The Fix: How the media fails to cover Bernie Sanders in two headlines.

Before I paste some of the story, let me say that the headline for this story is a bit of an oxymoron. If Sanders is getting headlines, the problem is not lack of coverage. The truth is that the media often ignores Sanders entirely (less so as time passes) or covers him unfairly. That said, I will get to pasting from the source.

The Fix: How the media fails to cover Bernie Sanders in two headlines.

By David Weigel September 29 at 9:53 AM

On May 10, the weekend after he announced his presidential bid, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" to reemphasize some of his campaign themes. Among them was that anyone he would appoint to the Supreme Court would have to be on record against the "disastrous" 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United. CNN's Eric Bradner reported this under the headline, "Bernie Sanders has a Supreme Court litmus test."

..........

On Monday, Sanders spoke at an event held by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics in Washington. Much had changed since May; for example, in Real Clear Politics's national average of polls, Sanders had jumped from 5.6 percent to 27.6 percent, a boom predicted by no one in the media. CNN reported from the new speech, and delivered an article with this headline: "Bernie Sanders' Supreme Court litmus test: Overturn Citizens United." The reporter? Not to pick on the guy, but it was Eric Bradner.

It's unusual for candidates to get national coverage this consistent when they repeat their core messaging. Local coverage is one thing; the media in Oskaloosa might be hearing a speech that was already played out in Greenville or Derry or Pahrump. But Sanders, who has refused to go negative against his main Democratic opponent*, has received relatively skimpy coverage, and he knows it. He likes to say that if he "slipped on a banana peel" at an event, the assembled reporters would make that the story.

No one seriously disputes this. In an analysis last week, media watcher Andrew Tyndall discovered that network newscasts had devoted only eight minutes to the Sanders campaign, despite it being arguably the most surprising political story of 2016. That was as much as they had devoted to Mitt Romney's brief flirtation with a third presidential bid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/29/how-the-media-fails-to-cover-bernie-sanders-in-2-headlines/

Good analysis of media coverage follows the portions of the article that I've quoted above.

As far as the language I bolded above, it shows that the author is unfamiliar with DU. While one member of the media and professor after another comments on how Sanders is either being ignored or covered unfairly, a certain group of DUers deny that, while claiming another candidate is a victim of the media.

Then again, perhaps the author is familiar with DU. Perhaps the key word in the language I bolded is "seriously." While I admit I don't read as much outside this group as I once did, I have not seen any serious analysis of media coverage of Bernie at DU, only snark.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/128054135 (Comic Relief Fundraiser: Sanders Perennial Snark Desperation Syndrome, or SPSDS).