MSNBC Ignoring Sanders? A Media Analysis

[Surrealistik]

MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders

ONCE KNOWN AS THE LONE, FORTHRIGHT VOICE OF LIBERALISM on cable news, MSNBC began a lurch to the center in 2015 with its new chairman, Andrew Lack, going on a conservative pundit hiring spree and shedding the network’s “Lean Forward” branding...

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

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

Having gone through the article and analysis, this is largely a confirmation of what most people paying attention and being honest with themselves have already known, not unlike the 2016 e-mail leaks confirmed ongoing suspicion of DNC bias and to a lesser extent media collusion with the DNC; as then, it is disappointing, but not at all surprising.

 

[jnug]

MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders



Having gone through the article and analysis, this is largely a confirmation of what most people paying attention and being honest with themselves have already known, not unlike the 2016 e-mail leaks confirmed ongoing suspicion of DNC bias and to a lesser extent media collusion with the DNC; as then, it is disappointing, but not at all surprising.

Bernie is certainly getting less attention regarding the 2020 campaign since throwing himself off the cliff edge in a way that will make it very difficult for him to recover.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bernie is certainly getting less attention regarding the 2020 campaign since throwing himself off the cliff edge in a way that will make it very difficult for him to recover.

I don't find that polling, or indeed any meaningful evidence whatsoever at all agrees with your assessment, especially as Bernie recently tied with Biden in national polls per Ipso, and he currently leads on the handling of high priority issues:




Bernie Sanders 'Best' On Health Care, the Economy, Environment and Immigration in New 2020 Poll

 

[jnug]

I don't find that polling, or indeed any meaningful evidence whatsoever at all agrees with your assessment, especially as Bernie recently tied with Biden in national polls per Ipso, and he currently leads on the handling of high priority issues:




Bernie Sanders 'Best' On Health Care, the Economy, Environment and Immigration in New 2020 Poll

National Polls in an Election that occurs in the Electoral College are utterly meaningless. Bernie is now a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. There is no chance of this country putting a self-avowed Democratic Socialist in the WH. Having a few puttering around the Capitol is fine. Not going to see one in the WH.

Ultimately if Bernie is still around when the field of Dem candidates is narrowed it will occur to the Dem Party (if it hasn't already) that if they put a Democratic Socialist at the top of their 2020 ticket, he will take the entire Party down with him. They will be left with AOC in the House.

 

[aociswundumho]

Even so, MSNBC is positioned to have an outsized influence on the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. According to the Norman Lear Center, liberals watch MSNBC at (respectively) three and 10 times the rate of

Liberals, not Marxists. Bernie is not a liberal.

Political commentator Walter Lippmann, patron saint of patrician liberalism, argued in 1922 that, because “the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely,” they “can be managed only by a specialized class”—in other words, the misguided masses can’t recognize their own interests without guidance from the best and brightest.

Put another way, people are too stupid to understand what's good for them, so they need wise and benevolent leftists to tell them what to do. Lippmann got this idea from Lenin. It's really just a higher form of paternalism, which is another core leftist value.

MSNBC has close ties to a Democratic establishment that finds the politics of Biden (and even Warren) more palatable than Sanders’ “political revolution.”

In other words, Bolshevik Bernie is too far left for even MSNBC to stomach.

 

[Surrealistik]

National Polls in an Election that occurs in the Electoral College are utterly meaningless. Bernie is now a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. There is no chance of this country putting a self-avowed Democratic Socialist in the WH. Having a few puttering around the Capitol is fine. Not going to see one in the WH.

Ultimately if Bernie is still around when the field of Dem candidates is narrowed it will occur to the Dem Party (if it hasn't already) that if they put a Democratic Socialist at the top of their 2020 ticket, he will take the entire Party down with him. They will be left with AOC in the House.

In otherwords, you have essentially no evidence whatsoever in support of your claims, and Bernie has no chance because you proclaim it is so.

 

[jnug]

In otherwords, you have essentially no evidence whatsoever in support of your claims, and Bernie has no chance because you proclaim it is so.

Bernie has self-avowed as a Democratic Socialist now. He has literally said the words, "I am a Democratic Socialist". Are you so oblivious to American politics that you do not know what that means while posting to a site titled, DebatePolitics?

 

[Surrealistik]

Liberals, not Marxists. Bernie is not a liberal.

You're right; Bernie is a European centrist. 'Marxist' as a brand is laughable and not even in the ballpark.

Put another way, people are too stupid to understand what's good for them, so they need wise and benevolent leftists to tell them what to do. Lippmann got this idea from Lenin. It's really just a higher form of paternalism, which is another core leftist value.

Rather, it seems pretty clear that you feel people are too stupid to understand what's good for them since they at this time appear to be agreeing with the 'wise and benevolent leftist' approach per the cited polling; pure projection.

In other words, Bolshevik Bernie is too far left for even MSNBC to stomach.

Or more likely still, they're in truth a right leaning publication that can only hope to appear left via the grossly distorted American political prism.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bernie has self-avowed as a Democratic Socialist now. He has literally said the words, "I am a Democratic Socialist". Are you so oblivious to American politics that you do not know what that means while posting to a site titled, DebatePolitics?

Apparently not much per all the data we have thus far.

I'm not interested in conventional wisdom that's simply not supported by conventional facts. The 2007 financial collapse was an instance of such, as was the eradication of Democrat standings in the federal govt from 2010 to 2016 under centrist leadership.

 

[jnug]

Apparently not much per all the data we have thus far.

I'm not interested in conventional wisdom that's simply not supported by conventional facts. The 2007 financial collapse was an instance of such, as was the eradication of Democrat standings in the federal govt from 2010 to 2016 under centrist leadership.

OK...So you live in the fantasy world of a self-avowed Democratic Socialist getting the Dem nomination and the GOP not shoving his own words right down his throat. I don't know what you think you know about this country's politics. Not much from what I have seen in this thread.

 

[Surrealistik]

OK...So you live in the fantasy world of a self-avowed Democratic Socialist getting the Dem nomination and the GOP not shoving his own words right down his throat. I don't know what you think you know about this country's politics. Not much from what I have seen in this thread.

My view on the viability of Sanders is predicated on the facts as they stand today, and as such they will change accordingly; yours by contrast seems to be based wholly on entrenched biases and opinion.

By the way, I don't think Sanders getting the nomination is guaranteed, and believe that doing so for him is certainly an uphill battle, but I also don't find it's remotely impossible either as you do.

 

[3leftsdoo]

MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders

Having gone through the article and analysis, this is largely a confirmation of what most people paying attention and being honest with themselves have already known, not unlike the 2016 e-mail leaks confirmed ongoing suspicion of DNC bias and to a lesser extent media collusion with the DNC; as then, it is disappointing, but not at all surprising.

Indeed.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Bernie is certainly getting less attention regarding the 2020 campaign since throwing himself off the cliff edge in a way that will make it very difficult for him to recover.

And Hillary, the DNC & the MSM were right behind him when that happened.

Right.

Behind.

Him.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I don't find that polling, or indeed any meaningful evidence whatsoever at all agrees with your assessment, especially as Bernie recently tied with Biden in national polls per Ipso, and he currently leads on the handling of high priority issues:



Bernie Sanders 'Best' On Health Care, the Economy, Environment and Immigration in New 2020 Poll

Bernie's a ghost.

Cranky grampa ghost.

Even if he got the nomination - which he won't - he'd lose to Trump.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bernie's a ghost.

Cranky grampa ghost.

Even if he got the nomination - which he won't - he'd lose to Trump.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Personally I'm far more interested in what the data says as we get closer to the actual events.

 

[jnug]

My view on the viability of Sanders is predicated on the facts as they stand today, and as such they will change accordingly; yours by contrast seems to be based wholly on entrenched biases and opinion.

By the way, I don't think Sanders getting the nomination is guaranteed, and believe that doing so for him is certainly an uphill battle, but I also don't find it's remotely impossible either as you do.

And the facts as they stand today is that Bernie is now a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. The only way to buy into that being a winning strategy of any sort is to have no earthly idea how the Electoral College functions and no earthly idea of how far away from that far Left the country's sentiments lie.

No less a Dem than Obama himself is trying to bring the party back to the Center and just as I predicted weeks ago, of the two of them, Bernie and Warren, it would be Warren that would try to tack back to the Center, a journey she has already begun.

Hope is not a politically rational strategy. So yes I reject "hope" in the face of logic.

 

[Surrealistik]

And the facts as they stand today is that Bernie is now a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. The only way to buy into that being a winning strategy of any sort is to have no earthly idea how the Electoral College functions and no earthly idea of how far away from that far Left the country's sentiments lie.

No less a Dem than Obama himself is trying to bring the party back to the Center and just as I predicted weeks ago, of the two of them, Bernie and Warren, it would be Warren that would try to tack back to the Center, a journey she has already begun.

Hope is not a politically rational strategy. So yes I reject "hope" in the face of logic.

I'm not sure what kind of centre you're talking about, but Warren isn't really doing much of anything in that regard.

Moreover, again, you have literally no facts or data in confirmation of your very tenuous opinion; Bernie's core ideas have and continue to hold majoritarian support and the confidence of the American public, whether you like it or not. Maybe that will change in the future, but that's certainly where things stand now.

Having said that, the irony of claiming to reject hope in favour of logic isn't lost on me, when in reality hope is the fundamental basis of your opposition to Bernie: hope and faith that people will come around to your echo your viewpoint, where logic has nothing to do with it, nor facts.

 

[3leftsdoo]

You're entitled to your opinion.

Personally I'm far more interested in what the data says as we get closer to the actual events.

Data can be useful, but Bernie's a ghost.

I wish he weren't, but he's just one casualty of the massive Democrat arson which flared out of control in 2016 and continues to this day.

Bill & Hillary = Matches & gasoline

 

[SoCal]

And the facts as they stand today is that Bernie is now a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. The only way to buy into that being a winning strategy of any sort is to have no earthly idea how the Electoral College functions and no earthly idea of how far away from that far Left the country's sentiments lie.

No less a Dem than Obama himself is trying to bring the party back to the Center and just as I predicted weeks ago, of the two of them, Bernie and Warren, it would be Warren that would try to tack back to the Center, a journey she has already begun.

Hope is not a politically rational strategy. So yes I reject "hope" in the face of logic

Well said. I was thrilled to hear Obama's word's the other day, it behoves us to take them seriously. Incremental change is the way to have our policies realized, not a tear down and rebuilding from scratch. In my younger more idealistic years, my first vote for president was McGovern, but Nixon won in a landslide. The country was much more conservative back then and look at how far we've brought Americans into the light. I don't believe the majority of Americans want to turn back the clock.

Numnuts has been the worst setback since 72' and he'll go down in history as one of, if not the most corrupt president we've suffered under. There were many reasons why Don won, white Americans last grasp to hold onto power, indifference and many Democrats believing the polls, didn't come out to vote. Add to that the Sanders supporters who stayed home.

We've won some and lost some battles since 1972, but taking the long view, we've come a long way, winning many more policy battles than we lost. The civil rights bill only passed eight years before McGovern ran. I believe of the eight presidents since Nixon, Obama was our greatest. Yet many on the far left, like many conservative Libertarians claim Obama was a pawn of corporations and the rich, no different then any other president. :doh

It's been slow progress since Nixon, but time and demographics will ensure many more liberal wins than loses. It's easy get your shorts in a twist about how slow progress is, but history tells me that unless Don refuses to step down and somehow becomes our dictator-in-chief, slow progress will continue.

Many on the far left, like many on the far right, are never happy with the speed of change. Many far left democrats/socialists even refuse to vote for any of our Democrat presidential candidates because they don't measure up to their standards. These non-voters are just pawns of Numnuts, Putin and the 90% of the Repubs who support him. A self-proclaimed Democrat/Socialist will never be president, end of story, get over it...

 

[Craig234]

Well said. I was thrilled to hear Obama's word's the other day, it behoves us to take them seriously. Incremental change is the way to have our policies realized, not a tear down and rebuilding from scratch.

No offense, but you're deluded. You don't understand the problem of plutocracy, and how Obama was a corporatist who helped plutocracy just fine. So called incremental change you refer to will NOT change our road toward plutocracy, and 'tear down' does not describe Bernie's policies. Expanding Medicare, and shifting some wealth from Wall Street to education IS incremental change that would work, not a communist revolution.

 

[btthegreat]

MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders



Having gone through the article and analysis, this is largely a confirmation of what most people paying attention and being honest with themselves have already known, not unlike the 2016 e-mail leaks confirmed ongoing suspicion of DNC bias and to a lesser extent media collusion with the DNC; as then, it is disappointing, but not at all surprising.

This was soooo predictable. Its the same playbook as last time. Sanders will lose this nomination fight because an insufficient number of voters will cast ballots for him in enough Democratic contests among the fifty states to gain enough delegates to win the nomination. That's what happened last time and that is what is going to happen this time per my very early predictions on both occasions. Matter of fact he will do a a lot worse this time. I have said that since he announced.

Now I don't much care if Sanders voters blame the voters for being ignorant or lazy or self interested , or if they blame Bernie for not picking good staff, or tailoring his message, or having the right positions. Blame the candidate or blame the voters.

But don't come up with excuses AGAIN, where neither is to blame so that you can sell yourself on this myth that he is really the right man for the right time with right message and voters are dying to hear it and respond, but third parties are in some conspiracy to keep the lovebirds apart. I got plenty sick of these excuses four years ago. Its not the rest of the world's fault that this two did not get around to taking their marriage vows.

 

[jnug]

I'm not sure what kind of centre you're talking about, but Warren isn't really doing much of anything in that regard.

Moreover, again, you have literally no facts or data in confirmation of your very tenuous opinion; Bernie's core ideas have and continue to hold majoritarian support and the confidence of the American public, whether you like it or not. Maybe that will change in the future, but that's certainly where things stand now.

Having said that, the irony of claiming to reject hope in favour of logic isn't lost on me, when in reality hope is the fundamental basis of your opposition to Bernie: hope and faith that people will come around to your echo your viewpoint, where logic has nothing to do with it, nor facts.

Try to keep up. Warren has now backed off Medicare for All to a position claiming she supports an interim solution before trying to take on Medicare for all. Real shocker that Liz.

The Country does not have to come around to my view of things. The Country is more Conservative than you apparently think it is. This is particularly true when you are discussing and election what will be resolved through the Electoral College. You should get out more.

Presidential elections are not resolved in NY or California. Just because AOC has a very safe seat situated in the Bronx does not mean THE COUNTRY is moving Left to such a degree that Bernie can get himself to the WH as a Democratic Socialist.

 

[Surrealistik]

This was soooo predictable. Its the same playbook as last time. Sanders will lose this nomination fight because an insufficient number of voters will cast ballots for him in enough Democratic contests among the fifty states to gain enough delegates to win the nomination. That's what happened last time and that is what is going to happen this time per my very early predictions on both occasions. Matter of fact he will do a a lot worse this time. I have said that since he announced.

Now I don't much care if Sanders voters blame the voters for being ignorant or lazy or self interested , or if they blame Bernie for not picking good staff, or tailoring his message, or having the right positions. Blame the candidate or blame the voters.

But don't come up with excuses AGAIN, where neither is to blame so that you can sell yourself on this myth that he is really the right man for the right time with right message and voters are dying to hear it and respond, but third parties are in some conspiracy to keep the lovebirds apart. I got plenty sick of these excuses four years ago. Its not the rest of the world's fault that this two did not get around to taking their marriage vows.

No one is making an excuses; this is simply an analysis of MSNBC coverage which frankly seems to betray a rather clear bias. Moreover, though the DNC was objectively and blatantly biased in 2016 as leaks at the time had clearly demonstrated, including a financial bailout that gave the Clinton campaign unprecedented control of the institution and its hires, I and probably the majority of other Bernie supporters didn't assign excuses despite the existence of a loud minority complaining with unsupported surety that the DNC cost him the nomination. I thought Bernie did fantastically well for someone who started at 3% and zero name recognition and money vs an opponent with well over 60% support who was one of the biggest names in politics at the time and had an overflowing war chest. Few expected him to win despite our disappointment, but we were certainly hoping for it.

As to your prognostications, they seem largely without merit. If there's anything that harms Bernie this time around it's his own success as the most successful candidates, barring Biden, have bandwagoned on his shifting of the Overton window in various ways, and the split of the progressive vote between him and Warren. The latest polls have him tied with Biden and back above Warren.

Try to keep up. Warren has now backed off Medicare for All to a position claiming she supports an interim solution before trying to take on Medicare for all. Real shocker that Liz.

The Country does not have to come around to my view of things. The Country is more Conservative than you apparently think it is. This is particularly true when you are discussing and election what will be resolved through the Electoral College. You should get out more.

Presidential elections are not resolved in NY or California. Just because AOC has a very safe seat situated in the Bronx does not mean THE COUNTRY is moving Left to such a degree that Bernie can get himself to the WH as a Democratic Socialist.

I wouldn't consider Warren's citing of an interim to be some kind of massive pivot or back peddle despite it being of course disappointing; moreover, the rest of her policies haven't gone anywhere whatsoever, including those that have made poor billionaires like Leon Cooperman cry on live television. Warren remains stridently progressive even if not as far left as Bernie (and she never was).

Further, again, you are simply wrong on the political thrust of the nation and are making baseless statements; if you were right, MFA wouldn't be seeing the consistent, recurring majoritarian support in the polls it does, nor would universal, free public college. My conviction in Bernie's chances doesn't stem from any safe seat wins so much as recurring nation wide polling and data that supports it.

 

[jnug]

No one is making an excuses; this is simply an analysis of MSNBC coverage which frankly seems to betray a rather clear bias. Moreover, though the DNC was objectively and blatantly biased in 2016 as leaks at the time had clearly demonstrated, including a financial bailout that gave the Clinton campaign unprecedented control of the institution and its hires, I and probably the majority of other Bernie supporters didn't assign excuses despite the existence of a loud minority complaining with unsupported surety that the DNC cost him the nomination. I thought Bernie did fantastically well for someone who started at 3% and zero name recognition and money vs an opponent with well over 60% support who was one of the biggest names in politics at the time and had an overflowing war chest. Few expected him to win despite our disappointment, but we were certainly hoping for it.

As to your prognostications, they seem largely without merit. If there's anything that harms Bernie this time around it's his own success as the most successful candidates, barring Biden, have bandwagoned on his shifting of the Overton window in various ways, and the split of the progressive vote between him and Warren. The latest polls have him tied with Biden and back above Warren.





I wouldn't consider Warren's citing of an interim to be some kind of massive pivot or back peddle despite it being of course disappointing; moreover, the rest of her policies haven't gone anywhere whatsoever, including those that have made poor billionaires like Leon Cooperman cry on live television. Warren remains stridently progressive even if not as far left as Bernie (and she never was).

Further, again, you are simply wrong on the political thrust of the nation and are making baseless statements; if you were right, MFA wouldn't be seeing the consistent, recurring majoritarian support in the polls it does, nor would universal, free public college. My conviction in Bernie's chances doesn't stem from any safe seat wins so much as recurring nation wide polling and data that supports it.

If I were wrong HRC WOULD BE PRESIDENT.

Warren has tacked back just as predicted.

A Medicare for All buy in as a public option polls well. A one step flip to Medicare for All does not really do much nationally given the circumstances. I don't think there are many Americans that think our healthcare delivery system is not broken.

With such a majority of Americans believing what we have is broken and has been for decades, you would expect more interest in a Medicare for all one step flip. It just isn't there and if it was Warren would not have backpedaled. Effectively she has backpedaled to "we need a bridge" which is what the ACA was always intended to be. So while she is not saying it, really she is coming out for maintaining and trying to repair the ACA for at least the period from 2020 to 2024.

 

[btthegreat]

No one is making an excuses; this is simply an analysis of MSNBC coverage which frankly seems to betray a rather clear bias. Moreover, though the DNC was objectively and blatantly biased in 2016 as leaks at the time had clearly demonstrated, including a financial bailout that gave the Clinton campaign unprecedented control of the institution and its hires, I and probably the majority of other Bernie supporters didn't assign excuses despite the existence of a loud minority complaining with unsupported surety that the DNC cost him the nomination. I thought Bernie did fantastically well for someone who started at 3% and zero name recognition and money vs an opponent with well over 60% support who was one of the biggest names in politics at the time and had an overflowing war chest. Few expected him to win despite our disappointment, but we were certainly hoping for it.

As to your prognostications, they seem largely without merit. If there's anything that harms Bernie this time around it's his own success as the most successful candidates, barring Biden, have bandwagoned on his shifting of the Overton window in various ways, and the split of the progressive vote between him and Warren. The latest polls have him tied with Biden and back above Warren.





I wouldn't consider Warren's citing of an interim to be some kind of massive pivot or back peddle despite it being of course disappointing; moreover, the rest of her policies haven't gone anywhere whatsoever, including those that have made poor billionaires like Leon Cooperman cry on live television. Warren remains stridently progressive even if not as far left as Bernie (and she never was).

Further, again, you are simply wrong on the political thrust of the nation and are making baseless statements; if you were right, MFA wouldn't be seeing the consistent, recurring majoritarian support in the polls it does, nor would universal, free public college. My conviction in Bernie's chances doesn't stem from any safe seat wins so much as recurring nation wide polling and data that supports it.

I think the prudent thing to do before we dig our heals in on the details , is for me to first highlight in bold that which I agree with. I will not change so much as a period. The idea is to show you in this post how I am not miles away. I think Bernie handled his defeat with great dignity and I think he honored his commitment to the party and Hillary to support and campaign for the ticket 100%. His behavior at the convention was completely in line with exactly what is to be expected of a losing candidate who has won 22 state contests and 46% of the pledged delegates. They all feel an obligation to fight for the goals, policies and aspirations reflected in their campaign because they have staff, volunteers and voters that deserve to have their interests represented throughout that convention. Humbert Humphrey in '72, Ted Kennedy in 76, Gary Hart and Hillary Clinton fought just as hard for influence over the platform, the choice of VP, and some positions in the winner's cabinet and west wing for loyalists and yes some debt relief from the costs of the campaign.

Hillary Clinton was responsible for her loss to Trump ( with a little assist from Wiki and Putin) just as Sanders is responsible for his ( with a little assist from the DNC and Wasserman Schultz ) As much as I understand it after discovering Wasserman Schultz role, My only real disappointment in Bernie's decisions, was that he did not stay a Democrat and keep fighting as a Democrat throughout this 4 years.

I tend to come off as a bit of a jerk with Bernie Sanders supporters and forget to be clear how much value I saw and still see in this man's candidacy. On the whole its been good for my party and my country to hear these social democrat ideas, whether I agree with them or not. Matter of fact this conversation has been about 4 decades overdue.