Curious about how much media coverage the Democratic presidential hopefuls were getting, I asked FAIR intern Teddy Ostrow to do a count, using the Internet Archive’s TV News Archive, of candidate mentions in 2019 (1/1/19–4/11/19). He used the list of declared or exploratory candidates on Wikipedia, plus Joe Biden, since he leads most national polls of the race.
Somewhat to my surprise, the results tracked fairly closely with candidates’ positions in the polls. When one candidate’s mentions are divided by the total of all candidates’ mentions, the resulting percentage generally resembles the polling average published by Real Clear Politics (3/14/19–4/7/19):
The one candidate who’s getting a much smaller percentage of TV news mentions than his average in the polls is Biden, who got 16 percent of the mentions and is averaging 31 percent in polls. Of course, Biden has not announced he is running, and further does hold a current office that might keep him in the news. Bernie Sanders also is covered somewhat less than his polling numbers: He got 18 percent of mentions, and averages 21 percent in polls. Andrew Yang, the least covered of the candidates who got more than a tiny amount of coverage, got 0.6 percent of mentions with a 0.8 percent polling average.
All the other candidates are getting a share of coverage equal to or greater than their share of support in polls. The biggest gap was for Elizabeth Warren, who got 16 percent of mentions and averages only 6 percent in polls. Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand also got a substantially larger share of coverage compared to their poll averages.
A couple of caveats are crucial. One is that the relationship between how much a candidate is covered and how much polling support they have can obviously go both ways: News managers may or may not decide how much to cover a candidate based on how much support they have, but voters are highly unlikely to express support for a candidate they’ve never heard of. Getting next to no coverage almost guarantees that a candidate will have little or no presence in polls—as the chart bears out.
The other thing to keep in mind is that all coverage is not the same; if coverage focuses on a candidate’s scandals, gaffes or perceived weaknesses, they may believe less is more. There is some research that suggests that female candidates, in particular, are being covered more negatively than the men (Storybench, 3/29/19).
Of course, whoever runs as the Democratic nominee for president will have to contend with the co-dependent relationship between corporate media and Donald Trump—which can only be strengthened by his running as an incumbent. With that in mind, it can only be encouraging that all the Democratic candidates together got more coverage—slightly—than Trump by himself, with 24,144 vs. 19,895 mentions.
Research and charts: Teddy Ostrow
Eddie Rosario
Where’s Tulsi? ::blank stare::
Wondering Woman
If you look the chart Tulsi shows up right under Hickenlooper. I have trouble believing that Joe Biden is number 2, although, maybe this does only reflect the words that are written about him—and not what the words say. Creep comes immediately to mind.
Mark
The chart I see does not include Tulsi Gabbard.
whumpsnatz
“Of course, Biden has not announced he is running, and further [[does hold a current office]] that might keep him in the news.” What office is that?
Ronald J McElroy
Biden is not a candidate.
Oprah is not a candidate.
Jesus is not a candidate.
Let’s keep to the facts.
Anon
Yes, keep to the facts of the article, RJM. IIt clearly states: “He used the list of declared or exploratory candidates on Wikipedia, plus Joe Biden, since he leads most national polls of the race.”. Notice the words “…or exploratory candidates…” ? That’s what’s called a ‘qualifying phrase’.
Ronald J McElroy
Now that Biden is a candidate, I wonder if they will report his ACTUAL positions like AGAINST Medicare-for-All, AGAINST a living wage, AGAINST expanding public education, AGAINST transparency in government FOR spying, FOR corporate outsourcing of jobs, FOR trickle-down and FOR centralized corporate wealth.
On policy, Biden seems a bit to the right of the majority Democratic voters. The media, owned of-by-for the wealthy, love him!
Rachel Reeson
For a site who’s subtitle is “Challenging media bias …” the last sentence of this article is VERY biased.
“With that in mind, it can only be encouraging that all the Democratic candidates together got more coverage—slightly—than Trump by himself, with 23,677 vs. 19,895 mentions.”
The use of the word “encouraging” spins the last sentence. Why would it be encouraging? Unless of course the author of this article holds an inherent bias toward Trump and it bleeds out into the news being reports. Not only the news, but the conclusion of the analysis. Challenge your media bias. ;)
Fritz
FAIR is challenging corporate media bias inherent in a for-profit (Disney, Comcast, AT&T,etc.) or corporate-donation-dependent (PBS, NPR, etc.) media. Of Course, FAIR has its own bias, but it’s far from consistent. It’s consistently against corporate media. But….It is also donation dependent. You have to keep the donors happy, and FAIR reflects donor biases.
Doug Tarnopol
Holy shit: some good news!
Abigail Roberts
Would be interesting to contrast this to the number of policy ideas the candidates are coming out with. Warren seems to be the only one consistently coming out with new ideas.
aesthetic medicine definition 90 $0.00 0.03
All too often the “bean counters” usually are telling us how we are usually falling short.
They come up with several scheme to get us to determine more
patients than you can reasonably see or the best way to “create” more procedures when compared with are called for.
This is bottom-line or practice-centered medicine since my opinion is
unethical in addition to immoral. It is also outside of what we are called to do and is unneeded and
counter to a balanced practice. What I believe develops a healthy practice and is basically at the heart
of doing what is a good choice for patients, is the patient-centered talk to.
This type of consult is designed to arrive at the root of the patient’s problems and
do all one can do to help them achieve their strengthening aesthetic goals.
In this regarding population-based medicine we have all been told to do the lowest, but that doesn’t
change the idea that our patients are concerned using optimal health and results.
Olympic athletes do not win their particular contests by training
towards the minimum nor will our own patients be served by providing the
minimum. Let’s check out an example of how population-based treatments is creeping into the examination room in a way that is not fully understood by physicians yet
has great impact on the (many similar examples are visible medicine today):
The drug businesses tell us that Plavix is approximately 30% better than aspirin. What they do not tell us is that it is relatively 30% better.
In absolute terms it is about 1% better. What does this mean? Well, in a single study on CVA the
particular relative risk reduction had been quoted as 25% but the absolute reduction was zero.
9 for ASA compared to 1 . 2 for Plavix or about 0.
3% (1). Now Plavix charges $5. 00 per pill
and ASA is about $0. 05 so to the individual with
a fixed income is the total difference of 0. 3% worth $4.
95 daily? Maybe, maybe not depending on several factors.
Certainly it may be more than worth it to society but community
is not paying the bill… the person on a fixed income is.
This is the confusion between human population based and individual treatments.
Some have even strongly suggested taxing or eliminating Aesthetic procedures to reduce overall health prices in the US.
This may help many number followed by economists
although is it serving the individual who may be interested in a specific
goal?
Precisely what is the patient-centered consult?
Remedies is complex and in distinct, Aesthetic Medicine is
elaborate, yet it has been reduced to be able to sound bites
on TV. Commercials ask the question “Is it better than Botox? micron or “Is it greater than a Medical
Peel? ” yet they do not give the answer or any real helpful information. Patients have, in general, no reasonable idea of what can and can not be done for them. The patient-centered consult is an educational knowledge for the patient that helps these people understand what is realistic and what is not.
It starts using gaining a detailed understanding of what patient’s concerns are, certainly not what treatments they are interested in. Most aesthetic patients come in thinking they know what they want. As an example many think they desire an upper lid blepharoplasty but what they really need is really a brow lift. Other come in asking about fillers but really need Botox or vice versa. The understanding of what they are concerned with is found not by wondering what they are interested in but rather, what exactly their concerns are. Most of us start in a conversational approach. Most often a patient will start by means of saying something like “I believe I need Botox right here.
very well My answer is generally similar to, “Well, that is certainly something we can easily do, but what is it that makes you want Botox? ”
Another several questions are presented to helping the patient target the real issues behind the problems such as texture,
tone, constriction, wrinkles, poor size, volume level etc .
I use a consult tool I call the particular $10,
000 mirror. We now have a simple hand mirror that has no magnification on one aspect and 3 to 5 times addition on the
other. I hand the idea to the patient with the zoomed side facing them.
The interesting thing is that most people when given the mirror will start looking very intently at themselves and even start off picking and brushing at things on their face.
Then i have a checklist of items I actually ask them
about. We work their way through the checklist
item by piece and discuss its affect on the overall appearance of the confront.
Once this is completed, We formulate a plan of all that can be done for them, that will include things I can do but also things others may be able to do.
For instance, I do not do encounter lifts, but if the result they are after is best
served with a face-lift, I put this on the plan. It is rare that we don’t do most of what they will benefit
from.
Pink Prince
FAIR should discuss Tulsi Gabbard more often. She is an antiwar candidate that would like to end aid to Israel, US Bases abroad & end our wars & drone strikes. Most of the media say only negative things about her such as her opposition to homosexuality years ago. She changed over the years. They also say she met with Dictator Assad of Syria. She met with him to discuss ending US involvement there. Just because the USA is a democracy doesn’t mean it is not an obstacle to peace. The USA, UK & France are democracies & Israel is a quasi-democracy that only applies to Jews. Those 4 nations are the biggest war-loving, warmongering, meddlesome nations in the world.
Pink Prince
You should defy the rest of the media by focusing on Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, Mike Gravel & Beto O’Rourke. They are the antiwar anti-aid to Israel Candidates. The ones like Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand & Tim Ryan want more of the same. There are candidates like Steve Bullock, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper & probably other candidates that I have never heard of. I don’t know where they stand on foreign policy. If that weren’t an issue, the candidates of any party would be able to focus on domestic affairs.
Pink Prince
You should defy the rest of the media by focusing on Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, Mike Gravel & Beto O’Rourke. They are the antiwar anti-aid to Israel Candidates. The ones like Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand & Tim Ryan want more of the same. There are candidates like Steve Bullock, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper & probably other candidates that I have never heard of. I don’t know where they stand on foreign policy. If that weren’t an issue, the candidates of any party would be able to focus on domestic affairs.