There are numbers that support Sanders’ lower coverage relative to polling numbers compared to Biden and Warren in the 2020 primaries. It’s not a massive gap and by itself it doesn’t prove anything (disproportionate coverage of a front-running former vice president might be expected; disproportionate coverage of the perhaps-first-female-president might also be). But that’s haggling over what the difference means, not saying there is no reality to the difference. @anon15383236 linked to an article already with some numbers.
But it’s more some of the headlines I’ve seen that seem actually impossible. Like one CNN headline that Buttigieg and Warren were in striking distance of Biden next to a poll showing Sanders in second. I don’t think they let interns write headlines and even if they did I’ve never met someone “sloppy” enough to forget that 2 is a number. If you think I sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, I feel like a crazy conspiracy theorist. But I look at CNN and I can’t unsee what I see.
If you’re talking about the California poll graphic, as I reported upthread if you click through to the story it is very pro-Bernie, not indicative of a news organization trying to rubbish a candidate.
People at the Northeastern School of Journalism have been trying to track the data in real time, and the real story so far seems to be that the coverage has been sexist (as of course it was during the 2016 general):
It’s every damn headline about the Dem primaries on CNN. Sanders is either not mentioned at all or he’s listed last or disparaged. mostly, they pretend he doesn’t exist.
I see your “no walls” and give you “trying to learn things like math, chemistry, or a frickin’ second language while there are literal jackhammers outside your classroom.”
Then they wondered why there was an entire cohort of us who got good at ignoring the teacher and teaching ourselves out of books.
“No walls” for me was split-classes where my ADHD allowed me to hide the fact I had ADHD.
No, not that one. The headline I remember that galled me was “Warren and Buttigieg in striking distance of Biden” (Sanders was in second). In looking for it I just found “Warren leads in Iowa as Biden fade, Buttigieg surges” (Sanders in second again).
I’ve found stories in Vox and Salon (and some publications I don’t recognize) that acknowledge there has been an issue with less news coverage, referencing a Harvard study. The Vox article also refers to specific headlines (about crowd size at a state fair of all things).
I don’t think that there is a smoke filled room with a cabal directing the “mainstream media”. But I also find everyone saying Bezos has no influence over editorial direction at the Washington Post pretty credulous. I don’t think media editorial direction is completely independent of corporate ownership, I don’t see how I could. It sounds a lot like saying, “It’s fine if a few billionaires own all the news sources.” It’s not fine.
I believe there are non-nefarious explanations for the difference in coverage (e.g. Vox suggests that a media that likes a horse race just has no interest in a person who stays consistently in second). But some of the headlines were made by people who decided not to put Sanders’ name in a headline, knowing that most people who see their story will read only the headline. Whether they did this because they personally don’t want Sanders to win, because they don’t think their owners like coverage of Sanders, because they think Sanders is boring or whatever, I really can’t read them without seeing a clear decision.
If that’s what you’re saying then we’re not much in disagreement.
The thing about Bernie is that he’s been pretty consistent in manner and positions for decades, so he doesn’t seem very newsworthy. That in turn doesn’t make for the kind of headlines the papers like. That’s not necessarily a bad thing: it hurts lesser-known candidates (like Booker this cycle), but Sanders now has name penetration, and if you think back to all of Clinton’s headlines in the last cycle they were not exactly great for her.
Buttigieg is in the news more than he deserves for the same reason newsrooms like to run stories about dogs that can play Jenga.
Wait, does she think that is a good thing? And what the hell does that mean, anyway? “Second to the president” should, in plain English, mean “less than.” Less than zero is, like, negative experience. In what possible twisted universe is this a good thing? Sigh, stupid timeline.
Biden: I’m the smart, affable guy who has tons of experience and knows enough about the world to be president, unlike this lunatic idiot clown over here.
Option 1: Biden is deeply stupid, and is unfit to be trusted with a sharp knife, let alone political office.
Option 2: Biden knows that he’s spouting utter bullshit, but doesn’t care because his own policy preferences do not actually differ significantly from McConnell’s.
A party that nominates a man like Biden deserves to lose.
I’ve seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn’t believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don’t want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.
— Harry S. Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action (17 May 1952)
No no no, it’s a stutter, you see. Biden was once afflicted with a terrible stutter. So if you point out gaffes by him, you’re discriminating against stutterers! You see.
I won’t attack or mock his stutter, because I think it’s not right to attack a disability, because the splash damage is too great. Given the number of other fronts Biden has left himself open on, there’s also no need.
He may have stuttered. He also may not know the difference or care. It may be all three. It’s fair to call this out, especially if there isn’t any sign of stuttering being the reason (pauses, repetitions, stumbles, etc.). It’s fair to see how he answers. What isn’t fair is pointing and laughing because he can’t get words right the first try, or has an odd cadence. That doesn’t absolve him of the need to clarify. If he didn’t, that’s a problem.
