General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Throws Shade at Bernie: 'Fundamentally Wrong' About Democratic Party [View all]Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)
hoping for a far more in-depth understanding. Studies are already published to verify what we all knew, that most media distorted their coverage specifically against her and to favor her opponents in both the primary and general.
I remember that the day there were no longer enough primary delegates available for Sanders to win the NY Times announced that he had gotten a big surge from the primary vote the day before (!). In a small-print header (smaller than ALL others on the page and farther down the page) was the required little article explaining that he now could not win the primary. No article about how Hillary essentially had it wrapped up. And the header for every piece about her was negative in tone, as usual.
Nevertheless, Sanders coverage during the opening stage of the primaries was the most positive of any candidate. His good press outweighed his bad press by 59 percent to 41 percentthe largest favorable margin of any of the contenders at any point in the primary season. In contrast, Clintons coverage tilted negative. Negative statements about her candidacy outnumbered positive ones by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent.
Why, despite prevailing in three of the four contests, was Clinton portrayed negatively? Why was she not afforded the positive coverage typically granted to a first-place finisher? The answer lies in an observation made by journalist Jules Witcover shortly after the nominating process was changed to a system of primaries and caucuses in the early 1970s. The fact is, he wrote, that the reality of the early going of a presidential campaign is . . . the psychological impact of the resultsthe perception by press, public, and contending politicians of what has happened.[10]
The perception that Clinton had a lock on the Democratic nomination diminished journalists interest in the Democratic race generally and in Sanders candidacy particularly.
The psychological impact in Trumps case was that he was doing better than expected, which is a positive narrative. In Clintons case, the psychological impact was a belief that she was doing worse than expected, which is a negative story.