CNN's Coverage of Sanders Was 3X More Negative Than Biden Following Their Big Primary Wins

[Uncle Joe]

Joe Biden’s ascent into frontrunner status is often portrayed as an organic consequence of big-time endorsements and an untapped desire for a more “centrist” and “electable” candidate. But a survey by In These Times finds that CNN has portrayed Bernie Sanders more negatively than Biden, suggesting that media slant itself may play a role in Biden’s rise.

In the 24 hours following his massive win in Nevada, Sanders received 3.26 times the proportion of negative CNN coverage than Biden did following the latter’s South Carolina win—despite the two wins being by similar margins. Sanders received more coverage after his win than Biden did after his: 419 mentions to Biden’s 249. But a larger share of Sanders’ mentions were negative, and fewer positive, than Biden’s. The above 3.26 figure was arrived at by comparing negative coverage as a proportion of total coverage for both candidates.

CNN is one of the most widely watched cable news networks on television, averaging about a million viewers during prime time. Given its down-the-middle reputation, CNN can be a useful proxy for broader media coverage. The 24-hour window following a primary is a critical time for setting a public narrative about which candidates are viable, have “momentum,” and seem presidential. Media coverage that drives up the negatives of a candidate can have a hand in harming their campaigns.

Sanders won a blowout victory in Nevada, garnering 46.8% of the vote in a multi-candidate field—putting him well ahead of Biden’s 20.2% support. Yet in the 24-hour period following his win, starting at midnight, CNN’s coverage of Sanders was slightly more negative than positive: He received 32 positive mentions, 33 negative mentions, and 354 neutral mentions from CNN guests or hosts. (For the purposes of this study, a “mention” refers to each time a candidate is discussed—but not to each time his or her name is mentioned. In These Times tended towards conservatism and only logged a mention as positive or negative if it was clearly either.)

(snip)

https://inthesetimes.com/article/22354/cnn-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-media-spin-candidates-negative-mentions

This is a good read, it was difficult picking out only four paragraphs.

[George II]

1. When did Sanders have a big primary win?

[NurseJackie]

2. ...

[PatSeg]

7. Now that's mean!

[samnsara]

3. i remember the news coverage HRC got....

[ismnotwasm]

21. Yup.

[tritsofme]

4. Bernie's campaign is over, all that's left is the shouting...and whining.

So really...not much different than before.

[beachbumbob]

5. why wouldn't be??? Sanders outsdpent biden by 20-1 and LOST BIG EVERYWHERE

that deserves 3x the negative coverage, should have been way more

[wyldwolf]

6. karma?

[LanternWaste]

8. Blame the media, question the polls, rinse, lather, repeat as necessary.

May be difficult picking out only four paragraphs, but it's certainly not difficult at all predicting the consistent targets of blame for Sanders' poor campaign.



The important (and far more ironic) thing though, is that you continue cherry-picking media to better criticize the media.

[Demsrule86]

9. Sanders only won one state by an impressive amount...Nevada. And it was a caucus...none

the less, Biden was written off by the press between Nevada and Super Tuesday...so the article is a pack of lies and really is comprised of excuses of why Sanders isn't doing better...the fact is Sanders ran a terrible campaign and is losing because of this. It is not the 'Establishment, not the media...nope. Sanders is responsible.

[dalton99a]

11. "In These Times" is a Bernie propaganda outlet

like "The Nation"

[TwilightZone]

10. Nevada and South Carolina are nothing alike

Sanders was expected to win Nevada. According to many, including 538, it was widely assumed that Sanders would keep it close in SC or possibly win. Instead, he got demolished.

False equivalence is false.

[TwilightZone]

12. "Their Big Primary Wins" - Nevada is a caucus.

If the author doesn't even understand that simple fact....

[showblue22]

13. Blame everyone but Bernie.

Bernie won NH, Pete won Iowa despite Bernie spending 50 million there. Let's talk about NV, it's a caucus that included only 4% of the people in that state. So.. What big wins of Bernie's?

[Jarqui]

14. When Sanders won in Nevada, he was the clear frontrunner

BUT a big difference: nearly everyone else didn't drop out after he won Nevada
So Bernie had a number of candidates trying to bring him back to the pack chasing him - triggering negative coverage.

When Joe won SC, everyone else threw in the towel and endorsed him.

So you're going to have more positive stories about Joe with the endorsements than you would Bernie who had a number of candidates still taking shots at him.

Bernie also incensed a lot of people with this tweet:

Link to tweet

That also drew a broad, negative reaction which was covered by the media and will probably go down in the history books as the beginning of the end for him. It was not a smart thing to say.

I have not read the article. It was obvious that it had to attempt to compare apples and oranges.

I love Bernie's policies. I respect him in that he's not pandering these ideals - he's fought for them his whole life. (He might be kind of pandering by avoiding clearer details on how he's going to pay for them ..). But the polls show us overwhelmingly that his "political revolution" is not going to happen for him. And it's not the establishment who are saying no to him. It's the voters. I think that is what we'll see tonight and throughout March if he continues his campaign.

[karynnj]

15. I read the article and was frankly unimpressed

First of all, there is no explanation of who did the counting. Second, from the article, the examples were not really that compelling.

1) Clyburn endorsing was a big deal considering his status in SC and the country. It was before the SC primary, but also after Nevada. Should it NOT have been covered?

2) News broke that a month or so before, Sanders was warned that Russia was helping his campaign. What I saw was Sanders answering that he did not want their help. I did not see it as negative given the coverage of that push back.

3) Expectations. Sanders was seen as likely to win Nevada. It was important that Biden come in at least second. I watched MSNBC,not CNN, but the coverage there and in the NYT, WP etc was that Sanders was the frontrunner.

4) The magnitude of SC, like Sanders' win in Nevada, was unexpected. Coverage Saturday was not all that different than the parallel coverage of Sander's victory in Nevada. One huge difference was that there was a parallel story in SC that in both Nevada and SC, Pete and Amy completely underperformed.
That led to the Sunday and Monday coverage of them dropping out and making strong endorsements of Biden, joined by Beto doing the same. This had the feel of almost a mini convention with former opponents uniting around Biden.

5) Given 4, the biggest surprise in the numbers given was that Biden had such low numbers of both positive and negative comments. That contradicts how I, not counting mentions, viewed Sunday and Monday.

[Politicub]

16. Maybe Sanders' campaign is 3x more negative.

His online surrogates certainly are, shall I say, a bit confrontational.

The mobs of Sanders supporters that disrupt Biden rallies are also kind of negative, don't you think?

So, the coverage could be reflecting the reality of the campaigns.

[brush]

17. Same happened to Biden after the early contests. He was written off as dead.

And Sanders crowed he had "news for the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment—they can't stop us."

[thesquanderer]

18. MSNBC was worse than CNN. James Carville and Chris Matthews went to town on Sanders

when it looked like he had become the frontrunner. No such piling on when Biden rebounded.

[Jose Garcia]

19. There is a lot of negativity around his past and his campaign

[msongs]

20. bernie has had FOUR years to get more support than 2016 and failed at it nt