Interestingly enough, the 2015 Democratic Debate did not go untouched by media's eager hand. In looking at differing perspectives from Fox News outlets and MSNBC's coverage of the event, one can clearly see the role partisan media plays in election coverage. Meanwhile, mainstream news suffered a case of bias over this debate too, in leading Americans to believe that Hillary Clinton was the 'clear winner' by largely avoiding to fairly cover Bernie Sanders' successful, yet non-discussed effort.
One of the stories on Fox News' online political page is headlined, "NCIS gets more views than the democratic debate." Go to MSNBC.com and one of the stories on their political page is headlined, "Debate reflects well on Democratic Party," and emphasizes its record 15 million viewers. It is no question that partisan media sources frame events to match their principles, as Levendusky argues in his article "How Partisan Media Polarize America" where every piece of news can be framed in 2 vastly different ways. Fox news viewers are now going to walk away from their computers thinking the Democratic debate was a joke, a failure that couldn't even compare to a popular crime TV show. Meanwhile, MSNBC supporters are going to walk away triumphant, thinking that their party's debate was a raging success.
However, the bias doesn't just stop here, only infecting the usual partisan media sources. For some reason, mainstream media also got a case of subjectivity. A Fox news article entitled "Debate Winner? Are media back on the Hillary bandwagon" says that mainstream media's "Hillary verdict was nearly unanimous." The Washington Post said that she "dominated the debate" and The New York Times described her superior performance as "commanding."
Evidently, if you read most any media article about the 2015 Democratic Debate, you would surely believe Clinton had it in the bag. Having not seen the debate myself, I read coverage of the event throughout the week and I almost pitied Bernie Sander's for what I thought was a weak performance. These articles even inadvertently raised my confidence in Clinton's ability to be a frontrunner in this election, and personally, I had no previous confidence in this candidate.
Surprisingly enough, Bernie Sanders did not do as pitifully as I thought. For some reason, if you looked at most media sources after the debate, you would be bombarded by Clinton praise. It seemed that the media disproportionately focused more on this candidate's performance, leaving other actually successful performances, like Sanders', in the dust. This likewise affects the public by making those of us who haven't seen the debate think there was this 'clear' winner that the media proposed there to be. In fact, there wasn't.
Certain research and political stats that arose after the debate, indicate that Clinton wasn't the only candidate whose performance was rewarded. According to a variety of consumer polls taken during and after the debate, Bernie Sanders, held his own in the debate. According to Fortune's "Did Hillary Clinton really win the Democratic Debate" article, polls say she did not. A Google Consumer Survey's poll put her a full 15 points behind Sanders.
Fortune's research states, "Three additional polls (still active at the time of writing) also show that Sanders was perceived as the debate winner with over half the vote. Time had him winning with 57%, NJ.com with 71.71%, and Fox2Now with 80.72%, almost six times Clinton’s 14.09%."
It is important to note that these polls, although conducted by major news outlets, were also informal polls that individuals chose to participate in. However, the fact that Fortune even ran this article attests to the fact that Sanders was overlooked by media and was well-received by many Americans who watched the debate. Another more compelling testament to Sander's solid debate performance comes from a article entitled, "Hillary Clinton Wins Debate, but Bernie Sanders Rises," wherein it states, "compared with pre-debate polling, Sanders' support is up five points." After the debate, Clinton showed no similar rise despite her disproportionate amount of praise post-debate. Sanders was clearly not praised enough by a media that chose to spotlight Clinton. Meanwhile, Frank Luntz of RealClear Politics conducted his own focus group of Democratic primary voters who unanimously agreed that Bernie Sanders won the debate. (CNN Link). Therefore, the media was biased in that they failed to give more coverage to a likewise successful candidate performance.
This blatant media bias is concerning. It is concerning mostly because it is misinforming American's perceptions of the candidates, making them see Clinton in a better light and Sanders in a dimmer one. Is this fair? It would be fair if it were true to the people's verdict of the debate. However, Sanders is the one who went up in the real polls. Despite the fact that many Americans seemed to view Sanders as a winner, or at least many more than most media articles portrayed, the media consensus is spreading a different message to Americans who may have missed the debate. They are biased in that they chose Clinton to be the winner, but did not seem to let the people choose. These are the types of media biases that impact election outcomes, that subtract from democracy, and that misguide people's faith in their candidates.
Although Clinton's performance may very well have been "commanding" and superior and well-executed, this depiction of the debate should have been accompanied by formal poll statistics. The media should have also written more about Bernie Sanders' performance since it seemed to actually garner him more support than the media let on. Readers should have likewise known what their fellow Americans thought of the debate, and not just what the media thinks we thought. In other words, this was an example of a case where journalistic "balancing" would have lent to the type of "accurate coverage" that Boykoff and Boykoff advocate.
Meanwhile, how does this all relate to the grander scheme of partisan media bias? Why would all of these media sources clearly dub Clinton the frontrunner, including the known right wing sources like Fox News? My theory is that Clinton being the victor is better for Republican's than Sanders being the victor. Right wing media sources have continually bashed Sanders for being socialist and too extreme in his policies, so portraying him as a loser in this debate is actually a victory for scared Republicans. It is often true that journalists develop ideas about who they think will win or lose the debate and then they analyze coverage and debates in a way that supports their initial predictions. This seems to take place in partisan media outlets, like Fox, that always seems to dub Sanders the loser.
For example, the Fox news article by Howard Kurtz (mentioned above) that clearly portrays Clinton as the notable victor of the debate, likewise bashes on Sander's for his ostensible loss. Kurtz says, "Hillary Clinton won the debate for President. Bernie Sanders won the debate for President of Denmark," clearly ridiculing Sander's comments about his hopeful policies modeled after Denmark's. The article goes on to call Sanders an "unapologetic socialist." Once again, people who read this would think Sanders struck out at a debate that actually seemed to raise his support.
Overall it is clear that the mainstream media engaged in an unbalanced form of bias in their debate coverage, but this subjectivity was also endorsed by partisan outlets to be used for their own party advantages. Clearly, media bias is both partisan and mainstream, and it strongly impacts election coverage. This is a danger to the political process, to elections, and to the American people who may not be getting the right balance of information that they deserve.
