In the last post we compared Bernie Sanders ideas on education with that of Hillary Clinton’s “New College Compact”. For this post I had planned on discussing what those affected by this topic are saying about these two candidates. But, while trying to find comments on these candidates I found that the media is not covering Bernie Sanders nearly as much as Hillary.
We all go to Google when trying to find information on topics and for the most part we rely on credible sources to make up our judgment. When typing in Hillary Clinton’s name it is safe to say that there is an abundant amount of articles that pop up from reliable sources. Though when Bernie Sanders is searched it is nothing compared to that of Hillary’s.
It also appears that I am not the only one that has come to that realization.
Margaret Sullivan, editor of the NY Times, has recently addressed the issue concerning the lack of publication in the Times specifically. “I’ve heard a great deal from readers, unhappy about both quantity and tone of The Times’s stories. And Sanders articles have generated thousands of reader comments along the same lines.” The lack of coverage Sanders is receiving has commenters saying things like, “It seems the editors have decided the race already and have written him off.”
The frustration amongst those in favor of Sanders doesn’t end there, but the topic of tone when he is written of is also an issue. Supporters have been quick to notice that when there is coverage the publisher tends to sound dismissive never concentrating on important issues, instead choosing to cover and comment on things as superfluous as Sanders hair.
It is interesting enough to see that at the end of her article, Sullivan claims that there has been enough coverage according to numbers, but also admits that it has been very biased and not informative, “ The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders’s campaign, but it hasn’t always taken it very seriously…regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times…focused on the candidate’s age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say.”
It is very eye opening to see someone who is on the side that is currently being scrutinized own up to the complaints being made. It makes the claims against the Times all the more valid and not so biased.
After publishing her article Sullivan took a step further and gathered up some comments from Times reviewers and sent them to the senior editor for politics, Carolyn Ryan. Sullivan herself believes these comments have truth behind them but the response she received from the editor differed from hers. “We respect the passion of Sanders supporters. But I think they may be overlooking much of the coverage that we have provided.” Ryan then goes on to list many of the articles that they have written of Sanders and even goes as far as mentioning that the Times hired reporters to travel alongside Sanders in order to keep up with his campaign.
These statements have brought even more outrage from commenters. It seemed that for every example Ryan gave commenters found other instances in which they recalled lack of publicity in the Sanders campaign. “You have reporters assigned to Bernie’s campaign but no one covered the HUGE, record breaking rally in Boston last night?” “It seems that Ms. Ryan is in denial and can only fall back on absurd conspiracy theories to explain why so many of us have been upset at this ludicrously unbalanced, dismissive coverage and the complete absence of the kind of journalistic neutrality that would take all candidates seriously rather than prejudging outcomes”
Despite Ryans response commenters are not pleased. In fact she has only brought out more complaints from supporters and even unbiased viewers.
Despite the Times coming out with this article, many still have problems with the content written by Sullivan such as, “Still waiting for genuine coverage of Bernie Sanders. Very disappointed in NYT.” This comment was written on October 8th, 2015, yet the article was published in early September bringing to light that despite the public confession, the Times has still not changed the way they cover Sanders, “ You don’t have to be a Sanders supporter to see how unfair the coverage has been.” An act so obvious that even those who aren’t supporters are aware of.
The lack of coverage from major companies and news sources impact how much people are informed. In effect it also impacts who votes and who we as college students or student debt victims vote for. No doubt there are a lot of college students who are in support of Hillary Clinton, but, why? Is it because we are not being properly informed on other candidates plans and Hillary Clinton is without a doubt a very famous name? In order to come to sound conclusions, we need to be properly informed.
An act that I believe is not being done.