MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals--And It's Ignoring Bernie Sanders

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

Even so, MSNBC is positioned to have an outsized influence on the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. According to the Norman Lear Center, liberals watch MSNBC at (respectively) three and 10 times the rate of more moderate and conservative viewers. After Fox News, MSNBC is the most-watched cable news network, beating out CNN. What’s more, the median age of MSNBC’s audience is 65—and older voters turn out in high numbers in primary contests.

To understand how MSNBC may be shaping the 2020 election, In These Times analyzed the network’s August and September coverage of the Democratic presidential contest’s leading candidates—Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. We focused on the network’s flagship primetime shows: 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.

(snip)

Sanders and Warren released, respectively, eight and 10 detailed policy plans over this two-month period, covering topics from investing in rural America, empowering indigenous people, getting to 100% renewable energy and muzzling corporate lobbyists (Warren) to workplace democracy, a Green New Deal, housing for all and a wealth tax (Sanders). Most of these 18 plans were ignored by MSNBC, and only two were discussed in any depth: Hayes interviewed Sanders about his August 22 Green New Deal plan and Maddow interviewed Warren about her September 16 anti-corruption plan. (Biden, for his part, introduced zero plans.)

Instead, MSNBC’s coverage builds around incoming poll results, which may be cause for concern. Social scientists have long been critical of the way polls can shape news coverage, as poll coverage risks calcifying what might otherwise be fleeting shifts in popular opinion. The hosts In These Times analyzed occasionally acknowledged that polls are not always reliable, but relied on them anyway. Only Melber explicitly dismissed polls, saying “they don’t matter right now,” reporting instead on online donation numbers. He was alone in mentioning Sanders’ historic surge in small-dollar donations.

(snip)

http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html

[nycbos]

1. Help help I'm being repressed.

[BuffaloJackalope]

3. .

[NurseJackie]

10. There's never a bad time for a little Python. There's a clip for every occasion!

[nycbos]

13. And that clip is so versatile.

[emmaverybo]

17. Brilliant.

[ismnotwasm]

20. Omg

[brooklynite]

2. Too bad that Sanders is such an obscure candidate that nobody knows about him.....

[George II]

7. Plus, the premise of that "In These Times" article is simply not true. I don't know what....

....their metrics are, but from what I've seen Sanders is on MSNBC more than any other candidate. I'm waiting for Hayes to change the name of his show Sanders is on so much.

[Uncle Joe]

11. These were their metrics.

(snip)

To understand how MSNBC may be shaping the 2020 election, In These Times analyzed the network’s August and September coverage of the Democratic presidential contest’s leading candidates—Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. We focused on the network’s flagship primetime shows: 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.

In These Times tallied how often the three candidates were discussed and logged whether the coverage was positive, negative or neutral. For example, while poll results by themselves (whether favorable or unfavorable to a candidate) were simply logged as neutral, commentary about a candidate “surging” was logged as positive and “stagnant” as negative. Clips and previews for upcoming segments were not included.

The coverage quickly revealed a pattern. Over the two months, these six programs focused on Biden, often to the exclusion of Warren and Sanders. Sanders received not only the least total coverage (less than one-third of Biden’s), but the most negative. As to the substance, MSNBC’s reporting revolved around poll results and so-called electability.

After the 2016 presidential election, in which the press was criticized for disproportionately giving Donald Trump $2 billion of free media, MSNBC may be repeating history. While pundits get paid to have opinions, MSNBC’s seem to dwell in an alternate reality: As momentum mounts for longstanding liberal goals like single-payer health care and bold climate action, MSNBC’s coverage seems devoted, instead, to narrowing the liberal imagination.

(snip)

http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html

[OldRed2450]

24. I thought Bernie supporters didn't like liberals...

Am I wrong?

[OilemFirchen]

31. Your bolded paragraph proves that their "analysis" is subjective at best.

Commentary about a stagnant poll result for a candidate may or may not be negative, but they presume it always is, regardless of the actual language. Even if their presumption is true, there's no evidence that MSNBC commentary isn't consistent no matter which candidate experiences poll stagnation. That Sen. Sanders may have stalled more than the others isn't a reflection of the commentary, it's a reflection of the campaign.

This is juvenile pseudo-statistical analysis. It's neo-leftist garbage dressed up to appear legitimate.

[Uncle Joe]

32. The word stagnant is negative, one can report polls without commentary as to momentum or

lack thereof.

(snip)

Instead, MSNBC’s coverage builds around incoming poll results, which may be cause for concern. Social scientists have long been critical of the way polls can shape news coverage, as poll coverage risks calcifying what might otherwise be fleeting shifts in popular opinion. The hosts In These Times analyzed occasionally acknowledged that polls are not always reliable, but relied on them anyway. Only Melber explicitly dismissed polls, saying “they don’t matter right now,” reporting instead on online donation numbers. He was alone in mentioning Sanders’ historic surge in small-dollar donations.

(snip)

http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html

Meanwhile actual record breaking donations coming in were all but ignored by MSNBC.

[OilemFirchen]

34. The word "stagnant" is neutral.

Sen. Sanders has been polling within a limited range for virtually the entire duration of this Primary. You're welcome to believe that reporting about that is "negative", but it's not. It's simply commentary about polling trends. If the trend is flat, stating so is akin to remarking that the DJI closed unchanged. If that affects investor sentiment, it's because investors are concerned about the lack of movement in the market, not the reporting about it.

Perhaps Sen. Sanders can attempt to determine why he has no polling momentum. Blaming it on objective reporting shows an inability to take responsibility for his shortcomings. Perhaps that shapes public opinion... as it should.

[Uncle Joe]

36. Stagnant has negative connotations, it's not neutral.

2: not advancing or developing a stagnant economy

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stagnant

Bernie is doing just fine in fund raising, crowd turnout and the polls particularly for this stage of race against upper teen number of political opponents.

"Commentary" is designed to do only one thing, steer the people, that's all it is, propaganda, whether one is for or against it.

[OilemFirchen]

41. Good lord.

"Commentary" is designed to do only one thing, steer the people, that's all it is, propaganda, whether one is for or against it.

Take it up with the entire literary world, from the beginnings of language. You might include Sen. Sanders in your bleating, who, per your assertion, makes millions writing "propaganda".

[Uncle Joe]

42. Commentary by pundits, it's almost always about the "horse race" or trivial bullshit,

however critical issues affecting the daily lives of the overwhelming majority of the American People is all but ignored.

[JudyM]

46. This is what everyone is overlooking, and it couldn't be more important.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

45. Perhaps they don't think he's electable ?

[Hoyt]

4. Guess MSNBC needs another Big Ed Schultz.

[SCVDem]

6. RIP Big Ed.

[comradebillyboy]

47. Not really...

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Not as long as they Chris Hayes. n/t

[SidDithers]

5. Maybe he could do another Fox town hall...nt

Sid

[Jose Garcia]

8. I'm sure that Wayne Messas has similar complaints

[Celerity]

33. Mike Gravel Can't Believe His Polling Numbers Neck-And-Neck With Fucking Nobody Like Wayne Messam

https://politics.theonion.com/mike-gravel-can-t-believe-his-polling-numbers-neck-and-1834789221

BURLINGAME, CA—Stressing that he is a “two-term United States senator for Christ’s sake,” White House Democratic hopeful Mike Gravel told reporters Wednesday that he can’t believe he’s polling neck-and-neck with a fucking nobody like Florida mayor Wayne Messam.

“That Messam prick’s been in politics for, what, a few years? I was a legislator in nineteen-fucking-sixty-three. I should be in with the big dogs like Bernie or Liz Warren, not slumming it in the pissant 20,000-donors club,” said the 88-year-old prospective candidate, who added that “you would think a name like Mike goddamn Gravel would carry a little more weight than a mayor of some podunk town in godforsaken Florida.” “I’m the son of a bitch who read the Pentagon Papers into Congressional Record.

Now, I’m competing to qualify for debates with this no-name Messam asshole, not to mention that hippy-dippy bullshit author Marianne Whatever-The-Hell-Her-Name-Is [Williamson]. I’m not even polling at 1% yet. Is it me or is there something really fucked with that picture? Wayne Messam, my ass.” At press time, Messam had pulled ahead of Gravel in the polls.

[MustLoveBeagles]

44. What no "GET OFF MY LAWN!!"?

So funny. Thank you.

[OhNo-Really]

9. We are each responsible to learn & decide

As a detail driven, fact seeking voter, I view all commercial television programs with full knowledge that commercial TV is not free in every way.

That is the best evaluation of MSNBC

That said, the programming from 4:00PM on is recorded & watched now, after a much needed 4 year break from the circus.

When an important fact is presented in a fuzzy or incorrect light, a correction tweet is offered immediately. It seems to help

It’s a new world & our voice can be used directly via twitter whether we like it or not 🤷🏻‍♀️

[katmondoo]

12. I am a liberal and I do not support Sanders,

[The Valley Below]

15. Same here.

BS is my last choice.

[zeusdogmom]

26. Same here

[comradebillyboy]

48. My last choice too, even below Gabbard...

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. I thought we were all Center-Left now.

We're allowed to be liberal again? Did I miss a meeting?

[Gothmog]

43. Same here

[Happy Hoosier]

14. He gives the same speech over and over again.

It's not like voters don't know who he is and what he says.

[Buzz cook]

18. MSNBC is not liberal.

It is generally supportive of the democratic party. But that could change with the speed of a Chris Matthews interruption.

The main stream media like Biden. They like the narrative of an Obama acolyte taking on Trump and the working class kid against the billionaire.

Remember also that the corporate media is just that "corporate". The last thing they want is a candidate that threatens their bottom line. Sanders and Warren do just that. Biden is not that kind of threat.
Biden has also been using the inside the beltway mantra that we can all get along and be like Tip n Ronnie. Moderation in all things.

So yes the coverage of Sanders is not as positive. The media as usual has its thumb on the scale.

[Quixote1818]

19. Bingo. Nt

[Uncle Joe]

22. I totally agree with you Buzz cook, corporate is the keyword, this isn't the first time

and they don't care about learning any lessons from the past.

I remember when Matthews had a serious thing going on for George W. Bush; "he kept us safe!" I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one.

(snip)

The Love Story distortion set the stage for the "I Invented the Internet" distortion, a devastating piece of propaganda that damaged Gore at the starting gate of his run. On March 9, 1999, CNN's Wolf Blitzer conducted an interview with Gore shortly before he officially announced his candidacy. In answer to a question about why Democrats should support him, Gore spoke about his record. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative"—politico-speak for leadership—"in creating the Internet," he said, before going on to describe other accomplishments. It was true. In the 1970s, the Internet was a limited tool used by the Pentagon and universities for research. As a senator in the 80s, Gore sponsored two bills that turned this government program into an "information superhighway," a term Gore popularized, and made it accessible to all. Vinton Cerf, often called the father of the Internet, has claimed that the Internet would not be where it was without Gore's leadership on the issue. Even former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich has said that "Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."

The press didn't object to Gore's statement until Texas Republican congressman Dick Armey led the charge, saying, "If the vice president created the Internet, then I created the interstate highway system." Republican congressman James Sensenbrenner released a statement with the headline, delusions of grandeur: vice president gore takes credit for creating the internet. CNN's Lou Dobbs was soon calling Gore's remark "a case study … in delusions of grandeur." A few days later the word "invented" entered the narrative. On March 15, a USA Today headline about Gore read, inventing the internet; March 16 on Hardball, Chris Matthews derided Gore for his claim that he "invented the Internet." Soon the distorted assertion was in the pages of the Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe, and on the A.P. wire service. By early June, the word "invented" was actually being put in quotation marks, as though that were Gore's word of choice. Here's how Mimi Hall put it in USA Today: "A couple of Gore gaffes, including his assertion that he 'invented' the Internet, didn't help." And *Newsday'*s Elaine Povich ridiculed "Gore's widely mocked assertion that he 'invented' the Internet." (Thanks to the Web site the Daily Howler, the creation of Bob Somerby, a college roommate of Gore's, we have a chronicle of how the Internet story spiraled out of control.)

(snip)

The story picked up steam. "I was the one that started it all" became a quote featured in U.S. News & World Report and was repeated on the chat shows. On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos said, "Gore, again, revealed his Pinocchio problem. Says he was the model for Love Story, created the Internet. And this time he sort of discovered Love Canal." On two consecutive nights of Hardball, Chris Matthews brought up this same trio as examples of Gore's "delusionary" thinking. "What is it, the Zelig guy who keeps saying, 'I was the main character in Love Story. I invented the Internet. I invented Love Canal.…' It reminds me of Snoopy thinking he's the Red Baron." "It became part of the vocabulary," Matthews says today. "I don't think it had a thunderous impact on the voters." He concedes, however, that such stories were repeated too many times in the media.

(snip)

The reporters and opinion-makers have eagerly chewed over the possibility. After all, he's now a star. In step with the new enthusiasm for Gore, Dowd, in a February 2007 column, described him as "a man who was prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism, and Iraq," a sentiment echoed by many. The pundits, however, invariably come around to the same question: "But if he ran, would he revert to the 'old Gore'?" Another question—in light of countless recent stories about John Edwards's haircut—might be: Would the media revert to the old media?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710

(snip)

Matthews has said, "I'm more conservative than people think I am.... I voted for George W. in 2000."[22] Salon.com has called him the "most conservative voice" on MSNBC's primetime lineup.[23] Matthews has been accused by Media Matters for America[24] of having panels of guests that skew to the right and of supporting Republicans in his own questions and comments.[25][26]

(snip)

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

[questionseverything]

37. msnbc is afterall just comcast with a different face

what surprised me is the medium age of 65?

[LanternWaste]

21. There is a consistency in your attempt to blame the media for Sanders' dismal performance.

At least you've distanced yourself from the "name recognition" meme that was the du jour, go-to excuse merely three months ago, and have recently latched onto this newer expediency.

Any port in storm to hide the shipwreck, I s'pose.

[questionseverything]

38. dismal performance?

Only Melber explicitly dismissed polls, saying “they don’t matter right now,” reporting instead on online donation numbers. He was alone in mentioning Sanders’ historic surge in small-dollar donations.

////////////////////////

any candidate receiving historic small donor donations should be news

[msongs]

23. he should drop out. that would get him attention. nt

[NurseJackie]

29. You rock!

[comradebillyboy]

49. Good idea!!!!!!!

[Skidmore]

27. ...

[handmade34]

28. good

Bernie is my last resort Democrat

[underthematrix]

30. While I avoid criticizing any of our primary candidates, I usually

switch channels when they announce a Bernie segment. I still believe the best way to say no to a particular candidate is to ignore them. Don't give the other side any fuel to hurt one of our candidates.

Now that DEVAL PATRICK is in the race, I'm gonna have a very very very very difficult decision to make because I love love Joe Biden. Before this moment, everything was so simple then he had to get in the race. DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN. THat is all

[mahina]

35. Rats. I think you are right.

I noticed it last time around but I really hadn’t noticed at this time. Shouldn’t be this way

[LakeArenal]

39. Oh gee. A few weeks ago we Biden supporters thought

That some hosts have a bias against Joe.
So does the article specify if coverage was necessarily positive coverage.

So if there’s bias against Joe and lack of coverage for Bernie that leaves Warren.

Oh but coverage of Warren’s health plan slanted negative for her.

It’s a-bit like following polls that change within the margin of error. Is that really change? I dunno but some folks like to ballyhoo over it.

[Uncle Joe]

40. If you read the article, you would know the answers to your questions. n/t

[CentralMass]

51. I dropped cable in 2015. I haven't watched MSNBC since and I'm fine with it.

[TidalWave46]

52. What a shady article.

Sanders initiated such foolishness by starting his own little war against the media. Thankfully we won’t be going into the General with two candidates espousing populism and railing against the press. That would be a really bad position we would be in.

[betsuni]

53. LOL "outsized influence" on old people. Um, liberals aren't stupid.