Teague wrote:I think there's been a clear bias from the start against Sanders. If the polls are meaningless at the start, why say he's not going to win.

Teague wrote:Clinton has always been assumed to be the winner and she's had more network coverage whilst Sanders has had multiple hatchet jobs done on him not to mention coincidentally having all of his voters suddenly find they're not registered as democrats.

Teague wrote:Now whether or not Silver has been affected by that would be born out in what he's been saying. If he's not affected, he would have gone strictly by the numbers.

Teague wrote:So Clinton has received negative press from democratic publications the same as Sanders has? There's no hatchet jobs? - the Daily Beast didn't do one at all on him, is that your position? The WP running 16 negative stories in one day? The NY times making a positive article they had into a negative one but inserting some bullshit - not hatchet jobs?

WASHINGTON — AFTER running as a man last time around, Hillary Clinton is now running as a woman.

Of course, the only thing that matters is delegates. If Clinton wins Kentucky by 2 percentage points and Sanders wins Oregon by 15 percentage points, this translates into Sanders cutting his elected delegate deficit by about eight. That would leave Clinton with a lead of 272 elected delegates with very few primaries left.

Sanders's supporters have alleged that the press has unfairly treated the Vermont senator's candidacy, even picketing CNN to protest a "media blackout" of their candidate.

At first glance, the Crimson Hexagon data suggests that they're wrong to complain: After all, it shows that the media has battered Clinton more than any other candidate, perhaps because of the ongoing controversy over her emails.

But the greater scrutiny probably also reflects the fact that the media regards her as a much more serious frontrunner than Sanders. And that may really have hurt Sanders's chances as much as — or more than — negative stories.

"If you are portrayed as not having much of a chance to win, studies show voters tend to pick up on that. They echo the opinions of journalists that certain candidates are not worth following," says Bob Lichter, a George Mason communications professor and director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Sanders's fans may have a point when they complain that the press hasn't taken their candidate seriously. But if the media had treated Sanders as a likely winner, it would have almost certainly attacked him more frequently too.

"One of the goals of American journalists is to get out all the information on the person most likely to be president," Lichter says. "As soon as a person moves ahead in the polls, the coverage turns more negative."

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

Willie71 wrote:It seems odd that people cannot see bias in a corporate media that has donated to one of the candidates, but not the other. Maybe people don't know the basics of conflict of interest.

Thommo wrote:

Willie71 wrote:It seems odd that people cannot see bias in a corporate media that has donated to one of the candidates, but not the other. Maybe people don't know the basics of conflict of interest.

The thread is called "Nate Silver's Bias Exposed". How much has Nate Silver donated to Hillary Clinton?

The sentence in question complained about "multiple hatchet jobs done on him". Which candidate has had more more hatchet jobs done on them?

If you want to engage in more than insinuation, by all means do so. At this point I'd even settle for evidence of this (off topic) insinuation that Clinton has had more money from people who work in media than Sanders has, because that too is not information I've ever seen and that you now seem to think you have enough of to make derogatory implications about what people do and do not know about the concept of a conflict of interest.

Willie71 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Willie71 wrote:It seems odd that people cannot see bias in a corporate media that has donated to one of the candidates, but not the other. Maybe people don't know the basics of conflict of interest.

The thread is called "Nate Silver's Bias Exposed". How much has Nate Silver donated to Hillary Clinton?

The sentence in question complained about "multiple hatchet jobs done on him". Which candidate has had more more hatchet jobs done on them?

If you want to engage in more than insinuation, by all means do so. At this point I'd even settle for evidence of this (off topic) insinuation that Clinton has had more money from people who work in media than Sanders has, because that too is not information I've ever seen and that you now seem to think you have enough of to make derogatory implications about what people do and do not know about the concept of a conflict of interest.

Iirc, the TYT video talked about bias in a non corrupt way. I provided a link to an analysis of the bias in the numbers. It's there in black and white in the second post. TYT covers Nate's opinion commentary. It seemed sound to me. I thought the exact same things when I read that commentary myself.

Regarding the media, there are hundreds of critiques of the decline of journalism since the removal of the fairness doctrine, and the move to for profit news, dependent on advertising dollars. One of the major media corporations has donated directly to the Clinton campaign, and another has held fundraiser(s) for her. I'm off to an emergency session in 5 minutes, so I'll get some links later. I thought this was common knowledge around here. I guess not.

Oldskeptic wrote:Thomo says he'll settle for some evidence that media corporations are contributing large sums to Hillary.

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.

Thommo wrote:I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in cherry picked data that picks out "corporate donations" and ignores other equally plausible paths to influence content output, like personal donations from the people who make, research, present and edit the programs themselves.

Willie71 wrote:https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Time Warner is the 8th largest donor to Clinton.

They own CNN. Not a conflict if interest?

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.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/med ... sidential/

I thought everyone knew this. It's been posted multiple times in these threads, there is a clear conflict of interest that is ignored.