They're still pushing him despite the fact they know he's psychotic

interrupted their coverage to go live to Bernie & Trump rallies. This isn't the first study that has measured the type of coverage the candidates received during the primaries. The media was absolutely rooting for Sanders & Trump with very positive coverage.

Mainly because they wanted a close Dem primary.

just the traditional groupthink opposition to Hillary. I've read that for some it seems to be personal wounded pride that they have always failed. Very small people acting like teenagers still guarding their table while someone never in the group goes on to become the school principle.

... but that same Harvard study found that print and broadcast media spent far more TIME on Hillary, noting that she got 3 times the coverage of Bernie. (Of course, the Republican Klown Kar got considerably more coverage than the whole Democratic field. )

Here's the story at the Shorenstein Center itself: http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

But yes, Hillary had an incredible 84% of her coverage being negative, far more than any other candidate, and more attention paid to her career history (e.g. only the "scandals&quot .

However, I wouldn't say the media "built up" Sanders by comparison. His role in their narrative was only to be the potential spoiler. There's actually a chart at the link showing how his favorable media coverage declined over time.

===================

The disparity was astounding between rump and Bernie. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

The coverage he received might have been more positive than Hillary's, but he received a lot less coverage. Both Democrats seemed to receive a lot less coverage than Trump and the other Republicans.

More people tune in for a horse race.

but Bernie was treated like an insignificant buffoon.

The great thing about the Sanders campaign is he elevated the discussion and because of his candidacy we have a platform that is much more in tune with what rank and file Dems (like me) want.

I have to say, though, that I was pretty impressed with Clinton at the DNC. I loved her speech because it was policy-heavy. She actually WANTS to govern the nation, as opposed to Trump. Who the hell knows what he wants? And Clinton's speech made me confident in her quals and her ability.

I also learned she does care, and that meant a lot.

At this point, I am supporting her because I think she'll do a good job, meaning I'm donating to her campaign, and will be using my vote FOR Clinton as opposed to AGAINST Trump. Clinton might even move a bit to the left of Obama's legacy...

Don't get me wrong, either - Obama will go down in history as a GREAT president, he really will. But he's not been as far left as I would have wanted.

And Fox, hate-talk radio and the current TPGOP will be history's laughingstocks, much like the 'know-nothings' and the 'mugwumps.' Never heard of them? EXACTLY!!! A bunch of absurd liars whose decades-long machinations culminated in............Trump.

That much has been said before.

I saw it in local news and on national coverage in the tone taken when "reporting" the primary action and participants. The headlines alone were half the deal. So much half-fact and half-baked commentary presented as NEWS I haven't seen in a long time. At times the coverage seemed more like self fulfilling prophesy than reportage, regardless of the candidate. So much self congratulatory commentary as if they knew all along how it would go.

In North Carolina local TV news demonstrates a strong tendency to present candidates in the language and form of political and cultural stereotypes. It helps them speak down to the uneducated voters here (sarcasm intended) as if we won't understand all the grown up words. I am sure the advertisers and regional network owners have much to say about news content and format as it tends to reflect the living-in-a-Wonder-Bread-commercial ethos typical of local advertising.

For what it is worth I think Harvard needs to look a lot closer to the ground in their evaluations of media, but their take on it is hardly surprising. One thing I do not see in the evaluation is how many times any of the comments and coverage were repeated in the 24 hour news cycle which might have added dimension to the degree of Echo Chamber effect. I do not see meaningful analysis of the Online effect either.

We do not live in a world where the only source of news is standard TV broadcast. Some sources are only available if you have certain cable or satellite programming packages. Some broadcast TV can only be seen in certain locations. Some of us only get the news that fits on the phone. Some only read blogs and sites like DU, FR, or their alternatives.

There is a certain degree of myopia represented by the analysis which presumes the influence of nationally broadcast news to be uniform in distribution and impact. I think there is a meaningful point in comparing the numbers but it is far from the whole story.

If you wanted to see even a mention of most of his massive rallies that he had you had to watch web based "BernieTv" sites.

I also suspect that Trump might have been pushed for ratings. I can't stand him, but I watched to see what nutty thing he'd do next.

who running a fantasy-based campaign.

Vilified. That does not happen spontaneously. Bad press. Bad.

in the media.