Misplaced Pages

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:17, 5 January 2020 editSashiRolls (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,634 editsm Journalistic analyses: remove slash← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:49, 27 October 2024 edit undoSelvydra (talk | contribs)392 edits Evidence to the contrary 
(639 intermediate revisions by 99 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}} <!-- "none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive; see ] -->
{{Use American English|date=January 2020}} {{use American English|date=January 2020}}
{{short description|Media bias controversy about 2020 US Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2020}} {{use mdy dates|date=January 2020}}
] ] in November 2019]]
'''Media coverage of Bernie Sanders''' became an object of study during the ] in the ]. Quantitative studies augmented by software evaluating qualitative article slant (positive or negative) have agreed that overall Sanders received coverage proportional to his polling and that within that set of articles his coverage was more often positive than Hillary Clinton's coverage was.<ref name=":1">{{cite book|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|title=Identity Crisis|author1=John Sides|author2=Michael Tesler|author3=Lynn Vavreck|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2018|isbn=978-0-691-17419-8|location=|pages=8, 99, 104-107|language=en|access-date=December 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191114214823/https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|archive-date=November 14, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Patterson2">{{citation|author=Thomas E. Patterson|title=News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/|access-date=January 3, 2020|date=July 11, 2016|quote=or the first time at any stage of the campaign, Clinton’s press was favorable on balance, though narrowly. Of the news statements with a clear tone, 51 percent were positive and 49 percent were negative. It was also the first time in the campaign that Sanders’ press tilted toward the negative. Positive statements about his candidacy were outweighed by the negative ones—46 percent to 54 percent.}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{citation|author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump|date=February 19, 2018|pages=6-7|location=Lanham, Maryland|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8}}</ref> Negative media campaigns were led, as in previous ], this time by a super-PAC called ]<ref name="Weaver" /><ref name="Brock" /> and a foreign operator called the ].<ref name=SubvertTime>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-trump-election-timeline.html |title=A Timeline Showing the Full Scale of Russia's Unprecedented Interference in the 2016 Election, and Its Aftermath |first1=Karen |last1=Yourish |first2=Larry |last2=Buchanan |first3=Derek |last3=Watkins |date=20 September 2018 |website=] |access-date=20 September 2018|quote=The Internet Research Agency instructs workers to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).}}</ref>


The '''media coverage of Bernie Sanders''', a ] from ], became a subject of discussion during his unsuccessful ] and ] presidential runs. His campaigns, some independent observers, as well as some media sources have said that the ] in the United States is biased against Sanders. Others say that coverage is unbiased or biased in his favor. The allegations of ] primarily concern the coverage of his presidential campaigns.
During the ], Sanders renewed his criticism of the culture of corporate media with a "plan for journalism" meant to curb the consolidation of media he sees as responsible for the paucity of substance on network news.<ref name="CJR" /> Stories were written about journalists at MSNBC distorting data in July<ref name="Halper2019-07">{{citation |url=https://fair.org/home/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-makes-it-forget-how-to-do-math/ |title=MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math |author=Katie Halper |publisher=FAIR |date=July 26, 2019 |access-date=December 1, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109071726/https://fair.org/home/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-makes-it-forget-how-to-do-math/ |archive-date=November 9, 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":6">{{citation|author=Glenn Greenwald|title=MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About Bernie Sanders's Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them|date=March 3, 2019|url=https://theintercept.com/2019/03/03/msnbc-yet-again-broadcasts-blatant-lies-this-time-about-bernie-sanders-opening-speech-and-refuses-to-correct-them/|publisher=The Intercept|access-date=December 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191117204648/https://theintercept.com/2019/03/03/msnbc-yet-again-broadcasts-blatant-lies-this-time-about-bernie-sanders-opening-speech-and-refuses-to-correct-them/|archive-date=November 17, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> and many more appeared after Sanders wondered (aloud at rallies in August) whether the ''Washington Post'' covered him fairly when he encouraged taxing ''Post''-owner Jeff Bezos' main company, ], more heavily.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fair.org/home/heres-the-evidence-corporate-media-say-is-missing-of-wapo-bias-against-sanders/|title=Here's the Evidence Corporate Media Say Is Missing of WaPo Bias Against Sanders|last=Hollar|first=Julie|date=August 15, 2019|website=FAIR|url-status=live|accessdate=December 11, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191121050931/https://fair.org/home/heres-the-evidence-corporate-media-say-is-missing-of-wapo-bias-against-sanders/|archive-date=November 21, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post|title=Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'|last=Montanaro|first=Dominico|date=August 13, 2019|publisher=NPR|url-status=live|accessdate=December 11, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127104040/https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post|archive-date=November 27, 2019}}</ref> These allegations of bias were widely discounted as conspiratorial,<ref name=":7">{{citation|author=Morgan Gstalter|title=Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory'|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457191-washington-post-editor-calls-sanders-claim-about-campaign-coverage-conspiracy|publisher=The Hill|access-date=December 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191130155203/https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457191-washington-post-editor-calls-sanders-claim-about-campaign-coverage-conspiracy|archive-date=November 30, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> though dissenting voices were heard, in the ''Post'' itself.<ref>{{Citation|author=Katrina vanden Heuvel|title=Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media bias|date=August 20, 2019|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/20/bernie-sanders-has-smart-critique-corporate-media-bias/|work=The Washington Post}}</ref> A quantitative study of qualitative coverage by ]'s School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.<ref name=":8">{{citation|last1=Frandsen|first1=Alexander|title=Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media|date=April 24, 2019|url=https://www.storybench.org/women-on-the-2020-campaign-trail-are-being-treated-more-negatively-by-the-media/|publisher=Storybench|last2=Bajak|first2=Aleszu|access-date=December 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191007181949/http://www.storybench.org/women-on-the-2020-campaign-trail-are-being-treated-more-negatively-by-the-media/|archive-date=October 7, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{citation|last=Bajak|first=Aleszu|title=Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months|date=September 30, 2019|url=https://www.storybench.org/gabbard-booker-and-biden-get-most-negative-media-coverage-over-last-four-months/|publisher=Storybench|access-date=December 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191204151803/https://www.storybench.org/gabbard-booker-and-biden-get-most-negative-media-coverage-over-last-four-months/|archive-date=December 4, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>
== Background==
Sanders is a self-styled ]<ref name="vox._Bern">{{cite web| title = Bernie Sanders's definition of democratic socialism, explained| first = Tara| last = Golshan| work = Vox| date = June 12, 2019| accessdate = December 4, 2019| url = https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/12/18661708/bernie-sanders-definition-democratic-socialism-explained| quote = A democratic socialist is one of the leading candidates in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191102034905/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/12/18661708/bernie-sanders-definition-democratic-socialism-explained| archive-date = November 2, 2019| url-status = live}}</ref> and the longest serving ] in U.S. congressional history, having avoided party affiliation<ref name="poli_IsBe">{{cite web | title = Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat? | last = Qiu | first = Linda | work = PolitiFact | date = February 23, 2016 | accessdate = December 4, 2019 | url = https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/ | quote = "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat," he said in a 1985 New England Monthly profile, according to Politico. | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191205075233/https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/ | archive-date = December 5, 2019 | url-status = live}}</ref> throughout his political career. In the U.S. ], Sanders is ideologically closer to the ],<ref name="poli_IsBe"/> which considers itself primarily ranging from centrist to liberal and even ], depending on regional political landscape. While serving in the Congress, Sanders has ]ed with the Democrats,<ref name="poli_IsBe"/> which has made him eligible for participation in ]s as if he were a member of the Democratic Party. In addition, Sanders received support from Democratic party organizations in Vermont<ref name="poli_IsBe"/> as well as from the ], which also endorses some Democratic candidates in the state.


A study of the 2016 election found that the amount of media coverage of Sanders during 2015 exceeded his standing in the polls; it was however strongly correlated with his ] performance over the course of the whole campaign.<ref name="Sides">{{cite book|author1=John Sides|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|title=Identity Crisis|author2=Michael Tesler|author3=Lynn Vavreck|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2018|isbn=978-0-691-17419-8|pages=8, 99, 104–107|access-date=December 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191114214823/https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|archive-date=November 14, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> On average, research shows that Sanders received substantially less media coverage than ] ] ], but that the tone of his coverage was more favorable than that of any other candidate.<ref name="Sides"/><ref name="Patterson2"/> During the 2016 election, the media provided substantially more coverage of the ] than the ], as ] candidate ] dominated media coverage.<ref name="Patterson2"/>
In November 2015, David Brock, the founder of ] set up a Delaware company to buy '']'' and turn it into a vehicle for the Clinton campaign. According to ], the blog was "a comfortable venue for negative Sanders stories that Brock wasn’t successful in placing with mainstream news outlets like '']'' and '']''".<ref name="Grove">{{cite web|website=Daily Beast|author=Lloyd Grove|date=March 7, 2016|title=Hillary Clinton’s Hit Men Target Bernie Sanders at Blue Nation Review|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clintons-hit-men-target-bernie-sanders-at-blue-nation-review}}</ref> In 2017, Brock apologized to Bernie Sanders for his aggressive support of Clinton during the 2016 campaign,<ref name="CampStews">{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/05/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2020-1203218|title=Clinton camp stews over Sanders 2020 campaign|author=Holly Otterbein|date=March 5, 2019|work=Politico|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191112061441/https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/05/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2020-1203218|archive-date=November 12, 2019|access-date=December 29, 2019|quote=Both on the record and on background, on Twitter and on cable television, Clinton’s former aides and allies are taking pains to lay out what they see as all of Sanders’s flaws, imperfections and vulnerabilities}}</ref><ref name="BrockSpeaks">{{cite web|url=https://medium.com/@DavidBrock/dear-senator-sanders-im-with-you-in-the-fight-ahead-ffd42ae989bb|title=Dear Senator Sanders: I’m with You in the Fight Ahead|author=David Brock|date=January 10, 2017|website=Medium|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191229171222/https://medium.com/@DavidBrock/dear-senator-sanders-im-with-you-in-the-fight-ahead-ffd42ae989bb|archive-date=December 29, 2019|access-date=December 29, 2019}}</ref> but in 2019 was criticizing him again in '']'' for having given Trump talking points.<ref name="Brock2019">{{cite news|publisher=NBC News|author=David Brock|date=January 3, 2019|title=Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-fans-can-t-be-allowed-poison-another-democratic-ncna953976|access-date=December 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127095716/https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-fans-can-t-be-allowed-poison-another-democratic-ncna953976|archive-date=November 27, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>


During the ], Sanders, his campaign and his supporters again criticized the media for being biased. Sanders suggested that '']'' gave him unfair coverage because Sanders had encouraged taxing ''The Washington Post''<nowiki/>'s owner ]'s main company, ], more heavily.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post|title=Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'|author=Dominico Montanaro|date=August 13, 2019|publisher=NPR|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127104040/https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post|archive-date=November 27, 2019}}</ref> The executive editor of the ''Washington Post'' rejected Sanders's suggestion, describing it as a "]" and stating that Bezos "allows our newsroom to operate with full independence."<ref name=":7">{{citation|author=Morgan Gstalter|title=Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory'|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457191-washington-post-editor-calls-sanders-claim-about-campaign-coverage-conspiracy|work=The Hill|access-date=December 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191130155203/https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457191-washington-post-editor-calls-sanders-claim-about-campaign-coverage-conspiracy|archive-date=November 30, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> In the following election in 2024, Bezos did reportedly intervene by preventing the ''Post'''s Editorial Board from publishing a drafted endorsement of the then-Democratic Party nominee.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Mangan |first1=Dan |title=Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/25/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-.html |access-date=27 October 2024 |work=CNBC |date=25 October 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Roig-Franzia |first1=Manuel |last2=Wagner |first2=Laura |title=The Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate for president |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washington-post-endorsement-president/ |access-date=27 October 2024 |work=The Washington Post |date=25 October 2024}}</ref>
== 2016 primary campaign ==
{{See also|2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign}}
]


== Background==
=== Academic analyses ===
Writing in 2005, Sanders identified corporate media coverage of political issues as a subject on which he felt he needed to take a position.<ref>{{cite book|author=Bernie Sanders|chapter=Why Americans Should Take Back the Media|title=The Future of Media: Resistance and Reform in the 21st Century|editor1=Robert McChesney|editor-link1=Robert W. McChesney|editor2=Russell Newman|editor3=Ben Scott|editor-link3=Ben Scott (policy advisor)|publisher=]|year=2005|isbn=978-1-58322-679-7|oclc=57574152}}</ref>
A 2018 book co-written by three political scientists said that the amount of news coverage he received exceeded his share in the national polls at that time. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that Sanders "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog."<ref name=":1" />


Despite a strong performance in some states, Sanders failed the ] with his opponent Clinton winning the nomination by June 2016. After the election, he released a campaign book which devoted a chapter to media issues. He wrote that while national media did not cover his visits to poverty-stricken areas of the country, local media did. He also raised issue with the consequences of corporations like ], ], and ] owning media conglomerates for media coverage of issues like taxation and trans-national ]s.<ref name="BS_OR">{{cite book|author=Bernie Sanders|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bu-dDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA420|chapter=Corporate Media and the Threat to Our Democracy|title=Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In|title-link = Our Revolution (Sanders book)|publisher=]|year=2016|isbn=978-1-250-13292-5|oclc=1026148801|page=}}</ref>
In her 2018 book, Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Bitecofer|first=Rachel|year=2018|title=The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election|url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7|publisher=Palgrave|pages=36–38, 48|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7}}</ref> Both Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias of ''Vox'' made the same point in the days after Sanders won the Wisconsin primary, arguing that the media was biased in favor of Sanders because it had a vested commercial interest in exaggerating how close the race was in the weeks prior to the NY primary.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11377008/wisconsin-results-sanders-delegate|title=After Wisconsin, Sanders is worse off than ever in the delegate race|last=Yglesias|first=Matthew|date=April 6, 2016|website=Vox|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref><ref name="twobiases" /> Bitecofer found that Trump received more media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.<ref name=":12" />


== Academic analyses ==
A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School ] on Media, Politics, and Public Policy analyzed the media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.<ref name="Patterson1" /> The report found Trump received more coverage than any other candidate, with the Democratic race getting "less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Regarding Sanders, the analysis found that his campaign was "largely ignored in the early months" of the campaign when he was barely ahead of the other Democratic candidates, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb, in the polls. Once he began to get coverage, it was "overwhelmingly positive in tone". Sanders had the most positive coverage in 2015 of any candidate and Clinton had the least: "in 11 of the 12 months, her "bad news" outpaced her "good news, usually by a wide margin"<ref name="Patterson1">{{citation|author=Thomas E. Patterson|title=Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|access-date=December 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127095707/https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|archive-date=November 27, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> '']'', for example, ran 291 negative stories and 39 positive ones about Clinton. Sanders fared better, with 79 positive and 31 negative stories.<ref name="n-decosta-klipa 20162">{{cite web|url=https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media|title=This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media|author=n-decosta-klipa|date=June 14, 2016|website=Boston Globe|access-date=December 6, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Shorenstein Center 20162">{{cite web|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|title=Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle|date=June 13, 2016|website=Shorenstein Center|access-date=December 6, 2019}}</ref>
A 2018 book by political scientists ], Michael Tesler and ] found that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."<ref name="Sides"/> They write that "Sanders's appeal, like Trump's, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage."<ref name="Sides"/> Furthermore, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."<ref name="Sides"/>


Thomas Patterson of the Harvard Kennedy School ] on Media, Politics, and Public Policy wrote a report in June 2016 analyzing the media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.<ref>{{cite news|work=Frontline|publisher=]|title=Study: Election Coverage Skewed By "Journalistic Bias"|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/study-election-coverage-skewed-by-journalistic-bias/|author=Sarah Childress}}</ref> During 2015, the Democratic race received less than half as much news coverage as the Republican race did. The Sanders campaign was "largely ignored in the early months" and "until the pre-primary debates", but that once he did begin to get coverage in 2015, it was "overwhelmingly positive in tone". However, the study contended that the increase in coverage did not happen "at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year."<ref name="Patterson1">{{citation|author=Thomas E. Patterson|title=Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump's Rise, Sanders' Emergence, Clinton's Struggle|date=June 13, 2016|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|access-date=December 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127095707/https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|archive-date=November 27, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="n-decosta-klipa 20162">{{cite web|url=https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media|title=This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media|author=Nikolas Decosta-Klipa|date=June 14, 2016|website=Boston Globe|access-date=December 6, 2019}}</ref>
In her book, Colleen Elizabeth Kelly cited the Shorenstein Center report to say that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage similar to their eventual primary results, until Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias. Right, because the media was too little interested in the Democratic primary to give him the coverage he needed early, and wrong, because, on average, Sanders's coverage, though initially scant, was more often positive than any other candidate's coverage prior to voting.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump|date=February 19, 2018|pages=6-7|location=Lanham, Maryland|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8}}</ref>


In her 2018 book ''The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election'', ] wrote that the Democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, but that the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was "heating up" at that time.<ref name="Bitecofer">{{cite book|author=Rachel Bitecofer|year=2018|title=The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election|publisher=Palgrave|pages=36–38, 48|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7|isbn=978-3-319-61975-0}}</ref> Bitecofer found that Trump received more media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.<ref name="Bitecofer"/>
John Sides found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was consistent with his polling and that the press he was getting was more favorable than Clinton's.<ref name=":02">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really.|last=Sides|first=John|year=2015}}</ref> Jonathan Stray, a computational journalism researcher at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for ] in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders got coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2016/01/how-much-influence-does-the-media-really-have-over-elections-digging-into-the-data/|title=How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data|website=Nieman Lab|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref>


In her book ''A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump'', Colleen Elizabeth Kelly said that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias, citing the Shorenstein Center report on the media's outsized coverage of the Republican primary, but noting that Sanders' coverage was the most favorable of any candidate.<ref name="Kelley">{{citation|author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump|date=February 19, 2018|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qZhIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26|location=Lanham, Maryland|publisher=Lexington Books|isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8}}</ref>{{rp|6–7}}
=== Journalistic analyses ===
In 2015, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR responded to an influx of emails regarding a "Morning Edition" segment. 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."<ref>{{Citation|author=Elizabeth Jensen|title=Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage|date=August 7, 2015|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2015/08/07/430363570/feelin-the-bern-sanders-devotees-speak-out-about-nprs-coverage|publisher=NPR}}</ref> NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders in April 2016 saying that Sanders had appeared three times on NPR whereas Clinton had only done so once, that media outlets saw a Sanders win as a "long shot" early in the campaign, and that by April 2016, she appeared very likely to win the nomination.<ref>{{Citation|author=Mitch Wertlieb & Kathleen Masterson|title='Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques|date=April 1, 2016|url=https://www.vpr.org/post/bernie-bias-news-nprs-media-correspondent-responds-your-critiques#stream/0|publisher=VPR}}</ref>


Early in the primary, John Sides found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was consistent with his polling and that the press he was getting was more favorable than Clinton's.<ref name=":02">{{cite news|last=Sides|first=John|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/is-the-media-biased-against-bernie-sanders-not-really/|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really.|date=September 2015|work=Monkey Cage|publisher=The Washington Post}}</ref> Jonathan Stray, a computational journalism researcher at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for ] in January 2016 that "at least online" Sanders got coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.niemanlab.org/2016/01/how-much-influence-does-the-media-really-have-over-elections-digging-into-the-data/|title=How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data|author=Jonathan Stray|website=Nieman Lab|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref>
In September 2015, Huffpost reported that ] had sent one of their journalists email with ] and ] meant to help the writer tie Sanders to ] and ].<ref name="Weaver">{{cite book|publisher=Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press|date=2018|author=Jeff Weaver|chapter=1. Hillary Clinton's Super PAC Correct the Record and its Paid Trolls|title=How Bernie Won: Inside the Revolution That's Taking Back Our Country}}</ref><ref name="Brock">{{cite web|work=Huffington Post|author1=Samantha Lachman|author2=Ryan Grim|title=A Pro-Clinton Super PAC Is Going Negative On Bernie Sanders|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-jeremy-corbyn_n_55f73339e4b00e2cd5e79e11|date=September 14, 2015}}</ref>


A 2019 study by ]'s School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.<ref name=":8">{{citation|author1=Alexander Frandsen|title=Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media|date=April 24, 2019|url=https://www.storybench.org/women-on-the-2020-campaign-trail-are-being-treated-more-negatively-by-the-media/|publisher=Storybench|author2=Aleszu Bajak|access-date=December 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191007181949/http://www.storybench.org/women-on-the-2020-campaign-trail-are-being-treated-more-negatively-by-the-media/|archive-date=October 7, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{citation|author=Aleszu Bajak|title=Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months|date=September 30, 2019|url=https://www.storybench.org/gabbard-booker-and-biden-get-most-negative-media-coverage-over-last-four-months/|publisher=Storybench|access-date=December 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191204151803/https://www.storybench.org/gabbard-booker-and-biden-get-most-negative-media-coverage-over-last-four-months/|archive-date=December 4, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>
In the same month, ], public editor of the ''New York Times,'' wrote that she had received many complaints from readers about purported bias against Sanders. She responded that the ''Times'' had given roughly the same amount of articles dedicated to Sanders as they did to similarly-polling Republican candidates (barring Donald Trump), while conceding that some of the articles written were "fluff" and "regrettably dismissive".<ref name="sultimes2">{{cite web|url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/has-the-times-dismissed-bernie-sanders/|title=Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?|last1=Sullivan|first1=Margaret|date=September 9, 2015|website=The New York Times|accessdate=December 16, 2019}}</ref> Later in the month, as the campaign gained some steam, ''The Washington Post'' wrote, "Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bernie-sanders-is-plotting-his-path-to-the-democratic-nomination/2015/09/11/08ddb472-573c-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html|title=How Bernie Sanders is plotting his path to the Democratic nomination|work=The Washington Post|year=2015}}</ref>


== 2016 primary campaign ==
In October 2015, Story Hinckley of the '']'' said there was "near-blackout from major TV news sources" about the Sanders campaign, despite Sanders polling high and bringing in significant donations.<ref>{{Citation|author=Story Hinckley|title=Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he tops polls?|date=October 1, 2015|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1001/Bernie-who-Why-does-TV-media-ignore-Sanders-even-as-he-tops-polls|work=The Christian Science Monitor}}</ref> Brock's ] reported on a September 2015 study by Andrew Tyndall, which showed '']'', '']'', and '']'' devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race (338 to Republicans, 128 minutes to Democrats, of which 8 minutes were about Sanders).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mediamatters.org/nbc/network-newscasts-campaign-priorities-obsess-over-clinton-emails-virtually-ignore-sanders?redirect_source=/blog/2015/09/24/network-newscasts-campaign-priorities-obsess-ov/205767|title=Network Newscasts' Campaign Priorities: Obsess Over Clinton Emails, Virtually Ignore Sanders|last1=Boehlert|first1=Eric|date=September 24, 2015|website=Media Matters for America|accessdate=December 4, 2019}}</ref> Pointing to online polls contradicting media pundits assessment of the October debate, Bernie Sanders supporters complained of media bias without assessing the unreliability of online polling.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/bernie-won-polls-not-the-debate-hillary-won-the-debate.html|title=Yes, Bernie Won Every Poll on the Internet. Hillary Still Won the Debate.|last=Voorhees|first=Josh|date=October 15, 2015|website=Slate|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref>
{{see also|2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign}}
]
In August 2015, Elizabeth Jensen, the ] for ], responded to an influx of emails to NPR regarding a '']'' segment. Jensen said that she does not "find that NPR has been slighting" Sanders' campaign and added, "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."<ref>{{citation|author=Elizabeth Jensen|title=Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage|date=August 7, 2015|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2015/08/07/430363570/feelin-the-bern-sanders-devotees-speak-out-about-nprs-coverage|publisher=NPR}}</ref>


In the following month, ], public editor of '']'', wrote that she had received many complaints from readers about purported bias against Sanders. She responded that ''The New York Times'' had given roughly the same amount of articles dedicated to Sanders as they did to similarly polling Republican candidates (barring Donald Trump), while conceding that some of the articles written were "fluff" and "regrettably dismissive".<ref name="sultimes2">{{cite web|url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/has-the-times-dismissed-bernie-sanders/|title=Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?|last1=Sullivan|first1=Margaret|date=September 9, 2015|website=The New York Times|access-date=December 16, 2019}}</ref> Later in the month, '']'' wrote that "Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bernie-sanders-is-plotting-his-path-to-the-democratic-nomination/2015/09/11/08ddb472-573c-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html|title=How Bernie Sanders is plotting his path to the Democratic nomination|newspaper=The Washington Post|author=Philip Rucker|author2=John Wagner|date=September 11, 2015}}</ref>
In January 2016, Claire Malone from ] said that Sanders was not the subject of a "media blackout," as he had just reached a 30% share of coverage. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/bernie-538-tk|title=Has There Been A Bernie Sanders Blackout? &#124; On the Media|website=WNYC Studios|quote=And now he's sort of edged up into 30% of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's not not there.}}</ref> ] predicted in the same month that "the political and media establishment" would become increasingly hostile towards Sanders as the chances of him winning the Democratic primary increased.<ref name="seven2">{{cite website|url=https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/|title=The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition|author=Glenn Greenwald|date=January 21, 2016|website=The Intercept}}</ref>


In January 2016, Claire Malone from '']'' rejected notions that Sanders was the subject of a "media blackout", saying he received 30 percent of coverage in the Democratic primary at that time.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/bernie-538-tk|title=Has There Been A Bernie Sanders Blackout? |website=On the Media |publisher=WNYC|quote=And now he's sort of edged up into 30% of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's {{not a typo|not| not}} there.}}</ref> That same month, '']'' reported that Sanders aides had accused ], a Clinton ally, of ],<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/22/bernie-sanders-communist-sympathiser-hillary-clinton-us-election-2016|author=Dan Roberts|date=January 22, 2016|title=Sanders smeared as communist sympathiser as Clinton allies sling mud}}</ref> after Brock spoke to the press about one of Sanders' campaign ads, suggesting that "it seems black lives don't matter to Bernie Sanders."<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Las Vegas Sun|url-status=dead|date=January 21, 2016|url=http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/21/clinton-ally-says-sanders-slights-minorities-in-ne/|title=Clinton ally says Sanders slights minorities in new ad|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160124055030/http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/21/clinton-ally-says-sanders-slights-minorities-in-ne/|archive-date=January 24, 2016|access-date=January 27, 2020}}</ref> Despite this characterization, the ad "elicited very positive responses when it was shown to a representative sample of Americans."<ref name="Sides"/>{{rp|110}} Asked by Jay Newton-Small of '']'' in February if he was "fighting an asymmetrical war against ," Brock commented that "we do opposition research, but we haven't leveled any false accusations against Senator Sanders and we won't."<ref>{{cite magazine|magazine=Time|title=Q&A: David Brock on Attacking Bernie Sanders|url=https://time.com/4214020/david-brock-correct-record-media-matters-hillary-clinton/|date=February 24, 2016|author=Jay Newton-Small}}</ref>
On March 8, the day of the ] primary, in an article published by ], Adam Johnson documented that the ''Washington Post'' ran 16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period between a "crucial" debate and primary, all of which were allegedly presented "in a negative light, mainly by advancing the narrative that he was a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women."<ref>{{citation |url=https://fair.org/home/Washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ |title=Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours |first=Adam |last=Johnson |publisher=FAIR |date=March 8, 2016 |access-date=December 2, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191202230614/https://fair.org/home/Washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/ |archive-date=December 2, 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{citation |url=https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/headlines/washington_post_runs_16_anti_sanders_ads_in_16_hours |title=Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours |publisher=Democracy Now! |date=March 11, 2016 |access-date=December 1, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191202230559/https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/headlines/washington_post_runs_16_anti_sanders_ads_in_16_hours |archive-date=December 2, 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> The ''Washington Post''{{'}}s Callum Borchers responded, saying that all the stories with the exception of two were commentary and analysis pieces. Of the two news articles, one was an Associated Press wire story, and the other was about the Sanders campaign's struggle to connect with African-American primary voters in 2016 and its implications for 2020.<ref name="WaPoFAIR">{{cite news|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=March 8, 2016|first=Callum|last=Borchers|title=Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/has-the-washington-post-been-too-hard-on-bernie-sanders-this-week/|access-date=December 4, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191204030137/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/has-the-washington-post-been-too-hard-on-bernie-sanders-this-week/|archive-date=December 4, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> After the Michigan primary had passed, Borchers said that''The Washington Post'' ran 16 stories which presented Sanders in a positive light.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/now-the-washington-post-ran-16-positive-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/|title=Now The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours! #bias|year=2016|work=The Washington Post|access-date=December 13, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191204014543/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/now-the-washington-post-ran-16-positive-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/|archive-date=December 4, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Johnson replied by mocking the idea of the ''Washington Post'' investigating itself for bias.<ref>{{cite website|url=https://fair.org/home/shocker-wapo-investigates-itself-for-anti-sanders-bias-finds-there-was-none/|title=Shocker: WaPo Investigates Itself for Anti-Sanders Bias, Finds There Was None|date=March 9, 2016|website=Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|first=Adam|last=Johnson|access-date=December 13, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191017023847/https://fair.org/home/shocker-wapo-investigates-itself-for-anti-sanders-bias-finds-there-was-none/|archive-date=October 17, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>


] (FAIR) wrote that between 10:20&nbsp;p.m. Sunday, March 6, to 3:54&nbsp;p.m. Monday, March 7, a period of about 16 hours, that ''The Washington Post'' ran 16 negative articles on Sanders.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/| author=Adam Johnson| title=Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours| publisher=FAIR| date=March 8, 2016}}</ref> Of the 16 articles examined by FAIR, two were opinion articles; one was a story originating from the Associated Press; and 12 were blogs stories in which the writers are required to include "commentary and analysis". FAIR's criteria for identifying an article as negative or positive was viewed as "overly broad" by the Post.<ref name=Borchers-160308>{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/has-the-washington-post-been-too-hard-on-bernie-sanders-this-week/ | title=Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week? | newspaper=] | date=March 8, 2016 | access-date=February 27, 2020 | first=Callum | last=Borchers}}</ref>
From March 15 – May 3, according to researcher Thomas Patterson, the Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61:39. For the first time in the campaign, Clinton's press was positive (51:49) and Sander's press was negative (46:54).<ref name="Patterson2" />


According to researcher Thomas Patterson, the Republican/Democratic primary coverage split from March 15 to May 3 was 64–36 and the Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61–39.<ref name="Patterson2"/> Patterson ascribes this difference to "the influence of 'electability' on reporting," rather than on ] numbers. This period was the first time in the campaign that Clinton's press was marginally positive, and Sanders's press was slightly negative.<ref name="Patterson2">{{citation|author=Thomas E. Patterson|title=News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences|date=July 11, 2016|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/|quote=The press did not heavily cover the candidates' policy positions, their personal and leadership characteristics, their private and public histories, background information on election issues, or group commitments for and by the candidates. Such topics accounted for roughly a tenth of the primary coverage.<br/>Over the course of the primary season, Sanders received only two-thirds of the coverage afforded Clinton. Sanders' coverage trailed Clinton's in every week of the primary season. |access-date=January 3, 2020}}</ref>
The ''New York Times'' was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to a March 15, 2016 article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.<ref name="Halper2019-062">{{Citation|author=Katie Halper|title=Sydney Ember's Secret Sources|date=June 28, 2019|url=https://fair.org/home/sidney-embers-secret-sources/|publisher=FAIR}}</ref><ref>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</ref> In addition to the revised title, several negative paragraphs were added.<ref>{{Citation|author=Matt Taibbi|title=How the ‘New York Times’ Sandbagged Bernie Sanders|date=March 15, 2016|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-189129/|work=Rolling Stone}}</ref> In 2019, Margaret Sullivan, public editor at the ''NY Times'', wrote 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 Sanders' legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later."<ref>{{Citation|author=Margaret Sullivan|title=Were Changes to Sanders Article ‘Stealth Editing’?|date=March 17, 2019|url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/|work=The New York Times}}</ref>
At the end of the month, Alex Seitz-Wald reported in ] that David Brock had filed three complaints with the ] against the Sanders' campaign through his ]. Seitz-Wald said it marked the first time this group had initiated action against a Democrat and that it was unlikely to lead to any result given the FEC's structural deadlock.<ref name="BrockADLF" >{{cite web|publisher=MSNBC|date=March 30, 2016|author=Alex Seitz-Wald|title=David Brock group hits Bernie Sanders with ethics complaints|url=http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/david-brock-group-hits-bernie-sanders-ethics-complaints|quote=These kinds of complaints often go nowhere, and sometimes are used more to generate news coverage than actual enforcement action.}}</ref>


In '']'', ] criticized ''The New York Times'' for retroactively making online changes to a March 15, 2016 article about Sanders's legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.<ref>{{cite conference|author1=Felix Hamborg|author2=Norman Meuschke|author3=Akiko Aizawa|author4=Bela Gipp|date=2017|chapter=Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles|title=Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces|veditors=Gäde M, Trkulja V, Petras V|conference=Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017)|location=Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin|chapter-url=https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/2098/hamborg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y|pages=225–226}}</ref> In addition to rewording the title, several paragraphs were added.<ref>{{cite magazine|author=Matt Taibbi|title=How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders|date=March 15, 2016|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-189129/|magazine=Rolling Stone}}</ref> In 2019, Margaret Sullivan, public editor at ''The New York Times'', characterized the changes as "stealth editing" and added 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 Sanders' legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later."<ref>{{cite news|author=Margaret Sullivan|title=Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?|date=March 17, 2019|url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref>
After Sanders' win in the ] primary in early April, Ezra Klein wrote, in ], that the press was interested in making the race seem closer (more exciting) than it actually was.<ref name="twobiases">{{cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11378858/sanders-media-bias|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?|last1=Klein|first1=Ezra|date=April 7, 2016|work=Vox|accessdate=December 9, 2019|quote=Sanders's win in Wisconsin, given the state's demographics, didn't imply that the race has changed in ways that put him on track for the nomination. If anything, Tuesday was a night when he fell a bit further behind in the delegate race.}}</ref> Leading into the April 19 New York primary, ], at the time a senior columnist at ''NY Daily News'', reported that members of the paper's editorial board "were surprised by the furor" surrounding their interview of Bernie Sanders, which Gonzalez said was "largely fueled by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates."<ref>{{cite web|title=Juan González: Clinton Has “Really Distorted” What Happened When NY Daily News Interviewed Sanders|work=Democracy Now|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/15/juan_gonzalez_clinton_has_really_distorted|date=April 15, 2016|quote=everal members of the editorial board told me that they were surprised by the furor that developed afterwards, which was largely fueled by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates, who began to spread word through social media and others, pointing to what they believe were these huge errors of Senator Sanders.}}</ref> ] co-host ] reviewed some of that negative press just prior to the last debate between the two candidates.<ref>{{cite web|title=Juan González Was at Bernie Sanders’ NY Daily News Editorial Board Meeting. What Really Happened?|url=https://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/6/juan_gonzalez_was_at_bernie_sanders|work=Democracy Now|date=April 6, 2016|quote=What did Ryan Grim write in ''The Huffington Post''? 'A notion is rapidly crystallizing among the national media that Bernie Sanders majorly bungled an interview with the editorial board of the New York Daily News.' }}</ref>


In April 2016, NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders saying that Sanders had appeared three times on NPR whereas Clinton had only done so once, that media outlets saw a Sanders win as a "long shot" early in the campaign, and that by April 2016, she appeared very likely to win the nomination.<ref>{{citation|author=Mitch Wertlieb|author2=Kathleen Masterson|title='Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques|date=April 1, 2016|url=https://www.vpr.org/post/bernie-bias-news-nprs-media-correspondent-responds-your-critiques#stream/0|publisher=VPR}}</ref> The same month, ] and ] of '']'' wrote the media was biased in favor of Sanders because Clinton's lead was becoming increasingly insurmountable, yet the media had a vested commercial interest in exaggerating how close the race was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11377008/wisconsin-results-sanders-delegate|title=After Wisconsin, Sanders is worse off than ever in the delegate race|author=Matthew Yglesias|date=April 6, 2016|website=Vox|access-date=December 9, 2019}}</ref><ref name="twobiases">{{cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11378858/sanders-media-bias|title=Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?|author=Ezra Klein|date=April 7, 2016|work=Vox|access-date=December 9, 2019|quote=Sanders's win in Wisconsin, given the state's demographics, didn't imply that the race has changed in ways that put him on track for the nomination. If anything, Tuesday was a night when he fell a bit further behind in the delegate race.}}</ref>
Sanders found support early from '']'', which in turn grew rapidly due to the untapped market for coverage of the Sanders campaign.<ref>{{cite news|title=No #Bernieblackout here: Sanders rides a surge of alternative media|work=Los Angeles Times|author=Evan Halper|url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-12/sanders-and-the-left-media|date=December 12, 2019|quote=The Sanders campaign and “The Young Turks” fed off each other. As the fledgling network paid him more attention, its audience grew.}}</ref>


== 2020 primary campaign == == 2020 primary campaign ==
{{See also|2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign}} {{see also|2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign}}


===2019===
In February 2019, Shane Ryan (]) reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch, the ''Washington Post'' had published four opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist ]. Ryan described the common themes in these columns as a "manufactured narrative" that Sanders' time had—as one of the columnists put it—"come and gone".<ref name=":5">{{citation |url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/02/the-washington-post-picking-up-where-they-left-off.html |title=The Washington Post, Picking Up Where They Left Off in 2016, Runs Four Negative Bernie Sanders Stories in Two Days |author=Shane Ryan |work=Paste |date=February 21, 2019 |accessdate=January 2, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191021215308/https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/02/the-washington-post-picking-up-where-they-left-off.html |archive-date=October 21, 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> One week later, Paul Heintz opined in the '' Post'' that "the way the senator sees it, the job of a journalist is merely to transcribe his diatribes unchallenged and broadcast his sermons unfiltered".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/|title=I’ve reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won't give him what he wants.|author=Paul Heintz|date=February 26, 2019|work=The Washington Post}}</ref>
According to a March 2019 analysis by ]'s School of Journalism, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary. An updated analysis in April after more candidates had entered the field placed him third out of eight candidates;<ref name=":8"/> a further update for June to September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.<ref name=":9"/>


In April 2019, Sanders wrote to the board of the ] in response to a video produced by their former media outlet ]. The video mocked him for becoming a millionaire after writing a book about his 2016 election run.<ref>{{cite news|title=The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist|author1=Elizabeth Williamson|date=April 15, 2019|newspaper=The New York Times|author2=Kenneth P. Vogel}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-candidates.html|title=Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates|author=Kenneth P. Vogel|date=April 14, 2019|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=December 29, 2019|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191203030122/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-candidates.html|archive-date=December 3, 2019|author2=Sydney Ember|quote= wrote: 'Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.'}}</ref> The article based on the video was later emended to remove references about Sanders' physical appearance.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thinkprogress.org/how-off-brand-bernie-sanders-is-barely-a-millionaire-653da838c44c/|title=Bernie Sanders is a millionaire|date=10 April 2019|website=ThinkProgress}}</ref> The following month, '']'' published a feature article on Sanders's income which described him as "rich" and "cheap".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982|title=The Secret of Bernie's Millions|date=24 May 2019|website=Politico|author=Michael Kruse}}</ref> ''Politico'' was criticized by the ].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/politico-accused-of-anti-semitism-over-bernie-sanders-illustration-tweet/|title=Politico accused of anti-Semitism over Bernie Sanders illustration, tweet|last=Oster|first=Marcy|website=www.timesofisrael.com|language=en-US|access-date=2020-02-28}}</ref>
According to a March 2019 analysis by ]'s School of Journalism, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary. An updated analysis in April placed him third out of eight candidates;<ref name=":8" /> a further update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.<ref name=":9" />
In April 2019, Sanders wrote to the board of the ] in response to a video produced by their former media outlet ]. The video mocked him for becoming a millionaire after writing a book about his 2016 election run.<ref>{{cite news|title=The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist|author1=Elizabeth Williamson|date=April 15, 2019|newspaper=The New York Times|author2=Kenneth P. Vogel|quote=Mr. Sanders, angry about a video produced by ThinkProgress that ridicules his new status as one of the millionaires he has vilified on the campaign trail, sent a scorching letter to the center’s board, accusing Ms. Tanden of "maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas."}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-candidates.html|title=Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates|author=Kenneth P. Vogel|date=April 14, 2019|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=December 29, 2019|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191203030122/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-candidates.html|archive-date=December 3, 2019|author2=Sydney Ember|quote= wrote: 'Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.'}}</ref>


In August 2019, Sanders said that '']'' did not "write particularly good articles" about him and suggested that it was because he frequently mentioned that ], ''The Washington Post''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s parent company, did not pay taxes.<ref name="Calderone" /> ], executive editor of ''The Washington Post,'' responded, "Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, ] allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."<ref name="Calderone">{{citation|author=Michael Calderone|title=Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders' "conspiracy theory"|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/washington-post-editor-attacks-bernie-sanders-conspiracy-theory-1460597|work=Politico}}</ref>
In June 2019, Katie Halper, writing for FAIR, reported that a ''New York Times'' reporter was citing lobbyists—like Mary Anne Marsh—and paid political consultants—like Tracy Sefl—without properly describing their conflicts of interest in 2019.<ref name="Halper2019-062" /> The following month, Halper documented a number of cases where media selectively reported poll numbers and distorted graphics.<ref name="Halper2019-07"/>


In July 2019, '']'' put forth the idea that the Sanders campaign's perception of bias may be an artifact of Sanders propensity to decline informal interviews at "press gaggles" after events and his reluctance to focus on breaking news.<ref name="Calderone2019-072">{{Citation|author=Michael Calderone|title=Sanders campaign: Media ‘find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness’|date=July 15, 2019|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-media-reject-1415832|work=Politico}}</ref> In November 2019, Emma Specter at '']'' doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. She also listed several examples of limited coverage of his policy proposals and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as being "only ''somewhat'' surprising".<ref>{{citation|author=Emma Specter|title=Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren't More People Talking About Him?|date=November 8, 2019|url=https://www.vogue.com/article/bernie-sanders-progressive-presidential-candidate-2020-blackout|work=Vogue}}</ref>


In a December 2019 opinion column for '']'', ] agreed with ''Politico'' co-founder ] about the media having a ] bias. Leonardt argued that this hurt Sanders and Warren, particularly in questions posed to both about the issue of a ].<ref name="Leonhardt">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/opinion/warren-sanders-wealth-tax.html|title=Opinion &#124; How 'Centrist Bias' Hurts Sanders and Warren|author=David Leonhardt|date=December 22, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=December 27, 2019|quote=Once you start thinking about centrist bias, you recognize a lot of it. It helps explain why the 2016 presidential debates focused more on the budget deficit, a topic of centrist zealotry, than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat. (Well-funded deficit advocacy plays a role too.) }}</ref>
In August 2019, Sanders said that ''The Washington Post'' "doesn't write particularly good articles about" him and suggested that it was because he frequently mentioned that ] did not pay taxes.<ref>{{Citation|author=Travis Irvine|title=Media's Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling|date=September 3, 2019|url=https://columbusfreepress.com/article/medias-anti-bernie-bias-mind-boggling|publisher=Columbia Free Press}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> ], executive editor of ''The'' ''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."<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=Michael Calderone|title=Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders’ ‘conspiracy theory’|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/washington-post-editor-attacks-bernie-sanders-conspiracy-theory-1460597|work=Politico}}</ref> Sanders rejected that his claim was a conspiracy theory.<ref name="Montanaro20192">{{Citation|author=Domenico Montanaro|title=Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'|date=August 13, 2019|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post|publisher=NPR}}</ref> NPR wrote that Sanders's comments bore similarities to Trump's criticism of the media.<ref name="Montanaro20192" /> CNN columnist Chris Cillizza said that Sanders had no evidence for his claims.<ref>{{Citation|author=Chris Cillizza|title=Bernie Sanders isn't sorry|date=August 14, 2019|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/bernie-sanders-media-2020/index.html|publisher=CNN}}</ref>


In the same month, '']'' analyzed coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by ] between August and September 2019.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/m7qjz4/sanders-is-hot-in-the-polls-and-still-treated-like-a-second-tier-candidate|title=Sanders is hot in the polls, and still treated like a second-tier candidate|first=Zeeshan|last=Aleem|magazine=Vice|date=December 20, 2019|access-date=February 14, 2020}}</ref><ref name="Savage2">{{citation|author=Luke Savage|title=The Corporate Media's War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real|date=November 20, 2019|url=https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/corporate-media-bernie-sanders-bias-msnbc-warren-biden|publisher=Jacobin}}</ref> They said that "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and that Sanders was the candidate spoken of negatively the most frequently of the three."<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30299555/bernie-sanders-blackout-media-bias-coverage-campaign-2020/|title=The media can take Bernie Sanders a little seriously, as a treat|first=Clio|last=Chang|magazine=Esquire|date=December 20, 2019|access-date=February 14, 2020}}</ref>
In the same month, the ''Washington Post'' deemed false Sanders's claim 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, citing a study in the ''American Journal of Public Health''.<ref>{{Citation|author=Tim Dickinson|title=The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something|date=August 29, 2019|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/|work=Rolling Stone}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/|title=Sanders’s flawed statistic: 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year|year=2019|work=The Washington Post|url-status=live}}</ref> The ''Columbia Journalism Review'' published Sanders' "plan for journalism", in which he repeated his opposition to accelerating media consolidation and the concomitant layoffs in local newsrooms, issues which had already led him to vote against the ]. In analyzing root causes of inadequate media coverage, Sanders said that today public relations personnel outnumbered journalists six to one.<ref name="CJR">{{cite web|website=Columbia Journalism Review|author=Bernie Sanders|date=August 26, 2019|title=Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders on his plan for journalism|url=https://www.cjr.org/opinion/bernie-sanders-media-silicon-valley.php|quote=Today, for every working journalist, there are six people now working in public relations, often pushing a corporate line.}}</ref><ref name="Nichols">{{cite web|website=The Nation|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-corporate-media/|author=John Nichols|title=Bernie Sanders Is As Frustrated as Ever With Corporate Media|quote=Sanders proposes to: 'Require major media corporations to disclose whether or not their proposed major corporate transactions and merger proposals will involve significant journalism layoffs.'|date=August 16, 2019}}</ref>


===2020===
In November 2019, Emma Specter at '']'' 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.<ref>{{Citation|author=Emma Specter|title=Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren't More People Talking About Him?|date=November 8, 2019|url=https://www.vogue.com/article/bernie-sanders-progressive-presidential-candidate-2020-blackout|work=Vogue}}</ref>
The ]-sponsored debate between Democratic candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator ]'s handling of a he-said, she-said controversy between Sanders and fellow Senator and candidate Elizabeth Warren.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/cnn-draws-fire-for-debate-question-that-ignores-denial/ar-BBYZhNE?li=BBnb7Kx|title=CNN draws fire for debate question that ignores denial|website=www.msn.com|access-date=January 15, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/478340-cnn-moderator-criticized-for-question-to-sanders|title=CNN moderator criticized for question to Sanders|last=Swanson|first=Ian|date=January 15, 2020|website=TheHill|language=en|access-date=January 15, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cnn-botched-democratic-debate_n_5e1e981bc5b63211760b0fad|title=CNN Completely Botched The Democratic Debate|last=Carter|first=Zach|date=January 15, 2020|website=HuffPost|language=en|access-date=January 15, 2020}}</ref> Journalism think-tank ] called Phillip's treatment of Sanders "stunning in its ineptness and stunning in its unprofessionalism".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/a-media-misfire-from-cnn-during-the-debate-press-may-be-cut-out-of-some-impeachment-hearings-megyn-kelly-reacts-to-bombshell/|title=A media misfire from CNN during the debate » Press may be cut out of some impeachment hearings » Megyn Kelly reacts to 'Bombshell'|first=Tom|last=Jones|publisher=Poynter Institute|date=2020-01-15|access-date=2020-02-14}}</ref>
In the same month, '']'' analyzed coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019.<ref name="Marcetic20192">{{Citation|author=Branco Marcetic|title=MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It's Ignoring Bernie Sanders|date=November 3, 2019|url=http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html|work=In These Times}}</ref><ref name="Savage2">{{Citation|author=Luke Savage|title=The Corporate Media's War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real|date=November 20, 2019|url=https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/corporate-media-bernie-sanders-bias-msnbc-warren-biden|publisher=Jacobin}}</ref> They found that "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and that Sanders was the candidate spoken of negatively the most frequently of the three. They also found that "verall, MSNBC's primary coverage was devoid of policy discussion."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://theintercept.com/2019/12/08/the-bernie-blackout-is-in-effect-and-it-could-help-sanders-win/|title=The 'Bernie Blackout' Is in Effect and It Could Help Sanders Win|last1=Abowd|first1=Paul|last2=Grim|first2=Ryan|date=December 8, 2019|website=The Intercept|accessdate=December 17, 2019}}</ref>


In February 2020 media appearances and interviews, against a backdrop of Sanders' ascendance in the ], campaign consultant ] expressed his displeasure at the prospect of Sanders being nominated, branded Sanders as a "communist", pejoratively labeled Sanders' base of support as a "cult" and warned of the "end of days", if Sanders were to win the ].<ref>{{cite news |date= February 13, 2020 |title= Carville fires back at Sanders for 'hack' slam: 'At least I'm not a communist' |url= https://thehill.com/homenews/media/483054-carville-fires-back-at-sanders-for-hack-slam-at-least-im-not-a-communist|work= The Hill Newspapaer |access-date= February 29, 2020 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date= February 13, 2020 |title= James Carville hits back at Bernie Sanders after criticism: 'At least I'm not a communist'|url= https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/bernie-sanders-james-carville-criticism/index.html|work= CNN.com|access-date= February 29, 2020 }}</ref>
In a December 2019 opinion column for the NYT, ] agreed with ] — the co-founder of ''Politico'' — about the media having a ] bias. Leonardt argued this hurt Sanders and Warren particularly in questions posed to both about the issue of a ].<ref name="Leonhardt">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/opinion/warren-sanders-wealth-tax.html|title=Opinion &#124; How ‘Centrist Bias’ Hurts Sanders and Warren|first=David|last=Leonhardt|date=December 22, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=December 27, 2019|quote=Once you start thinking about centrist bias, you recognize a lot of it. It helps explain why the 2016 presidential debates focused more on the budget deficit, a topic of centrist zealotry, than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat. (Well-funded deficit advocacy plays a role too.) }}</ref>


MSNBC came under particular scrutiny during the first three primary-season state votes due to historical references made by two of their hosts. ] compared Sanders to ] in terms of electability on February 3 and criticized Sanders for adopting the "democratic socialist" label on February 7.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/481186-chris-matthews-expresses-worries-democrats-need-to-find-candidate-who-can-beat|title=Chris Matthews expresses worries: Democrats 'need to find' candidate who can beat Trump|first=Joe|last=Concha|newspaper=The Hill|date=2020-02-03|access-date=2020-02-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/chris-matthews-msnbc-democrats-bernie-sanders-a9315656.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220512/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/chris-matthews-msnbc-democrats-bernie-sanders-a9315656.html |archive-date=May 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=MSNBC host Chris Matthews gets emotional and says he's 'not happy' with any of the Democratic candidates|first=Alex|last=Woodward|website=The Independent|date=February 3, 2020|access-date=February 14, 2020}}</ref> In reference to Sanders' praise of aspects of Fidel Castro's Cuba, "I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park, and I might have been one of the ones executed" Matthew had said on air during ''Hardball''. He then questioned what Sanders meant when he used the term 'socialism'.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/chris-matthews-rants-about-bernie-sanders-and-socialism-2020-2?r=US&IR=T|title=When discussing a possible Bernie Sanders presidency, MSNBC's Chris Matthews ranted about hypothetical executions in Central Park under Castro|first=Connor|last=Perrett|website=Business Insider|date=February 8, 2020|access-date=February 14, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/bernie-sanders-wins-new-hampshire-democratic-primary/606004/|title=Bernie Sanders is winning because he's popular|first=David|last=Graham|website=The Atlantic|date=February 12, 2020|access-date=February 14, 2020}}</ref> The following week, ] criticized the rhetoric of Sanders supporters by quoting a ] article which compared them to ] in the Nazi regime.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-meet-the-press-host-rapped-for-comparing-sanders-supporters-to-nazi-brownshirts-1.8524572|title='Meet the Press' host rapped for comparing Sanders supporters to Nazi 'brownshirts'|author=Allison Kaplan Sommer|publisher=Haaertz|date=February 11, 2020|access-date=February 14, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2020/02/12/msnbcs-chuck-todd-under-fire-for-reciting-quote-comparing-sanders-supporters-to-nazis_partner/|title=MSNBC's Chuck Todd under fire for reciting quote comparing Sanders supporters to Nazis|first=Jake|last=Johnson|website=Salon|date=February 12, 2020|access-date=February 14, 2020}}</ref>
==See also==

*]
Commenting on the ], Matthews invoked ] as a metaphor for Sanders' apparent victory in the state.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Arciga |first1=Julia |title=Chris Matthews Likens Bernie's Strong Nevada Showing to France Falling to Nazi Germany in WWII |url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-matthews-likens-bernies-strong-nevada-showing-to-france-falling-to-nazi-germany-in-wwii |website=] |access-date=February 22, 2020 |date=February 22, 2020}}</ref> His analogy was criticized by the Sanders campaign and other commentators, who noted that members of Sanders' family had been murdered in ]. Matthews later issued an on-air apology to Sanders and his supporters.<ref>{{cite news |last= Grynbaum|first= Michael |date= February 24, 2020 |title= Chris Matthews Apologizes to Bernie Sanders for Remarks on Nevada Win; An on-air comparison to Nazis angered Sanders aides, who privately complained to executives at MSNBC. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/business/media/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders-apology.html |work= The New York Times |access-date= February 24, 2020 }}</ref>
*]

Sanders suspended his campaign on April 8, 2020.<ref name=Ember-200408>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/politics/bernie-sanders-drops-out.html | title=Bernie Sanders Is Dropping Out of 2020 Democratic Race for Presiden | work=] | date=April 8, 2020 | access-date=April 8, 2020 | first=Sydney | last=Ember}}</ref> The following month, ] released the documentary ''Bernie Blackout'' directed by Pat McGee. Although largely focused on interviews with campaign staff, the film also attempted to draw parallels between the media's treatment of Sanders supporters and opponents of the Iraq War.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://deadline.com/2020/05/vice-tv-air-jordan-sneaker-doc-bernie-sanders-fck-thats-delicious-most-expensivest-1202926892/|title=Vice TV Laces Up Air Jordan Sneaker Doc & Bernie Sanders Film, Renews 'F*ck That's Delicious' & 'Most Expensivest'|first=Peter|last=White|publisher=Deadline|date=2020-05-06|access-date=2020-05-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-corporate-medias-blackout-of-bernie-sanders-2020-presidential-campaign?ref=scroll|title=Inside the Corporate Media's 'Blackout' of Bernie Sanders' 2020 Presidential Campaign|first=Cassie|last=Da Costa|publisher=The Daily Beast|date=2020-05-12|access-date=2020-05-25}}</ref>

== See also ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== References == == References ==
{{reflist}} {{reflist}}

{{reflist|group=note}}
{{Bernie Sanders}}

]
]
] ]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 20:49, 27 October 2024

Bernie Sanders in November 2019

The media coverage of Bernie Sanders, a U.S. Senator from Vermont, became a subject of discussion during his unsuccessful 2016 and 2020 presidential runs. His campaigns, some independent observers, as well as some media sources have said that the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Sanders. Others say that coverage is unbiased or biased in his favor. The allegations of bias primarily concern the coverage of his presidential campaigns.

A study of the 2016 election found that the amount of media coverage of Sanders during 2015 exceeded his standing in the polls; it was however strongly correlated with his polling performance over the course of the whole campaign. On average, research shows that Sanders received substantially less media coverage than Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, but that the tone of his coverage was more favorable than that of any other candidate. During the 2016 election, the media provided substantially more coverage of the Republican primary than the Democratic primary, as Republican candidate Donald Trump dominated media coverage.

During the 2020 Democratic primary, Sanders, his campaign and his supporters again criticized the media for being biased. Sanders suggested that The Washington Post gave him unfair coverage because Sanders had encouraged taxing The Washington Post's owner Jeff Bezos's main company, Amazon, more heavily. The executive editor of the Washington Post rejected Sanders's suggestion, describing it as a "conspiracy theory" and stating that Bezos "allows our newsroom to operate with full independence." In the following election in 2024, Bezos did reportedly intervene by preventing the Post's Editorial Board from publishing a drafted endorsement of the then-Democratic Party nominee.

Background

Writing in 2005, Sanders identified corporate media coverage of political issues as a subject on which he felt he needed to take a position.

Despite a strong performance in some states, Sanders failed the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary with his opponent Clinton winning the nomination by June 2016. After the election, he released a campaign book which devoted a chapter to media issues. He wrote that while national media did not cover his visits to poverty-stricken areas of the country, local media did. He also raised issue with the consequences of corporations like General Electric, Comcast, and Disney owning media conglomerates for media coverage of issues like taxation and trans-national trade agreements.

Academic analyses

A 2018 book by political scientists John M. Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck found that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write that "Sanders's appeal, like Trump's, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." Furthermore, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."

Thomas Patterson of the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy wrote a report in June 2016 analyzing the media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries. During 2015, the Democratic race received less than half as much news coverage as the Republican race did. The Sanders campaign was "largely ignored in the early months" and "until the pre-primary debates", but that once he did begin to get coverage in 2015, it was "overwhelmingly positive in tone". However, the study contended that the increase in coverage did not happen "at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year."

In her 2018 book The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, Rachel Bitecofer wrote that the Democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, but that the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was "heating up" at that time. Bitecofer found that Trump received more media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.

In her book A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Colleen Elizabeth Kelly said that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias, citing the Shorenstein Center report on the media's outsized coverage of the Republican primary, but noting that Sanders' coverage was the most favorable of any candidate.

Early in the primary, John Sides found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was consistent with his polling and that the press he was getting was more favorable than Clinton's. Jonathan Stray, a computational journalism researcher at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for Nieman Lab in January 2016 that "at least online" Sanders got coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.

A 2019 study by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.

2016 primary campaign

See also: 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign
Sanders at a town meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, July 2015

In August 2015, Elizabeth Jensen, the public editor for NPR, responded to an influx of emails to NPR regarding a Morning Edition segment. Jensen said that she does not "find that NPR has been slighting" Sanders' campaign and added, "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."

In the following month, Margaret Sullivan, public editor of The New York Times, wrote that she had received many complaints from readers about purported bias against Sanders. She responded that The New York Times had given roughly the same amount of articles dedicated to Sanders as they did to similarly polling Republican candidates (barring Donald Trump), while conceding that some of the articles written were "fluff" and "regrettably dismissive". Later in the month, The Washington Post wrote that "Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience."

In January 2016, Claire Malone from FiveThirtyEight rejected notions that Sanders was the subject of a "media blackout", saying he received 30 percent of coverage in the Democratic primary at that time. That same month, The Guardian reported that Sanders aides had accused David Brock, a Clinton ally, of mudslinging, after Brock spoke to the press about one of Sanders' campaign ads, suggesting that "it seems black lives don't matter to Bernie Sanders." Despite this characterization, the ad "elicited very positive responses when it was shown to a representative sample of Americans." Asked by Jay Newton-Small of Time in February if he was "fighting an asymmetrical war against ," Brock commented that "we do opposition research, but we haven't leveled any false accusations against Senator Sanders and we won't."

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) wrote that between 10:20 p.m. Sunday, March 6, to 3:54 p.m. Monday, March 7, a period of about 16 hours, that The Washington Post ran 16 negative articles on Sanders. Of the 16 articles examined by FAIR, two were opinion articles; one was a story originating from the Associated Press; and 12 were blogs stories in which the writers are required to include "commentary and analysis". FAIR's criteria for identifying an article as negative or positive was viewed as "overly broad" by the Post.

According to researcher Thomas Patterson, the Republican/Democratic primary coverage split from March 15 to May 3 was 64–36 and the Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61–39. Patterson ascribes this difference to "the influence of 'electability' on reporting," rather than on polling numbers. This period was the first time in the campaign that Clinton's press was marginally positive, and Sanders's press was slightly negative.

In Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi criticized The New York Times for retroactively making online changes to a March 15, 2016 article about Sanders's legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years. In addition to rewording the title, several paragraphs were added. In 2019, Margaret Sullivan, public editor at The New York Times, characterized the changes as "stealth editing" and added 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 Sanders' legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later."

In April 2016, NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders saying that Sanders had appeared three times on NPR whereas Clinton had only done so once, that media outlets saw a Sanders win as a "long shot" early in the campaign, and that by April 2016, she appeared very likely to win the nomination. The same month, Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias of Vox wrote the media was biased in favor of Sanders because Clinton's lead was becoming increasingly insurmountable, yet the media had a vested commercial interest in exaggerating how close the race was.

2020 primary campaign

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

2019

According to a March 2019 analysis by Northeastern University's School of Journalism, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary. An updated analysis in April after more candidates had entered the field placed him third out of eight candidates; a further update for June to September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.

In April 2019, Sanders wrote to the board of the Center for American Progress in response to a video produced by their former media outlet ThinkProgress. The video mocked him for becoming a millionaire after writing a book about his 2016 election run. The article based on the video was later emended to remove references about Sanders' physical appearance. The following month, Politico published a feature article on Sanders's income which described him as "rich" and "cheap". Politico was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League.

In August 2019, Sanders said that The Washington Post did not "write particularly good articles" about him and suggested that it was because he frequently mentioned that Amazon, The Washington Post's parent company, did not pay taxes. Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, responded, "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."

In November 2019, Emma Specter at Vogue doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. She also listed several examples of limited coverage of his policy proposals and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as being "only somewhat surprising".

In a December 2019 opinion column for The New York Times, David Leonhardt agreed with Politico co-founder John F. Harris about the media having a centrist bias. Leonardt argued that this hurt Sanders and Warren, particularly in questions posed to both about the issue of a wealth tax.

In the same month, In These Times analyzed coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019. They said that "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and that Sanders was the candidate spoken of negatively the most frequently of the three."

2020

The CNN-sponsored debate between Democratic candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator Abby Phillip's handling of a he-said, she-said controversy between Sanders and fellow Senator and candidate Elizabeth Warren. Journalism think-tank Poynter Institute called Phillip's treatment of Sanders "stunning in its ineptness and stunning in its unprofessionalism".

In February 2020 media appearances and interviews, against a backdrop of Sanders' ascendance in the polls, campaign consultant James Carville expressed his displeasure at the prospect of Sanders being nominated, branded Sanders as a "communist", pejoratively labeled Sanders' base of support as a "cult" and warned of the "end of days", if Sanders were to win the Democratic nomination.

MSNBC came under particular scrutiny during the first three primary-season state votes due to historical references made by two of their hosts. Chris Matthews compared Sanders to George McGovern in terms of electability on February 3 and criticized Sanders for adopting the "democratic socialist" label on February 7. In reference to Sanders' praise of aspects of Fidel Castro's Cuba, "I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park, and I might have been one of the ones executed" Matthew had said on air during Hardball. He then questioned what Sanders meant when he used the term 'socialism'. The following week, Chuck Todd criticized the rhetoric of Sanders supporters by quoting a conservative article which compared them to brown shirts in the Nazi regime.

Commenting on the 2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses, Matthews invoked "the fall of France" to the Nazis in 1940 as a metaphor for Sanders' apparent victory in the state. His analogy was criticized by the Sanders campaign and other commentators, who noted that members of Sanders' family had been murdered in the Holocaust. Matthews later issued an on-air apology to Sanders and his supporters.

Sanders suspended his campaign on April 8, 2020. The following month, Vice News released the documentary Bernie Blackout directed by Pat McGee. Although largely focused on interviews with campaign staff, the film also attempted to draw parallels between the media's treatment of Sanders supporters and opponents of the Iraq War.

See also

References

  1. ^ John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 99, 104–107. ISBN 978-0-691-17419-8. Archived from the original on November 14, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
  2. ^ Thomas E. Patterson (July 11, 2016), News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences, retrieved January 3, 2020, The press did not heavily cover the candidates' policy positions, their personal and leadership characteristics, their private and public histories, background information on election issues, or group commitments for and by the candidates. Such topics accounted for roughly a tenth of the primary coverage.
    Over the course of the primary season, Sanders received only two-thirds of the coverage afforded Clinton. Sanders' coverage trailed Clinton's in every week of the primary season.
  3. Dominico Montanaro (August 13, 2019). "Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'". NPR. Archived from the original on November 27, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  4. Morgan Gstalter (August 13, 2019), "Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory'", The Hill, archived from the original on November 30, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  5. Mangan, Dan (October 25, 2024). "Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports". CNBC. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  6. Roig-Franzia, Manuel; Wagner, Laura (October 25, 2024). "The Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate for president". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  7. Bernie Sanders (2005). "Why Americans Should Take Back the Media". In Robert McChesney; Russell Newman; Ben Scott (eds.). The Future of Media: Resistance and Reform in the 21st Century. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1-58322-679-7. OCLC 57574152.
  8. Bernie Sanders (2016). "Corporate Media and the Threat to Our Democracy". Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In. Thomas Dunne Books. p. 434. ISBN 978-1-250-13292-5. OCLC 1026148801.
  9. Sarah Childress. "Study: Election Coverage Skewed By "Journalistic Bias"". Frontline. PBS.
  10. Thomas E. Patterson (June 13, 2016), Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump's Rise, Sanders' Emergence, Clinton's Struggle, archived from the original on November 27, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  11. Nikolas Decosta-Klipa (June 14, 2016). "This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media". Boston Globe. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  12. ^ Rachel Bitecofer (2018). The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election. Palgrave. pp. 36–38, 48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7. ISBN 978-3-319-61975-0.
  13. 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, ISBN 978-1-4985-6458-8
  14. Sides, John (September 2015). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really". Monkey Cage. The Washington Post.
  15. Jonathan Stray. "How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data". Nieman Lab. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  16. ^ Alexander Frandsen; Aleszu Bajak (April 24, 2019), Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media, Storybench, archived from the original on October 7, 2019, retrieved December 2, 2019
  17. ^ Aleszu Bajak (September 30, 2019), Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months, Storybench, archived from the original on December 4, 2019, retrieved December 2, 2019
  18. Elizabeth Jensen (August 7, 2015), Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage, NPR
  19. Sullivan, Margaret (September 9, 2015). "Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?". The New York Times. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  20. Philip Rucker; John Wagner (September 11, 2015). "How Bernie Sanders is plotting his path to the Democratic nomination". The Washington Post.
  21. "Has There Been A Bernie Sanders Blackout?". On the Media. WNYC. And now he's sort of edged up into 30% of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's not not there.
  22. Dan Roberts (January 22, 2016). "Sanders smeared as communist sympathiser as Clinton allies sling mud". The Guardian.
  23. "Clinton ally says Sanders slights minorities in new ad". Las Vegas Sun. January 21, 2016. Archived from the original on January 24, 2016. Retrieved January 27, 2020.
  24. Jay Newton-Small (February 24, 2016). "Q&A: David Brock on Attacking Bernie Sanders". Time.
  25. Adam Johnson (March 8, 2016). "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours". FAIR.
  26. Borchers, Callum (March 8, 2016). "Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
  27. Felix Hamborg, Norman Meuschke, Akiko Aizawa, Bela Gipp (2017). "Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles" (PDF). In Gäde M, Trkulja V, Petras V (eds.). Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017). Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin. pp. 225–226.
  28. Matt Taibbi (March 15, 2016). "How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders". Rolling Stone.
  29. Margaret Sullivan (March 17, 2019). "Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?". The New York Times.
  30. Mitch Wertlieb; Kathleen Masterson (April 1, 2016), 'Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques, VPR
  31. Matthew Yglesias (April 6, 2016). "After Wisconsin, Sanders is worse off than ever in the delegate race". Vox. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  32. Ezra Klein (April 7, 2016). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?". Vox. Retrieved December 9, 2019. Sanders's win in Wisconsin, given the state's demographics, didn't imply that the race has changed in ways that put him on track for the nomination. If anything, Tuesday was a night when he fell a bit further behind in the delegate race.
  33. Elizabeth Williamson; Kenneth P. Vogel (April 15, 2019). "The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist". The New York Times.
  34. Kenneth P. Vogel; Sydney Ember (April 14, 2019). "Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 3, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2019. wrote: 'Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.'
  35. "Bernie Sanders is a millionaire". ThinkProgress. April 10, 2019.
  36. Michael Kruse (May 24, 2019). "The Secret of Bernie's Millions". Politico.
  37. Oster, Marcy. "Politico accused of anti-Semitism over Bernie Sanders illustration, tweet". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  38. ^ Michael Calderone (August 13, 2019), "Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders' "conspiracy theory"", Politico
  39. 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
  40. David Leonhardt (December 22, 2019). "Opinion | How 'Centrist Bias' Hurts Sanders and Warren". The New York Times. Retrieved December 27, 2019. Once you start thinking about centrist bias, you recognize a lot of it. It helps explain why the 2016 presidential debates focused more on the budget deficit, a topic of centrist zealotry, than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat. (Well-funded deficit advocacy plays a role too.)
  41. Aleem, Zeeshan (December 20, 2019). "Sanders is hot in the polls, and still treated like a second-tier candidate". Vice. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  42. Luke Savage (November 20, 2019), The Corporate Media's War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real, Jacobin
  43. Chang, Clio (December 20, 2019). "The media can take Bernie Sanders a little seriously, as a treat". Esquire. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  44. "CNN draws fire for debate question that ignores denial". www.msn.com. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  45. Swanson, Ian (January 15, 2020). "CNN moderator criticized for question to Sanders". TheHill. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  46. Carter, Zach (January 15, 2020). "CNN Completely Botched The Democratic Debate". HuffPost. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  47. Jones, Tom (January 15, 2020). "A media misfire from CNN during the debate » Press may be cut out of some impeachment hearings » Megyn Kelly reacts to 'Bombshell'". Poynter Institute. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  48. "Carville fires back at Sanders for 'hack' slam: 'At least I'm not a communist'". The Hill Newspapaer. February 13, 2020. Retrieved February 29, 2020.
  49. "James Carville hits back at Bernie Sanders after criticism: 'At least I'm not a communist'". CNN.com. February 13, 2020. Retrieved February 29, 2020.
  50. Concha, Joe (February 3, 2020). "Chris Matthews expresses worries: Democrats 'need to find' candidate who can beat Trump". The Hill. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  51. Woodward, Alex (February 3, 2020). "MSNBC host Chris Matthews gets emotional and says he's 'not happy' with any of the Democratic candidates". The Independent. Archived from the original on May 12, 2022. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  52. Perrett, Connor (February 8, 2020). "When discussing a possible Bernie Sanders presidency, MSNBC's Chris Matthews ranted about hypothetical executions in Central Park under Castro". Business Insider. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  53. Graham, David (February 12, 2020). "Bernie Sanders is winning because he's popular". The Atlantic. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  54. Allison Kaplan Sommer (February 11, 2020). "'Meet the Press' host rapped for comparing Sanders supporters to Nazi 'brownshirts'". Haaertz. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  55. Johnson, Jake (February 12, 2020). "MSNBC's Chuck Todd under fire for reciting quote comparing Sanders supporters to Nazis". Salon. Retrieved February 14, 2020.
  56. Arciga, Julia (February 22, 2020). "Chris Matthews Likens Bernie's Strong Nevada Showing to France Falling to Nazi Germany in WWII". The Daily Beast. Retrieved February 22, 2020.
  57. Grynbaum, Michael (February 24, 2020). "Chris Matthews Apologizes to Bernie Sanders for Remarks on Nevada Win; An on-air comparison to Nazis angered Sanders aides, who privately complained to executives at MSNBC". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
  58. Ember, Sydney (April 8, 2020). "Bernie Sanders Is Dropping Out of 2020 Democratic Race for Presiden". The New York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2020.
  59. White, Peter (May 6, 2020). "Vice TV Laces Up Air Jordan Sneaker Doc & Bernie Sanders Film, Renews 'F*ck That's Delicious' & 'Most Expensivest'". Deadline. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  60. Da Costa, Cassie (May 12, 2020). "Inside the Corporate Media's 'Blackout' of Bernie Sanders' 2020 Presidential Campaign". The Daily Beast. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
Bernie Sanders
Politics
Elections
Gubernatorial
Mayoral
U.S. House
U.S. Senate
Presidential
Works
Public image
Organizations
Family
Categories:
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders: Difference between revisions Add topic