The Democratic primary field may be narrowing, but Andrew Yang still can’t get the media’s attention. According to the New York Times (12/19/19), which breaks down the debates by speaking minutes, Yang, polling at fifth of the seven participating candidates, with an average of 3.5%, came in last in the December debate at 10 minutes, 56 seconds; that’s nearly a minute less than Tom Steyer (polling at 1.5%), and far below centrism poster child Amy Klobuchar, who is neck-and-neck with Yang in polls but clocked a whopping 19 minutes and 53 seconds.
It’s part of a pattern for Yang. In the November debate, he also came in dead last on speaking minutes, at 6:48, despite polling higher than fellow debaters Klobuchar, Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard and Cory Booker. He also had the fewest minutes in the September and June debates. Business Insider (11/23/19) found that Yang has consistently received less speaking time at the debates than one would expect, given his polling numbers.
Andrew Yang consistently got less speaking time in debates than Amy Klobuchar, despite generally outpolling her. (Sometimes they debated on separate nights.)
By FAIR’s count, he’s been given 37 prompts across the six debates; Klobuchar—who has consistently polled below Yang for months, though her numbers have risen slightly to match his in recent weeks—has gotten 54. Booker and Beto O’Rourke, who didn’t even appear in all six debates and have polled at or below Yang’s levels since September, received 43 and 36, respectively.
Yang’s campaign focus is on a universal basic income of $1,000 a month, and his background is in business; perhaps as a result, a disproportionate number (10) of the questions he’s been asked relate to economic issues. The other topic he’s gotten a disproportionate number of questions on? China. With three China-related questions aimed at (US-born) Yang, only Pete Buttigieg (with 63 total prompts) has gotten to speak about the subject as much.
But given the lack of overall questions directed to him, Yang has been largely missing from the conversation on healthcare, one of the issues given the most attention in the debates; he has been asked only three of the 127 questions on the topic. (More questions about his position on healthcare would be quite useful; Yang says his plan embraces the “spirit of Medicare for All,” though his plan does not involve everyone getting Medicare, or even being offered a public option—The Hill, 12/29/19.) Of 71 questions related to governance (things like impeachment, bipartisanship and money in politics), Yang has gotten two. Guns have accounted for 39 of the debate questions; none went to Yang.
CNN (8/28/19) leaves out Yang (polling at 3%) to include Beto O’Rourke (polling at 1%).
As others have documented, Yang’s media woes extend beyond the debates. Yang has been repeatedly left out of MSNBC and CNN on-screen graphics showing the Democratic candidate lineup; MSNBC once even misidentified him as “John Yang.” Yang briefly boycotted MSNBC, demanding an on-air apology for its sleights. (He ended his boycott, without the on-air apology, last Friday on Chris Hayes’ show—12/27/19.)
In the last six months, Yang has been mentioned 98 times on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN; Klobuchar has gotten 149 mentions. (MSNBC was omitted from our search because of Yang’s one-month boycott.)
It’s possible that some of the discrepancy between Klobuchar and Yang’s speaking time in the debates could in part be due to how often other candidates referenced them (which, by debate rules, generally gives the named party the right to respond), or how aggressively they vie for the moderators’ attention, or push past allotted time limits. (For the record, a review of the December debate didn’t turn up instances where Klobuchar was given a chance to respond to being invoked by another candidate, though several prompts noted that she had her hand up.) But it’s the moderators’ job to provide a fair playing field—which they are obviously failing at here.
Kinda, said CNN‘s Chris Cillizza (9/4/19)—though he mentioned him even less after acknowledging this.
CNN‘s Chris Cillizza (9/4/19) acknowledged that Yang “should be getting more attention” from media, but made sure to get in some digs at Yang’s supporters who had called out that lack of coverage: “What it’s not is some sort of widespread media conspiracy out to get Yang. (Sorry Yang Gang!)”
Cillizza blamed Yang’s being an “outsider” (which meant that “at the start of the race no one — including reporters — had any sense of who he was”), that his ideas are “radically different…and different poses challenges to a media used to covering a political race via a certain set of established guidelines,” and that Yang is like erstwhile Republican candidate Ron Paul, who “could never grow his support beyond that dedicated core.”
Cillizza’s arguments seem to depict journalists as quite an intellectually challenged crew. In reality, it’s not that they can’t work to get a sense of a new candidate, or to cover “radical” political ideas; it’s that the news organizations they work for give them no incentive to—no conspiracy necessary, just an unhealthy bias toward the political establishment. Witness: Cillizza mentioned Yang less (4 times vs. 5) in the three months following his mea culpa than he did in the three months prior to it.
Echoing Cillizza’s third point, New York magazine’s Ed Kilgore (9/3/19) suggested journalists may be ignoring Yang because he has “no plausible path to the Democratic nomination,” given that his support mainly lies among millennials and Asian-Americans, and that if he had a breakout debate performance “his media coverage will skyrocket.” How Yang might be expected to have a breakout debate when the moderators keep him on the sidelines isn’t clear.
“Asian Americans are often invisible in American culture, and judging by the experience of presidential candidate Andrew Yang, even more so in politics,” Marie Myung-ok Lee wrote in the LA Times (12/1/19).
But the idea of a candidate having “no plausible path” to victory is a self-fulfilling prophecy: Journalists decide a candidate can’t win, so they don’t give the candidate coverage, which means the candidate can’t reach voters, influence the political discussion and rise in the polls. The whole point of the primaries is to let voters get to know the candidates and decide for themselves who is electable—the last thing people need is journalists narrowing the field for them.
Yang himself suggested recently that his race may have something to do with the lack of coverage (NBC, 12/12/19), “in the sense that my candidacy seems very new and different to various media organizations.” It’s a perspective shared by author Marie Myung-Ok Lee, who wrote in an LA Times op-ed (12/1/19):
There is no way to prove these omissions are related to Yang’s being Asian, but it’s impossible to miss the similarities with the micro (and macro) aggressions people in the Asian-American community experience daily.
Media observers have lamented the decreasing diversity of the Democratic debates, as Yang was the only candidate of color in the December debate. But their treatment of Yang, both in the debates and in the coverage, indicates little real interest in confronting media’s role in that.
Featured image: Andrew Yang with Tom Steyer (Business Insider, 11/23/19)
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that CNN‘s Chris Cillizza hadn’t mentioned Yang on-air since his apology for undercovering him. (1/9/20)
Great article! Finally someone is talking about this.
Thank you for there finally being a “FAIR” reporting of the media’s coverage of Andrew Yang’s campaign but, perhaps more importantly, how the media actually does shape election outcomes by not only their reporting but also their moderating of the debates. Although Yang maintains that the main reason Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 was because he correctly identified the pain suffered by the loss of manufacturing jobs in the swing states he needed to win; I think it is also fair to say that the constant sensationalized media attention Trump received was also a main factor in his rise then and remains now. While there might not be any overt conspiracy to suppress Andrew Yang, we all need to “call out” the more pervasive underlying racial prejudices in our society reflected in the media. And as much as I appreciate this reporter having researched and provided the data on the unfair media coverage of Yang’s campaign and what incentives within the culture of the media might have contributed; in the end, all four branches of our government, of which the media is a part, as “the fourth estate,” are a creation and reflection of “we, the people.” It has been obvious to anyone following the media coverage of the Democratic 2020 election campaigns and watching the debates that some candidates have been favored over others, not just Yang. In the end it is our responsibility to hold the media and those we elect, to serve us, accountable. That is what the Andrew Yang supporters, some known as YangGang, have been doing. Whether or not we voted for Trump, we are all responsible for him being our president and we will all be responsible for the next president no matter who it is, as well as, the justices they appoint and the legislators who are elected; and each and every action they take in our name, including Trump’s ordering of the killing of Suleimani. Seemingly unreconcilable rancorous partisan division exists in our government and is afflicting our foreign relations because “we, the people” our divided in a cultural civil war that is ever less civil. Thank you for being “‘a voice of reason” and fairness among us. We need more examples to follow. That is one of the many reasons as a 67-yr-old non-Hispanic white woman, not typical YangGang, I am supporting Andrew Yang, “a voice of reason” and fairness for us all, campaigning to put “Humanity First” in a 21st Century “Human-Centered Capitalism” economy with a $1000/mo “Freedom Dividend” for all Americans starting at age 18 regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, marital or employment status, etc. a small slice of our fair share, as shareholders, of the wealthiest economy ever to exist on the planet made possible by all our natural, human and man-made resources!
Mr. Yang would be great with Bernie. Imagine that $1000 a month per citizen and how that would help everyone including business. Disposable income—long forgotten by many.
“In the end it is our responsibility to hold the media and those we elect, to serve us, accountable.” I think that is the whole ball of wax and the D’s & R’s and the political elites, media all get together to make sure that will not, can not, must not happen.
I am a 62 year old white male. I support Andrew Yang and America with pride.
Yangs UBI will pass Congress quickly, Healthcare will take years and divide Country. UBI will UNITE COUNTRY
Liberal/democrat establishment still HATES the idea of a non-white nominee.
so hypocritical of those democrats isn’t it when they are supposedly ‘for the people’ and in the USA it’s all full of immigrants.. Yes, you are white, but you came from England too which makes you an immigrant too.
If a republican establishment hates that idea, at least it’s not surprising as they always wanted the status quo.
And I’m not even a republican. I’m independent.. who make sense I go for.
Trump never made sense. AOC is a shtwhore.
Hi Dan, You are correct, we are all recent immigrants relative to the Native Americans. In fact, my 87-yr-old mother immigrated from Sweden at age 19 and became a U.S. citizen. And, I too am registered as having “No Party Affiliation” and am frustrated by seemingly self-serving party interests. However, by “holding accountable” I did not mean name calling, especially using a vulgar term as you did to describe AOL. I am assuming that your spelling of it was to avoid your submission being deleted. I hope, by my now pointing it out, your submission will be held accountable by FAIR.org and that your future submissions will refrain from such unnecessary vulgarities to make your point. Regards, Ella
Yang supporters have been saying all along that the media has been leaving him out of conversations,and some have accused them of election meddling. Glad to see fair.org covering this, as imho Yang is the strongest of the candidates.
Thank you for this article. I wholly agree Mr. Yang is not covered nearly enough. I am not a millennial or asian. I am a white middle aged woman. I would like to see more focus on Yang. I am tired of the DNC and Media deciding who we want in office.
Proud to see FAIR covering this. Legacy institutions will naturally uplift traditional narratives. Yang is the candidate of the new media. His 2.5 hour podcast with Joe Rogan is what boosted his campaign in to the mainstream. Yangs presidency would represent a massive intergenerational transfer of power.
As an older (71) white woman and lifelong Democrat, I have been ashamed & appalled at the DNC and MSM treatment of Andrew Yang. I will no longer donate to Democrats. Seeing how they have treated Yang has made me see they are just Republicans with a different name. It breaks my heart. I hope that I am blessed to live long enough to one day be able to say PRESIDENT Yang. What a great day for our country that will be!
Great post Linda!
Hmmm.. someone being an “outsider” with “radically different” ideas used to be automatically newsworthy. Although I only worked for newspapers, the idiocy of Cizilla’s comments is just nauseating.
Traditional guidelines? Since when does that apply to what may be one if, if not the most, consequential election in a century at least??
Julian Castro was thrown in Yang’s media trap as well. The required polling from different outlets seemed insurmountable at the least.. and who is being polled, anyway? Only those with landlines?
I have had a landline 4ever and never was polled.
These questions disintegrate in the din of today’s mostly pathetic t.v. media.
I appreciate FAIR, all it’s hard work and laudable standards.
Pardon me, it’s Chris Cillizza. Correct spelling, like facts, are absolutely essential. I’ll just add that I agree that Ron Paul also never had a fair shake. We need radical ideas!! And his weren’t even that radical. They were needed for realistic debate!! .. Instead we’re bludgeoned w/ sleep-inducing platitudes on the debate stages.
No wonder people respond to Trump’s name calling. They’re desperate for anything!!
I’ll never forget Anderson Cooper asking all the candidates back then what they would do as the “Commander-in-Chief” of the economy. Paul set him straight immediately. The people!! Not the president! Are in charge of the economy. Oh how Trump would like us to believe otherwise…
Thank you for the great article.
My husband and I are white, middle-aged, and middle class (could use but don’t need UBI) Yang supporters. With a land line. Life long Dems, always vote. Sure wish someone would poll us.
Ya well that the media for you. Can’t say in the pass that this has not happen cause it has. Media are poll readers and view only those that can win as topic.
Thank you!
In the latest poll by Economist/YouGov 12/28 – 12/31
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2r6hyqtv9p/econTabReport.pdf
Yang’s number is at 3%. But if one digs into the data, it shows this: (Page 165, Item 52. Democratic candidate – first choice )
Total Male Female 18-29 30-44 45-64 65+ White Black Hispanic Other
Andrew Yang 3% 4% 2% 5% 6% 1% 1% 3% 2% 5% 0%
So basically, Yang has 0 support from Other(should be mostly Asian Americans), which are supposed to be his best supporters. Unbelievable!
Such Poll = Voter Manipulating/Suppression to discouragement Yang supporters and to block him from the debate stage! No wonder they are called Fake News.
We need Yang in this race.
Andrew Yang is like a media rockstar compared to Tom Steyer; CNN and MSNBC won’t even mention his name, let alone interview him, even when it’s on a subject he is expert on, e.g. impeachment, climate change, business, the economy, community revitalization, organizing voters, etc.
I agree with the many middle aged posters, as I too am one, that Andrew yang has proven his mettle, and his many accomplishments at still a relatively young age proves his drive and abilities as a critical thinking problem solver. He has ——not—— been given a fair shake at all in our media so shame on those responsible. He has focused his campaign on showing his well thought out plans for fixing what is broken, instead of attacking other candidates. We need President Yang. He would be an enormous contribution to saving this nation and to the betterment of our society.
Yang cannot justify his position on his signature policy.
UBI will not work if it is funded by VAT. UBI without LVT (land value taxation) is like strawberries without cream.
Shameless self-plug on point: https://link.medium.com/ThYTvo0702
Vote Sanders to set the stage for real change.
And read http://www.reddit.com/r/Georgism to understand why VAT is inexcusable economic illiteracy.
You have some real problems with your work, Jeremy.
First, Medicare wasn’t included in the figures Yang was saying because it isn’t a program that a recipient would have to choose over the Freedom Dividend. Same goes for Unemployment, Social Security, and other programs that involve a specific pay-in by a private party.
Additionally, the VAT proposed by Andrew is specifically imposed against value added to product by automation, and not any general value as in other implementations around the world. Why should land consumption be singled out as the primary indicator of deserving to be taxed? And the tech companies and other businesses that trade in intangibles, they are largely off the hook? Do you really want even further barriers to home ownership and increased overhead on landlords? Color me not impressed.
Thank you Julie and FAIR, although I was really surprised to not see an article like this earlier. This mainstream media bias has been egregriously apparent for months now, and is a direct affront by the media against our nation’s democracy.
For the sake of preserving democratic process in this election, this topic needs to be elevated further. Thank you.
Finally someone is talking about the truth why Andrew Yang was being publicly ignored by main stream media.
Thanks so much for this analysis! Shocking to see how media can sway election processes.
Thank you for lending him a voice and talking about an issue that is so important to our democracy.
Andrew Yang Has No Clue:
https://medium.com/me/stats/post/c6d384e8f402
And neither does this author. (Again.)
This blog about Media Leave Yang Out of Candidate Conversations
has helped me a lot, is very well written. I used this fat burner product:
https://s96.me/fit and I reached the ideal weight.
Kiss you All!