2016 Postmortem

pnwmom

(109,038 posts)

30. You're the one with blinders. The Harvard study included MSNBC and even with

Sun Jun 19, 2016, 02:35 AM

Jun 2016

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 03:14 AM - Edit history (1)

MSNBC's coverage included, there were far more negative attacks against Hillary than against Bernie.

And no, it was not because there were more negatives to cover. There were many more stories they COULD have produced about Bernie -- such as asking more questions about his continuing reluctance to release multiple years of tax returns. Or about the oddities of his FEC forms, and the fact that he was the only Democrat to receive warning letters from the FEC.

Hillary consistently said she'd release her transcripts if all the opposing candidates, including the Rethugs, agreed to do this. That didn't happen.

But she has released 30 years of tax returns, more than any other candidate ever. Bernie, despite all his empty promises, has only released a single year.

How come? He promised he'd release more and he hasn't suspended his campaign. So why didn't he keep his firm promise?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Harvard Study Confirms The Media Tore Down Clinton, Built Up Trump And Sanders [View all] pnwmom Jun 2016 OP

no kidding. The media was easy on Bernie - he's never survive a GE race. Lil Missy Jun 2016 #1

Bernie struggled in his debates with Hillary. All that hand waving everytime Hillary received a politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #3

He still has not been vetted. nt MADem Jun 2016 #25

No. He hasn't. And that is a pretty big point. AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #56

The silly match up polls cited by Sanders are meaningless because Sanders had not been vetted Gothmog Jun 2016 #81

Thanks for your post. Good information. riversedge Jun 2016 #82

This should be posted on a thread of us own. Thanks for sharing. Nt AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #85

That has been true for a couple of decades. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #2

You're right, it was so obvious to anyone who paid attention. nt eastwestdem Jun 2016 #40

Well, it's nice to have yet another study confirming it. Hortensis Jun 2016 #47

So "each poll that showed a closing gap" counted as a negative story? LOL! reformist2 Jun 2016 #4

"Sanders did suffer from a lack of coverage, especially in the beginning, the researchers found." Go Vols Jun 2016 #5

In the beginning. But he benefited from the millions effectively spent on attacks pnwmom Jun 2016 #6

Good thing Time Magazine SheenaR Jun 2016 #10

Link, please. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #13

here SheenaR Jun 2016 #21

Excellent post... Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #27

here, i'll help pnw out with that... lakeguy Jun 2016 #44

That's an "attack"? Seriously? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #35

? Fuddnik Jun 2016 #52

So, according to the op, the media clearly favored trump and Bernie AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #61

+1 Go Vols Jun 2016 #93

Hilarious. Bernie wanted a campaign fought over issues, but didn't want to talk about gun control. YouDig Jun 2016 #96

unless the Bernie coverage was on Hillary's station, MSNBC - then it was all negative ! ciaobaby Jun 2016 #17

And what happened after the beginning? Stofrk Jun 2016 #7

I was quoting the study Go Vols Jun 2016 #11

Gosh..... I didn't notice. Smarmie Doofus Jun 2016 #9

yep Go Vols Jun 2016 #12

Which was greatly offset by the fact... teamster633 Jun 2016 #66

Any indication how many stories there were for each candidate in the study? Red Mountain Jun 2016 #74

And people still insist the media is in HRC's camp mcar Jun 2016 #8

I know, it's so ridiculous! People actually post negative articles about Hillary BreakfastClub Jun 2016 #16

She gonna win anyway alcibiades_mystery Jun 2016 #14

Yep, it is beyond obvious that Hillary gets horrible coverage. It's shameful, really, BreakfastClub Jun 2016 #15

You should have been tuned in to MSNBC - ciaobaby Jun 2016 #18

Not according to this study. Where is your evidence? nt pnwmom Jun 2016 #22

here you go - take your time....... ciaobaby Jun 2016 #23

Petitions and complaints don't provide evidence. And you should be aware that The Intercept pnwmom Jun 2016 #24

ok - fine- you didn't like the Intercept for some random reason ciaobaby Jun 2016 #28

You're the one with blinders. The Harvard study included MSNBC and even with pnwmom Jun 2016 #30

The one and only reason Hillary won't release the transcripts is because they are damaging to her. ciaobaby Jun 2016 #32

Tax returns are far more important than speeches. Trump's tax returns would reveal pnwmom Jun 2016 #34

Tax returns are considered a requirement for presidential candidates for a reason. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #37

and where exactly does it say MSNBC was included. NBC is not the same as MSNBC. ciaobaby Jun 2016 #33

NBC includes MSNBC. pnwmom Jun 2016 #36

Come on, if you watched you cold see that Hayes and O'Donell were all for Sanders lunamagica Jun 2016 #78

Did you watch Rachael Maddow and MSNBC? Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #29

MSNBC was one of the outlets included in the study, which STILL found that pnwmom Jun 2016 #31

Oh what total and utter bullshit Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #89

Hillary was getting more negative coverage anywhere. Apparently no one should pnwmom Jun 2016 #90

And yet she won? Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #91

Winning is much more about GOTV than big rallies. So she won. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #92

Rachel Maddow is only the best journalist currently on American TV. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #38

I am saying there was something VERY wrong with her coverage. Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #88

Sure if all you watch is Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. LiberalFighter Jun 2016 #57

I think this just confirms it, there are alternate universes..and they coexist in some people's mind insta8er Jun 2016 #19

I posted this study here on Wednesday DavidDvorkin Jun 2016 #20

Hahahahah....seriously - or my that is a snort!!! Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #26

So you're delusional, then? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #39

I tend not to post scientific reports Eko Jun 2016 #41

The Shorenstein Center subscribes to Harvard's Open Access policy pnwmom Jun 2016 #42

Has zero bearing Eko Jun 2016 #43

A report or paper doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be scientific Buzz cook Jun 2016 #45

Anyone, including other scholarly researchers, has access to the full paper pnwmom Jun 2016 #46

Well, that's curious since Bernie was considered a fringe candidate at the start of his campaign Vinca Jun 2016 #48

Hillary had had decades of building relationships in the South. Bernie didn't spend pnwmom Jun 2016 #49

The sad part is that even though Hillary got more votes than Bernie, a good chunk of them are in Vinca Jun 2016 #60

By dismissing the southern primaries, you're making the same mistake Bernie made. pnwmom Jun 2016 #64

... and still they complain about how poorly Bernie was treated. NurseJackie Jun 2016 #50

All self-inflicted. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #51

Nope, a glimmer maybe, but the rest inflated by the media just like you just did. nt stevenleser Jun 2016 #67

WOW, rocket science conclusion . . . . . . . . . Iliyah Jun 2016 #53

She does get the worst media attention... Mike Nelson Jun 2016 #54

K and r. cwydro Jun 2016 #55

100 %. Agree. oasis Jun 2016 #58

What a pant load AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #59

Harvard studies don't matter now because of your take on "panels" on msnbc? AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #62

Whatever. Many of those stories treated her as the perma-front-runner and ignored the fact that she JCanete Jun 2016 #63

The stories about Benghazi and email played into the false theme pnwmom Jun 2016 #65

Yeah that posters contentions are so ridiculous I can't believe they were actually serious. stevenleser Jun 2016 #70

And that is not what I'm trying to sell. If you dont' have a counter-message machine JCanete Jun 2016 #75

They have absolutely solidified a right-wing against her. They have not done anything but to JCanete Jun 2016 #73

"So what if they were overall negative" your post went off the rails right there. stevenleser Jun 2016 #69

When it comes to the primary, if you are portraying her as the only candidate it does not matter. JCanete Jun 2016 #72

Talk about forcing a talking point. Hillary was the presumptive frontrunner in 2008 too. stevenleser Jun 2016 #83

I like how you won't refute the damage of no coverage, JCanete Jun 2016 #84

I'm not refuting it because its untrue on its face. Bernie got plenty of votes from the first caucus stevenleser Jun 2016 #86

I've got to let it go, off to work and no time, but another time. Thanks for the conversation. nt JCanete Jun 2016 #87

Without the clintons we wouldn't have won an election realmirage Jun 2016 #68

The Harvard Study is flawed making the assumption that Bernie did poorly in the first debate Uncle Joe Jun 2016 #71

Online, self-selected polls are worth the paper they're printed on. pnwmom Jun 2016 #77

Conflict of interest laden commentary from corporate media conglomerate pundits Uncle Joe Jun 2016 #79

That was always obvious to anyone paying attention lunamagica Jun 2016 #76

That is a very interesting study Gothmog Jun 2016 #80

It felt like it...all Primary season long. Sheepshank Jun 2016 #94

So the media built up Sanders, rather than dismissing him as a fringe candidate? Orsino Jun 2016 #95

No, they leveled a disproportionate number of attacks against Hillary. pnwmom Jun 2016 #97