[colordrops]

Media coverage is pretty much the only input that most people have when making a decision on who to vote for. It's a well known phenomenon that people vote for winners. Portraying someone as a winner will heavily bias the population to vote for them. It would be complete denial of reality or intellectually dishonest to claim that media doesn't heavily influence the vote. Why else would billions be spent on media campaigns?

And I can tell you that I recognized the anti-Bernie coverage before I ever saw that FAIR post. I specifically looked for negative Hillary coverage on the WP around that time and was hard pressed to find more than one slightly negative article every other day. I eventually googled on WP being slanted against Bernie and found that FAIR article.

[syshum]

>>Portraying someone as a winner will heavily bias the population to vote for them. It would be complete denial of reality or intellectually dishonest to claim that media doesn't heavily influence the vote

While that is sometimes true, and I think the media was hoping that would be true it back fried in 2016, because very few people voted for Trump, they voted against Clinton.

The media claiming every day that Clinton was the for gone winner made people that desperately wanted anyone but Clinton to win to come out to vote in droves. And no it was not because she was a women, it was because she was a terrible candidate the has Elitism poring out of every word she uttered.

//For the Record I never vote R or D, I always vote a 3rd party, 2016 was Libertarian Party.

[colordrops]

Sure, sometimes these media campaigns backfire. I do think Hillary got more support than she would have without the billion dollar push, but it was still a poorly executed campaign and doesn't negate the fact that media campaigns can change people's perceptions.