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 22:40, 2 December 2019 editGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits July: both mintpress news and jacobinmag are biased, unreliable sources and cannot be used to cite statements of fact. I am removing material which is sourced exclusively to jacobinmag and mintpress← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:49, 27 October 2024 edit undoSelvydra (talk | contribs)392 edits Evidence to the contrary 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}} <!-- "none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive; see ] -->
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. -->
{{use American English|date=January 2020}}
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Media bias against Bernie Sanders|timestamp=20191201164813|year=2019|month=December|day=1|substed=yes}}
{{use mdy dates|date=January 2020}}
<!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Media bias against Bernie Sanders|date=December 1, 2019|result='''keep'''}} -->
] in November 2019]]
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->


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.
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2019}}
{{current||current election|date=December 2019}}
{{NPOV|date=December 2019}}
]
Various media outlets have raised concerns that the ] in the United States have made a concerted effort to downplay, underreport, or ignore the popularity of ], primarily concerning both his ] and ]s. Accusations have ranged from explicit ], journalistic malpractice, and distortions of information and data. ] such as ''Rising with the Hill's ] and ]'' (by '']''), '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', prominent ] 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 ] and ] 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 ], as well as Twitter and ]—many of which discuss media bias and what they call the '''Bernie Blackout'''.


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"/>
Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the ], profit-driven special interests, ] and the ], general media ], ]s, and ]. The most prominent media organizations being accused of bias have been '']'', the '']'', and the '']''. 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.


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>
First discussed during the ], responses to the outcome gave rise to accusations of conspiracies about rigging of the primary election—most notably from the ] 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.


== Background==
Legitimacy of the bias has been called into question by some political commentators.
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>


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>
== 2016 primary campaign ==
{{See also|2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign}}
On April 28, 2015, ] reported that Sanders would announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on April 30.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Murray |first1=Mark |title=Bernie Sanders to Announce Presidential Bid on Thursday |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-announce-presidential-bid-thursday-n349896 |accessdate=April 30, 2015 |publisher=NBC |date=April 30, 2015}}</ref> In an interview with '']'' on April 29, Sanders stated that he was "running in this election to win," and launched a campaign website, effectively beginning his run.<ref name="USAToday">{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-interview-democratic-presidential-race/26576639/|title=Bernie Sanders: 'I am running in this election to win'|date=April 30, 2015|newspaper=USA Today|last1=Kelly|first1=Erin}}</ref> Sanders said he was motivated to enter the race by what he termed "obscene levels" of income disparity, and the campaign finance system.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gram |first1=Dave |title=Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'I am running for president' |url=https://news.yahoo.com/vermont-sen-bernie-sanders-am-running-president-000144179--election.html |accessdate=April 30, 2015 |publisher=Yahoo! News |date=April 30, 2015}}</ref> On May 26, 2015, Sanders officially announced his candidacy at Burlington's Waterfront Park.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/05/26/berniesanders/27955299/ |title=Video: Bernie Sanders announces run for president |archive-url=https://archive.today/20150701200800/http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/05/26/berniesanders/27955299/ |archive-date=July 1, 2015 |url-status=live |work=The Burlington Free Press |date=May 26, 2015 |access-date=May 27, 2015 }}</ref> In an interview with ]'s Jamie Weinstein,<ref group=note>The interview has since been redacted on the National Review website. (See National Review April 13, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2019. on 2018-04-14.)</ref> MSNBC host, ] 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 ] that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders".<ref name="Adams2018">{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ed-schultz-msnbc-was-in-the-tank-for-hillary-clinton|title=Former MSNBC host says network 'in the tank' for Hillary Clinton|author=Becket Adams |date=April 17, 2018|website=Washington Examiner}}</ref><ref name="Rutz2018">{{Cite web|url=https://freebeacon.com/politics/ed-schultz-msnbc-fired-supporting-bernie-sanders-tank-hillary-clinton/|title=Ed Schultz: MSNBC Fired Me for Supporting Bernie Sanders, 'They Were in the Tank for Hillary Clinton'|last=Rutz|first=David|date=April 16, 2018|website=Washington Free Beacon}}</ref> 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC.


=== Early campaign months === == Academic analyses ==
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"/>
In an analysis by Jim Naureckas from ''FAIR'' using the ] calculated the number of mentions of Sanders versus ] from July 1, 2015 to August 21, 2015. The following data table summarizes the results.<ref name="Naureckas2016">{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/two-candidates-surge-in-2016-polling-but-only-trump-not-sanders-fascinates-media/ |title=Two Candidates Surge in 2016 Polling—but Only Trump, Not Sanders, Fascinates Media |author=Jim Naureckas | publisher=FAIR |date=August 21, 2015 }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable floatright"
|+
Stories mentioning Bernie Sanders as a percentage of those mentioning Donald Trump<ref name="Naureckas2016"/>
|'''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%
|}


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 October 2015, Story Hinckley of the '']'' 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.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1001/Bernie-who-Why-does-TV-media-ignore-Sanders-even-as-he-tops-polls |title=Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he tops polls? |author=Story Hinckley | work=The Christian Science Monitor |date=October 1, 2015 }}</ref> Chris Weigant from '']'' opined in September that Sanders was receiving little media coverage as well.<ref name="Weigant2015">{{Citation|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-dont-get-no-respec_b_8224192 |title=Bernie Don’t Get No Respect From Media |author=Chris Weigant | publisher=HuffPost |date=September 30, 2015 }}</ref> '']'' reported that media networks were overwhelmingly covering Hillary Clinton's email controversy, while ignoring Sanders.<ref>{{Citation|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 |author=Eric Boehlert | publisher=Media Matters for America |date=September 24, 2015 }}</ref> In a study of campaign coverage conducted by Andrew Tyndall, '']'', '']'', and '']'' 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).<ref name="Weigant2015"/>


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"/>
=== 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."<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 |author=Adam Johnson | publisher=FAIR |date=March 8, 2016}}</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}}</ref><ref name="Macleod">{{Citation|url=https://www.mintpressnews.com/bernieblackout-media-bernie-sanders-bias/262661/ |title=#Bernieblackout: The Media Isn’t Even Hiding Its Anti-Bernie Bias Anymore |author=Alan Macleod | publisher=MintPress News |date=November 5, 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}}
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.<ref name="Halper2019-06">{{Citation|url=https://fair.org/home/sidney-embers-secret-sources/ |title=Sydney Ember’s Secret Sources |author=Katie Halper | publisher=FAIR |date=June 28, 2019 }}</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> The article was originally title ''"Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors"''<ref>{{Citation|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss |title=Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors |author=Jennifer Steinhauer | work=The New York Times |date=March 14, 2016 }}</ref> but was subsequently changed to ''"Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."''<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html |title=Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories |author=Jennifer Steinhauer | work=The New York Times |date=March 14, 2016 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://medium.com/@brokenravioli/proof-that-the-new-york-times-isn-t-feeling-the-bern-c74e1109cdf6#.7vr0tvspx |title=Proof That The New York Times Isn’t Feeling the Bern |author=The Broken Ravioli | publisher=Medium |date=March 14, 2016 }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/ |title=Were Changes to Sanders Article ‘Stealth Editing’? |author=Margaret Sullivan | work=The New York Times |date=March 17, 2019 }}</ref> 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."<ref name="Halper2019-06"/>


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>
==== 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.<ref>{{Citation|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 |author=Thomas E. Patterson }}</ref> The report found that,
{{Quote
|text=...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.


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>
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,
{{Quote
|text=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.
|sign=|source=}}
'']'' 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."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/study-election-coverage-skewed-by-journalistic-bias/ |title=Study: Election Coverage Skewed By “Journalistic Bias” |author=Sarah Childress | publisher=PBS Frontline |date=July 12, 2016 }}</ref>


== 2016 primary campaign ==
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.<ref>{{Citation|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump |author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly |date=February 19, 2018 |publisher=Lexington Books |location=Lanham, Maryland |isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8 |pages=6-7 }}</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>
==== DNC email leak ====
{{Main|2016 Democratic National Committee 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.<ref>{{cite web |first=Aaron |last=Blake |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/ |title=Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC's leaked emails|newspaper=The Washington Post |date=July 24, 2016}}</ref> In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html|title=Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign|last=Shear|first=Michael|date=July 22, 2016|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> ''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."<ref>{{cite web |first=Aaron |last=Blake |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/ |title=Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC's leaked emails|newspaper=The Washington Post |date=July 24, 2016}}</ref> The controversy resulted in an apology to Sanders<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dnc-statement-idUSKCN1052BN |title=Democratic National Committee apologizes to Sanders over emails |agency=Reuters |date=July 25, 2016}}</ref> by the DNC and the resignation of the CEO ], CFO ], and Communications Director Luis Miranda.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/dnc-ceo-resigns-in-wake-of-email-scandal/index.html | title=DNC CEO resigns in wake of email controversy | publisher=CNN | accessdate=August 3, 2016}}</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>
== 2020 primary campaign ==
{{See also|2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign}}
=== February ===
Shane Ryan from '']'' 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. ] 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."<ref>{{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 }}</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>
=== July ===
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.<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 }}</ref> 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, ] of '']'' 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.<ref name="Halper2019-07"/> The data was taken from an open secrets report<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/04/who-are-women-donors-putting-their-money-behind-not-just-the-democratic-women/ |title=Who are women donors putting their money behind? Not just the Democratic women. |author=Grace Haley | publisher=OpenSecrets |date=April 29, 2019 }}</ref> that made it clear that the report focused only on large donations.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.fppolitics.com/msnbc-misreports-data-shortchanges-bernie-sanders/ |title=MSNBC Misreports Data, Shortchanges Bernie Sanders |author=David | publisher=Front Page Politics |date=May 4, 2019 }}</ref> Sanders first quarter reported that 46% of his donations were from women.<ref name="Halper2019-07"/> 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.<ref name="Halper2019-07"/> Glen Greenwald from The Intercept detailed the occurrence and considered it a blatant lie stating,<ref>{{Citation|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/ |title=MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About Bernie Sanders’s Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them |author=Glenn Greenwald | publisher=The Intercept |date=March 3, 2019 }}</ref>
{{Quote
|text="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."
}}


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>
=== August ===
Sanders along with various members of his campaign have spoken out directly about the media bias. After Sanders led the movement to pressure ] to pay its employees $15 an hour, "I talk about all of the time... And then I wonder why ''The Washington Post'', which is owned by ], who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://columbusfreepress.com/article/medias-anti-bernie-bias-mind-boggling |title=Media's Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling |author=Travis Irvine | publisher=Columbia Free Press |date=September 3, 2019 }}</ref> 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."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/457191-washington-post-editor-calls-sanders-claim-about-campaign-coverage-conspiracy |title=Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory' |author=Morgan Gstalter | publisher=The Hill |date=August 13, 2019 }}</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>
Other political commentators purported that Sanders' comments were akin to Trumps such as that of Senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny when he tweeted, "Bernie Sanders sounds a lot like President Donald Trump as he trashes Amazon." Poppy Harlow in a later CNN segment stated, "This seems like a really dangerous line, continued accusations against the media with no basis in fact or evidence provided".
<ref name="Gosztola2019">{{Citation|url=https://medium.com/@kevin_33184/the-washington-posts-well-documented-bias-against-bernie-sanders-be808aca8c94 |title=The Washington Post’s Well-Documented Bias Against Bernie Sanders |author=Kevin Gosztola | publisher=Medium |date=August 13, 2019 }}</ref>
Around the same time as the lashback, Sanders campaign Faiz Shakir told CNN,<ref>{{cite episode|transcript=President Trump's Pattern of Racist Tweets; Mueller hearings Reinforced America's Media Bunkers|network=CNN|air-date=July 28, 2019|series=Reliable Sources|transcript-url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1907/28/rs.01.html }}</ref>
{{Quote
|text="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,
{{Quote
|text="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,<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/bernie-sanders-media-2020/index.html |title=Bernie Sanders isn't sorry |author=Chris Cillizza | publisher=CNN |date=August 14, 2019 }}</ref>
{{Quote
|text="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 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."<ref name="Montanaro2019">{{Citation|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=Domenico Montanaro | publisher=NPR |date=August 13, 2019 }}</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>
==== New Hampshire polling reports ====
Sanders' speechwriter David Sirota wrote in the campaign's Bern Notice newsletter,<ref name="Sirota2019">{{Citation|url=https://bernie.substack.com/p/bern-notice-the-bernie-surge-and |title=BERN NOTICE: The Bernie Surge -- And The Media's Attempt to Ignore & Derail It |author=David Sirota | publisher=Bern Notice |date=November 4, 2019 }}</ref>
{{Quote
|text="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.


== 2020 primary campaign ==
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..."
{{see also|2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries|Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign}}
}}
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.<ref name="Sirota2019"/> Ryan Grim from ''The Intercept'' noted similar headlines on his Twitter feed on October 29.<ref>{{cite tweet |user=ryangrim |number=1189235477506867200 |date=October 29, 2019 |title=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 }}</ref><ref name="Sirota2019"/> One headline read: "Buttigieg in fourth, but a strong fourth" which was subsequently commented on and mocked by journalist Krystal Ball from ''The Hill''.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/468927-krystal-ball-rips-utterly-embarrassing-cnn-report-comparing-buttigieg-to-obama |title=Krystal Ball rips 'utterly embarrassing' CNN report comparing Buttigieg to Obama |author=Krystal Ball | publisher=The Hill |date=November 4, 2019 }}</ref> Common Dreams detailed the controversy after it unfolded.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/05/examples-mount-sanders-campaign-accuses-corporate-media-deliberate-attempt-erase |title=As Examples Mount, Sanders Campaign Accuses Corporate Media of 'Deliberate Attempt to Erase Bernie' |author=Jake Johnson | publisher=Common Dreams |date=November 5, 2019 }}</ref> The headline at the satirical newspaper, '']'', 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.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/467996-bernie-sanders-responds-to-onion-article-about-him-no-one-was |title=Sanders responds to Onion article about him: 'No one was supposed to find out' |author=John Bowden | publisher=The Hill |date=October 29, 2019 }}</ref>


===2019===
==== ''In These Times'' analysis ====
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 November 2019, the Chicago left-wing magazine '']'' published an in-depth article analyzing the coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019.<ref name="Marcetic2019">{{Citation|url=http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html |title=MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders |author=Branco Marcetic | work=In These Times |date=November 3, 2019 }}</ref><ref name="Savage"/> The focused primarily on Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden. The analysis covered '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' and '']'' 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''.<ref name="Marcetic2019"/>


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>
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.<ref name="Marcetic2019"/>


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>
== Criticism of accusations of bias ==
Various commentators have responded, criticized, or offered explanations of the various accusations of media bias.


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>
'']'' 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.”<ref name="Calderone2019-07">{{Citation|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/15/bernie-sanders-campaign-media-reject-1415832 |title=Sanders campaign: Media ‘find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness’ |author=Michael Calderone | publisher=Politico |date=July 15, 2019 }}</ref> 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".<ref name="Calderone2019-07"/>


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>
''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.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.vox.com/2019/8/14/20802129/bernie-sanders-2020-corporate-media-bias-explained |title=Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained |author=Tara Golshan | publisher=Vox |date=August 14, 2019 }}</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>
The ''Washington Post'' has had mixed responses from various journalists. Marty Baron called the accusations a conspiracy,<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/washington-post-editor-attacks-bernie-sanders-conspiracy-theory-1460597 |title=Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders’ ‘conspiracy theory’ |author=Michael Calderone | publisher=Politico |date=August 13, 2019 }}</ref> 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,<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/20/bernie-sanders-has-smart-critique-corporate-media-bias/ |title=Bernie Sanders has a smart critique of corporate media bias |author=Katrina vanden Heuvel | work=The Washington Post |date=August 20, 2019 }}</ref>
{{Quote
|text="...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.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/ |title=The Washington Post’s Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something |author=Tim Dickinson | work=Rolling Stone |date=August 29, 2019 }}</ref> Paul Heintz of the Post suggested that Sanders' solution to his concern about media bias would be complete, verbatim coverage of his pronouncements.<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>


===2020===
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|url=https://www.vogue.com/article/bernie-sanders-progressive-presidential-candidate-2020-blackout |title=Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren’t More People Talking About Him? |author=Emma Specter | work=Vogue |date=November 8, 2019 }}</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 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>
Domenico Montanaro of NPR claimed that Sanders sounded like Trump in his criticism of the media, quoting Trump's tweet, "...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!"<ref name="Montanaro2019"/> 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."<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2015/08/07/430363570/feelin-the-bern-sanders-devotees-speak-out-about-nprs-coverage |title=Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage |author=Elizabeth Jensen | publisher=NPR |date=August 7, 2015 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Citation|url=https://www.vpr.org/post/bernie-bias-news-nprs-media-correspondent-responds-your-critiques#stream/0 |title='Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques |author=Mitch Wertlieb & Kathleen Masterson | publisher=VPR |date=April 1, 2016 }}</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>
In March 2019, a preliminary study by ]'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;<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.storybench.org/women-on-the-2020-campaign-trail-are-being-treated-more-negatively-by-the-media/|title=Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media|last1=Frandsen|first1=Alexander|last2=Bajak|first2=Aleszu|publisher=Storybench|date=April 24, 2019}}</ref> a further update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.storybench.org/gabbard-booker-and-biden-get-most-negative-media-coverage-over-last-four-months/|title=Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months|last=Bajak|first=Aleszu|publisher=Storybench|date=September 30, 2019}}</ref>


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>
== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}


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>
== References ==
{{reflist}}


== External links == == See also ==
* ]
* - A website dedicated to documenting alleged bias against Bernie Sanders.
* ]
* - An article that discusses media bias in the democratic primary.
* ]
* - A peer-reviewed journal article that discusses media bias in the context of Bernie Sanders.
* ]
* - A website dedicated to documenting alleged media bias against the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns.


== References ==
{{reflist}}


{{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: