![]() ![]() ![]() This is even more important to note in 2020, when Sanders has, in fact, widened his base of support significantly from 2016. As evidenced by the “Bernie bro” narrative in 2016, we often hear that Sanders is unelectable because his base of support is too narrow. One of the most obvious examples of anti-Bernie bias has been the tendency to undercut his base of support. Here are five types of anti-Bernie media bias to watch out for: So, even if his coverage starts to be on par with his support, given the history of Sanders coverage, there is reason to expect that media coverage will be biased against him and in favor of the establishment elite. And it won’t matter if we get more stories about him, if those stories insist on suggesting that his so-called radical policy plans make him unelectable. It won’t matter that we hear more about the rising tide of Sanders supporters, if they continue to be described as entitled, white dudes. It won’t be enough to have more coverage of his campaign, if that coverage still skews to supporting the establishment elite. But will the end of the Bernie Blackout mean the end of anti-Bernie bias? It should come as a huge relief to the Sanders campaign and his supporters that he is now, finally, being taken seriously in the media and being given the credit his campaign deserves. The Hill also recently ran a piece claiming that Joe Biden and Sanders are now the clear top two contenders. Politico quotes a series of Democratic insiders claiming that “Bernie could win the nomination.” According to The New York Times, Sanders is tough to beat. Recent pieces in both Politico and The New York Times offer evidence that Sanders should be considered a serious contender. Jeet Heer, writing for The Nation, points out that the mainstream media and establishment Democrats are finally admitting that Sanders has a shot. In fact, it now seems that the Bernie Blackout may be waning. Going into the 2020 campaign many of the same habits were in place. And who could forget the “Bernie Bros” narrative, which Glenn Greenwald described for the Intercept as a cheap pro-Clinton campaign tactic “masquerading as journalism and social activism”? Perhaps one of the most noteworthy came after an October 2015 debate between Clinton and Sanders where Sanders won every poll, yet, as Lee Camp pointed out on Redacted Tonight, CNN reported that Clinton had won the debate anyway. Because, even though the Harvard study offered the positive news that, on those occasions when Sanders got coverage, he “was the most favorably reported candidate,” there were multiple examples of biased coverage of his campaign. Data like this led to what Sanders supporters describe as the “Bernie Blackout.”īut it was worse. Hillary Clinton got three times more press than Sanders. They found that Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson each received more coverage than Sanders did during 2015. A 2015 study of what is referred to as the “invisible primary” conducted by the Harvard Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that Sanders was given disproportionately less news coverage. oligarchy, and its preference for stories that cover political scandals over policy.Īll of these criticisms came to a head, though, during his 2016 campaign, when data showed that the Sanders campaign was covered differently from that of other candidates. press, its tendency to avoid covering stories that reveal U.S. ![]() Well before his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders had a history of critiquing the corporate ownership of the U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has had a longstanding feud with corporate news media. McClennen to help make her work possible. Right here, right now, you can make a contribution to Sophia A. If you value Salon's original reporting and commentary, we urge you to support it - by supporting our writers directly. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |