[Citation needed] Your hypothesis has been debunked in the provided sources, as well as elsewhere. Even when viewer intent is controlled for in models, Sander

[Citation needed] Your hypothesis has been debunked in the provided sources, as well as elsewhere. Even when viewer intent is controlled for in models, Sanders was consistently substantially underrepresented in coverage, while Hillary was substantially over-represented. Additionally, pole results correlated poorly with coverage volume. If you read the leaks, you will note that contrary to your statement that "There is nothing in the DNC leaks that proves reporters working in concert", there is substantial evidence that key, impactful information was provided to the Clinton campaign and that Clinton's campaign desires aligned with reporting in fact. Clinton wanted Trump to be a frontrunner because she thought she could eviscerate him. This is contained in the leak. That she did not, in fact, do so, doesn't indicate that there was no conformity between her campaign strategy and the media coverage in fact. Most media narratives leading up to the election indicated that Hillary was substantially ahead. Your argument that 'the two groups were attempting to influence each other in service of their own goals' doesn't indicate that there wasn't an improper collusion. If you and I own companies, and we agree in service of our own goals to raise prices and reduce competition, in most jurisdictions we would be thrown in jail. Which is why the conversations in which these agreements happen (and they do) are not. written. down.