Media bias against Bernie Sanders

Various media outlets have raised concerns that the mainstream media in the United States have made a concerted effort to downplay, underreport, or ignore the popularity of Bernie Sanders, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Accusations have ranged from explicit media bias, journalistic malpractice, and distortions of information and data. Alternative media such as Rising with the Hill’s Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, Common Dreams, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, prominent YouTubepolitical commentators, among others have published articles, videos, and reports discussing what they see as an alleged media bias against Bernie Sanders. Online communities on websites such as Twitter and Reddit have played a role in documenting what they see as bias in reporting as well. The campaign runs its own media platforms such as the online newsletter Bern Notice, the Hear the Bern podcast, a channel on Twitch, as well as Twitter and Facebook—many of which discuss media bias and what they call the Bernie Blackout.

Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the concentration of media ownership, profit-driven special interests, manufacturing consent and the propaganda model, general media propaganda, conflicts of interests, and agenda-setting theory. The most prominent media organizations being accused of bias have been MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Many of the media organizations have responded to the criticisms in various ways through rebuttals, criticism, and analysis. Various studies have been done in an effort to document statistical data in regard to news coverage of presidential candidates.

First discussed during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, responses to the outcome gave rise to accusations of conspiracies about rigging of the primary election—most notably from the DNC leaked emails leading to investigations, public apologies, and resignations of DNC officials. Further discussions have arisen since Sanders’ announcement for his 2020 campaign echoing similar themes from 2016.

Legitimacy of the bias has been called into question by some political commentators.

Contents

2016 primary campaign

See also: 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign

On April 28, 2015, Vermont Public Radio reported that Sanders would announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on April 30.[1] In an interview with USA Today on April 29, Sanders stated that he was “running in this election to win,” and launched a campaign website, effectively beginning his run.[2] Sanders said he was motivated to enter the race by what he termed “obscene levels” of income disparity, and the campaign finance system.[3] On May 26, 2015, Sanders officially announced his candidacy at Burlington’s Waterfront Park.[4] In an interview with National Review‘s Jamie Weinstein,[note 1] MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders’ presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that “you’re not covering this” and “you’re not covering Bernie Sanders”.[5][6] 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC.

Early campaign months

In an analysis by Jim Naureckas from FAIR using the Nexis database calculated the number of mentions of Sanders versus Donald Trump from July 1, 2015 to August 21, 2015. The following data table summarizes the results.[7]

News SourcePercent
New York Times49%
Washington Post40%
Wall Street Journal22%
USA Today32%
LA Times26%
ABC News16%
CBS News20%
NBC News15%
MSNBC67%
Fox News53%
NPR39%
PBS News Hour56%

In October 2015, Story Hinckley of the The Christian Science Monitor published an article discussing what he called a “near-blackout from major TV news sources”. He indicated that at the time, Sanders was polling high and bringing in significant donations, yet the mainstream media was giving insufficient coverage of the campaign.[8] Chris Weigant from HuffPost opined in September that Sanders was receiving little media coverage as well.[9] Media Matters for America reported that media networks were overwhelmingly covering Hillary Clinton’s email controversy, while ignoring Sanders.[10] In a study of campaign coverage conducted by Andrew Tyndall, ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race. 338 minutes were devoted to the Republican race, 128 minute to the Democratic race, and a total of 8 minutes devoted to Bernie Sanders (compared to 145 minutes for Trump, 82 minutes for Clinton, 83 minutes for Clinton’s email controversy, and 43 minutes to Jeb Bush).[9]

Later campaign months

In an article published by FAIR, Adam Johnson documented that the Washington Post ran 16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a period of 16 hours, all of which were presented, “in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he’s a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women.”[11][12][13]

The New York Times was called out when they retroactively made significant changes to an article about Bernie Sanders’ legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.[14][15] The article was originally title “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors”[16] but was subsequently changed to “Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories.”[17]The wordings in the revised article was subtly changed to switch it from having a praiseful tone to a more ambivalent tone on Sanders’s record, and a few paragraphs were added.[18] Margaret Sullivan at the New York Times opined that the changes were clear examples of “stealth editing” and that, “The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders’s legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later.”[19] Katie Halper from FAIR noted in response to a defense of the changes that, “In its original form, the article didn’t cast enough doubt on Sanders’ viability and ability to govern, in other words.”[14]

Harvard Kennedy School report

In June 2016, a report was released by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy that documented systemic media bias of candidate campaign coverage for the 2016 presidential primaries.[20] The report found 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. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.

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.

Patterson stated that,

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.

PBS Frontline reported on the study calling it “journalistic bias” having lead to, “over-coverage of the Donald Trump campaign and under-coverage of Democratic candidates, in particular Sen. Bernie Sanders.”[21]

Colleen Elizabeth Kelly contends in her book A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump that Sanders was both right and wrong in his critique of the medias bias. Sanders considered the bias to be both quantitative and qualitative as the corporate media was, “inherently bias against the slate of issues his revolution embraced”. Kelly details the Harvard study indicating that the media was explicitly bias against him at first, but that his later drop was due to his performance in the debates.[22]

DNC email leak

Main article: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

Between June and July 2016, hackers acquired and released over 19,000 email exchanges of the Democratic National Convention. In regards to Sanders, the leak revealed that the DNC was in violation of their stated neutrality.[23] In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[24] The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the national party committee’s stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage.”[25] The controversy resulted in an apology to Sanders[26] by the DNC and the resignation of the CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda.[27]

2020 primary campaign

See also: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign

February

Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine opined that, like in 2016 with Washington Post’s 16 negative posts about Bernie in 16 hours report by FAIR, the 48 hours of Sanders declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author. Jennifer Rubin immediately criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate upon which the next day he reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator’s success in what Ryan called, “a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier.”[28]

July

MSNBC analyst Mimi Rocah proclaimed that Bernie Sanders, “made her skin crawl” suggesting to viewers that he was not a pro-women candidate.[13][29] This directly contrasted the data from Pew that showed that Sanders polls highest among women.[30][31]

Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll reporting, distortions of graphics, as well as outright lying.[32] In her article, she starts with an MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53%, Sanders at 49%, and Warren and Kamala at 48%. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being in second numerically. On May 24, Chuck Todd of Meet The Press reported a Quinnipiac Poll that found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27% polling with white voters and Biden at 25%. The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28%; a three point difference not in accordance with the poll. In a segment by Rachel Maddow on April 29, she showed a graphic with candidates leading with female donations. Kirsten Gillibrand was highest at 52% with women while Sanders was at the bottom at 33%. Maddow failed to mention that the data was only based on donations of $200 or more.[32] The data was taken from an open secrets report[33] that made it clear that the report focused only on large donations.[34] Sanders first quarter reported that 46% of his donations were from women.[32] Lastly, Halper documented the MSNBC analyst Zerlina Maxwell claiming that Sanders, “did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech” in his kickoff speech. She later retracted her statement when she realized that he mentioned within the first five minutes.[32] Glen Greenwald from The Intercept detailed the occurrence and considered it a blatant lie stating,[35]

Indeed, as is almost always true for MSNBC, all of these pleas that they correct their false claim have been steadfastly ignored — no correction issued — because, as I’ve repeatedly documented, lying about adversaries of the Democratic establishment is not merely tolerated or permitted at MSNBC, but is encouraged and rewarded. That’s why they purposely had the very first person to comment on Sanders’s kickoff campaign speech be a paid Clinton 2016 campaign official highly embittered toward Sanders, and it’s why MSNBC does not correct lies no matter how loudly, clearly, or indisputably you document those lies to them.

August

Sanders along with various members of his campaign have spoken out directly about the media bias. After Sanders led the movement to pressure Amazon to pay its employees $15 an hour, “I talk about [Amazon’s taxes] all of the time… 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.”[36] According to CNN, Sanders said, “We have pointed out over and over again that Amazon made $10 billion in profits last year. You know how much they paid in taxes? You got it, zero! Any wonder why The Washington Post is not one of my great supporters, I wonder why?” He added, “New York Times not much better”. An executive editor of Washington Post stated in response, “Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest.”[37]

Other political commentators purported that Sanders’ comments were akin to Trumps such as that of Senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny when he tweeted, “Bernie Sanders sounds a lot like President Donald Trump as he trashes Amazon.” Poppy Harlow in a later CNN segment stated, “This seems like a really dangerous line, continued accusations against the media with no basis in fact or evidence provided”. [38] Around the same time as the lashback, Sanders campaign Faiz Shakir told CNN,[39]

In about, you know, a minute or so or two minutes or so you’re going to cut to commercial breaks and you’re going to see some pharmaceutical ads. You’re going to see a lot of ads that are basically paying your bills and the bills of the entire media enterprise. And what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure that you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas.

Sanders responded to the entire discourse in the end by stating,

So this is not into conspiracy theory. We are taking on corporate America. Large corporations own the media in America, by and large, and I think there is a framework, about how the corporate media focuses on politics. That is my concern. It’s not that Jeff Bezos is on the phone every day; he’s not.

Sanders went on to write in an email to his donors,

It is no shock to me that the big networks and news organizations, which are owned and controlled by a handful of large corporations, either barely discuss our campaign or write us off when they do.

When we trail in a poll, it gets endless coverage.

When a poll is great for us, it barely gets a mention.

When someone out-raises us in fundraising, it’s non-stop news.

When we have the most donations by far, of any other candidate, here comes the coverage about who has the most ‘crossover donors,’ whatever that means.

We’ve said from the start that we will have to take on virtually the entire media establishment in this campaign, and so far that has proven to be true.

Chris Cillizza from CNN opined that Sanders and Shakir,[40]

have zero evidence to back up these big claims is beside the point for many supporters of the independent senator from Vermont. They believe deeply in Sanders and see anyone who disagrees with them as a corporate shill or part of the Big Bad Establishment.

Which is their right. But it doesn’t make these claims true.

Domenico Montanaro from NPR opined that, “the remark [by Sanders] sounded an awful lot like the kind of criticism leveled by someone else” indicating that Sanders mimicked Trump’s criticism of the media. However, in the same interview where Bernie Sanders criticized The Washington Post, he explicitly stated that Trump was undermining American democracy and that, “There are some really great articles out there, like investigations, which we use, so I don’t think media is fake news.”[41]

Kevin Gosztola, managing editor of Shadowproof, compiled evidence that purported to document The Washington Post’s explicit bias against Sanders. He framed his discussion around Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky‘s book Manufacturing Consent whereby the authors explicitly state that establishment commentary use evasive tactics to avoid criticism such as proclaiming detractors construct conspiracy theories.[38] Gosztola contends that the entire controversy between Sanders and his campaign with the mainstream media fits well within Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model of manufacturing consent. He goes onto list numerous occasions where the Washington Post explicitly distorts, misconstrues, and lies about Bernie Sanders.[38]

October

Sanders underwent a surgical procedure due to a heart attack he had on the campaign trail. During this time, media coverage of the event was accused of over-focusing on his health in relation to electability.[citation needed]

One segment from CNN where Sanders discussed his health, it showed severe coloration editing to the video interview in which it made Sanders appear to be “Beetroot” red-purple in what Alan Macleod from MintPress News said, “suggested serious ill-health”.[13] The Associated Press video was significantly clearer and unedited as compared to the CNN footage.[13]

November

Alan Macleod of Mintpress News published an article documenting the various methods in which the mainstream media was attempting to, according to Macleod, “undermine Bernie Sanders and his egalitarian message”.[13] He documents that both The Washington Post and CNN had both engaged in “fact checking as a weapon”.[13] He cites claims from the Post that insinuated Sanders was lying about the state of the economy as well as income inequality numbers, both of which were found to be correct.[13]

Notably, the Post claimed Bernie had lied about his average donation dollar amount of $27 dollars.[13] Philip Bump from The Washington Post opined that his numbers were fraudulent finding that the numbers were actually $27.89.[13] The Post added an editors note after criticism.[42]

CNN also published fact-check pieces indicating that Sanders was lying about US healthcare spending numbers[43] despite claiming the exact same data in an article prior.[44][13]

Macleod also noted the digital editing and “visual tricks” used in graphic reporting. A November 4 poll showed that Sanders lead in first place at 21% in New Hampshire with Warren in 2nd place at 18%. The CNN headline read, “NO CLEAR LEADER” despite Bernie in the lead. In one report, CNN used the same graphic but switched the names with Warren at 21% and Sanders at 18%.[13] MSNBC also engaged in misplacing the order of candidates despite differing poll numbers.[13]

New Hampshire polling reports

In early November, Sanders saw an increase in polls for New Hampshire. During that period, media reports were accused of inaccurately reporting the polls. Sanders’ speechwriter David Sirota stated on Twitter,

In the last week, we’ve seen a wave of polls showing a genuine Bernie Surge. We’ve also seen a genuinely ridiculous attempt by many media folk to ignore and derail that surge with cartoonishly inaccurate reporting on the polls with the Bernie Blackout.

He also wrote in the campaign’s Bern Notice newsletter,[45]

In the last week, a wave of polls has emerged showing a genuine, full-on Bernie surge — but you might not know that if you tuned into cable TV or read the headlines from the national press corps. In fact, you might not even know Bernie is running for president.

As Bernie gains big momentum heading into the final 100 days until the Iowa caucuses, we see that the divide between The Actual Polls and The Media’s Manufactured Narrative is getting wider. In fact, the situation has gotten so obvious and laughable that The Onion decided to call it out and lampoon it…

Sirota went on to list three different examples of misreporting of poll numbers by CNN and the New York Times as well as outlining several news article headlines that left Sanders’ name out despite his lead in the polls.[45] Ryan Grim from The Intercept noted similar headlines on his Twitter feed on October 29.[46][45] One headline read: “Buttigieg in fourth, but a strong fourth” which was subsequently commented on and mocked by journalist Krystal Ball from The Hill.[47] Common Dreams detailed the controversy after it unfolded.[48] The headline at the satirical newspaper, The Onion, that Sirota referenced was entitled “MSNBC Poll Finds Support For Bernie Sanders Has Plummeted 2 Points Up,” poking fun at the alleged media bias. This was not the first time the Onion wrote a satirical piece about the Sanders campaign, as in October, Sanders jokingly shared the satirical article “Bernie Sanders Holds Secret Campaign Meeting With 15,000 Working-Class Democratic Donors” on his Twitter feed.[49]

In These Times analysis

In November 2019, the Chicago news publisher In These Times published an in-depth article analyzing the coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019.[50][29]The focused primarily on Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden. The analysis covered The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, All In with Chris Hayes, The Beat with Ari Melber, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell and The Rachel Maddow Show while categorizing positive, neutral, and negative discussion of the candidates. The analysis found that Sanders was discussed less than a third of the time that Biden was discussed (36% for Sanders compared to 43% for Warren and 64% Biden). As for positive and negative mentions, 12.9% were positive towards Sanders, while 20.7% were negative—the most likely of the three. Most of the negative mentions came from Hardball and the 11th Hour.[50]

The analysis found numerous inaccurate claims made by various political commentators. Chris Matthews claimed that African Americans were leaving Sanders for Warren despite a Pew Research Poll finding that the Sanders campaign was the least white of the leading candidates, whereas Warrens was the most white. During the analysis period, Sanders had released eight detailed plans for America, of which only one was discussed by Chris Hayes. Almost all the coverage discussed polls.[50]

Criticism of accusations of bias

Various commentators have responded, criticized, or offered explanations of the various accusations of media bias.

Politico put forth the idea that the bias may be an artifact of Sanders propensity to turn down interviews and press gaggles. Sanders has admitted that he does not feel that the media wants to focus on what he considers as important. He said on NBC that, “When the poor get richer and the rich get poorer, when all of our people have health care as a right, when we are leading the world in the fight against climate change, you know what? I will change what I am saying.”[51] Dan Pfeiffer of Politico questioned the effectiveness of critiquing the media coverage by the press over the Sanders campaign. “Unfortunately for the Sanders campaign, the press too often considers complaints from the left as validation of their objectivity and complaints from the right as something worth addressing to prove their objectivity” Pfeiffer said when comparing the accusations with the technique of the right-wing having, “unbelievable success working the refs by calling the mainstream media biased against them”.[51]

Vox proposed a similar explanation stating that the “media circus” is not something that Sanders and his campaign prefer to participate in. They also contend that the media may find his position in the polls and his popularity as “boring” because it “doesn’t fit into the horserace” like some of their other candidates campaigns do.[52]

The Washington Post has had mixed responses from various journalists. Marty Baron called the accusations a conspiracy,[53] whereas Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that Sanders was making a smart case of media bias that was uniquely different from Trump’s explicit criticism; indicating that,[54]

…the gatekeepers of established opinion no longer hold as much sway, when new forms of communication and independent media challenge the old. It’s not surprising that the corporate media gives Sanders bad press. Thankfully, though, that matters less and less.

A controversy arose between the Sanders campaign and the Post in late August concerning fact-checking. The Post gave Sanders “Three Pinocchios” (meaning mostly false) for his claim on medical debt. Sanders has consistently maintained that, “500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills”. Journalists disputed the article’s finding and said that the claim was true. The Post then claimed that the paper was not peer-reviewed. Upon inspection it was found that the paper was peer reviewed.[55] Paul Heintz of the Post suggested that Sanders’ solution to his concern about media bias would be complete, verbatim coverage of his pronouncements.[56]

Emma Specter at Vogue doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. However, she listed several examples of bias and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as slightly unfair.[57]

Domenico Montanaro of NPR claimed that Sanders sounded like Trump in his criticism of the media, quoting Trump’s tweet, “…[T]he failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements – and they will never change!”[41] In 2015, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR responded to an influx of emails regarding a “Morning Edition” segment. Communities on Reddit encouraged readers to copy and paste a message to NPR by email stating that, “There IS Another Democratic Candidate For President Besides Hillary Clinton, And His Name is Bernie Sanders” in response to the segment discussing Biden’s possible run. Jensen said that she does not “find that NPR has been slighting his campaign. In the last two days alone, NPR has covered the Democrats’ climate change stances and reactions to the Republican debate and Sanders has been well in the mix.”[58] NPR’s media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders in April 2016 by stating that some of the unbalanced coverage came from Sander’s scheduling compared to Clinton’s and that NPR saw a Sanders win as a “long shot” due to Clinton’s strong name recognition in comparison.[59]

In March 2019, a preliminary study by Northeastern University‘s School of Journalism found that Sanders was receiving the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the Democratic primary, while an expanded, updated analysis in April placed him third out of eight candidates;[60] a further update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders’s positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.[61]

Notes

  1. ^ The interview has since been redacted on the National Review website. (See Episode 55: Ed Schultz. National Review April 13, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2019. Archived at WayBack Machine on 2018-04-14.)

References

  1. ^ Murray, Mark (April 30, 2015). “Bernie Sanders to Announce Presidential Bid on Thursday”. NBC. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
  2. ^ Kelly, Erin (April 30, 2015). “Bernie Sanders: ‘I am running in this election to win'”. USA Today.
  3. ^ Gram, Dave (April 30, 2015). “Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: ‘I am running for president'”. Yahoo! News. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
  4. ^ “Video: Bernie Sanders announces run for president”. The Burlington Free Press. May 26, 2015. Archived from the original on July 1, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
  5. ^ Becket Adams (April 17, 2018). “Former MSNBC host says network ‘in the tank’ for Hillary Clinton”. Washington Examiner.
  6. ^ Rutz, David (April 16, 2018). “Ed Schultz: MSNBC Fired Me for Supporting Bernie Sanders, ‘They Were in the Tank for Hillary Clinton'”. Washington Free Beacon.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b Jim Naureckas (August 21, 2015), Two Candidates Surge in 2016 Polling—but Only Trump, Not Sanders, Fascinates Media, FAIR
  8. ^ Story Hinckley (October 1, 2015), “Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he tops polls?”, The Christian Science Monitor
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b Chris Weigant (September 30, 2015), Bernie Don’t Get No Respect From Media, HuffPost
  10. ^ Eric Boehlert (September 24, 2015), Network Newscasts’ Campaign Priorities: Obsess Over Clinton Emails, Virtually Ignore Sanders, Media Matters for America
  11. ^ Adam Johnson (March 8, 2016), Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours, FAIR
  12. ^ Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours, Democracy Now!, March 11, 2016
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l Alan Macleod (November 5, 2019), #Bernieblackout: The Media Isn’t Even Hiding Its Anti-Bernie Bias Anymore, MintPress News
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Katie Halper (June 28, 2019), Sydney Ember’s Secret Sources, FAIR
  15. ^ Felix Hamborg, Norman Meuschke, Akiko Aizawa, & Bela Gipp. (2017) Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles. In: Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science(ISI 2017). Humbolt-Universität Zu Berlin. https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2098/hamborg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  16. ^ Jennifer Steinhauer (March 14, 2016), “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors”, The New York Times
  17. ^ Jennifer Steinhauer (March 14, 2016), “Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories”, The New York Times
  18. ^ The Broken Ravioli (March 14, 2016), Proof That The New York Times Isn’t Feeling the Bern, Medium
  19. ^ Margaret Sullivan (March 17, 2019), “Were Changes to Sanders Article ‘Stealth Editing’?”, The New York Times
  20. ^ Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
  21. ^ Sarah Childress (July 12, 2016), Study: Election Coverage Skewed By “Journalistic Bias”, PBS Frontline
  22. ^ Colleen Elizabeth Kelly (February 19, 2018), A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, pp. 6–7, ISBN 978-1-4985-6458-8
  23. ^ Blake, Aaron (July 24, 2016). “Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails”. The Washington Post.
  24. ^ Shear, Michael (July 22, 2016). “Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign”. The New York Times.
  25. ^ Blake, Aaron (July 24, 2016). “Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails”. The Washington Post.
  26. ^ “Democratic National Committee apologizes to Sanders over emails”. Reuters. July 25, 2016.
  27. ^ “DNC CEO resigns in wake of email controversy”. CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2016.
  28. ^ Shane Ryan (February 21, 2019), “The Washington Post, Picking Up Where They Left Off in 2016, Runs Four Negative Bernie Sanders Stories in Two Days”, Paste
  29. ^ Jump up to:a b Luke Savage (November 20, 2019), The Corporate Media’s War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real, Jacobin
  30. ^ Louis Staples (August 19, 2019), The Bernie Bro is dead – but people are still trying to resurrect him, Independent
  31. ^ Most Democrats Are Excited by ‘Several’ 2020 Candidates – Not Just Their Top Choice, Pew Research Center, August 16, 2019
  32. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Katie Halper (July 26, 2019), MSNBC’s Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math, FAIR
  33. ^ Grace Haley (April 29, 2019), Who are women donors putting their money behind? Not just the Democratic women., OpenSecrets
  34. ^ David (May 4, 2019), MSNBC Misreports Data, Shortchanges Bernie Sanders, Front Page Politics
  35. ^ Glenn Greenwald (March 3, 2019), MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About Bernie Sanders’s Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them, The Intercept
  36. ^ Travis Irvine (September 3, 2019), Media’s Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling, Columbia Free Press
  37. ^ Morgan Gstalter (August 13, 2019), Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a ‘conspiracy theory’, The Hill
  38. ^ Jump up to:a b c Kevin Gosztola (August 13, 2019), The Washington Post’s Well-Documented Bias Against Bernie Sanders, Medium
  39. ^ Reliable Sources. July 28, 2019. CNN. President Trump’s Pattern of Racist Tweets; Mueller hearings Reinforced America’s Media Bunkers.
  40. ^ Chris Cillizza (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders isn’t sorry, CNN
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b Domenico Montanaro (August 13, 2019), Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon — This Time Pulling In ‘The Washington Post’, NPR
  42. ^ Philip Bump (April 18, 2019), “Bernie Sanders keeps saying his average donation is $27, but his own numbers contradict that”, The Washington Post
  43. ^ Daniel Dale (August 10, 2019), Fact check: Bernie Sanders has made the same false claim about health spending for 10 years, CNN
  44. ^ Tami Luhby (January 8, 2019), US spends twice as much on health care as its peers, CNN
  45. ^ Jump up to:a b c David Sirota (November 4, 2019), BERN NOTICE: The Bernie Surge — And The Media’s Attempt to Ignore & Derail It, Bern Notice
  46. ^ @ryangrim (October 29, 2019). “CNN has five articles up about its new NH poll that shows Sanders in front, yet none of the five say that in the headline” (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  47. ^ Krystal Ball (November 4, 2019), Krystal Ball rips ‘utterly embarrassing’ CNN report comparing Buttigieg to Obama, The Hill
  48. ^ Jake Johnson (November 5, 2019), As Examples Mount, Sanders Campaign Accuses Corporate Media of ‘Deliberate Attempt to Erase Bernie’, Common Dreams
  49. ^ John Bowden (October 29, 2019), Sanders responds to Onion article about him: ‘No one was supposed to find out’, The Hill
  50. ^ Jump up to:a b c Branco Marcetic (November 3, 2019), “MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders”, In These Times
  51. ^ Jump up to:a b Michael Calderone (July 15, 2019), Sanders campaign: Media ‘find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness’, Politico
  52. ^ Tara Golshan (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained, Vox
  53. ^ Michael Calderone (August 13, 2019), Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders’ ‘conspiracy theory’, Politico
  54. ^ Katrina vanden Heuvel (August 20, 2019), “Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media bias”, The Washington Post
  55. ^ Tim Dickinson (August 29, 2019), “The Washington Post’s Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something”, Rolling Stone
  56. ^ Paul Heintz (February 26, 2019). “I’ve reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won’t give him what he wants”. The Washington Post.
  57. ^ Emma Specter (November 8, 2019), “Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren’t More People Talking About Him?”, Vogue
  58. ^ Elizabeth Jensen (August 7, 2015), Feelin’ The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR’s Coverage, NPR
  59. ^ Mitch Wertlieb & Kathleen Masterson (April 1, 2016), ‘Bernie Bias’ In The News? NPR’s Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques, VPR
  60. ^ Frandsen, Alexander; Bajak, Aleszu (April 24, 2019), Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media, Storybench
  61. ^ Bajak, Aleszu (September 30, 2019), Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months, Storybench

External links

(This article was reproduced from Wikipedia due to being in risk of deletion there)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders