If you had asked me to guess which candidate from either party received the most positive news coverage during the primaries, I would have guessed Bernie Sanders. There were almost no negative exposés or investigative pieces of him, and most coverage focused on his surprising successes and his huge rallies. Certainly, he came under more scrutiny as he made progress, and he hurt himself at times, in particular with his meeting with the New York Daily News editorial staff. Still, his problem with the media wasn’t what they said about him but in getting them to saying anything about him at all. Trump stole most of the oxygen that Sanders needed.
In any case, it turns out that my intuition was correct. At least through the end of 2015, Sanders received by far the most positive news coverage. That’s the conclusion of a study done by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University, anyway.
Hillary Clinton received the most negative coverage of any candidate.
As his poll numbers ticked upward, [Sanders] was portrayed as a “gaining ground” candidate, a favorable storyline buttressed by reports of increasingly large crowds and enthusiastic followers. “The overflow crowds Sanders has been drawing in Iowa and New Hampshire,” said USA Today, “are signs that there is ‘a real hunger’ for a substantive discussion about Americans’ economic anxieties . . . .” The “real hunger” extended also to journalists, who are drawn to a candidate who begins to make headway against an odds-on favorite.
The odds-on favorite got virtually no breaks from either liberal or conservative media…
…Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down Clinton …
Month after month … her coverage was more negative than positive. There was only one month in the whole of 2015 where the tone of her coverage was not in the red and, even then, it barely touched positive territory. During the first half of the year, excluding neutral references, it averaged three to one negative statements over positive statements. Her coverage in the second half of the year was more favorable, but still damning. The ratio for that period was more than three to two negative over positive.
I think candidates bear some responsibility for their coverage, so if Clinton was barraged with questions about her emails, for example, then that’s largely her own fault. But, still, if there’s an impression out there that the media establishment was in the bag for Clinton and had it out for Sanders, that impression is the opposite of credible.
You built this. You own this. And, the media should begin every press interview with:
Congressman, Senator, what do you think about what GOP Presidential Nominee Donald Trump said today?
Should ask this question 10 times in a row. And, get it all on tape.
Hill Republicans despondent over Trump
Many senators are simply refusing to say anything about their presumptive nominee.
06/14/16 06:50 PM EDT
Senate Republicans have tried to work with Donald Trump. They’ve offered gentle advice and firm guidance, hoping he’ll morph into a general election candidate who won’t kill their chances of keeping the Senate, or better yet, will give Hillary Clinton a run for her money.
None of it has worked. And now a palpable mix of despair and resignation has permeated the Senate Republican Conference. Many lawmakers are openly frustrated, and refusing to defend the comments and actions of their own standard-bearer, the man they’ve endorsed for president.
Trump’s insinuation that Obama may be sympathetic to Islamic State terrorists was the final straw for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“I’m not going to be commenting on the presidential candidates today,” the Kentucky Republican said Tuesday, in an abrupt reversal after several weeks of weighing in on Trump’s performance, particularly the ways he believed the candidate needed to improve.
McConnell’s No. 2, Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), declared he was done talking about Trump until after the election — nearly five months away.
“Wish me luck,” he said.
I’m sorry, this has exactly what to do with Clinton’s coverage?
What It’s Like to Lose to Donald Trump
June 14, 2016
Sam Stein interviews Danny Diaz (Jeb Bush’s campaign manager), Jeff Roe (Ted Cruz’s campaign manager) and Alex Conant (Marco Rubio’s communications director).
“Well-compensated, highly intelligent and very publicly defeated, each one of them is still angry, both at Trump and at the media. Each one of them has theories about how we got to this very disconcerting place in American political history. And not one of them is prepared to vote for Trump.”
“The stories they told me over a 90-minute conversation at a bar called Black Jack in Washington DC provided an entirely different view of the campaign and of elite Republican thinking. They spoke with unusual candor about which strategies they pushed that they now regret, how they believe network executives conspired against their candidates, what a disaster the Republican convention will be and why a Hillary Clinton blowout may be upon us.”
Read it all, thanks for the link.
Grifters.
.
Really great article! Thanks for posting the link.
They seem like OK guys. I had to grit my teeth through some of their conservative pontificating — like, how a liberal administration is “bad for the economy” (stated as a given) and how Hillary Clinton is “a train wreck” whom they directly imply is only getting votes because of the gender card (“That’s all she’s got,” they say confidently) but the rest of it is very astute.
BWA HA HA HA H AH AH AH AH AH HA
It probably made more sense when a talk radio moron screamed it.
If they stole our machines, then the passports should be equally good (or bad). I don’t know who the “they” is. It is true that ISIS stole passport making machines in Syria when they took over territory. And maybe those machines were made in the good old USA. Maybe that’s what he meant. Who knows?
“I think candidates bear some responsibility for their coverage, so if Clinton was barraged with questions about her emails, for example, then that’s largely her own fault.”
Gee, BooMan, how do you figure? That seems like a strange conclusion to draw given everything we know about The Arkansas Project, Whitewater etc. It seems to me that there arguably hasn’t been a single person in American history who’s received more disproportionate bad press/slander/innuendo/organized smear campaigns than Hillary Clinton (even more than her husband,who ceased to be an active threat to the perpetrators decades ago but still gets the frequent gratuitous sideswipe).
I stand by my comment.
That one is simple.
Hillary knows how much the right wing media and politicians would dig for anything to hound her with.
Still she set up the server against State Department rules.
She knows the history of modern day political scandals, where it is usually the cover up not the crime that bites the politician in the posterior,
Still she set up the server and tried to hide it.
She knew she wanted to run for president, and the extreme scrutiny that goes with that,
And still she set up the server,
it is that simple.
This would make sense if the only job of Secretary of State is to send and receive emails. But there’s other stuff to be done, and perhaps she focused on that? And maybe she figured she was covered because Condi and Colin did much the same?
If it wasn’t the emails it would have been something else, and the media would have run with it at the behest of the Republicans. We all know this.
It also implies Clinton knew wtf a ‘server’ was.
.
But it WAS the emails,
at her desecration,
totally her decision,
hence Booman’s original comment.
See how simple it really is.
Yeah, simple. If it wasn’t the emails, it would have been that she didn’t feed her dog Alpo, or really was a bitch on wheels, or maybe Huma’s lesbian lover.
You obviously don’t understand the Clinton Rules.
The media will go after everything that certain people use to attack her and Bill, relentlessly.
That is why the emails ARE her fault knowing the Clinton rules as she has to.
Her emails are like Bill’s blue dress, totally a fault of their own. Totally discretionary, very explosive if things go wrong, and both of them went there anyway. No one forced either of them ……
Still that simple.
So, if a black person gets arrested for something that would be ignored in a white person, it’s the black person’s fault. Because they know they’re black and that society is unfair.
That’s a nice morality you have there.
No, not a racist issue at all even though your trying in a very slimy way to make it when you have lost the argument.
The simple truth is Bill knew that Starr and the republicans in congress were out to get him, and HE decided to go ahead and cheat. He decided to ignore his marriage vows, and then tried to lie about it.
Hillary decided to ignore the rules that the State department require all their employees top follow. Then tried to hide it.
Your illogical straw-man argument is showing how desperate you seem to try to hide the simple fact;
Trying to make it a racism argument instead of the truth, a stupid act on her part that has caused her some grief in the media and publicity.
Knowing all, she knew she decided to go ahead anyway. Her decision her responsibility.
simple as that.
Yes, it was a stupid act. It was also an inconsequential act, except for the Clinton Rules. You seem perfectly happy to promote them. Because Bernie da God is perfect, and therefore the right wing must be allied with.
So, so glad your man lost.
I’m not promoting any Clinton rules, but pointing out how STUPID both of them have been with respect the extra scrutiny people who seek or obtain the white house are under.
As for the rest of your rant shows who you really are.
The media’s appetite for Hillary scandal duly noted, there is no presumptive Presidential nominee of either party who would not attract aggressive coverage of their being criminally investigated by the FBI, especially when displaying her characteristic bunker mentality. (Though it’s not clear that she can legally afford to be more transparent.)
Let it also be noted that negative media coverage comes in more than one flavor. It can be argued that the sneering dismissiveness with which, say, The New York Times covered Sanders was more injurious to his campaign than “there are important questions about this serious candidate” stories would have been.
The report isn’t even, as you stated, an examination of coverage during the primaries. It is an examination of coverage in the year preceding the primaries. During the period in question Sanders went from 60 points behind to 25 points behind. Reports of him “gaining ground” are therefore objective fact and should arguably be scored as neutral. If they are to be scored as “positive” then all reporting that Clinton was ahead should be similarly so scored – yes, it is positive, but it is also an empirical fact. It seems quite unlikely that any mention of Clinton’s candidacy failed to mention this and therefore unlikely that this study’s authors scored these as positive and still concluded the campaign coverage was least favorable to Clinton. Also, they seem to have included a lot of coverage of issues arising from Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, which is not, properly speaking, campaign coverage. Although her candidacy increased its salience, it would have been important anyway.
Not if she wasn’t running for president it wouldn’t have.
It was important when Karl Rove ran white house communications on his personal server. He wasn’t running for President.
Gee bento, maybe you should read the article. It aggregates positive and neutral together, for reasons they strongly defend.
Meanwhile, Hillary’s policy positions get negative coverage 84% of the time, while Bernie’s got negative coverage 17%. I guess the media is all-in on a huge middle class tax hike and national health insurance.
I’m sure that the 67% (!!) differential is due to preferring leftist policies, as they’ve always supported them before. Like when… OK, I got nothing. Maybe we could go with the obvious answer: that they want to stop Hillary.
Actually, they expressly changed that standard when evaluating Sanders, which raises questions about their own consistency:
“Strictly in terms of tonal balance–good news vs. bad news–Sanders was the most favorably reported candidate–Republican or Democratic–during the invisible primary. Figure 5 shows the month-to-month balance of Sanders’ coverage excluding statements that were neutral in tone. In the first four months of 2015, befitting a “likely loser,” Sanders was not getting much coverage and what little of it he got was almost evenly balanced between positive and negative. Thereafter, his coverage shot into positive territory, rising rapidly before slipping somewhat as a result of his less-than-stellar performance in the early pre-primary Democratic debates.
Sanders’ issue positions also netted him positive coverage. Although they accounted for only about 7 percent of his coverage, they were a source of “good news.” “
In other words, this flood of positive coverage Sanders got was only 7% of total coverage and neutral coverage is not included, even though it is elsewhere. The study also says that the reason neutral coverage is treated as positive is because exposure is intrinsically beneficial. But in that case Clinton’s positive+neutral coverage should be scored in absolute terms, as that is how exposure functions. They don’t do this. In fact, When they point out that Sanders got little exposure compared to Clinton – obviously,, an exposure positive for Clinton, but not scored as such despite the expressed mythology of the report – they justify this because Sanders was the “likely loser”. Why Sanders had less coverage is irrelevant to the effect, so this editorializing is superfluous at best.
So now, given that, contrary to what you just said, the direct comparison between Sanders and Clinton excludes neutral coverage, and the 7% positive attributed to Sanders includes “gaining ground” stories, we might ask how much more there can be to all this vaunted positive coverage than that. The report also says 12% or less of Sanders’ coverage was issue-oriented, and with Sanders what else is there to cover besides horse-race and issues? He doesn’t have any scandals.
Where neutral and positive are grouped together is in the measure of impact rather than tone of coverage. There the report notes that Clinton had a 3 to 1 advantage in total coverage and that this was a huge disadvantage for Sanders.
I should have edited that before posing I see that the issue is that they did not mix positive and neutral in their analysis of tone for either Sanders or Clinton, but it is not clear that reports of Clinton’s frontrunner status were treated as neutral instead of positive. Sanders gaining ground is identified as positive. Either horse-race reportage is brute fact and therefore neutral, or it, because it does server one candidate or another, it should be scored as favorable or not, but the standard should at least be consistent. And, clearly the bulk of the favorable coverage Sanders got was simple horse-race coverage of the fact that his position was improving.
And it is still the case that this report does not address coverage during the primaries. I think a correction to the OP is called for.
mythology seems to be a spellcheck error. I meant methodology.
They do exactly the same thing for Clinton as they do for Sanders in Figure 5. It’s in Figure 6.
But what they do is not conflate positive with neutral, which is what you claimed.
Oh, I see you found that. Surprisingly, that isn’t good enough for you either.
I’m reminded of the way that the Politifact Truth-o-Meter has all along shown basically a tie between Sanders and Clinton, whereas Trump is at the pants-on-fire stage. Now, maybe the Politifact methodology is all screwy–I withhold judgment–but I find the Clinton/Sanders tie to be interesting in light of the claims we are bombarded with day after day that Clinton is untrustworthy.
Just imagine if she hadn’t released her tax returns.
You write:
Oh, BULLSHIT!!!
I don’t know exactly which polls state this, nor which media upon which they have done their supposed “studies,” but here is what a fairly steady observer of the entire mass media has seen over the last year or so:
An ongoing (and rapidly accelerating as their failure mounted) series of attacks on Trump. Deserved? Sure, on some levels. But true for all that.
A grudging…at best…”acceptance” of Sanders’s (supposedly heroically doomed) attempt to pull the DemRat Party to the left and a (supposedly quietly and resignedly) “acceptance” of the inevitability of an HRC win when all the votes on every level have been counted.
That has been the overall coverage of the primary system so far.
All else is PermaGov, fix-oriented disinformation.
Deal wid it.
AG
Arthur….
You brag incessantly that you avoid mainstream media. Yet you lay this claim as if you have personal knowledge.
You don’t have personal knowledge. Or, you’ve been fibbing to us about your media consumption.
Which is it?
I watch everything, but automatically believe nothing.
You?
AG
You’ve been fibbing. Oh dear.
No lies. Look at my sig. Same same for media as far as I am concerned. I’m not against media; i just don’t believe it. Trust none of it.
Media is “government.” It “governs” our lives in the sense that it provides information on which we are supposed to base our lives. It is also allied with/owned by the same forces that own the government.
There is no way around “government.” It is all-inclusive unless you drop out completely and go live in the deepest woods, foraging for food and/or growing your own. Media is equally pervasive. I believe none of it, just as I believe no government. Once you get to that point you have a certain freedom of mind that is very…interesting.
Freedom from cant.
You can obey the laws by which government governs without necessarily “believing” in them. I certainly do. I obey them because I do not want to get involved in the (
in)justice system on any level that it is possible to avoid. Once you realize that all media…all mass media, anyway…is just another set of control mechanisms you can look at it impartially and see the truths behind the lies.Freedom from media-induced trance.
AG
P.S. And…look away from all commercials. They are the most powerful hypnotics in our modern media. Turn the sound off and look away.
You be bettah off.
So, I’m trying to figure out your method of sifting through the data, or as you would call it, the “data”.
You watch everything (and how do you find time for that?) but believe nothing? So (1) what’s the point of watching everything, and (2) how do you analyze what you hear when you don’t belief any of it?
With all due respect, it just sounds as though you have the perfect nihilistic approach to political analysis, or “analysis”.
Wow. You, like, got nothing right here.
Only if you are tone deaf.
AG
I guess that’s a good reason to disregard the political media. We’ve all known who we’re voting for in November for a long time. What is the point of all this? I guess a blogger can write a post about it and get some page views.
I don’t know if I’d call the coverage “negative.” Perhaps challenging. There was very little challenging of Sanders. A lot of Clinton, often coming from “Sanders and friends.” Folks in a Bernie meeting today told me they are suspicious about “the transcripts.” When I suggested that many people were there at those talks and no one has come forward with a video or even comments about what she said. The reply was that “it’ll come out when she’s the nominee, like Romney’s 49%.” When it was suggested that she may be indicted for the emails, I reminded them that we survived non-stop Reverend Wright, Bill’s scandalous affairs, and lots of other nefarious stuff. At the end, it’s a binary choice. But those folks, right now, are talking not voting or Jill Stein or “making a point.” Everyone needs more time.
I’m not sure I completely agree with this assessment, but i can see where it comes from. It was really impossible to test, since Sanders never really came within striking distance of the candidacy.
There is a Youtube video of one the Goldman speeches as well as similar speeches to other groups. The GS speech is an anodyne speech about empowering women entrepeneurs. She appears to be delivering the speech without using a prepared script. Short of transcribing the Youtube video that has been publicly available for nearly two years, there isn’t a way to recreate her prepared remarks. .
Damn right they have. for 30 years all the media have done is tear her down, make up stories, and just plain hate the woman. Glad to see this being brought up.
First, let me acknowledge that news of Clinton is unfairly and consistently negative. I’m not sure how to interpret these numbers, though.
You said:
The article says that his coverage had the best positive-to-negative ratio of any candidate, but the most positive coverage? I can’t find a total. From the original article:
I can’t tell if Sanders actually got more total positive coverage than Clinton or not. She definitely had more negative coverage – by a lot! – but that begs the question of whether negative coverage is better or worse than no coverage.
For the most part, I think the media just brushed Sanders off even when they mentioned him, and that’s hard to interpret in a binary positive-or-negative analysis. As I was riding home tonight I heard Moira Liasson say that Sanders is less relevant after Orlando because he doesn’t have an answer for home-grown terrorism. Next week it’ll be some other reason.
Different strategies for different opponents. Sanders was outside the Overton window, so he could be ignored. He only received coverage to tear down Clinton. Clinton is inside the Overton Window (by her own choice) so she can’t just be ignored. She has to be attacked relentlessly as she’s a very significant threat to the right-wing establishment that controls the media.
I basically agree, but think it’s more strategic than that. The attacks on Hillary are basically to help the GOP.
Oh, I agree. If the media didn’t think Sanders was easier to beat he wouldn’t have even gotten the horse race coverage he got. He would have been ignored as studiously as an anti-war or pro-immigration rally is.
Right, she got really roughed up by the media, almost had a near-death experience defending herself, even had to call her husband to the rescue rescue (ya’ know, he’ll do the economy). And what was all that bad coverage exactly about? How can you give someone good coverage about working with a personal server while SoS of the USA? Considering the enormity of her stupidity, I’d say she got off very lightly.
BENGHAZI!
That’s a very appropriate reaction. Well, does anyone know what the ambassador was doing in Benghazi anyway?
Hiding the body of Vince Foster?
Of course not. He was doing his job—whatever. It’s disgusting to make a cretinous joke about a man who committed suicide and has been unjustly used to incite crackpots. Why are you so extremely unpleasant in your comments. Revel in the victory of your candidate Hillary Clinton. Just don’t expect everyone else tofall into in line. Tolerance.
Wait– do we have aBernie supporter who hasn’t bought into the 90s conspiracy theories about the Clintons? Congrats for only buying into this decade’s, I guess.
Why do ou guess that? Tell us what positives your candidate has that I’m overlooking or slyly denying.
Clinton has zero postives.
#Trump/Arpaio 2016: Because Hillary is just too dangerous.
OT: How Did I Get an Abortion in Texas? I Didn’t.
By VALERIE PETERSON
JUNE 15, 2016
Austin, Tex. — ANY day now, the Supreme Court is going to decide whether women everywhere have full access to the right to an abortion, or just those who live in the right ZIP code — and whether any other woman in Texas, where I live, will have to go through what I did last fall.
The abortion restrictions that the court is currently considering, which were passed in 2013 under the pretext of protecting women’s health and safety, are really nothing more than unnecessary obstacles. In my life, they made a devastating situation much worse.
Nearly six months after my abortion I still carry the scars of the experience — not of the procedure itself, which was a blessing I will never regret, but of how hard it was to get the care I needed in the state where I live.
I’m already a mother of two. And after years of being told I couldn’t have any more children, I was shocked when my doctor told me last summer that I was pregnant. I wanted another child, and I immediately began prenatal care.
Because of high blood pressure, mine was considered a high-risk pregnancy and I had to have ultrasound scans every two weeks. At my 12-week scan, I was told that there was a possible anomaly in the baby’s brain, but more testing was needed. For the next several weeks, I went in for additional tests. I barely slept.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
The sonogram clearly showed my son’s brain hadn’t developed into two halves, and there was a hole between the brain and the spinal cord. My doctor confirmed the diagnosis: Alobar holoprosencephaly. My doctor gave me two options: I could try to carry the pregnancy to term, which would most likely end in either miscarriage or the delivery of a stillborn baby. At best, the doctors said the baby might live a couple of minutes. Or I could terminate the pregnancy.
I was devastated by the diagnosis and these two terrible options. I knew immediately, though. Once I saw the pictures of his brain, I knew that continuing to carry this pregnancy would have traumatic emotional and physical consequences. And not just for me but also for my two children, who were excited about having another sibling.
…………………………………..
Through a friend, I was connected to a clinic in Florida that caters to women who are terminating for medical reasons, and I spoke to the doctor and nurse there. The doctor explained that Florida didn’t have a 24-hour waiting period, and they could get me in the next day.
I booked the first plane ticket I found. I got a hotel room and rental car. I flew to Florida on Friday, and my procedure was over by Saturday afternoon. Including the cost of the procedure, I had to spend close to $5,000.
I remember thinking: What happens to women in my situation who don’t have the ability to do what I just did? My heart aches for those women.
You know, there has been nothing standing in the way of Democrats passing legislation that would spare Texas women from these restrictions on their reproductive agency. It is an established Constitutional right. Just like voting. Have not seen a shadow of a bill addressing it, have you?
Even IF they get their SC nominee, women in the states will only be spared IF a specific case wends its way through the system on EVERY separate trick that has been used to frustrate safe, timely abortions.
Yes there is something stopping Democrats – the minor detail that Republican control both the Texas legislature and the Congress.
Nothing stopping them having the legislation ready in the pocket to pass instead of waiting for that window and starting from scratch? While time runs out. OR making Republicans filibuster and vote against?
The Voting Rights bill was designed to prevent ALL the myriad ways in which the Constitution was being subverted in one fell swoop.
As I said, even the SC nominee will NOT cure the problem in a timely manner. Cases from the states addressing specific bills will have to go through the process again and again–piecemeal.
MAKE the SC declare your federal law unconstitutional. A much bigger step than state regs for squishy judges.
I’m sure there are lawsuits working their way through the courts as we speak but to say there is nothing stopping Democrats from legislating this away is ludicrous when you know full well who controls the legislatures of Texas and the federal government.
Never gonna happen in Texas in the remainder of my lifetime.
What is wrong with being prepared at the federal level, eh? What is wrong is pretending the SC appointment will cure it in a timely manner.
nobody here doesn’t agree, and I’m sure Congressional Democrats will have it in the hopper for when they retake Congress
Where you’re wrong is without winning Congress getting the Supreme Court onboard is the only way to fix it
It WON’T. Without federal legislation, it could still remain Whack-a-Mole and state leges are infinitely inventive.
well it’s either that or nothing right now, so what’s your point other than to trash Dems about something they currently can’t do anything about?
If you don’t ask, you never get.
The problem is the vagueness of Kennedy’s “undue burden” that opened the door to all the ornaments that RTLers have come up with.
It is up to Congress to make that definition or the SC will be endlessly hearing appeals about this regulation or that one that each state passes.
I don’t see anyone disagreeing with you about the merits, where they’re disagreeing with you is where you say there’s nothing stopping Democrats from enacting a law when there certainly is a big something.
mino, it’s also entirely possible that a Supreme Court with Kennedy as the deciding vote would declare unconstitutional a reproductive right affirming Law passed by Congress.
Yet another reason for us to pull together to eliminate any possibility of Trump nominating the next SCOTUS Justices. Clinton would nominate people who would be dependable on this issue.
A higher hurdle than a state reg, as I wrote before. Kennedy is the one who invented the “state interest in fetal life”, so he is particularly indulgent on the subject.
But NINE Dem SC will NOT solve the Whack-a-Mole game.
Are we so weak we cannot discuss contingencies without accusing one another of disloyalty? Jeebus!
None of us are arguing against contingencies. All of these proposals and views can sit sit next to each other without conflict.
You appear to be presuming that a Democratic Congress and President would not wish to pass a Law affirming reproductive rights and restraining the reactionary States under radical Republican control. That seems an odd presumption to me.
The challenge is that such an effort by Congressional Dems would need to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster/refusal to grant cloture AND a Judicial challenge by one or more of the Republican States who would certainly defy the Federal law and hope to win in the courts.
It ain’t easy.
Center, was that legislation even on the table, even whispered about, during THE Window in which we waited for Bacchus to birth the ACA and Bart Stupak to monkey wrench it?
I don’t want us to be complacent again. If you don’t ask, you’ll never get. Why is Planned Parenthood not on this now? Cynicism suggests an answer…
The ACA gave women, particularly women with low incomes, better and cheaper access to all contraceptive rights. The Stupak Amendment did not eliminate this fact.
The States which have engaged in these wholesale attacks on women in recent years have clawed back some of that access. Note that Republicans waited until they had Congressional control, so their radical agenda could pass in the States they controlled without initial Federal response.
“Why is Planned Parenthood not on this now?”
https:/www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/federal-and-state-bans-and-restrictions-abor
tion
https:
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/hyde-amendment
https:
/www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/20-week-bans
There’s more.
Cynicism is destructive to democracy. It often warps our ability to seek and absorb information.
Oh, and:
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/what-it-looks-when-presidential-candidate-truly-understands-repr
oductive-rights
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/womens-rights-and-opportunity
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care
There’s a lot of attention being paid to this issue.
Did you actually follow those links?! Where are the concrete proposals for LAWS?
I don’t need Gish Gallop. I need to see recognition of a need beyond NINE Dem SC judges. Not seeing it.
Instead of links, gimme a quote.
On whether (Hillary) supports efforts to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which makes it more difficult for low-income women to exercise their full reproductive rights:
“Yes, and actually I have for a very long time…I think we should do everything we can to repeal the Hyde Amendment…If state governments [or] politicians use their power to try to restrict that right, well-off people are still going to have it … . But a lot of poorer women, rural women–isolated far from a place that they can get services–are going to be denied.”
https:/www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1532
https:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2765
https:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4475
https:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1532
https:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3652
https:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1706
https:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s358
https:
/www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres47
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.
html?_r=0
“Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who led efforts by Senate Democrats to respond to the ruling, said: “Your health care decisions are not your boss’s business. Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will.”
Media bias manifests itself as roughness, blackouts, and access. In all this, there is the middle-school bully assumption that the subjects (in this case, Presidential candidates) must be media-savvy enough to earn their treatment (something both Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton fail at in the conventional wisdom).
And the candidates will pay through media contracts for this privilege of being gently or roughly treated.
And interesting study of elections would be a correlation of treatment and media contract revenue of the media outlet treating them that way.
In other news, the Clinton-Sanders meeting will involve these teams:
Clinton, Mook, Podesta,
Sanders, Jane Sanders, Jeff Weaver
Is Podesta a stand-in for Bill Clinton or a way to get some distance from Bill Clinton?
I hope that both teams grasp the wider consequences of the details of this discussion.
In my estimation, this is the most significant meeting with global consequences since Reykjavík. I hope that both teams can muster the leadership to see that.
As I have been thinking about this issue more, I find myself focusing on the memes that have been unchallenged rather than defining coverage as negative or positive. For instance, with Clinton the memes of “unfavorable” or “disliked” or “untrustworthy” or “corrupt” or “bought” or “neocon” have just gone unchallenged from both right and left. She has been defined both by the Republicans and by Sanders. The only negative that has defined Sanders is “socialist” and the left goes out of its way to remark that millennials don’t think of this as a pejorative.
Of course, Clinton and the rest of the Democrats are in the process of defining Trump as “unfit” and nuts, in one way or another.
The challenge now if for Clinton to start redefining herself. I have been a Clinton supporter around the ideas of prepared, smart, hard-working, and collegial. I’d imagine that if Sanders hadn’t run himself he would be praising her for those same qualities. It’ll be interesting to see if he can do it now, if he wants to do it, and if his supporters will buy into it.
Tyndall Report – 2015 when the candidates and their campaigns have to make their mark.
BHO wouldn’t have had a chance in 2008 if he and the primary races hadn’t been given that much media attention. Since HRC was polling ahead of BHO until very late in ’07, her team didn’t whine that BHO was getting more favorable coverage and she was getting more negative coverage. Those complaints only began when she started losing in caucuses and primaries.
More newsworthy because there was a race. Whereas, HRC was declared the nominee before the race began (unlike 2008 when she was only declared inevitable before the primary season).
A note on the Benghazi coverage — in October with the hearing, it was VERY positive for HRC and a negative for the GOP House guys.
Only an idiot running for national office would prefer 20 minutes of national TV coverage to 121 minutes of neutral to positive coverage, the majority of 88 minutes on a story before officially entering the race and then mostly dropped with assurances that it was a nothingburger) (sort of like the GWBridge scandal for Christie), and 28 minutes on a three year old faux controversy that only rightwing nuts care about.
Wayback machine — David Corn – December 4, 2007
Didn’t I read that she stopped all press conferences some time back…a year ago?
Voice of America (guess official UGG propaganda in the US is okay if it’s only on-line; sort of like how Brock’s super-pac can coordinate with HFA because he’s only sending out on-line stuff and trolls) — Does Bernie Sanders Believe in Democracy?
Did calling all toasters write that? Sure sounds similar.
That’s weird– I really don’t have a problem with Bernie, just with the psychosis of his supporters at BT.
Didn’t you get the memo?
We’re ethicless, unprincipled, immoral David Brock funded trolls.
I mean, we’re snagging all the monies, amirite?!?111
Stylistically.
Not that either. Keep swinging, though.
I’m retired. Are you too? Otherwise you don’t seem to have found employment yet or is defending Clinton your calling and operation.
Your derp is noted.
You remind me of Donald Trump.
Shorenstein is a big money Democratic money machine in the San Francisco Bay Area. If a think tank paid for by centrist Dems find that the media has picked on Hillary the study is probably for political consumption of the narrative. That is, instead of studying Clinton’s actual political problems the study wants to present H. Clinton as being “picked on”.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton is, outside of the rabid believers, a pretty unlikeable candidate. If you want to blame it on the negative publicity of the Clinton years in the White House, go ahead. But she is supposed to be defender of minority rights, and we’ve seen her career path triangulate and flip flop over the years, depending on circumstances and political considerations. She is supposed to represent (as Democrats as a party are supposed to do) the poor and the disenfranchised but stood behind many of the awful anti-egalitarian bills passed during her husband’s administration. And despite being of the party of egalitarianism, owes almost all of her family riches on the benevolence of the wealthiest of the wealthy. She and her husband have hovered around more quid pro quo situations than could be dismissed as coincidence.
Her foreign policy is reactionary, pro-war, could have been copied from the PNAC papers if she hadn’t supported it for her entire adult life, from writing pro-Vietnam war speeches for Melvin Laird in 1968 on.
In short, just like Trump gets bad media attention for his bigoted and ridiculous comments, Clinton’s coverage would not be coverage if it didn’t cover her many, many problematical career moments.
The story is not that the Shorenstein Institute found “the media” picking on Hillary, but that the Democrats want yet another rationale why people have said so many bad things about her, aside from the fact that, at least in criticism from the left, those bad things exist.
it’s a kind of ‘poor little rich girl’ thing. Always the victim despite succeeding spectacularly.