Bernie Sanders Had to Overcome Media Consensus Around Hillary Clinton

[Uncle Joe]

Who is and isn’t a “serious” candidate in our modern public relations-driven democracy is largely tautological. Whoever the news media say is important early on typically becomes the most important. This leads to a feedback loop that anoints the “frontrunner” in the “invisible primary,” where success is measured by name recognition, money raised, party insider support and a host of “serious” accomplishments, all before the most essential of feedback has been provided: actual voting.

This dynamic helped create the artificial consensus around Hillary Clinton early on. According to one tally of nightly broadcast network news during the 2015 primary season, Sanders received a total of 20 minutes of coverage, compared to Clinton’s 121 minutes and Trump’s 327. This gap would narrow once Sanders began to gain parity in early primary states, a feat Sanders achieved not because of media coverage but despite it.

That “frontrunner” status prejudices both viewer and pundit alike when news media presents delegate totals, often including the unearned “super delegates,” despite the fact that their declared preferences are not binding, and could only reverse the will of the voters at the risk of throwing the election. This makes it appear as if Clinton’s lead is more insuperable than it actually is — a vestige of the invisible primary that occurred months before anyone voted.

The rise of predictive metrics, or “data-driven” analysis, has also been something of a false prophet. When both The Observer and The Washington Post addressed the question of Sanders’ media coverage, they insisted he was getting the appropriate amount because professional tea-leaf readers FiveThirtyEight.com, along with PredictIt, a site allowing the public to gamble on the outcome of the race, gave him very low odds. What’s missing from this analysis is that these indicators, while sometimes useful, are simply quantifying conventional wisdom, not proving any unique insight into future events. It's a conventional wisdom that’s just as informed by the “frontrunner” mystique as any other indicator.

To combat frontrunner bias — and give a truer sense of the strength of an insurgent like Bernie Sanders — the news media should do its best to downplay the importance of the invisible primary until the actual ones have gotten underway.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/03/14/has-bernie-sanders-been-underestimated/bernie-sanders-had-to-overcome-media-consensus-around-hillary-clinton

[merrily]

1. Are we assuming media does NOT attempt to influence elections? What a quaint POV.

And, in this primary, the once-vaunted NYT has been among the worst.

[Uncle Joe]

2. To often media bias has also propelled our nation to unjust wars.

This article seems to have been cut in half, I can't scroll down on it but what isn't mentioned is corporate media conglomerate culpability in carrying Bush's water and how that influenced American Perception.

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

(snip)

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

[merrily]

3. Yes, media carried Bushco's water on Iraq. So did Hillary, Kerry, Biden and every Democratic Senator

who later made a shot at the Democratic nomination for POTUS.

A majority of Democrats, if you count both houses, voted against the IWR, but 100% of Democratic Senators who tried for POTUS voted for it. I think that speaks for itself.

It's not only Republicans. It's not only media. It's really Plutocrats versus the rest of us.

[Uncle Joe]

4. I agree with you merrily but most Senators only have the courage of their "political" convictions

and without the corporate media conglomerates brainwashing such a large percentage of the American People in to believing the multiple myths of Iraq, I believe a lower number of those politicians would've supported Bush and Cheney on this.

This is not to excuse the Senators for their actions but to note a greater threat to both our electoral process and the issue of war vs peace being the power of corporate media conglomerate propaganda especially when combined with our corrupted/dysfunctional campaign finance system.

[merrily]

5. It all goes hand in hand, but msm did not, and had no power to, vote for the war resolution.

Not the IWR or the "Terra Terra" war resolution that preceded the IWR.

Also, the msm is answerable only to its stockholders and the board of directors elected by the stockholders. Maximizing profits for those stockholders is the legal duty of that board. If the directors fsck up that duty, the stockholders should vote them out.

The legal duty of Senators is very different from the duty of a board of directors--and Senators are answerable to us, twice over, once when they run for the Senate and once when they run for President.

I am as anxious as anyone to rail against corporations and the msm. However, most of us don't have any real power against them and don't use the power against our elected officials that we do have.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Six mega conglomerates own 90+% of everything the American People

see on television, hear on the radio or read in printed publications, their power to enlighten or mislead the American People is far greater than any Senator.

Those same mega conglomerates hold other businesses which transcends their news divisions.

Six authoritarian boards of directors and you know they're all mega-wealthy, their concerns are much narrower and self-serving than to their stock holders. The major stockholders are quite wealthy as well, so their interests don't necessarily align with those of the public and probably don't in most cases.

The fiduciary responsibility of any Senator is to represent the best interests of their state wide constituents specifically and the nation at large in general but when those constituents are led to believe via corporate media conglomerate propaganda that their interests are best served by waging war or supporting a given policy, those Senators would be hard pressed to buck them.

I believe the American People do have power against the corporate media conglomerates by refusing to blindly follow their propaganda, while supporting and electing political leaders that refuse to play the game in our corrupted/dysfunctional electoral system, the Internet has greatly aided in this endeavor.

By doing so the American People will create a government that in turn actually checks the power of mega-bucks corrupting our political system while also dealing with the issue of monopolies or trusts and this will lead to political leaders; that are much more apt to faithfully follow their legal duties or fiduciary responsibilities to their constituents or the nation as a whole instead of constantly being worried about raising enough money to get reelected.

[reformist2]

11. The media cheerleading for the war in Iraq really opened my eyes to our "free press".

I haven't looked at them the same way since.

[merrily]

12. "I haven't looked at them the same way since." All the better for you. They're disgraceful.

[smiley]

15. The stolen election of 2004 in Ohio is what opened my eyes.

and the continued repression of discussion or questioning anything regarding 9/11 is also a big eye opener. But hell, I even face that here on DU.

[H2O Man]

6. Thank you.

Recommended.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Thank you, H2O Man!

Peace to you.

[JackRiddler]

7. They could also talk about the issues for a change.

[Uncle Joe]

9. That would be a major improvement.

[Octafish]

10. From the great DUer think...

The media black out is on the major networks where there is segment of America that relies on those networks for their news.

ABC, CBS, And NBC News Made An Intentional Decision To Ignore Bernie Sanders

By Jason Easley on Fri, Dec 11th, 2015 at 2:58 pm

An analysis of network television news coverage reveals what supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders have long suspected; the three broadcast television networks are intentionally ignoring the Sanders campaign.

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters has the revealing details:

So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it’s been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it’s been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.

~Snip~

The corporate owned profit first network news divisions have made the editorial decision that they are going to lavish airtime upon the presidential candidate who most fits their corporate owners’ ideology.

The networks are ignoring Bernie Sanders because his anti-corporate message is dangerous to their well being. The broadcast and cable networks both have a habit of ignoring stories that can hurt their bosses’ bottom lines....

Read more:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/11/abc-cbs-nbc-news-intentional-decision-ignore-bernie-sanders.html

The Discourse Suffers When Trump Gets 23 Times As Much Coverage as Sanders

All Trump all the time media coverage lets Trump define the discussion. It denies voters a broader, better discourse.

By John NicholsTwitterDECEMBER 14, 2015

f we imagine American media as a hungry beast that thinks only about its next meal, then it is easy to see why Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has gone from strength to strength. Trump feeds the beast. With calculated and constant outrageousness, he dominates news coverage not just of the race for the Republican nomination but of the entire 2016 presidential competition. As veteran political observer Larry Sabato says, “It’s Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump and Trump.”

~Snip~

And, as Media Matters for America has illustrated, there should be a good deal more coverage of Bernie Sanders. “The network newscasts are wildly overplaying Trump, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support, while at the same time wildly underplaying Sanders, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support,” observed Media Matters’s Eric Boehlert in a report using data from media analyst Andrew Tyndall. “Obviously, Trump is the GOP front runner and it’s reasonable that he would get more attention than Sanders, who’s running second for the Democrats. But 234 total network minutes for Trump compared to just 10 network minutes for Sanders, as the Tyndall Report found?”

Trump and Sanders are dramatically different contenders offering polar opposite proposals for the United States. Yet each has attracted a passionate following. And that has translated into similar levels of support.

On the Republican side, the Real Clear Politics poll averages have Trump attracting 30.4 percent support nationally among voters who might reasonably be expected to participate in Republican primaries and caucuses. On the Democratic side, the RCP poll averages have Clinton leading. But Sanders is attracting 31 percent support in the Democratic race—a better number than Trump.

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-discourse-suffers-when-trump-gets-23-times-as-much-coverage-as-sanders/

Additional sources:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/01/the_networks_are_doing_the_democrats_dirty_pundits_punish_hillary_bernie_gets_ignored_partner/

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/1214/Should-Bernie-Sanders-get-as-much-media-coverage-as-Donald-Trump

Original reply that I should have recommended as a stand-alone thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511439273#post5

PS: Great OP and thread, Uncle Joe! Thank you!

[Uncle Joe]

13. Thank you for the great addition, Octafish, I'm convinced the corporate media conglomerates

relentlessly promoted Trump for so long over Bernie as a means to suck up the populism or anger argument oxygen allowing much of it to be misdirected toward the weak and disenfranchised scapegoats in our society.

Their goal opposite of Bernie's was to divide the nation, the last thing they wanted was a united American People across all lines of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, native born or immigrant etc. etc.

I believe they operated under one of two assumptions and possibly a combination, that by doing so Bernie would fall out early and Trump would eventually implode allowing an establishment Republican to win the nomination.

The other being that some if not most of the corporate media conglomerates actually believe (d) Trump was just a pseudo populist only giving lip service while actually being an establishment politician. Trump and his billions have certainly benefited from establishment politics and economics.

The corporate media conglomerates were taking a gamble because they were more afraid of a Bernie win than a Jeb Bush loss.

[Octafish]

18. You are most welcome, Uncle Joe! Thank you for the inspired analysis.

You are correct: A united electorate drains the swamp and that would not be good for the rich and their saptraps in Wall Street-on-the-Potomac. Intelligent people know better, but most Americans get their "news" from the tee vee.

The hairdo waves like painted yellow flag for those bent to greed to rally round, better than allowing Bernie Sanders to define himself before the 95-percent of America that had never heard of him.

The corporate owned news media, like America's Walmarts at Christmas, make a killing during election season. Drumpf made the ratings go through the retractable dome roof. With Bernie as President, the election season gravy train would become ancient history.

I had wondered why, if they were in cahoots and the idea was for Crypto NAZI III to prevail in Cleveland, the powers would ever foist this plein air NAZI upon America. Once Drumpf labeled Bushler "Low Energy," it was "Goodnight Jebthro!" Heh heh heh.

[2banon]

16. Excellent post, Uncle Joe

thanks for sharing..

[Uncle Joe]

17. Thank you, 2banon.

Peace to you.