Before anyone starts with all that "this is a conspiracy theory" bullshyt, no, I'm not suggesting that there was a coordinated conspiracy at work here. But you don't need a coordinated conspiracy for implicit media bias to produce damaging effects. And here is, IMO, irrefutable proof of media bias in the coverage of Bernie Sanders for the last 12 months.
The study is by DecisionData: 2016 Presidential Media Blackouts: Not Just Conspiracy – Decision Data
The conclusion of this study:
"When I first had this idea I thought I might kill some conspiracy theories about the media. What we found is strong evidence of media bias.
The study is by DecisionData: 2016 Presidential Media Blackouts: Not Just Conspiracy – Decision Data
The conclusion of this study:
"When I first had this idea I thought I might kill some conspiracy theories about the media. What we found is strong evidence of media bias.
- Our analysis shows Bernie Sanders is being ignored by the mainstream media to a shocking degree. If covered at the average rate we’d have seen about 61,500 more stories including Sanders in the last 6 months: 91,094 mentions instead of 29,525.
- Clinton receives a high amount of coverage, despite no dramatic changes in polls and lower search interest.
- Candidates like Rand Paul also appear to be locked out of the mainstream press. Paul isn’t the most popular candidate, but if the average held he’d have been in twice as many stories. Rubio, despite being 36% more popular than Paul was 403% more likely to be covered by the news."