Mainstream Media misleading voters on candidate popularity.

You can check out the data yourself. 538 does a report every week on 2020 Presidential candidate mentions in the media. Notice how the polling can vary with the amount of mentions. I was looking at Gabbard’s rise in the polls and think it was right after the increase in mentions.

These reports only go to the end of October 2019, from what I could find. But I know that Nerds for Yang just did an analysis of mentions in November. I don’t know where he got his information. You can watch his analysis of the mentions on this video starting at 24:30.

If I come across where Tom from Nerds for Yang is getting his data, I’ll post it here.

The difficulty in comparing Yang with Booker and Harris is that they’re US Senators, so they’re going to be mentioned in the media more for that reason. That’s why Yang didn’t mention that. But if you compare him with people like Buttigieg or Steyer, you might be able to come to some conclusions. You’d still have to know what was going on in the news that week to rule out why they’d be mentioned for anything other than the campaign.

Questions arise.

Does “mainstream media” mean what’s supplied to the largest US audiences?
Are we supposed to judge a candidate’s quality by their alleged popularity?
And will numbers reported now be relevant when state primaries start?

I have no opinion of Mr Yang. I don’t watch TV news, but read websites and skip most videos and all podcasts. Media sources tailor product for their desired audiences. Perhaps the accused MSMs here judged Mr Yang unsuited to grab eyeballs to sell to advertisers. That’s a business decision, yes?

Do you have a link to the data, rather than to a search of every article on the entire website that discusses media?

Well then, that leads to the question: *Why *does the MSM think Yang is unsuited to grab eyeballs? They have no problem showing candidates in their graphics who are polling lower than him.

The only thing that stands out about Yang that would make him different (and therefore unsuitable) is his UBI, and…something else.

Uh, aren’t these (conservatives, not Sinclair specifically) the same people who spread enough nonsense last election about Bernie being mistreated to give the election to our current so-called President? Why would it surprise you in the least that they’d do it again? They don’t care about Yang, or even about the facts. They care about sowing dissent and confusion.

I watched one CNN clip where ten candidates were reviewed one-by-one in order of polling. Yang was well above the bottom of that pack. Yet the CNN reporter passed over Yang — despite his image right there on the screen’s graphic — not even mentioning his name. This might have been the same CNN reporter who had only condescending insults when he interviewed Yang, and then baffled confusion as Yang’s answers outsmarted him.

Look: Yang was never going to win the nomination. The U.S. has more urgent concerns over the next four years than UBI. We get it.

But top economists on both the left and the right have been espousing some form of “basic income” for decades. Yang is one of the smartest persons on the stage. Yet Dopers follow the lead of CNN and MSNBC and can speak only dismissively of Yang. One Doper had kind words for Gary Johnson — :smack: — but called Yang a “nutjob.”

I like to think SDMB is intelligent and objective. Quit letting me down.

I think you have a point here, about possible underlying, mild, but real racial bias. It’s hard to disentangle from the fact that Yang hasn’t held any sort of elected office, though, so I would only compare him to (say) Williamson or Steyer, not to (say) Buttegeig or Deval Patrick or Klobuchar.

I don’t think that he’s so much pulled even with Harris as Harris has plunged to his level.