ABC, CBS, And NBC News Have Made An INTENTIONAL Decision To Ignore Bernie Sanders

[Segami]

The corporate owned profit first network news divisions have made the editorial decision that they are going to lavish airtime upon the presidential candidate who most fits their corporate owners’ ideology.

An analysis of network television news coverage reveals what supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders have long suspected; the three broadcast television networks are intentionally ignoring the Sanders campaign. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters has the revealing details:

So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it’s been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it’s been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

~snip~

The networks are ignoring Bernie Sanders because his anti-corporate message is dangerous to their well being. The broadcast and cable networks both have a habit of ignoring stories that can hurt their bosses’ bottom lines. Sen. Sanders is trying to inform the electorate, but the broadcast networks would rather focus on keeping voters ignorant by focusing on Trump. Donald Trump is the perfect corporate media candidate. The mainstream press has decided that has to be entertaining and turn a profit. Trump is an entertainer who is masquerading as a presidential candidate. Trump has turned the Republican primary into his own reality show.

Sen. Sanders has consistently criticized the media for their coverage of the election. In August, Sanders said, “I want you to talk about and force discussion about climate change. Do you think you do that enough? I would like you to force discussion of poverty in America. I have talked over and over and over again that 51 percent of African-American kids are unemployed or underemployed. You think that’s an important issue? I do. Are you going to discuss it?” The data shows that the corporate media is not going to give any coverage to Sanders or the issues. Bernie Sanders is a huge threat to the corporate media, which is why they are ignoring his campaign.


cont'

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/11/abc-cbs-nbc-news-intentional-decision-ignore-bernie-sanders.html

[randys1]

1. You are quoting media matters? Wait, I thought....... LOL.....

[billhicks76]

37. There Is No Liberal Mass Media

Its all corporate media and republican-lite at best no matter what personalities they present to us as "left leaning". Utter BS all the time.

[Duval]

140. That is too true! It's sad.

[senz]

59. Nice to see you being open about your pro-Hillary, anti-Bernie position.

I respect honesty, so good on ya.

[merrily]

88. I wish.

[merrily]

87. Gee, yet another post supportive of Bernie. With friends like you, he doesn't need ABC, CBS and NBC.

[bvar22]

136. WE are Bernie's Media.

Many Latin American countries managed to throw out their 1% (US Supported) Oligarchs
despite the 1% owning absolutely ALL the Media...and NO internet.

They did it through Word of Mouth, Pamphlets, and local organizing.

Spread the good word!
VIVA Democracy.
It can happen here too!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

149. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[cosmicone]

2. Coping strategy No. 29

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=893505

[sonofspy777]

5. You should get Hillary some Selsun Blue

For that bad case of DANDRUFF!

[UglyGreed]

8. I use Head and Shoulders

but it's not working too well, maybe I'll give Selsun Blue a try next time

[cosmicone]

10. Thanks low post count poster n/t

[Scootaloo]

28. Astute counter-argument, low post count poster.

[awoke_in_2003]

74. That's low post count Putin supporter. nt

[blackspade]

122. 'Cone's new coping strategy....

[840high]

34. lol - so you always had

a high post count?

[theislander]

40. That's MR. low post count poster to you. n/t

[tecelote]

42. +1

'Best 2nd post I've read from anyone yet.

[Segami]

47. Welcome to DU.....

and great 2nd post........

[CoffeeCat]

53. Welcome to DU...

...we all started out as low-post counters.

Happy to have you here!

[Scootaloo]

77. hah!

[merrily]

90. LOL! Welcome to DU. Hang on to your sense of humor.

[840high]

33. Good one.

[Duval]

141. LOL! It does get tiresome.

[arcane1]

30. And when all else fails, post some fake charts and lie about them

[WillyT]

36. cosmicone... Your Attempts At Snark And Derision Almost Hit The Mark...

Sometimes... they almost get to the level of funny... almost...

Until you post a serious, well thought-out OP... it's really hard to take you other than a paper tiger.

If I've missed it... please post...

Would love to get a clue into your insights.

Otherwise...

[cosmicone]

73. I'll add this strategy to my next OP

sounds promising. Does it work well for you?

[merrily]

93. "Auntie, you have to be careful what you what you wish for. The wish fairy has no Returns window."

From a niece who is wise far beyond her years. (Alternatively, from a niece who heard someone say that and repeated it to me.)

[merrily]

89. Remind us why the Tyndall Report, mediamatters and politicsusa need a coping strategy.

[cosmicone]

123. Foo foo publications all in my opinion.

[merrily]

126. uh huh. Doesn't answer the question, though. BTW, do you know the history of media matters?

[cui bono]

148. Coping strategy for disgruntled Hillary supporters:

The Clinton Cave. Where you can unleash your hatred like never before!

.

[Bernblu]

3. We need to make an intentional decision and start a boycott of network and cable TV!

[tazkcmo]

13. Too late for me

I haven't watched either since 1992.

[LWolf]

133. I haven't tuned in

to network or cable tv news or talk for 16 years now.

[GoneFishin]

4. They don't give a shit about democracy. I hope the internet eats their lunch and shits on their rich

white bald greedy heads.

[sonofspy777]

7. +1

[senz]

64. ...

I borrowed your Bernie logo for several months. It's soft and almost ethereal, and I enjoyed it. Thank you.

[Dustlawyer]

112. True dat! Hey, we knew this was how it was going to be at the start.

We must use people power and the Internet to overcome this obstacle that Trump and Hillary don't have.

[onecaliberal]

6. We need to boycott sponsors, and tell the sponsors why we are doing so.

[merrily]

95. Three major neworks, one of which owns MSNBC, colluding. That's a lot of sponsors.

NPR and PBS haven't exactly been all over Bernie, either. NPR said they would cover him when something newsworthy happened.

Here's a man running on small donations who, before his run for POTUS remained independent so that he would not have to be beholden to donors. That's a sea change, but apparently not newsworthy. Here's a man running on free education at public institutions of higher learning, also a sea change. Here's a man who walks picket lines while running for President. Here's a man who, while being shunned by the the Party, media, etc. draws in overflow alone numbers other candidates can only dream of. Nothing newsworthy, my a$$.

[Maedhros]

9. Of course they are - they are protecting their investment in Clinton

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/media-fundraisers-presidential/

The giant media companies that shape much of the coverage of the presidential campaign have a vested stake in the outcome. From campaign finance laws that govern how money is spent on advertising to the regulators who oversee consolidation rules, the media industry has a distinct policy agenda, and with it, a political team to influence the result.

The top fundraisers for Clinton include lobbyists who serve the parent companies of CNN and MSNBC.

The National Association of Broadcasters, a trade group that represents the television station industry, has lobbyists who are fundraising for both Clinton and Republican candidate Marco Rubio.

Presidential campaigns are obligated by law to send the Federal Election Commission a list of lobbyists who serve as “bundlers,” collecting hundreds of individual checks on behalf of a candidate’s campaign.

CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, is represented on Capitol Hill by Steve Elmendorf, an adviser to Clinton during her 2008 campaign, who is also known as “one of Washington’s top lobbyists.” He’s lobbied on a number of issues important for media companies like CNN, including direct-to-consumer advertising policy.

Elmendorf, according to disclosures, has raised at least $141,815 for Clinton’s 2016 bid for the presidency.

Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, which includes cable networks NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC, has a number of lobbyists on retainer who are working to raise cash for the Clinton campaign, including Justin Gray, Alfred Mottur, Ingrid Duran and Catherine Pino.

[Segami]

11. How far ahead in the polls would Bernie be....

if he was given EQUAL coverage time as Trump & Clinton to spread his message?

[moobu2]

12. Probably further down in the polls.

like happens after the debates.

[tecelote]

44. If that were true, then why not have more debates? Why restrict them?

Because, the more Hillary says, the more her true corporate colors show.

[senz]

60. Precisely.

Exposure is the main area where Bernie has a lot of catching up to do, and the powers that be don't want him to get it.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

75. What do you mean "IF" ?

There are polls out there. They show not only did a majority of people watching the debate think she won, her support went up, his went down.

Insofar as why are there only six debates - how many people think someone is actually trying to make up their mind after six debates, and needs a seventh?

At this point it's like nagging. And no, say the vast majority of Democrats, we don't want your candidate. No matter how much whining you do, like kids wanting ice cream, we're not changing our mind.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[tecelote]

81. Ha! "Proud Member of the Reality Based Community"

In other words, afraid of change and fine with the status quo.

Part of the problem not the solution.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

137. We'll see come February through April...

Whether there is some mystical support for Sanders that hasn't shown up anywhere in the polls as of yet.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[tecelote]

145. Yes. Yes we will.

Landline = Hillary
Internet = Bernie

Let's see who wins. For sure.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

151. Just so you don't think there's a conspiracy when Bernie loses...

It's more like this:

Scientifically Accurate Poll Appropriately Integrating Both Landline and Mobile Phone Surveys = Hillary
Vote As Many Times As You Want Poll Brigaded By A Handful Of Self-Selecting Activists = Bernie

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[kenfrequed]

163. Eh...

The problem is that the polls that exaggerate Hillary's lead end up being the same ones that sample 75-85% land lines and 15-25% cell phones. That is where the real polling problem is. This discriminates against renters who move around a lot, and young people. It favors the over fifty crowd intensely. Even five years ago the number of households that had mobile phones but no land line was estimated at about 40% according to the CDC.

Even among those that do have land lines a fair number of people make heavy use of their caller ID systems to screen calls and if you are in economic trouble you use it to screen bill collectors. (bias against the poor too it seems)

I wouldn't argue that Internet polls are without flaw as some of them are rather vulnerable to a variety of actions.

Instead the Internet axiom should actually match symmetrically how people inform themselves in which case it is internet (a somewhat more democratic media) versus television (which is intensely hierarchial).

This is sort of the of the problem. A hierarchial information source is using flawed polling data that holds a clear social and economic bias to try to inform us of which candidate they think is leading. I think making generalizations about the scientific accuracy of polling that relies heavily on land lines is a bit questionable.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

164. I would believe this if historical accuracy of polls were less certain

...but in truth, there is a high correlation between polls and end results.

Everything you've mentioned is typically accounted for, typically by people with Statistics PHds. Polling institutes typically don't try to hide themselves as a Private Caller, for instance. But to the degree that people don't pick up, polling outfits account for that. Understand also that there is a strong relationship between people who refuse to answer polls and people who simply don't vote, and never will.

If this were a 5 point race, sure. I'd cede the point. But it's not. Not even close.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[kenfrequed]

165. Uhm...

The fact you used the word "history" in your argument already creates certain problems.

History is replete with examples of technological disruption. I think ignoring vast changes in how we communicate is a big problem. The cell phone is not a CB radio. It is not a fad and it is not going away. Cell phone only households are actually increasing every single year.

The CDC actually updates this every year and the New York Times even ran a story earlier this year about the trouble that Pollsters are having getting good reliable numbers. We are rapidly entering a time where classical polling will be completely useless. Not merely 5% off but entirely useless.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

166. Do you remember the "unskewing" Romney supporters tried to sell?

And how Nate Silver was derided as an idiot, etc, etc? All for saying that President Obama was going to win?

Using the polls that you're saying are so inaccurate, Mr. Silver correctly predicted 50 out of 50 states. That's a fairly decent batting average, if I do say so myself. This is especially the case because many of those polls showed only a couple digit lead. Not a 20 point one.

So I'm not exactly sure how you can imagine that this has changed all that much in four years.

Again, I'm not saying that polls are everything. And maybe a single point lead doesn't mean quite as much as it did once upon a time. But the idea that there is this massive under-representation of people who are too leftist to be comfortable as Democrats (which is the prevailing thesis of anti-Clinton/pro-Bernie screed writers on the DU) is entirely unsupported by the facts.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[kenfrequed]

167. Bad analogy

Primary and caucus polls have always been sort of a mess and frequently inaccurate. It is entirely possible that Hillary might have a fourty point lead in Iowa. It is difficult to say. The analysis Silver did was a meta-analysis of polls done in a general election which most pollsters will tell you is a lot easier to track and predict than a primary.

You are straw manning my position with every argument that fits into your predetermined narrative making you just about as bad as the people you are criticizing. Especially with the Romney talking point. It is a weak attempt to try to smear supporters of Sanders with the name of a Wall street republican schmuck.

My arguments are simply about communication and technology and the fact that you are refusing to interract with them outside of the typical frame of one of the vocal minority of Hillary supporters on this website.

Good day to you sir.

[Lucky Luciano]

111. No one person needs to see more than six debates.

Having 15-20 dramatically increases the number of people who see one or two -and that is the point.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

138. This isn't the 70s. There is this thing called YouTube

All these debates can be watched at any time.

This thesis that there are millions upon millions of disaffected leftists who only use TVs, and prefer watching debates to other programs, but somehow don't vote because they know nothing of Sanders as of yet, and would, if only they could see him square off against Hillary about policy proposals most Americans don't know about, is absolutely insane.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Lucky Luciano]

147. The leftists you speak of will do that.

The aloof undecided people will watch more or less h accident on tv if it happens to be on. They will not seek out YouTube. Those low info voters do sometimes vote and will often default to the famous name barring additional info that falls into their lap - via a dbate that lands in front of them for example.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

150. Yes, we're already aware Bernie has leftists in his pocket

...but still, he's 20+ points behind.

What you're asserting is that there are a ton of low-info voters who just love Bernie's politics (and/or hate Hillary for being too conservative), who just haven't tuned in to the debates as of yet, but will if it's on TV, and somehow won't just change the channel.

Yeah. That doesn't happen.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[merrily]

97. +1

[merrily]

96. Riiiiight. Have you heard the post debate commentary at all? Guess not.

[MissDeeds]

20. There are a lot of ways

to throw an election. Blocking some candidates while giving others 24/7 coverage are among them.

[Segami]

23. Limiting debates

and scheduling those few (next to none) debates into low viewership timeslots is another......

[Betty Karlson]

79. Flipping Lousisiana blue

That's how far he'd be. But Debbie doesn't want that. Debbie needs Louisiana red, because she doesn't want to upset her pal Ross-Lehtinen.

[JDPriestly]

78. Thanks. Great post.

Clinton = corruption when it comes to campaign financing and that is where the corruption starts and ends. Campaign financing.

We have to change our Constitution when it comes to campaign financing.

[merrily]

94. BOOM!

[Purveyor]

14. Imagine the coverage we would be getting if we had more

debates as the GOP is doing...

[Bleacher Creature]

15. He's a long shot candidate who is pretty far behind.

And, unlike in 2008, not much room to expand his base. How much coverage should he reasonably be expected to get?

Whether people like it or not, Clinton is a non-incumbent who is polling like an incumbent. The closest example we have is in 2000, with Gore vs. Bradley. I certainly don't remember the Bradley people complaining that their guy wasn't getting as much coverage as Gore.

[senz]

65. Drawn the largest crowds, huge internet following, won the Time online poll, etc.

TPTB are afraid of him and trying to minimize him, as you are doing now.

[merrily]

98. I suppose not covering him--or covering him condescendingly and as someone who has no chance

whatever at winning the primary had nothing to do with where he is? As to how much coverage he should be reasonably expected to get, please see reply 95 for a very partial list.

BTW, did you see that 20 seconds was the number for one of the networks? That's not based on the newsworthiness of the transformational campaign he's been running.

[Kentonio]

104. Given he still has relatively low recognition numbers

How exactly does that translate into not having room to expand his base?

[merrily]

107. +1. Besides, it's not as though no one ever changes his or her mind. I've converted

at least two people, one of whom donated a sizeable amount to Sanders. It's only 2 because most of my family and friends became Sanders supporters as soon as I emailed them he was going to announce. The two I converted were "I love Sanders, but I don't want to see another McGovern" until I exposed the McGovern myth to them.

[redstateblues]

116. Everybody I know voted for McGovern

I still can't believe Nixon won! How was that possible?

[merrily]

118. Try reading this thread. Not just the OP, all the replies, too. And try to have an open mind while

you do.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825

[Bleacher Creature]

114. Kos had a nice breakdown of this a couple of days ago.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1458880

I'll be the first to admit that it's not impossible for Sanders to pull it off, but it's highly unlikely, and the 2008 comparisons are probably inapt.

And that doesn't even get into campaign organization. I'll gladly support Sanders if he can show that he's a smarter, more effective candidate than Clinton (which is what Obama did in 2008). He's nowhere close right now.

[Kentonio]

115. He's always been unlikely to pull it off, but then again so was Obama.

I don't know the numbers on his organization so I can't speak too much to it, but from what I hear he has an awful lot of grassroots campaigners out there across the nation who have been working hard for months.

[rhett o rick]

132. I am glad you brought up 2000. Nominate another Clinton and we will have a repeat. And you

will try to blame those that object to the corruption of our government by big money. Do you support big money in politics? Of course as long as they support your candidate. And ignoring the expected quid pro quo.

Nominate Clinton and we will lose the WH. Of course the billionaires don't care if it's Clinton or a Republicon.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Petition for ABC

The corporately-owned media may not like Bernie’s anti-establishment views but for the sake of American democracy they must allow for a fair debate in this presidential campaign. Bernie must receive the same level of coverage on the nightly news as other leading candidates.

Add your name if you agree that it's time the corporate news networks start covering Bernie.

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/take-on-corporate-media?source=tw12112015

[Purveyor]

17. It gets worse. Take a look at the Lineup For The Sunday News Shows

ABC's "This Week" - Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson
---
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio
---
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Republican presidential candidate John Kasich; Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.
---
CNN's "State of the Union" - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump
---
"Fox News Sunday" - Trump; Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

[Rex]

18. They got to do their jobs...getting the GOP elected at all costs.

The M$M is just an extension of the GOP.

[elmac]

22. Sunday News shows AKA GOP TV.

Never watch them, never will.

[AnnetteJacobs]

127. Just take a peek at the ads sponsoring them

It's almost always Big Finance and such.
It's plain as day what their viewer demographic is!

[AZ Progressive]

19. Networks to Bernie: "Tough" and "so whatcha gonna do about it?"

The networks aren't stupid, they are bishops of the church of capitalism.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. What's he going to do about it?

He's going to take the MILLIONS of his supporters on Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Progressive blogs, Twitter, in every city in this country, win this election and shove it up their effing arses and take this country back from their filthy, dirty Oligarchy.

THE PEOPLE ARE RECLAIMING THEIR COUNTRY. They aren't going to know what hit 'em!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[senz]

67. From your keyboard to God's screen.

Just a little prayer there.

[in_cog_ni_to]

70. LOL...

We can use all the help we can get! We certainly aren't going to get it from the Corporate Owned CORRUPT MSM!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[CoffeeCat]

56. But who watches ABC, CBS and NBC anymore?

People don't get their news from those sources anymore.

The cool kids have been going around the MSM for years. We've been getting our news from reputable online sources and a great deal from social media as well. I'm 50 and I dumped the MSM years ago. Boring and dated. I think everyone who is younger than me, never relied on those outlets.

They can try to ignore Bernie. And believe me they are. But it won't make a bit of difference.

The media is the Grinch. And the day after the Iowa caucuses, they'll be standing around with their hearts two sizes too small, wondering how in the hell the Whos down in Whoville pulled it off without them.

[Playinghardball]

21. This just caused me to start donating more money to Bernie!!

Fuck the news networks...

$100.00 tomorrow and more later...

Pisses me off!!

[vanlassie]

24. So I heard Joan Walsh on MSNBC make a comment assuming Hillary was to be

the candidate. I tweeted her to ask her if she is a tool for Hillary or what? She replied that she was interrupted or she would have said that Bernie could beat Trump too. But I don't think she was interrupted.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. They're all on shill mode.

Orders from their CORRUPT CORPORATE OWNERS.

Of all the talking heads on MSNBC, I never thought The one TRUE PROGRESSIVE, Chris Hayes, would be blinded by the million dollar paychecks. None of them are PRINCIPLED anymore.

[senz]

63. Joan Walsh has been a Hillarista forever.

Good for you for tweeting her!

[merrily]

99. No, she was not interrupted. Kornacki and Hayes both drooled in detail over Hillary's head to head

match ups without ever having mentioned Bernie's. It's no coincidence. MSNBC shills the talking points all day long, from Morning Joe to Lawrence O'Donnell.

[liberal from boston]

130. Bernie Sanders

Actually Lawrence questioned why Bernie was not even included in some polls. Lawrence recently commented that the media pretends that Bernie is not a Presidential Candidate (paraphrasing --not a direct quote) Also Lawrence pointed that Bernie has many more votes than Trump. Quite a few comments on His facebook thanking him.

[merrily]

131. Thanks. Lawrence O'Donnell has done a lot of this, too. If he finally said the right thing, cool,

but an "about damned time" is in order.

[PatrickforO]

27. We all knew this going in.

It is up to us to a) show up to vote in the primaries or caucus for Bernie, and then b) get engaged with our government once he's elected.

I don't believe the trope that 'we're all going to have to get behind Clinton' that's going around, because you know what? The primaries haven't even started yet.

That is why I'm not giving up until it IS over and we have a nominee. Because that nominee could very well be Senator Bernie Sanders.

[FloridaBlues]

29. Bernie makes all the rounds on tv. They just seem to like trump probably for ratings?

[merrily]

101. Read the OP articles. Btw, how do the networks know stories about

Sanders will not get good ratings if they never run them?

[Juicy_Bellows]

31. All the reason one needs to vote for Sanders.

It's quite simple really. Whomever ruffles the feathers of the dick-holes in power gets my vote.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. It worked on Kucinich.

[lobodons]

35. Bernie isn't running against Trump

Bernie isn't running against Trump. EVERYONE is getting less press than Trump. The Media is milking Trump for all the ratings they can get. And besides, Bernie gets more press than all of the GOP lower tier candidates combined. I also seem to see more Bernie than Hillary as well.

[merrily]

102. You're pulling numbers and reasons out of your ear. Read the articles linked in the OP.

[Skittles]

38. they are ignoring everyone but Donald Trump

[merrily]

105. Untrue. Read the articles linked in the OP.

Other Tyndall Report findings:

*Trump has received more network coverage than all the Democratic candidates combined.

*Trump has accounted for 27 percent of all campaign coverage his year.

*Republican Jeb Bush received 56 minutes of coverage, followed by Ben Carson's 54 minutes and Marco Rubio's 22.

Did you notice the Bush figure? He's garnered 56 minutes of network news coverage, far outpacing Sanders, even though he is currently wallowing in fifth place in the polls among Republicans. And you know who has also received 56 minutes of network news compared to Sanders' 10? Joe Biden and his decision not to run for president.

from the media matters article.

[loyalsister]

39. The same could be said for O'Malley

People seem to be enjoying the Clinton vs. Sanders conflict more than hearing real campaign dialogu.

[merrily]

106. Yes, the same could be said of O'Malley and I will say it. Please see Reply 9.

[billhicks76]

41. Hillary Supported By Defense Industry And Wall St

How do people rationalize ignoring this fact? I'm really curious how their minds work? Must get pretty tricky.

[tooeyeten]

43. Liberal Media

LOL
Of course they aren't liberal, they are corporations looking for ratings and buzz, that's it.

[Segami]

54. Because its Friday?...haven't checked tonight's lunar phase yet...

We are nearing the coming Winter Solstice (marking the Autumnal Equinox) and changes are in effect, such as,

"...For instance, during long winter days, the Siberian hamsters' testes increase to almost 17 times their size during short days. And there is evidence that song birds living near sources of artificial light begin singing to attract mates, as well as laying eggs, earlier in the spring than their counterparts in places that remain dark at night..."

[Chemisse]

48. You can't really compare to Trump.

He has gotten more coverage than God.

Nevertheless, Sanders has been pointedly ignored, right from the beginning. It's been stunning, really.

What will they do if he wins New Hampshire? Have the headlines say, "Clinton Wins Close Second in New Hampshire."?

On second thought, I bet that IS how it would be presented!

[beltanefauve]

153. Remember Iowa 2008?

Obama came in first. Edwards came in second. Hillary Clinton came in third. The big story was Obama besting Clinton. Edwards who?

[Chemisse]

155. Good example.

Edwards must have been livid. Of course THAT all worked out for the best.

[certainot]

49. rw radio dominates with trump. left needs to start protesting

the 90 universities that keep 270 limbaugh stations going

once one or two unis announce they won't endorse trump's bigotry and limbaugh's attacks on planned parenthood and global warming denial anymore, others will follow.

rw radio couldn't survive and the debate and attention will play in bernie's favor

[beltanefauve]

154. Thanks for posting

Very interesting list.

[certainot]

157. here's by a few states that are really screwed by their unis

The numbers below refer to the number of stations headlining Rush Limbaugh that broadcast football for those schools.

Michigan- 18 Michigan St. 11, Michigan 7

North Carolina- 16 North Carolina 8, North Carolina State 3, Duke 3, East Carolina 2

Florida- 16 Florida 10, Florida St. 4, UCF 2

Texas- 15 Texas A&M 9, Texas Tech 4, TCU 1,​Texas 1, Baylor 1

Georgia- 14 Georgia 7, Georgia Southern 2, Georgia Tech 5

Pennsylvania- 13 Penn St. 11, Pittsburgh 2

Oregon- 12 Oregon 5, Oregon St. 7

Indiana- 11 Notre Dame 6, Purdue 4, Indiana 1

Ohio- 8 Ohio St. 6, Toledo 1, Bowling Green 1

Illinois- 7 Illinois

Tennessee- 7 Tennessee 4, Memphis 3

Idaho- 7 Boise St. 4, Idaho 3

Virginia- 6 Virginia Tech 5, Virginia 1

New York- 6 Syracuse 6

Missouri- 6 Missouri

Nebraska- 6 Nebraska

Washington- 5 Washington 5, Washington St. 1

Iowa- 5 Iowa 4, Iowa St. 1

South Carolina- 4 South Carolina 2, Clemson 2

Wisconsin- 4 Wisconsin

And it’s not necessarily proportional. A state like Colorado may only have a couple of such parasitic Limbaugh radio stations but the one that the University of Colorado endorses, 850 KOA, dominates the state and can be heard in dozens of other states at night.

[JEB]

50. TV media ignoring Sanders...

that alone is reason enough for me to vote for him.

[Fearless]

51. At their peril.

[brooklynite]

52. So what?

I was told -here- that "Mainstream Media" was so yesterday.

I was told -here- that Sanders and his supporters had control of social media to get their message out.

I was told -here- that all that was necessary was to post Sanders' speeches on YouTube and the sale would be made.

Was I told wrong?

[Eric J in MN]

58. If someone wrote that shows such as "ABC World News Tonight"

...aren't important to raising awareness of a presidential candidate with low name-recognition, then that person was wrong.

[workinclasszero]

91. Right the internets are going to elect Bernie president of the world

Hear it here 24/7

What happened all of a sudden to turn that narrative around?

I thought Sanders didn't want anything to do with the evvvvvvil and irrelevant MSM???

[MrWendel]

55. With the 24/7 trump...

maybe they just aren't that into you.

[merrily]

108. Or maybe you should read the two articles linked in the OP.

[MrWendel]

119. If Bernie is

the next obama, then why isn't he getting the same coverage? Could it be that Obama was actually a *GASP* Manchurian Canidate for TPTB? Obviously the networks or owned by corporations (MSNBC is a shell of what they used to be, while Morning JoKe is Fox n' Friends light) The most important thing to them is ratings. Period. ALways has been always will be. And as Circus' go, there is no better one than the GOP Primary.

[merrily]

121. Until you read the OP articles, there's really no point in your bloviating about this.

[Eleanors38]

146. Heh-heh.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[Samantha]

61. If a network gets rid of someone like Ed Schultz because he is against the TPP

why would that network along with the others participating in supporting the TPP give Bernie Sanders time to campaign against it?

And this is exactly why Hillary Clinton is boxed in. She worked on the TPP for years, and of course she supports it. But when asked recently, she equivocated. She cannot cede an advantage to Sanders since he is a serious threat to her winning; but she can't outright deny supporting it because her corporate sponsors, not to mention some patrons of the Clinton Foundation, might not understand....

Caught in the middle of the proverbial political rock and a hard place, she at least has the comfort of knowing the networks have her back.

Sam

[brooklynite]

66. ...and I thought Ed lost his show because people weren't watching his show...

[Samantha]

71. That is what you were supposed to think

But not too long after that, it was noted that no one could speak out against the TPP. I do not know who threw down that gauntlet. It could have been a polite request from the administration (I don't think so) or it could have been a collective consensus among those media corporatists who helped draft the so-called trade agreement (that is what I am thinking). Strikingly noticeable, since this event I have heard no one who works for MSNBC whisper a critical word about that pending legislation. When Ed left, all critical analysis of the TPP left with him.

Sam

[brooklynite]

117. I see - Rachel Maddow is a TPP sellout...

[Samantha]

142. I did not say that

Rachel Maddow is under contract with MSNBC, and I believe if commentators there want to continue to work there, they have no other choice than to abide by the network's rules.

I have seen Rachel Maddow interact with Bernie Sanders more than once, and I believe she does like him. She also invited him to come back to her show any time he wanted. I do believe she prefers Clinton but that is just my gut talking. If she does have a preference for Clinton, she is certainly entitled to it.

But think back to when Keith Olbermann left. He started looking for another position when he learned COMCAST was going to merge with NBC. His reason for looking for another position was that he feared Comcast would try to muzzle him, and he could not handle that.

So perhaps muzzle is a good word to use when trying to ascertain why MSNBC commentators to do not deliver critical analysis about issues such as the TPP and candidates like Bernie Sanders. Perhaps they have been "muzzled."

Sam

[brooklynite]

143. Except that you have no evidence for your assertion

Whereas we DO have evidence that, after Ed Schultz was brought back to weekday programming, his ratings never worked their way up to an adequate level.

[senz]

68. + 1 Excellent analysis, Samantha.

[merrily]

109. +1

[doc03]

62. They need to make time for the Donald n/t

[AngryOldDem]

144. That is a huge part of it.

Media, with covering every move this assclown makes, have helped to create this monster.

Trump gets more than his fair share of coverage for someone who offers no plan, no coherency, nothing -- other than inflammatory and hateful rhetoric. He has gone past the amusing sideshow act to being a true danger to this nation. Still, he's treated like a superstar. Note to the networks: He is not a reality TV star. He is a candidate seeking the highest office in the land. Treat him as such.

I've seen a lot of presidential election years come and go, and I don't remember ANY candidate of ANY party getting such an amount of airtime as Trump, with the media slobbering all over him and not calling him on his bullshit.

Not a bit surprised about Bernie, especially with ABC, which seems to never fail to work in "socialist" with every story they do on him.

[Thespian2]

69. Bernie threatens the entire

corporate world...When he gets nominated, those people will be pouring billions into campaigns to defeat him...

With the 1%er, they get what the banks have purchased...

[AZ Progressive]

72. Whining does nothing unless you rile up your supporters and get them to work harder

As well as come up with a plan to go around this obstacle.

[merrily]

110. Who whined? What plan overcomes at least three networks (plus MSBC) stonewalling & undermining you?

Why do you assume Bernie and his campaign have not been doing their best to work around this.

Wow.

[merrily]

76. That has been obvious from the jump. We've been posting on it in Bernie Sanders Group for months.

Deniers of that fact don't change it, much as climate deniers haven't slowed global warming.

Thanks for this.

[Betty Karlson]

80. Good analogy. I see what you did there... eom

[merrily]

84. Thanks.

[raouldukelives]

82. K&R We live in the most reality Wall St investors will allow. nt

[bobGandolf]

83. They did not want to make the same mistake twice.

They covered President Obama running because it helped ratings, but they could not control him once elected.

[Vinca]

85. I suspect Ed Schultz was given the heave ho because he was a strong Bernie supporter and

would have had him on his program more than the corporate media overlords would like. He also covered the Keystone pipeline, eventually coming around to strongly oppose it and big money didn't like that either.

[brooklynite]

159. ...and because he wasn't drawing an audience...

Friday Cable Ratings: MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Drops to 41K in Demo

After dropping below 50K in the 25-54 demo last Thursday, MSNBC’s The Ed Show fell again on Friday to just 41K viewers. That put Ed Schultz in distant third place at 5 p.m. behind Fox News’ The Five with 188K and CNN’s The Situation Room with 164K.

Schultz was also third in total viewers with 381K. The Five was #1 with 1.665M and The Situation Room was #2 with 558K.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/friday-cable-ratings-msnbcs-ed-schultz-drops-to-41k-in-demo/

I seem to recall people being all excited that Sanders was being interviewed this week by Andrea Mitchell. I guess the "Don't cover Bernie" memo got lost?

[Vinca]

160. You notice she didn't interview him until AFTER it was pointed out how little coverage he's gotten.

[brooklynite]

161. Exclusive: Bernie Sanders' first interview as candidate (MSNBC)

http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/exclusive--sanders--1st-interview-as-candidate-437215299581

One on one with Bernie Sanders

http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/watch/one-on-one-with-bernie-sanders-554893379896

Bernie Sanders on gun rights, voting rights

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-on-gun-rights--voting-rights-561420867582

Bernie Sanders: Koch's don't want to help

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/bernie-sanders--the-kochs-dont-want-to-help-558588995870

Bernie Sanders sits down with Rachel Maddow

I could keep going but lazy conspiracy theories make me bored.

[Vinca]

162. Wow - you must have a lot of free time on your hands. LOL.

[Enthusiast]

86. I am boycotting them.

[NCTraveler]

92. I have said this for months.

They are going after Clinton and leaving Sanders alone in order to make it a tight race. This was the best they could do for Sanders. They have gone as far as to promote non-scientific click bait polls to show Sanders support is more than it is.

[UCmeNdc]

100. This makes Bernie Sanders seem like a minor candidate.

They ignore Bernie Sanders so that the American voter will not take his message seriously.

[SmittynMo]

103. There was a time

when these 3 were the public channels/airwaves, fairly unbiased, by the people, and for the people.

So now we have no public channels? No public opinions? Everything is MSM, owned by 6 oligarchs.

It's pretty obvious where this is going to end up. CORRUPTION, and misinformed viewers

[redstateblues]

113. Strawman here Strawman there

Strawmen everywhere

[in_cog_ni_to]

120. K&R! n/t

[gregcrawford]

124. The suppurating malignancy...

... of corporatism is exposed at last. They no longer even makes an effort to mask their brazen corruption and collusion with the handlers of the Chosen One.

The entire concept of democracy is nothing but a punchline to them. The fix was in long ago. They shudder at the very thought of the American people electing their leaders. They believe, like Allen Dulles did, that democracy is too messy, and such weighty decisions should not be left to we, the Great Unwashed.

Deluding the hoi polloi with the fig leaf of an imaginary "democracy" does, however, allow the self-appointed guardians of rapacious corporatism to pervert the system unmolested by the prying eyes of those who might think otherwise.

[oldandhappy]

125. I don't watch them.

The so called 'news' seems very repub to me. And all the same same same, argh.

[Blue Owl]

128. ABCNNBCBS

n/t

[jalan48]

129. It's a part of how an Oligarchy operates.

American's want to believe in the fairy tale part of American politics. These numbers don't lie, the intention is to suppress Sander's message while focusing on a billionaire carnival barker's every word. This election has turned into a fairy tale, "Trump, the Election Show."

[demmiblue]

134. K&R!

Money talks... and so does bullshit.

[hay rick]

135. K&R

[Duval]

139. Of course! He is not for Corporate Wall Street! And the MSM

is catering to the ones who do. The only ones who are giving time to Bernie is Free Speech TV and occasionally MSNBC.

[in_cog_ni_to]

152. kick! n/t

[NYCButterfinger]

156. ABC News used to be good when Peter Jennings was there, but he died in 2005.

ABC World News Tonight w/ David Muir is a okay newscast, but I think some Americans see Bernie Sanders as a old man who is ranting about the social classes of America.

[KoKo]

158. K&R!

[NCTraveler]

168. He has forced their hand. Nt