I remember the headline "Sanders to win primary with speech on socialism."

If so, you're one of the few.

...with a few things thrown in.

I didn't find a cogent explanation of why Sen. Sanders has self-identified as a Democratic Socialist for years, or one reconciling that identification with his distancing from the Democratic party which he has described over the years in very caustic terms.

It's not surprising it melted into the rest of the campaign rhetoric reported. I don't think it was designed, in the end, to make news.

Most Sanders supporters didn't even make a big deal of it. More of a basic stump speech. If I remember correctly, only a small part of his "socialism" speech had anything to do with socialism. I agree, I was one of the few to witness that game changer.

I will say I think a speech on WS is much more suited for him than a speech on socialism. Thought I'm not sure how it will be any different than any other stump speech he has given.

Just like any business. If the news will sell, they'll cover it. If not......

They cover what is newsworthy?

They do what businesses do.

If the story will sell and make them money.. they'll put it out there.

Really, if corporations had a conscience, then there wouldn't be a movement against them for not having one. It's all about the $$.

Just like nutritious isn't the prime criteria for the processed food industry. They both go for whatever they think will prove most addictive. Sugar fat and salt for the junk food purveyors, Donald Trump for selling titillating "news" that people just can't turn away from.

And sometimes the media outlets, which more often then not are owned by major conglomerates, look at THEIR big picture. They may sacrifice some short term ratings points by refusing to cover something that threatens their own corporate bottom lines. That too makes sense from a business perspective.

Putting myself in the big chair for a second, If I owned my own media corporation,
and I had no scruples on how to conduct a socially responsible business,
and I did find a candidate to be a threat to my business,
I wouldn't ignore them.. especially when they've been trending upward.
I would smear the hell out of them. I would attack their character. I would dig up dirt. I would stretch information.

Here at DU, a lot of focus, when it comes to Senator Sanders, is placed on his social network success. Much attention on the huge (and admittedly impressive) crowds he has drawn. That kind of thing has just never drawn much major media attention.

They look at polls, they look at scandals, and they look at what will get the most clicks, or sell the most articles, or will get the most advertising income. Polls are the biggest one. Last Summer, you'd be hard pressed to see anything on Senator Sanders at all.
Now, when I click on Yahoo news, there's probably 1 Sanders news article to about every 2-3 Hillary ones. When it comes to the mainstream polls, that's about the right proportion.

How accurate those polls are.. Will they be wrong this time around because of a large, and unusual influx of younger voters.. I just don't see media looking at those things. They are slow to change, and will continue to use the metrics that's worked for their model for decades.

Granted what I am writing here is speculation. I think the safer path for most mainstream media outlets whose ownership might be uncomfortable with the priorities of a Sanders Presidency would be to put a thumb on the scale, not a bowling ball, for the same reason that thumbs have always been chosen for that type of thing - more difficult to detect and less likely to cause an all out ruckus from ever getting caught. At a certain point readers of the New York Times began complaining to the Ombudsman for that paper that there was very little coverage of Bernie Sanders relative to the degree of support he was attracting. At first there was no response but readers got increasingly persistent and finally the Ombudsman noted that it would be "looked into". Actually I don't know if it ever has been - it's possible that might be the only public reply the Times ever makes. Maybe there has been a correction, but would there have been one if enough readers hadn't seen a likely bias at play?

I gather from some studies that I've seen that the evening News on ABC has been the most obvious about not mentioning Sanders. That level is uncommon. What I do notice though for example is how rarely there is any polling reported of how well Sanders matches up against possible Republican candidates. It is common to see comparisons of how Clinton fares against three or four different possible Republican candidates, but very rare to see how Sanders does. Seriously, it is rare. Back when Joe Biden was considering running they would show comparisons of how he, a non declared candidate, polled against potential Republican opposition, and how Clinton did, but not Sanders even though he was in the race and polling better than Biden whenever Biden was included in the polling of the Democratic field. Recently one firm did include Sanders in those match ups and he did better than Clinton - but that did not become a talking heads topic of much discussion in conventional media- though it was noted on DU of course. I saw Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC make a point of the fact that someone finally actually included Sanders in head to head match ups against specific Republicans. He had noticed that consistent pattern of omissions himself and commented on it.

What does it do to not poll how Sanders performs against Republicans? It reinforces the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton for all practical purposes is the Democratic nominee, period. In some ways like Trump, established opponents of Sanders face some risk in too overtly trying to take him down. That can create a backlash of sympathy for him and fire up his supporters. It's safer to restrict his oxygen than to literally try to cut it all off. If Sanders hadn't been clocking in monster crowds at rallies maybe they would have tried more fully airbrushing him out of the race, but when it is too blatant there's a risk. Remember when even David Axelrod thought it looked like the DNC had it's finger on the scale against Sanders when they locked him out of all of his own data during that security breech incident? Sanders raised 3 million in two days.

I think there will be more overt harsh attacks against Sanders in the media if he wins Iowa. Then they will see the risk of his actually winning as increased. For now they are hoping that Hillary can straight out beat him at the get go and their potential problems will organically recede without having to become heavy handed.

1. It will be recorded
2. It will be uploaded to the internet
3. It will go viral on social media.

The MSM has become mostly irrelevant.

But probably it can help counter claims that Sanders has no substantive plans for how his programs can be implemented since some will probably be included even if they are not covered.

It will make some difference on social media though.