From the study:
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
Frankly, I don’t buy that Trump’s coverage was largely positive in tone, even back then (and Sanders’ might not have been either, I think it depends when in the campaign you looked). I’d question the methodology of a study that comes up with that result.
That doesn’t contradict what I said. He had the highest % of negative coverage of anybody besides Clinton in the charts shown below. I don’t think it’s correct to say his coverage was largely positive. He just got a ton of it, much of it neutral in tone. I honestly can’t remember much MSM reports I would say were actually positive. The write up of the study I linked is not very good and as it conflates neutral coverage with good.
But to the main issue you already conceded that Bernie’s coverage in 2016 was good so why do you think it’s bad or the media is hostile to him now?
This seems exactly synonomous with “his coverage was largely positive”. The chart you’re referring to shows the percentage of “issue coverage” which was negative in tone and also shows that only 12% of Trump’s overall coverage was “issue coverage”.
Digging into the study a bit more, here’s an example of exactly the methodology problems I was talking about:
Why was Trump’s coverage so favorable? Why did the watchdog press say so many positive things about Trump’s candidacy? The reason inheres in journalists’ tendency to build their narratives around the candidates’ positions in the race. This horserace focus leads them into four storylines: a candidate is “leading,” “trailing,” “gaining ground,” or “losing ground.” Of the four storylines, the most predictably positive one is that of the “gaining ground” candidate, particularly when that candidate is emerging from the back of the pack. It’s a story of growing momentum, rising poll numbers, and ever larger crowds. The storyline invariably includes negative elements, typically around the tactics that the candidate is employing in the surge to the top. But the overall media portrayal of a “gaining ground” candidate is a positive one.
In other words, they grade articles as “positive coverage” if they simply report, factually, that a candidate is gaining ground in the race. No wonder both Sanders and Trump are graded as having “positive coverage”! How could it be otherwise, since both steadily gained ground over the course of the campaign? What an idiotic way to grade coverage.
Honestly I might have misremembered the tenor of the Sanders coverage in 2016 and I don’t particularly want to argue about it. I can cite things agreeing with me about Sanders v Warren (for example), if you can cite anything saying the opposite then I’ll read it, otherwise we simply have a difference of opinion, but imo the difference is glaringly obvious.
I mean I guess if you’re grading coverage to figure out how much free advertising a candidate got, then counting “candidate gaining ground” articles as “positive coverage” is reasonable, but it renders it hopeless as a metric of media bias.
Bernie is my sentimental favorite but think this means the only chance for a progressive now is Warren. Which is not bad… but that does suck.
I love the fact Yang is in your head.
Shock the “conscious.”
The corrupt media are going to make him out to be some medically frail octogenarian, when the truth is that he’ll only be a medically frail 79.5-year-old when he’s inaugurated.
Kind of wild that Warren is going to be able to play the age card against someone else in her quest to become the oldest president ever at first inauguration…
I was surprised too when I first realized how old she is. She comes off as 10 years younger.
Maybe being a Republican for so long prevented her from aging. The extra decades of fighting for the common man have not been kind to Bernie.
Bernie is pretty spry for 78. To see what a bad 78 looks like go to Joe 30330
Tight race in CA. Time for a 3 candidate debate.
https://twitter.com/PPICNotes/status/1179614592625991680?s=19
Warren’s a cougar? That triples her coolness factor IMO
Sigh…YOU said the media was hostile to Sanders. I thought that was wrong and you’ve conceded it was based on nothing. You could of saved me time and just not posted anything. Good day.
How were there no good people running interference there!?!?!
Time for her to get Secret Service protection IMO.