not to me. Your condescension is yours to hold and hug and feel secure in.

[eastwestdem]

11. It's talking about positive press, not all coverage. nt

[peace13]

12. That's fine . He was absent in entirety. Even worse.

When Ohio had it's primary I was talking to some Dems about Bernie being an option. They didn't even know he was running. The point is that the issue is worse than positive press. It is the complete elimination of certain individuals. Not good by any stretch of imagination.

[Adrahil]

21. Never heard a word about one them?

Did you actually watch cable news or read any political websites? I couldn't round a corner without hearing about Bernie's YUGE crowds.

[Pastiche423]

16. No, it disagrees with reality.

[Scootaloo]

3. Which isn't saying an awful lot

Also, the study only looks at 2015. So it misses out on all that lovely "SANDERS IS A RACIST SCHEMING JOO WHO FAKED HIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVITIES!" that started kicking up in February, especially from the WaPo.

There's also this:


Basically it amounts to "Sanders' proportion of coverage in 2015 had a higher percentage of positive coverage. But he got far less coverage overall and most of it was still negative."

[all american girl]

4. An yet it's amazing she won with all that negativity. Love it!!!! The democrats

can see through the bullshit of the media.

[Scootaloo]

10. Well, the bullshit pertaining to their favored candidate, anyway

Even to the point of assuming anything they dislike is bullshit.

And yes, I'm looking both ways.

[HumanityExperiment]

5. facts

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/politics/bernie-sanders-media/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-bernie-sanders-evolved-from-fringe-candidate-to-contender/

[Lucinda]

7. Yep. n/t

[floriduck]

9. From the Shorenstein Study, the source of the article:

The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.

I guess if you watched CNN or MSNBC, this can be easily disputed. I can't speak to Fox News since I don't go near there. Not sure where they're basing this claim. Hillary's coverage was likely related to her email/server situation.

[Duckko]

13. Anti-Hillary content was much more than emails

Fake Clinton Foundation scandals, Comments about how inauthentic she allegedly is, comments about her loud voice, which pundits consider annoying. Fake scandals about her speeches, the cherry picking of polls where Sanders was ahead, etc.

[George Eliot]

14. Anybody who believes that has been out of the country.

Did they count Hillary's personal MSNBC network? I'm laughing this is so ridiculous. Well, as we all know, you can prove anything you wish if you know where to look for facts and how to manipulate the data.

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. Well considering he lost this thing in March his ego

should be really stoked at the attention he craves and got. I am just #berndout from his "look at me I'm over here" hysterics.

[Vattel]

17. The study is only talking about coverage prior to the first primary.

The trashing of Bernie by the media really took off during the primaries.

Also any story about Bernie gaining ground was counted as positive for Bernie and negative for her. That kind of measure really doesn't capture very well who was subjected to more unfair treatment.

Also, the study does show that the media ignored Bernie early on, and that hurt him a lot.

The media bias against Bernie once the primaries got going was obvious to any neutral observer. No rational human being could read the Post or listen to MSNBC, for example, and think that Bernie was being treated more sympathetically than Hillary.

[Vattel]

19. you are mistaken

[HereSince1628]

20. Yes, seconds of favorable coverage it for every minute given Trump

of course that depends on the meaning of favorable.

I suppose calling a person a quixotic longshot is more favorable than the being callrf a gun loving white guy out of touch with life in anything but rural states.

[GreatGazoo]

22. misleading headline -- study was PRE primary coverage only, mostly 2015

And the study confirms what many have believed:

1. the MSM pimped Trump even when his numbers weren't there.

The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls.

2. Democrats other than Hillary "largely ignored"

The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored

3. MSM no help to Bernie.

Less coverage of the Democratic side worked against Bernie Sanders’ efforts to make inroads on Clinton’s support. Sanders struggled to get badly needed press attention in the early going. With almost no money or national name recognition, he needed news coverage if he was to gain traction. His poll standing at the beginning of 2015 was barely more than that of the other lagging Democratic contenders, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did.

4. MSM changed tone of coverage, mentioned Sanders' stand on issues in only 7% of coverage and turned decidedly negative by the end of 2015.



http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

[Overseas]

23. Do you mean in the 6 minutes he got on mainstream TV news?