Think the Media was biased against Bernie Sanders? You were right according to a study by Harvard

[Triana]

A recently released Harvard study is accusing major print and broadcast media of improperly influencing the presidential primaries in the months leading up to the first contests.

Thomas Patterson, Harvard’s Bradley Professor of Government and the Press, in conjunction with the Shorenstein Center on Media, Public Policy, and Politics, conducted an analysis of eight different cable networks and newspapers and found that media companies devoted an unprecedented amount of coverage to Donald Trump from the start of his campaign, effectively shutting out over a dozen of his competitors. The Shorenstein analysis also learned that the Republican candidates got roughly twice as much media coverage as the Democratic candidates.

Furthermore, the majority of the coverage for Trump was either positive or neutral despite his frequently bigoted and inflammatory statements.

Patterson remarked that the astonishing lack of media attention for Sanders’ campaign undoubtedly left permanent damage on his ability to be competitive in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, as the media’s earliest coverage deemed the Vermont senator a “likely loser.”

Name recognition is a key asset in the early going. Unless poll respondents know of a candidate, they’re not going to choose that candidate. Out of mind translates into out of luck for a presidential hopeful in polls and in news coverage. Nor is name recognition something that can be quickly acquired… even as late as August of 2015, two in five registered Democrats nationally said they’d never heard of Sanders or had heard so little they didn’t have an opinion.

Additionally, most of the media coverage of the Democratic race was about the “horse race” of polling positions for each candidate leading up the first caucuses and primaries rather than the issues they campaigned on. The Shorenstein Center concluded that only 7 percent of the media’s reporting on Bernie Sanders was about his issues, whereas 28 percent of Clinton’s coverage was issue-focused.

THE REST:

http://usuncut.com/politics/harvard-study-media-primaries/

[apcalc]

1. And very negative toward Clinton....

[k8conant]

6. towards Clinton's issues...

but:

The perception of the Clinton vs. Sanders race created by the media’s earliest coverage generated an aura of inevitability for Hillary Clinton and encouraged a dismissive attitude toward Sanders despite his early mega-rallies on the West Coast and huge advantage with small-dollar donations.

[grossproffit]

2. Actually, it shows that Hillary was on the receiving end of the most negative in tone.

[RobertEarl]

3. Yep

Confirms ALL of my educated observations.

The media screwed Bernie.

[SFnomad]

7. Except when you really read the article, it's clear the media was screwing Secretary Clinton n/t

[Lord Magus]

9. The study actually shows the media was relentlessly anti-Hillary.

While very little of Bernie's coverage was negative.

[Raster]

4. As I have stated previously in another post...

If the Democratic Primary had been an absolutely fair and even playing field, with everyone able to fairly cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice, WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE TODAY.

Clinton had EVERY ADVANTAGE POSSIBLE, and was considered the presumptive nominee by the Democratic Party hierarchy even before one ballot was ever cast.

[SFnomad]

8. Blah, blah, blah ... it's not the DNC or media's job to do BS's campaigning for him

He was a weak candidate with little prior national exposure. That's not Secretary Clinton's fault.

[Lord Magus]

10. You can say it all you like, that doesn't make it true.

Hillary is the presumptive nominee because the voters favored her.

[Raster]

12. And you can deny all you can, but it doesn't make it false.

There will be more appraisals and analysis, and all will say the same thing.

Have a nice day.

[Lord Magus]

15. There is no data to support your assessment. -nt-

[stevenleser]

16. See post #2 we have the data.

If Sanders had the kind of negative coverage Hillary had , he would not have won a state beyond VT.

[msongs]

23. please report all your actual evidence and proof of actual cheating and fraud to the authorities nt

[Lazy Daisy]

5. I cringe

every time I see some Republican on TV denouncing the latest Trump comment.
Really? Did you have your head up your ass 6 months ago? He's be saying horrible things since, oh I don't know, forever. And now you notice and want to come out against it? Disgusting.

[TwilightZone]

11. Biased against? You must have read a different article. Negative in tone: 84% Clinton, 17% Sanders

[Raster]

13. To be fair, Clinton HAS MORE NEGATIVE ISSUES.

It is what it is.

[stevenleser]

17. More negative issues than Trump? Than Cruz? Not hardly.

that statement is unsupportable.

[rock]

22. Oh, you mean the misogyny

Yeah, I noticed.

[toshiba783]

21. We will never know...

We do know that Bernie was the only major candidate who never had to endure even a complete 24 hour negative news cycle - we saw how the support of Carson, Cruz, Bush and Rubio collapsed after negative scrutiny dominated the headlines for multiple days.

I find it hard to believe Sanders would have benefited from having controversial moments from his past become front page news for a week.

[etherealtruth]

14. In fact, Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any Democrat or Republican running

"In fact, Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any Democrat or Republican running, collecting three positive pieces for every negative one."

it looks like media coverage for sanders was a mixed bag. Trump was the big winner and clinton the big loser with regard to media coverage

Here is a link to the Harvard gazette: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/the-making-of-the-campaign-2016/

The Democratic race got less than half the coverage that the Republicans race received.
Trump got the most coverage of any candidate running on either side, the vast majority of which was favorable in tone, despite claims that his rise was mostly driven by cable TV and social media.

Sanders supporters were right: He didn’t receive much attention in the first half of 2015. Clinton got three times more coverage, and even Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson each got more than Sanders. But once he did get coverage, the attention was far more positive than it was for Clinton. In fact, Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any Democrat or Republican running, collecting three positive pieces for every negative one.

Meanwhile, the study said that the press distrust of Clinton is demonstrable. She received the least favorable coverage of any Democratic or Republican candidate. In the first half of 2015, there were three negative reports about her for every positive one. In the second half, the ratio was 3:2 negative to positive. Fox led the way, broadcasting 291 negative reports about Clinton and just 39 positive ones. In contrast, Fox gave Sanders 79 positive mentions and 31 negative ones.

[George Eliot]

19. Did it point out that her unfavorable press was due to her work in government?

Issues that had to be reported? Emails, server, Libya? How did they "select" what they considered "unfavorable press?" Unless the press was campaign issues-oriented for both Bernie and Clinton, then the study is flawed. They need to be comparing apples to apples. Understanding and analyzing studies take some real sophistication and education about how these studies come about and what they are really comparing.

I'm no expert but I have studied with several documentarians and profs of points of view in media and believe me, you can't always believe the superficial take. I don't care what anyone says, primetime MSNBC was in her pocket from the beginning. It just blows me away how blinded people can be by loyalty.

[etherealtruth]

24. I was far more interested in the failure of the press to treat Trump like anything but a celebrity,

... instead of a candidate for the presidency.

the info at the Harvard Gazette is far more accurate and interesting than the link in the OP .... it offers far more insight

[valerief]

18. The media and DNC. nt

[Jack Bone]

20. K & R nt

[ucrdem]

25. No the study show just the opposite: "Sanders fared better than nearly all of them."

Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, their complaint lacks substance. Among candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following, Sanders fared better than nearly all of them.

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

And the data in the article show Sanders getting mostly good press and Clinton getting mostly terrible press.