Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia

12/3/2019 Media bias against Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Learn more
This article documents a current election. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news
reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Learn more
The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Learn more
Bernie Sanders in July 2019.
Various media outlets have raised concerns that the mainstream media in the United States have
made a concerted effort to downplay, underreport, or ignore the popularity of Bernie Sanders,
primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Accusations have ranged from
explicit media bias, journalistic malpractice, and distortions of information and data. Alternative
media such as Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, Common
Dreams, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, prominent YouTube political commentators, among
others have published articles, videos, and reports discussing what they see as an alleged media
bias against Bernie Sanders. Online communities on websites such as Twitter and Reddit have
played a role in documenting what they see as bias in reporting as well. The campaign runs its own
media platforms such as the online newsletter Bern Notice, the Hear the Bern podcast, a channel on
Twitch, as well as Twitter and Facebook—many of which discuss media bias and what they call the
Bernie Blackout.
Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the concentration of media ownership,
profit-driven special interests, manufacturing consent and the propaganda model, general media
propaganda, conflicts of interests, and agenda-setting theory. The most prominent media
organizations being accused of bias have been MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders?fbclid=IwAR1ZGLCkRxlFTAORLbJgT43E-68KPCUDrax0rmXBWV9WEFrS8lP9… 1/15
Times. Many of the media organizations have responded to the criticisms in various ways through
rebuttals, criticism, and analysis. Various studies have been done in an effort to document statistical
data in regard to news coverage of presidential candidates.
First discussed during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, responses to the outcome
gave rise to accusations of conspiracies about rigging of the primary election—most notably from
the DNC leaked emails leading to investigations, public apologies, and resignations of DNC officials.
Further discussions have arisen since Sanders’ announcement for his 2020 campaign echoing similar
themes from 2016.
Legitimacy of the bias has been called into question by some political commentators.
2016 primary campaign
On April 28, 2015, Vermont Public Radio reported that Sanders would announce his candidacy for
the Democratic presidential nomination on April 30.[1] In an interview with USA Today on April 29,
Sanders stated that he was "running in this election to win," and launched a campaign website,
effectively beginning his run.[2] Sanders said he was motivated to enter the race by what he termed
"obscene levels" of income disparity, and the campaign finance system.[3] On May 26, 2015, Sanders
officially announced his candidacy at Burlington's Waterfront Park.[4] In an interview with National
Review's Jamie Weinstein,[note 1] MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on
Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the
broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not
covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders".[5][6] 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by
MSNBC.
Early campaign months
In an analysis by Jim Naureckas from FAIR using the Nexis database calculated the number of
mentions of Sanders versus Donald Trump from July 1, 2015 to August 21, 2015. The following data
table summarizes the results.[7]
Stories mentioning Bernie Sanders as a percentage of those mentioning Donald Trump[7]

News Source Percent
New York Times 49%
Washington Post 40%
Wall Street Journal 22%
USA Today 32%
LA Times 26%
ABC News 16%
CBS News 20%
NBC News 15%
MSNBC 67%
Fox News 53%
NPR 39%
PBS News Hour 56%
In October 2015, Story Hinckley of the The Christian Science Monitor published an article discussing
what he called a "near-blackout from major TV news sources". He indicated that at the time, Sanders
was polling high and bringing in significant donations, yet the mainstream media was giving
insufficient coverage of the campaign.[8] Chris Weigant from HuffPost opined in September that
Sanders was receiving little media coverage as well.[9] Media Matters for America reported that
media networks were overwhelmingly covering Hillary Clinton's email controversy, while ignoring
Sanders.[10] In a study of campaign coverage conducted by Andrew Tyndall, ABC, CBS, and NBC
devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race. 338 minutes were devoted to the Republican race, 128
minute to the Democratic race, and a total of 8 minutes devoted to Bernie Sanders (compared to
145 minutes for Trump, 82 minutes for Clinton, 83 minutes for Clinton's email controversy, and 43
minutes to Jeb Bush).[9]
Later campaign months
In an article published by FAIR, Adam Johnson documented that the Washington Post ran 16 stories
about Bernie Sanders over a period of 16 hours, all of which were presented, "in a negative light,
mainly by advancing the narrative that he’s a clueless white man incapable of winning over people
of color or speaking to women."[11][12]
The New York Times was called out when they retroactively made significant changes to an article
about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.[13][14] The article was
originally title "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors"[15] but was
subsequently changed to "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."[16] The
wordings in the revised article was subtly changed to switch it from having a praiseful tone to a
more ambivalent tone on Sanders's record, and a few paragraphs were added.[17] Margaret Sullivan
at the New York Times opined that the changes were clear examples of "stealth editing" and that,
"The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up
might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders’s legislative accomplishments than one
who saw it hours later."[18] Katie Halper from FAIR noted in response to a defense of the changes
that, "In its original form, the article didn’t cast enough doubt on Sanders’ viability and ability to
govern, in other words."[13]
Harvard Kennedy School report
In June 2016, a report was released by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media,
Politics, and Public Policy that documented systemic media bias of candidate campaign coverage for
the 2016 presidential primaries.[19] The report found that,
...during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that
was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media
coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in
tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone
of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the
Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early
months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone.
Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates,
Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most
negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news”
outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the
increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
Patterson stated that,
Less coverage of the Democratic side worked against Bernie Sanders’ efforts to
make inroads on Clinton’s support. Sanders struggled to get badly needed press
attention in the early going. With almost no money or national name
recognition, he needed news coverage if he was to gain traction. His poll
standing at the beginning of 2015 was barely more than that of the other lagging
Democratic contenders, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former
Virginia Senator Jim Webb. By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s
leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-
primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to
what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican
contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news
coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times
more coverage than he did.
PBS Frontline reported on the study calling it "journalistic bias" having lead to, "over-coverage of the
Donald Trump campaign and under-coverage of Democratic candidates, in particular Sen. Bernie
Sanders."[20]
Colleen Elizabeth Kelly contends in her book A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American
Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump that Sanders was both right
and wrong in his critique of the medias bias. Sanders considered the bias to be both quantitative
and qualitative as the corporate media was, "inherently bias against the slate of issues his revolution
embraced". Kelly details the Harvard study indicating that the media was explicitly bias against him
at first, but that his later drop was due to his performance in the debates.[21]
DNC email leak
Between June and July 2016, hackers acquired and released over 19,000 email exchanges of the
Democratic National Convention. In regards to Sanders, the leak revealed that the DNC was in
violation of their stated neutrality.[22] In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[23]
The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was
actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples
came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the
national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[24] The controversy
resulted in an apology to Sanders[25] by the DNC and the resignation of the CEO Amy Dacey, CFO
Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda.[26]
2020 primary campaign
February
Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine opined that, like in 2016 with Washington Post's 16 negative posts
about Bernie in 16 hours report by FAIR, the 48 hours of Sanders declaration to run, the Post
published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author. Jennifer Rubin
immediately criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate upon which the next day he reached
record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan
called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to
look like a fool a day earlier."[27]
July
MSNBC analyst Mimi Rocah proclaimed that Bernie Sanders, "made her skin crawl" suggesting to
viewers that he was not a pro-women candidate.[28] This directly contrasted the data from Pew that
showed that Sanders polls highest among women.[29][30]
Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll
reporting, distortions of graphics, as well as outright lying.[31] In her article, she starts with an
MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53%, Sanders at
49%, and Warren and Kamala at 48%. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar
sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being
in second numerically. On May 24, Chuck Todd of Meet The Press reported a Quinnipiac Poll that
found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if
Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed
the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27% polling with white voters and Biden at 25%.
The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28%; a three point difference not in accordance with the poll.
In a segment by Rachel Maddow on April 29, she showed a graphic with candidates leading with
female donations. Kirsten Gillibrand was highest at 52% with women while Sanders was at the
bottom at 33%. Maddow failed to mention that the data was only based on donations of $200 or
more.[31] The data was taken from an open secrets report[32] that made it clear that the report
focused only on large donations.[33] Sanders first quarter reported that 46% of his donations were
from women.[31] Lastly, Halper documented the MSNBC analyst Zerlina Maxwell claiming that
Sanders, "did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech" in his kickoff speech.
She later retracted her statement when she realized that he mentioned within the first five
minutes.[31] Glen Greenwald from The Intercept detailed the occurrence and considered it a blatant
lie stating,[34]
Indeed, as is almost always true for MSNBC, all of these pleas that they correct
their false claim have been steadfastly ignored — no correction issued —
because, as I’ve repeatedly documented, lying about adversaries of the
Democratic establishment is not merely tolerated or permitted at MSNBC, but is
encouraged and rewarded. That’s why they purposely had the very first person
to comment on Sanders’s kickoff campaign speech be a paid Clinton 2016
campaign official highly embittered toward Sanders, and it’s why MSNBC does
not correct lies no matter how loudly, clearly, or indisputably you document
those lies to them.
August
Sanders along with various members of his campaign have spoken out directly about the media
bias. After Sanders led the movement to pressure Amazon to pay its employees $15 an hour, "I talk
about [Amazon’s taxes] all of the time... And then I wonder why The Washington Post, which is
owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't
know why."[35] According to CNN, Sanders said, "We have pointed out over and over again that
Amazon made $10 billion in profits last year. You know how much they paid in taxes? You got it,
zero! Any wonder why The Washington Post is not one of my great supporters, I wonder why?" He
added, "New York Times not much better". An executive editor of Washington Post stated in
response, "Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our
newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."[36]
Around the same time as the lashback, Sanders campaign Faiz Shakir told CNN,[37]
In about, you know, a minute or so or two minutes or so you’re going to cut to

commercial breaks and you’re going to see some pharmaceutical ads. You’re
going to see a lot of ads that are basically paying your bills and the bills of the
entire media enterprise. And what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and
others to make sure that you’re asking the questions and driving the
conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas.
Sanders responded to the entire discourse in the end by stating,
So this is not into conspiracy theory. We are taking on corporate America. Large
corporations own the media in America, by and large, and I think there is a
framework, about how the corporate media focuses on politics. That is my
concern. It’s not that Jeff Bezos is on the phone every day; he’s not.
Chris Cillizza from CNN opined that Sanders and Shakir,[38]
have zero evidence to back up these big claims is beside the point for many
supporters of the independent senator from Vermont. They believe deeply in
Sanders and see anyone who disagrees with them as a corporate shill or part of
the Big Bad Establishment.
Which is their right. But it doesn't make these claims true.
Domenico Montanaro from NPR opined that, "the remark [by Sanders] sounded an awful lot like the
kind of criticism leveled by someone else" indicating that Sanders mimicked Trump's criticism of the
media. However, in the same interview where Bernie Sanders criticized The Washington Post, he
explicitly stated that Trump was undermining American democracy and that, "There are some really
great articles out there, like investigations, which we use, so I don't think media is fake news."[39]
New Hampshire polling reports
Sanders' speechwriter David Sirota wrote in the campaign's Bern Notice newsletter,[40]
In the last week, a wave of polls has emerged showing a genuine, full-on Bernie
surge — but you might not know that if you tuned into cable TV or read the
headlines from the national press corps. In fact, you might not even know
Bernie is running for president.
As Bernie gains big momentum heading into the final 100 days until the Iowa
caucuses, we see that the divide between The Actual Polls and The Media’s
Manufactured Narrative is getting wider. In fact, the situation has gotten so
obvious and laughable that The Onion decided to call it out and lampoon it...
Sirota went on to list three different examples of misreporting of poll numbers by CNN and the New
York Times as well as outlining several news article headlines that left Sanders' name out despite his
lead in the polls.[40] Ryan Grim from The Intercept noted similar headlines on his Twitter feed on
October 29.[41][40] One headline read: "Buttigieg in fourth, but a strong fourth" which was
subsequently commented on and mocked by journalist Krystal Ball from The Hill.[42] Common
Dreams detailed the controversy after it unfolded.[43] The headline at the satirical newspaper, The
Onion, that Sirota referenced was entitled "MSNBC Poll Finds Support For Bernie Sanders Has
Plummeted 2 Points Up," poking fun at the alleged media bias. This was not the first time the Onion
wrote a satirical piece about the Sanders campaign, as in October, Sanders jokingly shared the
satirical article "Bernie Sanders Holds Secret Campaign Meeting With 15,000 Working-Class
Democratic Donors" on his Twitter feed.[44]
In These Times analysis
In November 2019, the Chicago left-wing magazine In These Times published an in-depth article
analyzing the coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between
August and September 2019.[45][28] The focused primarily on Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator
Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden. The analysis covered The 11th Hour with
Brian Williams, All In with Chris Hayes, The Beat with Ari Melber, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The
Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell and The Rachel Maddow Show while categorizing positive,
neutral, and negative discussion of the candidates. The analysis found that Sanders was discussed
less than a third of the time that Biden was discussed (36% for Sanders compared to 43% for Warren
and 64% Biden). As for positive and negative mentions, 12.9% were positive towards Sanders, while
20.7% were negative—the most likely of the three. Most of the negative mentions came from
Hardball and the 11th Hour.[45]
The analysis found numerous inaccurate claims made by various political commentators. Chris
Matthews claimed that African Americans were leaving Sanders for Warren despite a Pew Research
Poll finding that the Sanders campaign was the least white of the leading candidates, whereas
Warrens was the most white. During the analysis period, Sanders had released eight detailed plans
for America, of which only one was discussed by Chris Hayes. Almost all the coverage discussed
polls.[45]
Criticism of accusations of bias
Various commentators have responded, criticized, or offered explanations of the various accusations
of media bias.
Politico put forth the idea that the bias may be an artifact of Sanders propensity to turn down
interviews and press gaggles. Sanders has admitted that he does not feel that the media wants to
focus on what he considers as important. He said on NBC that, “When the poor get richer and the
rich get poorer, when all of our people have health care as a right, when we are leading the world in
the fight against climate change, you know what? I will change what I am saying.”[46] Dan Pfeiffer of
Politico questioned the effectiveness of critiquing the media coverage by the press over the Sanders
campaign. "Unfortunately for the Sanders campaign, the press too often considers complaints from
the left as validation of their objectivity and complaints from the right as something worth
addressing to prove their objectivity" Pfeiffer said when comparing the accusations with the
technique of the right-wing having, "unbelievable success working the refs by calling the
mainstream media biased against them".[46]
Vox proposed a similar explanation stating that the "media circus" is not something that Sanders
and his campaign prefer to participate in. They also contend that the media may find his position in
the polls and his popularity as "boring" because it "doesn't fit into the horserace" like some of their
other candidates campaigns do.[47]
The Washington Post has had mixed responses from various journalists. Marty Baron called the
accusations a conspiracy,[48] whereas Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote that Sanders was making a smart
case of media bias that was uniquely different from Trump's explicit criticism; indicating that,[49]
...the gatekeepers of established opinion no longer hold as much sway, when

new forms of communication and independent media challenge the old. It’s not
surprising that the corporate media gives Sanders bad press. Thankfully,
though, that matters less and less.
A controversy arose between the Sanders campaign and the Post in late August concerning fact-
checking. The Post gave Sanders "Three Pinocchios" (meaning mostly false) for his claim on medical
debt. Sanders has consistently maintained that, “500,000 people go bankrupt every year because
they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills”. Journalists disputed the article's finding and said
that the claim was true. The Post then claimed that the paper was not peer-reviewed. Upon
inspection it was found that the paper was peer reviewed.[50] Paul Heintz of the Post suggested that
Sanders' solution to his concern about media bias would be complete, verbatim coverage of his
pronouncements.[51]
Emma Specter at Vogue doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. However, she listed
several examples of bias and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as
slightly unfair.[52]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders?fbclid=IwAR1ZGLCkRxlFTAORLbJgT43E-68KPCUDrax0rmXBWV9WEFrS8lP… 10/15
Domenico Montanaro of NPR claimed that Sanders sounded like Trump in his criticism of the media,
quoting Trump's tweet, "...[T]he failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do
nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements - and they will never change!"[39]
In 2015, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR responded to an influx of emails regarding a "Morning Edition"
segment. Communities on Reddit encouraged readers to copy and paste a message to NPR by email
stating that, "There IS Another Democratic Candidate For President Besides Hillary Clinton, And His
Name is Bernie Sanders" in response to the segment discussing Biden's possible run. Jensen said
that she does not "find that NPR has been slighting his campaign. In the last two days alone, NPR
has covered the Democrats' climate change stances and reactions to the Republican debate and
Sanders has been well in the mix."[53] NPR’s media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to
criticisms of bias against Sanders in April 2016 by stating that some of the unbalanced coverage
came from Sander's scheduling compared to Clinton's and that NPR saw a Sanders win as a "long
shot" due to Clinton's strong name recognition in comparison.[54]
In March 2019, a preliminary study by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that
Sanders was receiving the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the Democratic primary,
while an expanded, updated analysis in April placed him third out of eight candidates;[55] a further
update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight
major candidates.[56]
Notes
1. The interview has since been redacted on the National Review website. (See Episode 55: Ed
Schultz. National Review April 13, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2019. Archived at WayBack
Machine on 2018-04-14.)
References
1. Murray, Mark (April 30, 2015). "Bernie Sanders to Announce Presidential Bid on Thursday" .
NBC. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
2. Kelly, Erin (April 30, 2015). "Bernie Sanders: 'I am running in this election to win' " . USA Today.
3. Gram, Dave (April 30, 2015). "Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'I am running for president' " .
Yahoo! News. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
4. "Video: Bernie Sanders announces run for president" . The Burlington Free Press. May 26, 2015.
Archived from the original on July 1, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
5. Becket Adams (April 17, 2018). "Former MSNBC host says network 'in the tank' for Hillary
Clinton" . Washington Examiner.
6. Rutz, David (April 16, 2018). "Ed Schultz: MSNBC Fired Me for Supporting Bernie Sanders, 'They
Were in the Tank for Hillary Clinton' " . Washington Free Beacon.
7. Jim Naureckas (August 21, 2015), Two Candidates Surge in 2016 Polling—but Only Trump, Not
Sanders, Fascinates Media , FAIR
8. Story Hinckley (October 1, 2015), "Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he
tops polls?" , The Christian Science Monitor
9. Chris Weigant (September 30, 2015), Bernie Don’t Get No Respect From Media , HuffPost
10. Eric Boehlert (September 24, 2015), Network Newscasts' Campaign Priorities: Obsess Over
Clinton Emails, Virtually Ignore Sanders , Media Matters for America
11. Adam Johnson (March 8, 2016), Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in
16 Hours , FAIR
12. Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours , Democracy Now!, March 11, 2016
13. Katie Halper (June 28, 2019), Sydney Ember’s Secret Sources , FAIR
14. 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
15. Jennifer Steinhauer (March 14, 2016), "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative
Side Doors" , The New York Times
16. Jennifer Steinhauer (March 14, 2016), "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest
Victories" , The New York Times
17. Matt Taibi (March 15, 2016), How the ‘New York Times’ Sandbagged Bernie Sanders , Rolling
Stone
18. Margaret Sullivan (March 17, 2019), "Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?" , The
New York Times
19. Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise,
Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
20. Sarah Childress (July 12, 2016), Study: Election Coverage Skewed By “Journalistic Bias” , PBS
Frontline
21. Colleen Elizabeth Kelly (February 19, 2018), A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016
American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Lanham,
Maryland: Lexington Books, pp. 6–7, ISBN 978-1-4985-6458-8
22. Blake, Aaron (July 24, 2016). "Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC's leaked
emails" . The Washington Post.
23. Shear, Michael (July 22, 2016). "Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders
Campaign" . The New York Times.
24. Blake, Aaron (July 24, 2016). "Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC's leaked
emails" . The Washington Post.
25. "Democratic National Committee apologizes to Sanders over emails" . Reuters. July 25, 2016.
26. "DNC CEO resigns in wake of email controversy" . CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2016.
27. Shane Ryan (February 21, 2019), "The Washington Post, Picking Up Where They Left Off in
2016, Runs Four Negative Bernie Sanders Stories in Two Days" , Paste
28. Luke Savage (November 20, 2019), The Corporate Media’s War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very
Real , Jacobin
29. Louis Staples (August 19, 2019), The Bernie Bro is dead – but people are still trying to resurrect
him , Independent
30. Most Democrats Are Excited by ‘Several’ 2020 Candidates – Not Just Their Top Choice , Pew
Research Center, August 16, 2019
31. Katie Halper (July 26, 2019), MSNBC’s Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math , FAIR
32. Grace Haley (April 29, 2019), Who are women donors putting their money behind? Not just the
Democratic women. , OpenSecrets
33. David (May 4, 2019), MSNBC Misreports Data, Shortchanges Bernie Sanders , Front Page Politics
34. Glenn Greenwald (March 3, 2019), MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About
Bernie Sanders’s Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them , The Intercept
35. Travis Irvine (September 3, 2019), Media's Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling , Columbia Free
Press
36. Morgan Gstalter (August 13, 2019), Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign
coverage a 'conspiracy theory' , The Hill
37. Reliable Sources. July 28, 2019. CNN. President Trump's Pattern of Racist Tweets; Mueller
hearings Reinforced America's Media Bunkers .
38. Chris Cillizza (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders isn't sorry , CNN
39. Domenico Montanaro (August 13, 2019), Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon — This Time
Pulling In 'The Washington Post' , NPR
40. David Sirota (November 4, 2019), BERN NOTICE: The Bernie Surge -- And The Media's Attempt
to Ignore & Derail It , Bern Notice
41. @ryangrim (October 29, 2019). "CNN has five articles up about its new NH poll that shows
Sanders in front, yet none of the five say that in the headline" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
42. Krystal Ball (November 4, 2019), Krystal Ball rips 'utterly embarrassing' CNN report comparing
Buttigieg to Obama , The Hill
43. Jake Johnson (November 5, 2019), As Examples Mount, Sanders Campaign Accuses Corporate
Media of 'Deliberate Attempt to Erase Bernie' , Common Dreams
44. John Bowden (October 29, 2019), Sanders responds to Onion article about him: 'No one was
supposed to find out' , The Hill
45. Branco Marcetic (November 3, 2019), "MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals
—And It's Ignoring Bernie Sanders" , In These Times
46. Michael Calderone (July 15, 2019), Sanders campaign: Media ‘find Bernie annoying, discount his
seriousness’ , Politico
47. Tara Golshan (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained , Vox
48. Michael Calderone (August 13, 2019), Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders’
‘conspiracy theory’ , Politico
49. Katrina vanden Heuvel (August 20, 2019), "Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate
media bias" , The Washington Post
50. Tim Dickinson (August 29, 2019), "The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is
Really Something" , Rolling Stone
51. Paul Heintz (February 26, 2019). "I've reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won't
give him what he wants" . The Washington Post.
52. 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
53. Elizabeth Jensen (August 7, 2015), Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's
Coverage , NPR
54. Mitch Wertlieb & Kathleen Masterson (April 1, 2016), 'Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media
Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques , VPR
55. Frandsen, Alexander; Bajak, Aleszu (April 24, 2019), Women on the 2020 campaign trail are
being treated more negatively by the media , Storybench
56. Bajak, Aleszu (September 30, 2019), Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media
coverage over last four months , Storybench
External links
Berniesandersfacts.com - A website dedicated to documenting alleged bias against Bernie

Sanders.
Towardsdatascience.com - An article that discusses media bias in the democratic primary.
Status Quo Bias in the Mainstream American Media Coverage of Senator Bernie Sanders -A
peer-reviewed journal article that discusses media bias in the context of Bernie Sanders.
BernieBlackout.com - A website dedicated to documenting alleged media bias against the

Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns.
Last edited 3 hours ago by Lalichi

Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

12/3/2019 Media bias against Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Bernie Sanders in July 2019.

2016 primary campaign

Early campaign months

Stories mentioning Bernie Sanders as a percentage of those mentioning Donald Trump[7]

New York Times 49%

Washington Post 40%

Wall Street Journal 22%

USA Today 32%

ABC News 16%

CBS News 20%

NBC News 15%

Fox News 53%

PBS News Hour 56%

Later campaign months

Harvard Kennedy School report

Patterson stated that,

DNC email leak

2020 primary campaign

In about, you know, a minute or so or two minutes or so you’re going to cut to

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

Chris Cillizza from CNN opined that Sanders and Shakir,[38]

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

New Hampshire polling reports

In These Times analysis

Criticism of accusations of bias

...the gatekeepers of established opinion no longer hold as much sway, when

Berniesandersfacts.com - A website dedicated to documenting alleged bias against Bernie

Towardsdatascience.com - An article that discusses media bias in the democratic primary.

BernieBlackout.com - A website dedicated to documenting alleged media bias against the

Last edited 3 hours ago by Lalichi

Potrebbero piacerti anche