I feel like the press has always had it out for Sanders. Ever since the beginning of his campaign, the press has always seemed to portray him as a heavy underdog, which has likely affected the support that he's received. I wonder if Hillary has dark money that finds its way to the media outlets.
I think that as much as these delegates help Sanders, they do a good job of highlighting how near-impossible it's going to be for him to win. He got 70% of the delegates there, which is roughly what he is going to need to win. But these delegates came from Washington one of his best states (and a caucus which are favorable to him). His average states are going to need to become as good as his best states, and he is going to need to do it in states that he is currently trailing in the polls in. Betting markets give Clinton a 94% chance to win the nomination, and have been around there since after the New York primary. To put that in perspective, they give Trump a 95% chance and he is currently running unopposed. I say all of this to say that there has actually been a lot of media bias towards Sanders in recent weeks, with the purpose of implying a more competitive race than there is because that is a much more interesting story than having a presumptive nominee.
I find it very interesting on how much the media controls what people think. A lot of people just read the titles of the articles or the headlines and that's it. So the headlines tend to be false or overdramatic in order to draw the reader in and is not necessarily always true.
When reading headlines like the one above it makes people think that Sanders is not doing well and may impact the way people think of Sanders. People thinking he is losing and cannot get delegates will influence how many delegates he actually gets. The media does not disclose everything that is happening and that is for a reason. They are able to sway what people think and have huge control over this election.
By considering the influence of media, media should put its efforts to maintain neutral stances, but it seems inevitable to favor one side due to the profit structure of media. Media structure heavily relies on profits from advertisement, and there is a tendency for media to support owners of advertisement.
This not just limited to the democratic primary. There has been significant bias towards Trump since his campaign began. I wonder how the republican primary would have turned out had the media focused less of their attention on Trump.
It's interesting because it definitely seems like the media did play a role in Trump's rise, but just about everybody in media hates him. The disproportionate coverage that he got was mostly negative. This probably has something to do with the fact that the majority of Trump supporters are extremely distrustful of the media. So in a weird twist, bashing him possibly lead more people to like him.
I think it's interesting what Graham and Spencer said about the media support that Trump has been getting. Whether that media attention being negative towards Trump or not, he definitely got enough attention or exposure in the media that led to his rise. It's really scary to think that the media tries to control what people think and how people think, but it just gives me a random conclusion that this is why education is so important to build one's correct worldview, especially when it comes to the politics, and why we should be able to critically filter the information we obtain from the media.
I feel like the press has always had it out for Sanders. Ever since the beginning of his campaign, the press has always seemed to portray him as a heavy underdog, which has likely affected the support that he's received. I wonder if Hillary has dark money that finds its way to the media outlets.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aim.org/special-report/top-10-misreported-or-underreported-stories-of-2015/
DeleteClinton has no doubt been receiving significant support from news giants. No matter the scandal, it seems that she is untouchable.
I think that as much as these delegates help Sanders, they do a good job of highlighting how near-impossible it's going to be for him to win. He got 70% of the delegates there, which is roughly what he is going to need to win. But these delegates came from Washington one of his best states (and a caucus which are favorable to him). His average states are going to need to become as good as his best states, and he is going to need to do it in states that he is currently trailing in the polls in. Betting markets give Clinton a 94% chance to win the nomination, and have been around there since after the New York primary. To put that in perspective, they give Trump a 95% chance and he is currently running unopposed. I say all of this to say that there has actually been a lot of media bias towards Sanders in recent weeks, with the purpose of implying a more competitive race than there is because that is a much more interesting story than having a presumptive nominee.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting on how much the media controls what people think. A lot of people just read the titles of the articles or the headlines and that's it. So the headlines tend to be false or overdramatic in order to draw the reader in and is not necessarily always true.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading headlines like the one above it makes people think that Sanders is not doing well and may impact the way people think of Sanders. People thinking he is losing and cannot get delegates will influence how many delegates he actually gets. The media does not disclose everything that is happening and that is for a reason. They are able to sway what people think and have huge control over this election.
By considering the influence of media, media should put its efforts to maintain neutral stances, but it seems inevitable to favor one side due to the profit structure of media. Media structure heavily relies on profits from advertisement, and there is a tendency for media to support owners of advertisement.
ReplyDeleteThis not just limited to the democratic primary. There has been significant bias towards Trump since his campaign began. I wonder how the republican primary would have turned out had the media focused less of their attention on Trump.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting because it definitely seems like the media did play a role in Trump's rise, but just about everybody in media hates him. The disproportionate coverage that he got was mostly negative. This probably has something to do with the fact that the majority of Trump supporters are extremely distrustful of the media. So in a weird twist, bashing him possibly lead more people to like him.
DeleteI think it's interesting what Graham and Spencer said about the media support that Trump has been getting. Whether that media attention being negative towards Trump or not, he definitely got enough attention or exposure in the media that led to his rise.
ReplyDeleteIt's really scary to think that the media tries to control what people think and how people think, but it just gives me a random conclusion that this is why education is so important to build one's correct worldview, especially when it comes to the politics, and why we should be able to critically filter the information we obtain from the media.