Jump to content

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Reference error fixes

There are a few reference errors that I can't seem to figure out how to fix. If you know how to fix them, please help! The In These Times section has an error that seems perfectly fine. Reference number 33 also has an error that makes no sense. References also need Wikilinks within them. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Errors resolved. Thank you Timothy.lucas.jaeger! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019

66.57.237.66 (talk)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A few sources not mentioned

Here are a couple sources that could be included:

Here are sources that staunchly criticizes the accusations of bias:

Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Article should be kept and made part of a series listing such media manipulation

Not only Sanders is not the only candidate targeted as such, but also privately owned major media corporations have dropped any pretense of objectivity in pursuing the interests of their majority shareholders. This constitutes a major threat to democracy, something bigger than what outside state or private actors pose.

Fleshing out this article and using it as a template to list similar manipulations against current candidates and future candidates can help fight against such manipulation. Unity100 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Control of the media by the rich and powerful elites (Mike Bloomberg for one) is of serious concern to the future of our country. Wikipedia must be a fair arbiter of ideas. CTDaugherty (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Don’t Delete, the blackout was first discovered in the Wikileaks documents showing the truth about deceiving a nation and using corrupt powers to sway the primaries. Several emails released show that although the DNC was supposed to remain neutral during the primary contest, officials grew increasingly agitated with Bernie Sanders and his campaign, at some points even floating ideas about ways to undermine his candidacy. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A--" and a "Liar" In May 2016 the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred." Then just one day before the Democratic convention was set to begin, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation, effective at the end of the week. And as expected, Sanders supporters, hundreds of whom are delegates at the convention, are furious about the content of the emails. Further proof of the blackout and it’s origins.

Cite: abc.com--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.29.26 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Taibbi

@Lalichi: Taibbi is an opinion writer and his articles are not reliable for statements of facts. — goethean 23:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Goethean: Taibbi does indeed do opinion pieces, however these are marked as 'POLITICAL COMMENTARY' (see this piece). The article that I have cited was marked as 'POLITICS NEWS' (see here). Lalichi (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This article flagrantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy

The New York Times was called out when they retroactively made significant changes

The New York Times was "called out"? Is that how a neutral encyclopedia discusses allegations of media bias?

Jennifer Rubin immediately criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate upon which the next day he reached record fundraising numbers.

This is one example of blatant POV pushing (not to mention abysmal writing) in the article.

MSNBC analyst Mimi Rocah proclaimed that Bernie Sanders, "made her skin crawl" suggesting to viewers that he was not a pro-women candidate.[13][29] This directly contrasted the data from Pew that showed that Sanders polls highest among women.[30][31]

Here the author chooses one poll which is favorable to Sanders and uses it to imply that Rocah's opinion is wrong. Wikipedia editors should not be using Wikipedia resources to make the case for a political candidate.

Sanders went on to write in an email to his donors,

It is really very interesting that Wikipedia now citing candidates' emails to their donors. No citation is provided, of course, since one can't verify the veracity of an email to a donor, can one?

This article suffers from many, ***many*** flagrant violations of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The author should consider recusing himself from the article. — goethean 20:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that you have failed to actually look at the references. This is what the sources say. This is why it is documented as such. I support wording changes to neutralize or clarify statements, but it is ***very*** apparent you have a vested interest in deleting this article instead of actually analyzing the sources and rewriting material to be more "neutral". I suspect that is because you don't like the idea that something you disagree with has evidence to support it. Nevertheless, you may not like what the sources state, but that is what they state whether their interpretations are true or false.
Also, the article is not citing candidates emails. It cites an article that discusses his email in response to media criticisms. This is a perfectly valid primary source supported by a secondary source that exemplifies the campaigns stance on the issue that they believe is real. Once again, it does not matter if the bias is real or not, the media discussions exist and it is highly notable. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Goethean, I dont see any problem with the idiom "called out", it means to criticize someone about something they have said or done and challenge them to explain it.[1]. Also you seem to be under impression that the media bias against Sanders is "allegation" but do you have any source that 'challenge' what you call "an allegation"? What reliable sources are saying is that this a real problem not allegations. See for example this report in FAIR.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As I said above there is no citation for the content that Sanders wrote to his donors. No citation. At all. — goethean 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Change "was called out" to "faced backlash". It's an easy fix. The whole thing doesn't need to be deleted. SatanistSin (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

This article exhibits clear bias on the part of supporters of Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by the talk page and the content of the article itself. The main article for Bernie Sanders already contains a section dedicated to how he / his campaigns have been covered by news outlets. This page has no reason to exist other than to satisfy the agenda of Sanders supporters.

Bernie Sanders receives a good deal of news coverage, and the coverage he gets tends to be somewhat positive. His supporters have created this article to abuse the clout of Wikipedia and justify their narrative that Sanders's current standing in the polls is due to outside forces rather than simply having less support than his opponents. The existence of a separate article also allows them to avoid the higher scrutiny they would face when editing the main article for Bernie Sanders. In addition, this seems to be the only page on the entirety of Wikipedia dedicated to the media bias against a single person.

It is for these reasons that I believe this page should either be removed entirely, rolled into an existing section of the main Bernie Sanders article, or added as a new section of the main Bernie Sanders article. At the very least this article should be held to the same standard as any other political article, as political subjects are very easily affected by bias.

I apologize for any misuse of the Wikipedia editing process. I don't have any experience with this community, but had to speak out against what I feel is a clear abuse of the platform.

Ellie.Michaels (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ellie.Michaels, this page has been flagged as a possible candidate for deletion, and you can discuss your thought's on the page's importance here. Buggie111 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


If this Wikipedia Entry is so offensive to so many that they are constantly trying to have it removed, that is evidence of controversy, and thus Wikipedia may be being used as a part of a media conspiracy against the candidate. The very act of removing this entry could therefore be evidence that the bias exists in the form of a conspiracy. Perhaps we should re-frame this article, naming it something else, such as: "Evidence and examples of proven media bias (or conspiracy) against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders 2016-2020" then the page could be more of a historical archive of the known facts and evidence, and would be unrelated to subjective opinions about Bernie Sanders or his supporters. Michael E. Russell 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Michael Russell, a.k.a. Philosopher3000 Michael E. Russell 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher3000 (talk • contribs)

There is a discussion about deletion that can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • keep or merge with main Sanders article - I've read dozens of articles examining media bias against Sanders. Whether it is true or not is debatable, but there has been a fiery public debate about it, it's noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If this page gets deleted...

...I have been compiling sources pointing to a rather alarming trend toward literal f--king FASCISM taking over this country through the mechanisms of the national security state.

Fascist takeover of America/U.S. will be up within a week of this page being removed.

Consider this your one warning.

--Abbazorkzog (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This is probably not the most constructive comment, even if you are well-intentioned. Be sure to provide constructive comments that can be utilized to enhance an article's quality. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Let's make it happen. HonestManBad (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This section belongs in a action movie, not Wikipedia. Consider me impressed by your plot-making skills. Would (oldosfan) 09:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Controversial topic

I have created this article knowing full well the controversial nature of the topic. The topic is notable as per WP:NOTE and quite a few publications from both mainstream and alternative media cover the topic. I have attempted to write as objectively as possible and found that in the research there was very little in regards to the response to the criticism. If I missed anything major, feel free to add to the criticism section.

I tried my best to cite primary sources that were only supported by secondary sources. Some issues arose when it came to Reddit and Twitter communities as there was lots of discussion in those, but little to no coverage by media sources.

The title of the article could be perceived as contentious and could be moved to an alternate title if needed based on discussion.

The article need a bit of cleanup with formatting and internal linking. The article also needs to be linked to from other articles. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 04:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Be very careful. The wikipedia "mods" will attempt their very best to "censor" this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.226.198 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to justify censorship when it follows the guidlines outlined by Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:NPOV. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is a "Libertarian Tech Bro." I wouldn't be surprised if that general culture pervades throughout the entire site.

It does not. Wikipedia has guidelines such as WP:NPOV, which this article blatantly violates. Would (oldosfan) 09:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The entire opening section of this article contains zero sources and engages in significant speculation. I struggle to understand how something like this is allowed, it seems to be closer to the kind of stuff you see on Reddit, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.60.72 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Leads do not have to contain references. Only the body. The lead is a summary of the cited body text. This is Wikipedia policy. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the WP:LEAD section is only supposed to reflect and summarize what is found in the main body of the article and does not require any citations unless it is presenting a statement or two that is not found in the body. Ideally such statements should just be moved into the body of the article, somehow, because the main job of the lead is not to introduce ideas that aren't explained elsewhere. The layout of the article seems perfectly fine to me. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than delete this, why not find the relevant links, and input them? Drrichardpaul (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion about deletion that can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is an article with over 60 cited sources even being considered for deletion? If the topic is controversial, then the page should be locked as it is; deleting the article is tantamount to taking a side one way or the other. Being intellectually honest means examining uncomfortable issues like this one, being fair means leaving the article as is. CTDaugherty (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


Completely disagree that the topic of media coverage is controversial, i simply believe that the article contains a worrying amount of slant toward the sanders view. I honestly believe the reason for this being that much of the outlets that sanders supporters have criticized have yet to administer a proper defense of their coverage. I am not an expert but perhaps going forward, it would be good to discuss only coverage sanders received in 2016, rather than documenting coverage on an ongoing primary. The discussion should then focus on studies in reputable journals about how coverage may have slanted one way or another. Also please refrain from accusing people of bias, and that goes one way or the other. (0_0;✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The author has argued that it was difficult to find opinions contrary to media bias vs. Sanders existing – is it not possible that the "worrying amount of slant" could simply be a result of the for-vs.-against distribution at which content is found on this topic?
As a simplified example: if an article on the origins of climate change mostly contains citations from sources that purport it *is* anthropogenic and leaves dissenting opinions as a minority, would that constitute slanting the article in the favor of the former? (The back-drop being that, depending on the definition, 90–99% of the body of literature on it concludes it *is* anthropogenic.) Should the article not roughly reflect the proportions of existing data on the subject?
Furthermore, editors are welcome to do reference-searching of their own to conclude if the "there is no bias" side has been underrepresented, rather than drawing a conclusion from the coverage distribution in this article alone. Selvydra (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm with you @Selvydra on the reason for what i referred to as slant is that there is the difficulty in finding evidence in support of Sanders' media coverage, in fact i mentioned it in my comment (because i had spent an afternoon looking for it). I was just commenting on how a potential solution would be not to discuss coverage of an on-going campaign. This isn't necessarily a solution i would like to see happen, i just was putting a suggestion out their.
Also, in my personal opinion, i think there is a great amount of bias at play with the coverage of Sanders, so don't think my criticisms come from disagreement with the subject matter! (>u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the title might be improved. I suggested below that it could be changed to Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders, with some attention to and examples of positive coverage, if there has been any. I like the idea of the article, however. Mballen (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that name would be good @Mballen, i don't want to have to see it changed, but i think it would be for the best if the article had a less controversial name (0W0;✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead: exclusively pro-Sanders POVs, exclusively covers op-eds

The horrible lead to this article, which was just a OR summary of a bunch pro-Sanders op-eds and punditry was just restored.[2] Not only does it have a crazy skew (only pro-Sanders viewpoints are covered), but they are near-exclusively reflective of opinion content, rather than RS content, which is crazy for a lead to do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the second paragraph of the lead (of which there are only two paragraphs), clearly mentions the rebuttal to the idea that there is any bias at all, whereas the previous lead section didn't even mention the "criticism" section of the article. If anything the current lead is *more inclusive* of the camp that says there is no bias. I fail to see how the following violates WP:NPOV. Perhaps point out the specific statement you think does exactly that instead of just leveling vague complaints that aren't very constructive. Here's the paragraph in question (since the first paragraph merely introduces the central thesis of the article):

Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the concentration of media ownership, profit-driven special interests, manufacturing consent and the propaganda model, general media propaganda, conflicts of interests, and agenda-setting theory.[citation needed] The most prominent media organizations being accused of bias have been MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Many of the media organizations have responded to the criticisms in various ways through rebuttals, criticism, and analysis. Various studies have been done in an effort to document statistical data in regard to news coverage of presidential candidates. Legitimacy of the bias has been called into question by some political commentators.

Perhaps also point out which specific sources are entirely op-ed instead of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and also a specific reason as to why you think this is the case, backed up by your own sources stating as such. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So let's reintroduce the blatantly NPOV lead? It's unsourced synthesis and borderline Original Research.
In particular, the following sentence/list contains "facts" that are not supported in the rest of the article:
Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the concentration of media ownership, profit-driven special interests, manufacturing consent and the propaganda model, general media propaganda, conflicts of interests, and agenda-setting theory.
Slywriter (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It might be best to avoid drastically rewriting the lead while the article is on WP:AFD. In any case, I do think that the list of sources that have alleged bias is worth keeping in the lead (the part that goes Alternative media such as Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, Common Dreams, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, among others, have published articles, videos, and reports discussing... We could debate who belongs in that list in terms of WP:DUE, or how to frame it, but given that the article is partially about an opinion we ought to clearly state who holds it, ie. "who alleges that there is media bias against Bernie Sanders" is a major part of the article and an obvious thing for the lead to summarize. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable

Mintpress citations were removed - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable.

This article cites Mintpress News, a disreputable source no less than twelve times. The use of disreputable sources is a clear indication that a POV is being pushed.

I am going to remove the content cited to Mintpress News. — goethean 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that wikipedia's idea of "reliable source", is basically corporate legacy media. I.E if enough talkingheads on any of these "news sites" say the same thing (I.E copying one another and never citing or checking any source), Wikipedia considers this to be reliable. Worse, these sites are well known to use wikipedia itself as their "source", which ironically is contradicting wikipedia's rule of not using wikipedia itself as a source. In the end though, wikipedia is a clowncar with too many clowns in it.--Thronedrei (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The 'reliable' sources as they are labeled by the new 'anti fake news' campaign that has been pushed by US establishment include every single major media outlet which sold the lie of nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, in addition to incredibly far-off sources like Bellingcat, who, despite being an outlet of Ukrainian ultra right-wing nationalists, is dubbed as 'reliable' - despite it doesn't even provide sources and instead cites unknown 3rd party 'activists'. In contrast MintPress News always has its articles well referenced, with sources ranging from prominent anti-war websites like Counterpunch, Truth Out to prominent intellectuals like Chomsky. — unity100 21:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
What's more interesting is that none of the 'reliable' outlets ever write anything about the instances of actual media manipulation listed in the article even if they are visually captured on video. The only sources who write it are independent platforms like MintPress, or anti-war websites like Counterpunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity100 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
MintPress is not the only source that these things are discussed. It does not really matter if MintPress is considered unreliable if the same information can be corroborated elsewhere—which it can and is. See WP:UNRS. Take the time to actually do the research if you are unconvinced. I did. Extensively. I strongly reccomend you do remove content until the discussions are finished. I will undo them. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If I removed poorly cited material, you will undo my changes? — goethean 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, because your claims of "poorly cited" are inaccurate. Check the sources first. I took a moment to check one of the claims to give you an example of how it is corroborated:
MintPress said, "It also attacked the idea that the Vermont Senator was supported by an army of mass donations from ordinary people. The title, headline, “Bernie Sanders Keeps Saying His Average Donation is $27, but His Own Numbers Contradict That,” calculated that the average donation was actually $27.89. What a contradiction! However, the majority of people do not read past the headline, meaning most of those who saw the well-shared article would have no idea how weak the charge was."
The section links the articles in question. When you look at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/18/bernie-sanders-keeps-saying-his-average-donation-is-27-but-it-really-isnt/, the author of the article admits to the incorrect analysis of the claims he made. The Washington Post is considered the so-called "reliable source" and it perfectly verifies the commentary made by MintPress. I am guessing you are not even reading or looking at the sources or material. You are just making judgments based on your own biases. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Mintpress News is a disreputable source and needs to be removed from the article immediately. — goethean 21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
So basically that is your opinion, and as such, it should be accepted as fact and implemented. Practically that's what you are saying, without any logic, reference or explanation to support it... Facts are not about feelings or biases Goethean. Unity100 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable. — goethean 22:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As i mentioned above, what are called 'reliable sources' were the ones who lied about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs for eight straight years. Every major corporate outlet and related expert included. None of those broke ranks about the lie. Therefore those sources themselves have to vouch for their reliability, leave aside being in a position of authority to declare anyone's reliability. Not to mention that the entire 'fact checking' organizations are constituted by private think thanks related to the same establishment which lied about Iraqi WMDs. Here, the 'First Draft News' organization which does fact checking for Google after then-acting leader of US military-industry complex, late John McCain created a lot of ruckus and forced these organizations onto the tech sector: First Draft News. Leaving aside all establishment linked think-thanks, there is a 'Bellingcat', listed as the first founding member. Which happened to be an unknown blogger until a few years ago, who was not even named, who did not have any contact information, and who always replicated ultra-right wing narrative of Ukrainian nationalists by citing unknown 'activists'. After criticism, they slapped a name on the blog, though it is outright questionable whether that name actually is linked to the actual blogger. And as such, this shaky blog is one of the 'fact checkers' which Google relies on to filter its search results... As demonstrated, the very 'reliable sources' must prove their reliability first. And therefore they cannot be shown as an authority to determine anyone else's reliability. With the logic proposed in your link, every single major US corporate outlet would be labeled unreliable, way behind MintPress or other independent outlet's reliability. If you are not applying the same criteria to them, you cannot use that criteria for others. Unity100 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
MintPress News (RSP entry) was deprecated in the July RfC (shared by Goethean above) because the site has a reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. If you disagree, feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 07:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fox News has reported on this same media manipulation which is captured on video. [3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did anyone add this? PBS spent 40~ minutes talking about every candidate but Sanders last night

This is mentioned in the article - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This is new. Apparently last night PBS had a primary update in which they talked about every candidate except Sanders. They didn't even mention his name as if he didn't exist. They even discussed Amy Klobuchar at length. Details below, video of the entire program embedded.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/12/manufacturing-consent-in-action Unity100 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I found several sources for recent polling data at the time of the broadcast, and added this to the December 2019 section of the article. EliteMasterEric (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@EliteMasterEric Hey friend, do not fear, i added under the 'december' section, and i tried to make it as neutral as possible, i hope to find more reliable sources discussing the controversy in the future. It is an important topic that definitely fits under notability in my view. (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change the title of article?

The title was changed - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I don't know if anyone has already proposed this, but what about changing title to Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders? Doesn't the present title sort of beg the question -- if that is the right use of the term -- of whether media coverage has or has not been biased. It is a very interesting topic and worthy of an article, in my opinion. But I think the idea is to present both sides and let the readers decide for themselves. Mballen (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

See deletion discussion.WillC 05:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I propose Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns - Keith D. Tyler 07:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders would be my suggestion. ValarianB (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with KeithTyler, seems to reflect the article content. "Allegations" sounds weasel. Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns--SharabSalam (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not weaselish to highlight the fact that these are largely opinions, even if they are widely-held, and not conclusive evidence of bias. The "Criticism of..." title is overly-long and awkward. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Created a new article to show how ridiculous this controversy is

Pointy, disruptive, and now moot, give the redirect. ValarianB (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders

Enjoy. Ylevental (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This comment has just given evidence this was attempt to either vandalize or troll and is not productive to this issue.--WillC 20:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No, the Media bias against Bernie Sanders is unproductive. Ylevental (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
At this point, you are just having a fit and creating a content fork. So I'm just going to put it up for deletion.--WillC 20:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Ylevental – We appreciate the fact that you feel strongly about this issue. However, if you saw the AfD page, you know you're not alone. Many editors partook in the discussion which led us to the current state (no deletion, but discussion on naming and possibly content). It is highly counterproductive, then, to go overruling consensus (or lack thereof) by your lonesome. When even an editor (below me) who strongly expressed their disapproval of this article is put off by your behavior, it might be a good moment for self-reflectance.
You're welcome to be part of the constructive discussion and consensus, if you want to actually have a lasting effect on the outcome. Selvydra (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Why can't we merge both into Media coverage of Bernie Sanders? That would allow us to explain the imbalance or perceived imbalance using reliable sources, rather than just argue about it on the talk page. – bradv🍁 20:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Selvydra Okay, I will when I have more time Ylevental (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Bradv – See the discussion above on renaming. Selvydra (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
That's pretty tendentious. The solution is just to re-name this article into something neutral, and to reflect what RS say about this issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Which primarily is the discussion in the naming section above and the overall goal now is to just focus on media coverage in general, both good and bad. The above article is a perfect example of WP:POVFORK. This intention is also clear to not cover this as a realistic subject but because of having a fit and not getting the user's way.--WillC 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" speedy kept at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

First line of the lead: "Various media outlets have raised concerns" of anti-Sanders bias in the media

Come on, this is indefensible. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans' rewrite of this line, and their other edits -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Indiscriminate restoration of various bad content

The state of this article is shockingly bad. I made various edits to improve the article, including trimming unnecessary padded quotes, put things in direct quotes that were in block quotes for no reason, and make sure that text actually reflected what sources were saying. This was all indiscriminately restored by the editor SharabSalam.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I reverted some of your edits. Let me show you how disruptive your edits are. First of all you removed Common Dreams saying this in the edit summary "remove common dreams, a crackpot site", you do know that your opinion is irrelevant right? I think I have seen you saying this to other editors before.
Secondly you removed relevant quotes saying "trim all these unnecessary block quotes that pad the article (one reason among many why this should not have a standalone article)" OH so thats why you are removing content from the article? is because you think it shouldnt have a standalone article? You are simply disrupting wikipedia to illustrate your point the very definition of WP:POINTY. And again in the next edit you say this " can't make this up. half this Wikipedia article is complaining about not giving equal attention to sanders when he was a minor candidate, but now one pbs newshour segment is trash because it decided to give attention to the minor candidate (written by a guy who claims that elizabeth warren is not a progressive). this is yet another reason why this whole article should be deleted. it's just padded with rubbish op-ed pieces)" like wow you think your opinion about reliable sources is true and others are wrong and also complaining why shouldnt this article be created. Also the quotes you removed after are relevant and needed in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
If you believe Common Dreams is a RS, I suggest you start a RS noticeboard discussion. It's a fringe left site that should not be cited anywhere on this encyclopedia. Also, I completely stand by my trims of all those elaborate redundant block quotes, which appear to have the sole purpose of padding this article to make it look as if the topic has received more attention and focus than it actually has. Also, "Current Affairs", Nathan J Robinson's blog, is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, Why would I start a discussion? It is a notable source and there is no one complaining about it except you? You should start a discussion in RS noticeboard not me. Current Affairs (magazine) is a notable reliable source and it has been praised "by influential figures including Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald." per Wikipedia's article.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Even if you think Common Dreams is nothing but an opinion site and doesn't deliver any news, it is still a source for the *media phenomenon* that is the blacklisting of and bias against Sanders in various other outlets, especially when backed up by clearly Wikipedia:Reliable sources and news outlets like The Hill cited throughout the article. This article is about demonstrating the meta discussion in the media of the media phenomenon, and citing Common Dreams helps to do that when combined with accredited organizations like NPR, Politico, Vox, etc. At most Common Dreams citations should just be labeled as "opinion" ones in the sources section. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's how it works at the RS noticeboard. Common Dreams has been used in this and many other articles. Searches at the RSN archives turn up little discussion of it. You are the one challenging a source used currently in the project, therefore, the burden of proof does not lie with anyone but yourself. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Common Dreams is an advocacy organization and the only real discussion about it at WP:RSN left off with it being unreliable for statements of fact. (Where is its reputation for fact-checking, editorial pedigree, etc.?) At best, it's on par with the Daily Kos on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are better sources available for the type of claims made in CD, and if not, we should reconsider whether the claim is noteworthy.
On another note, really disappointed to see edits to improve the overall quality/sourcing of the article reverted wholesale. Like hell I'm going to spend time improving this article if such basic cleanup is going to go uncontested. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't back down, Czar. The reverts of your edits are utterly indefensible. Don't let people bully you away from the article, so that they can transform it into a brazen campaign platform for their favorite candidate. If this article should exist (which it shouldn't), there's no reason why at the very least, the content in the article shouldn't attempt to reflect NPOV and RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
You reference RS? Every chance I've gotten I have shown how you don't even read that policy and each attempt you make to discredit a source, the policy reaffirms them. Then you run away without even having an argument. What next? Going to use the word pundit wrong again? Basically, you have a bias against this article and nothing shown to you will change that. That is not basing your stance on the policies in any way.--WillC 23:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Although I was and still am in favor of keeping this article, I also object to total revisions of edits such as Czar's. Issues should primarily be addressed by augmenting or trimming the specific sections in question, not by reverting the entire edit – in the same spirit that advocates for the keeping of this article (as an encyclopedic repository for information).
Regarding Common Dreams and other sources whose adherence to RS is questioned: In my opinion, sources such as these should not be blanket-banned from use. Rather, the bias of the site should simply be stated when citing something that their bias could affect (spins, interpretations, etc.). At the very least, citing them for information that can be expressed without undue punditry (e.g. statistics) should be allowed, as it can be distilled of any spin (just as we should strive to do with "more reputable" sources). Ultimately, every news site has a bias and only giving corporate-owned or -aligned a free pass while drawing the line at left-wing media makes for biased sampling. Selvydra (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Is any explanation going to be provided why op-eds are being conflated with "articles" or "stories"? For example, the text says that the Washington Post ran anti-Sanders stories, yet most of these are just op-eds. It's clearly relevant context that the anti-Sanders "stories" are op-eds by conservative columnists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Did WP run anti-Sanders articles? Yes? Then why does it matter who wrote them if they did. The logic behind that statement is an attempt to downplay the severity of the issue, not for the sake of truthfulness, reliability, but just to do it. Saying they are opinion articles doesn't change the fact that WP published anti-Sanders articles.--WillC 12:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
So you seriously think that we should omit that the articles in question were op-eds? Actually describing things accurately is "an attempt to downplay the severity of the issue, not for the sake of truthfulness, reliability, but just to do it"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
What you are arguing for isn't about being correct. It is about inflating issues beyond reasonable means. You want "The Washington Post was criticized for publishing a number of anti-Sanders articles but were entirely opinion based." As if it changes the sentence "The Washington Post was criticized for publishing a number of Anti-Sanders articles." The point is they were published, not who wrote them. If anything, that gives undue weight to an issue. NPOV says to not pass opinions off as fact. RS says opinion articles are reliable sources. The idea that WP published multiple articles isn't an opinion if it actually occurred. You keep trying to make opinion articles seem invalid when policy doesn't care if they are opinions or not.--WillC 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
"You want "The Washington Post was criticized for publishing a number of anti-Sanders articles but were entirely opinion based."" That's a brazen falsehood. The only thing my edit did was to substitute "op-eds" for "articles". This is what my text said: "Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine criticized the Washington Post for publishing four negative opinion editorials about him". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
That edit didn't do anything though other than characterize something the way you wanted it to. They are still articles. Being opinion articles doesn't change the meaning, it changes the perspective. They are still just articles. Instead of it being negative articles by the company, now it is just 4 people in the company thinking negatively. That is misleading when the subject is about media bias, not individual bias.--WillC 03:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha, describing things accurately is bad and readers must be intentionally misled in this instance because if things are described accurately, readers might not leave with the impression that there is media bias against Sanders (per your own reasoning above). It's pretty shameless, but great to see if all laid out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Blah blah blah, thats not even an argument against what I said because you know I have you in a corner. You didn't once try to show how my statement was wrong. Your statement is to focus on opinion articles which is what you've focused on this whole time. Thinking if you label things as opinions it will discredit the subjectmatter. You did that with pundit. You did that with questioning sources. Now you are just trying to do it with text. You think by labeling sentences as opinions that it will discredit the subject. All you've done is make statements that have a slanted perspective. The subject is about media coverage and bias. It isn't about individual editors. Your statement is to attempt to make it appear it is about individual editors. Shane Ryan wasn't talking about 4 individuals specifically writing articles. He was talking about Washington Post writing articles. That is the fact. That is what is accurate. Go whine somewhere else if you don't like it. If anyone is being misleading it is you. "Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine opined that, like in 2016 with Washington Post's 16 negative posts about Bernie in 16 hours report by FAIR, the 48 hours of Sanders declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author." isn't about the four opinion articles, it is about the entire actions of the company. Who is being misleading and changing the point of view of the sentence. Your last statement sure helped show your bias on here and helped identify your intentions are to make this article about there being no bias and it being a conspiracy instead of focusing on what sources say. Which has been obvious for quite some time.--WillC 05:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What really concerns me about this article, is that there are few formal studies supporting this claim as sources

Up to the "Response to criticisms" section, most of the bias concerns individual events and assertions. By contrast, most of the studies in the "Response to criticisms" section showed that Bernie Sanders actually received fair coverage. Ylevental (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One, the issue is due to the nature of the article. Two, it is due to questioning of sources. Three, the layout of the article is due to the scope. There is so much discussion on whether the article should exist and not enough on in what manner should it exist. What should it cover? How should it be designed? On what topics do not belong? etc. Because the issue behind this topic is media bias, which can take many forms. The DNC leaks play a role in the topic because it helps to build up the belief it is occurring. This article should be more about the topic and not about whether it happens or not.--WillC 03:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Show me one study which proves that every major source is heavily biased against Sanders. Ylevental (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You're weighting the opinion of "studies" too highly. Wikipedia allows a variety of sources, not limited to "formal" academic research. This specific issue is one which does not really require specialized academic knowledge. Avid non-academic consumers of the media or professional journalists/pundits are no less equipped to make a sound judgement on this issue than academics. I mean, just watch the mainstream news (CNN, MSNBC) or read it (NYT, WPost). That's it. Do you need a "study" to prove the sky is blue? No. Likewise you don't need a study to prove that the media is obviously much more biased in favor of establishment, corporate candidates (Buttigieg, Warren, Biden) than populist candidates (Sanders, Yang, Tulsi). I will also add that, on a more opinionated note, that these studies are probably just wrong, and I have carefully analyzed a few of these studies and found them to be severely flawed in their methodology—although, of course, I understand that original research is not allowed, but this just needs to be noted so that editors are not misled into believing that the "response to the criticism" section of this article is anything more than corporate, establishment anti-Bernie propaganda. CompactSpacez (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for proving me right, given that you actually think every study is "severely flawed". I am still hopeful that the entire article will get deleted someday. Ylevental (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You obviously have no intention on trying to improve this article or even work on this issue.--WillC 20:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that while I'm not sure I agree with Ylevental's antics, I agree on their main point. This article seems to be cherrypicking sources and seems like the definition of WP:POVFORK. The title of the article serves to confirm this. WMSR (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Did you occur upon the AfD discussion on this article? Your concerns were discussed in detail there. To summarize (though I encourage you not to take my word for it and skim it for yourself): Many editors expressed the same NPOV and POVFORK concerns. The author stated that they had trouble finding enough dissenting opinions but did their best, the result of which was the Criticisms section. Many other editors defended the article, saying each side was being represented in proportions roughly in keeping with existing sources on it. Selvydra (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I did read the AfD, but after the fact. I don't think including a criticism section cuts it in terms of eliminating NPOV issues. Having an article like this implies that the subject exists, and there is not consensus on that. And with the article titled and framed as it is, I'm impressed there would be any sources at all dissenting this article's thesis (and it's problematic that it has one). You don't see a great deal of news stories about other sources being unbiased. Obviously a move would solve some of these problems, but not all. WMSR (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus of the fact that we see colors the same way as others, or that we aren't all living in a simulation, but we're still allowed to use some rudimentary logic to assume that, for practical purposes, we do & we aren't. In that token, common sense bears out that media that operates on a for-profit basis – and is owned by people who benefit from right-leaning policies – will not treat fairly the most left-leaning candidate in the race. To assume as a starting point that this media would treat Sanders fairly (to their own financial detriment) is, to me, the bigger stretch – to assume that for-profit companies do not try to maximize their revenue. To that end, there needn't be cherry-picking or NPOV for one to end up with a distribution of sources that leans towards "yes, there is bias." I too have supported making the title more neutral, and I don't see how simply amending the article with more/better sources wouldn't deal with any lingering issues here. Selvydra (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post saying the Washington Post isn't biased isn't really a fair coverage or a "study". Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@WMSR: So when the article is re-titled all of your concerns will have been addressed, since you are establishing any problems with the title suggesting it exists. When it becomes "media coverage" there isn't anymore issues with NPOV other than people just don't want the article to exist.--WillC 12:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky cited the In These Times study, agreeing that media are against Bernie [5]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

None of the studies actually say that Sanders received fair coverage. The Harvard study for example said that more of the published articles were positive than negative, which is not the same thing. Articles saying that Sanders won New Hampshire and was leading among young people are positive, saying that his supporters threw chairs, he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union and was soft on gun control are negative. But there is a qualitative difference. Hillary Clinton received a lot of negative coverage because she was under investigation for her servers, while Sanders was not. Charles Manson received a lot more negative coverage than Bugliosi who prosecuted him, but that does not necessarily mean that the media is biased. TFD (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fox News reported on David Sirota's tweet asking for evidence of media bias, giving an example from CNN[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential Sabotage i.e. TE

@Selvydra: just mentioned something above I think is a valid point and a good topic of discussion. Potential issues with WP:TE which I think is highly likely and I'm already starting to see an attempt. I think we may need to have a discussion on that. This article is slowly turning away from issues about media coverage of the Sanders campaigns and more about twisting the issue into one about a marketing campaign to slander the media that is being done by a few supporters of his and is nothing more than a dispute between progressives and conservatives. This article should instead be about media coverage of the Sanders campaign, thus issues raised by supporters, issues raised by neutral parties, issues raised by opposing parties, etc. It should not be drawn down to a simple disagreement between two groups that is being blown out of proportion and twisted to fit an entirely new perspective that sources are not referencing. An example of such efforts I feel is changing this statement:

Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine opined that, like in 2016 with Washington Post's 16 negative posts about Bernie in 16 hours report by FAIR, the 48 hours of Sanders declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author. Jennifer Rubin immediately criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate upon which the next day he reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier."

to an entirely new statement of:

Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine wrote that the Post published four critical op-eds about him, two of which were by the same author (conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin).

which eventually I turned into:

Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author, Jennifer Rubin. Rubin had criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate upon which the next day he reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier."

I feel edits like these are an attempt to downplay issues raised about media coverage and are being done in order to turn this into a way to claim no bias actually exists and thus no reason for the article to exist. Everyone should keep in mind that the majority of the last 50 edits have all been done by individuals who want this page deleted and have claimed it is NPOV, no bias exists, the sources do not verify claims, not notable, and my personal favorite it is a conspiracy by the Sanders campaign to market the idea among others. I find a high conflict of interest there in such a large number of edits. While we should assume good faith, I find issues with statements being turned from about the amount of negative reporting and comments made to one about it just being a dispute between two people with ideological differences. The first sentence was about the amount of articles published and the amount of time. The second sentence is about a difference of opinion between a progressive and a conservative. That is not the same sentence and the point has been changed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel this is a valid subject for such an article as this.--WillC 04:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) Ideally, an op-ed from a rather unknown entertainment magazine, Paste, complaining about four opinion editorials should not be on this Wikipedia page, because it does not meet RS and DUE weight. That would be the preferred outcome.
(2) However, if this op-ed from Paste magazine is to be covered, then it should be covered briefly, to the point and be about the subject of the Wikipedia article (media bias). It should not be this op-ed's rebuttal of a conservative WaPo columnist's criticisms of Sanders, which is as in-the-weeds as you could possibly get, and only tangentially related to media bias. It's not media bias that a conservative WaPo columnist disagrees with Sanders and makes purportedly bad arguments against him. That's politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, one could add a detail but not too much I think. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans do tell of this magically part of RS where it says being lesser known makes one an unreliable source. Do tell this part of RS where it says opinion articles are unreliable. Do tell where in this statement an opinion is being given? I'm gonna expect no reply as usually when these questions are brought up.--WillC 22:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
On another note, your comment didn't even address the issue at hand. You went back to your same old argument. The statement was valid because it is about media coverage in a short amount of time. 4 articles by the same source so soon after announcement is notable in comparison to the same actions happening elsewhere. That is the point. Not that they are opinion articles. It was never about opinions. It was about publication.--WillC 22:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Just because it started as an entirely one sided article does not justify it remaining so. If it's going to exist then it needs to be accurate.
If it's going to be about what Bernie Sanders supporters believe then the title would be "Allegations of Bernie Supporters of Media Bias against Bernie Sanders' Presidential Campaign" Slywriter (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed it shouldn't remain POV. Problem is, it isn't being converted to NPOV it is being converted to remain POV. The above action is to take a section and to entirely rewrite it to mean something entirely different. From an issue about frequency of negative articles to one about a dispute between two ideologically different editors. That wasn't the point of the original draft. That is an attempt to change the issue and downplay the point of the source at hand. This article should be about media coverage. That is an important aspect of media coverage.--WillC 07:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Btw, one reliable source that I found was the NYT's tracker https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html?action=click&module=STYLN_menu_election_live&pgtype=Article&region=header which has shown Sanders consistently getting less coverage than what he polls at. Although, one should mention that he's only third in mentions when he look at the overall race, which is more consistent with his overall standing. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

However the problem is that it's all the same page, so one would have use archived version to write this (i.e. one statement would have several version of the page as references due to the fact that one can not look at the previous versions of the tracker).
What do you think one should do in this case? MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Another thing to mention is that the source stretches over several months (Sept to now) so I have no idea where to put it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to add a link to the archived version : https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html?action=click&module=STYLN_menu_election_live&pgtype=Article&region=header MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
While I appreciate the attempt to bring data into this, it would be WP:OR for us to interpret this data, in particular as its constantly updating (i.e. one candidate may get a lot of news coverage in one week but not another). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, I didn't know that. I was trying to add reliable info. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, other thing that I need to mention, I had read this months ago (https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/01/ten-recent-democratic-primary-polls-good-for-bernie-sanders-ignored-by-the-conventional-wisdom/) but there does not seem to be consensus on CounterPunch, so I'm guessing the research should be attributed like it was done for Common Dreams and others? I don't know much about CP. I don't even read it. I usually read Politico, WP & the NYT. The only reason I know about this article is because someone sent me this in October.
TL:DR, the research mentions that when Sanders polls well it isn't as mentioned as often in the media and when he doesn't it is. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) Just to be clear: this is not research and it's not by a recognized expert. (2) CP is not a RS. (3) As far as I can tell, the whole piece disagrees with one RS piece that argued that there two clear front-runners per polls. So it's not about media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, thanks for the info. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: I'm a bit baffled as to why you keep insisting that multiple left-leaning sources like CP and TYT are not RS when it's plainly untrue, you have been told about it several times, and you have ignored it each time & gone on to repeat the claims elsewhere. "No consensus" doesn't equal "whatever I want it to be." Selvydra (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
RSP is descriptive, not prescriptive. - Ryk72 talk 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
If you believe these are RS, go to the RS noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: Could you point me to where in WP rules it says sources can only be used on a white-list basis (need to be okayed at the RS noticeboard first)? Selvydra (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
So the way this is going to work now is that you and other editors are going to add blatantly non-reliable sources to the article and restore those sources unless I specifically go to the RS noticeboard and have each and every crap source deemed unreliable? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concern. It's just that, if a source has a bias but meets the criteria at WP:RS, it should still be usable when attributed (WP:BIASED). Deleting large blocks of text because they cite such a source seems tantamount to assuming that the site peddles in plain untruths – simply because its bias is at odds with the disagreeing person, and it hasn't been whitelisted as reliable. The sources you have been contesting as not RS have all been around for a while and do not (to the best of my knowledge) have a reputation for untruths – only a left-leaning bias.
This latest 'controversial' segment simply states that Inquisitr reported on a Twitter thread. It's immediately verifiable as true by opening Twitter and seeing the thread; nothing else about Inquisitr's reporting is said, so I don't understand what part of it you deem unreliable. It is rather that you disagree with the Twitter thread's notability, and want it removed from this page. Selvydra (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course a twitter thread that has been covered by a fringe site does not meet notability. And Inquisitr absolutely has zero reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a strong argument for a site reaching 40 million readers a month (2015) not being fringe. Regardless, you'll be glad to hear that I found a citation from a consensus RS that I added to the segment to strengthen its notability. Selvydra (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Slywriter, were you responding to me or someone else? I didn't talk about pro-Bernie stuff. The only thing I've done on this page is fix some formatting. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

None of these comments are regarding the subject at hand and that is editing to change meaning of statements against NPOV.--WillC 22:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover, sorry wanted to ask a semi-related question. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Comment was meant to be in the thread alleging Sabotage. No issue with this discussion. Good luck, when it comes to American politics everyone is a wiki lawyer Slywriter (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Slywriter, it's fine. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Media bias against Bernie Sanders → Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns or Bernie Blackout – several editors have expressed that the current name is POV so I propose this title which I think is neutral. Another option is Media bias controversy about 2020 US Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders SharabSalam (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Another option which was suggested is Bernie Blackout--SharabSalam (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Move to Bernie Blackout. This is about the story of the phenomenon.[7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The current title is unacceptable. "Bernie blackout" is also unacceptable. Furthermore, none of this deserves its own standalone article, and the existence of this article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia (same with the 'Trump derangement syndrome' article or any hypothetical "media bias against my favorite candidate" article that anyone can apparently now create). Whatever well-sourced content is currently in the article could easily be summarized in 3-4 sentences on the main Bernie page and in a few more sentences in his 2016 and 2020 campaign articles. If this article will continue to exist, then the best title would "Controversy over media coverage of Bernie Sanders". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly Move to Bernie Blackout. However, a "Bernie Blackout" article could potentially portray Sanders supporters in a negative light because of extreme bias, and they might want it deleted ;-) Ylevental (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I am seeing a lot of WP:NOTHERE edits from you. Please familiarize yourself with the title policy and tell me what is wrong with "Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns" instead of this vague title you are proposing.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I proposed this title.  It's not that there's something "wrong" with your suggestion, it's that I feel that "Bernie Blackout" is the common name for the story.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, I meant his comment "could potentially portray Sanders supporters in a negative light because of extreme bias, and they might want it deleted ;-)" this is not a social network. I don't know who he is trying to troll here. He has nominated the page immediately after the discussion was closed!.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, A better way to say it is that this could be the first few sentences of the article: "'Bernie Blackout' is a controversial term coined by supporters of Bernie Sanders who allege that the media is against his campaign. Many of their claims concerning bias are unsubstantiated."
Bernie supporters would want this page deleted, though it is true in my view that his supporters highly exaggerate the bias that is against him. Ylevental (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing evidence that this is a controversial term except on unreliable sources like Brietbart.  The Sanders campaign itself promotes the term, so supporters are unlikely to interfere.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
One, people wanting a page deleted based on title alone is not relevant to what name should be used in an encyclopedia. Two, I've no idea why you would think that considering that term is being used (among others, such as "Bernie blindness") by Sanders supporters to describe the alleged phenomenon. - Keith D. Tyler 23:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also suggest Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders as an option. - Keith D. Tyler 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

KeithTyler, there is no allegations here. These are merely criticism and responses. Calling these criticism points allegations sounds unneutral and false description of what the article is about.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The word "allegation" by definition does not pass judgement as to whether the allegations are true or not. That would be an ideal neutral position. Certainly referring to media bias in the title more accurately represents the crux of the argument than "criticism of media coverage" -- "criticism" merely refers to quality, but doesn't illustrate at all the emphasis on accusation of bias, which is the crux of the criticism. - Keith D. Tyler
  • Move to Media coverage of Democratic presidential candidates (2008-2020). Mention should be made of Bernie (& others) commenting about the advertisers sponsoring the debates through the spots they bought in 2020. The debate format and qualification criteria (DNC) are related to media coverage writ large. I'm sure that 2008 had its own share of stories, as 2020 certainly does. I imagine other parties could have similar pages. FWIW: the Des Moines Register published their full-length interview with Sanders and I didn't notice a trace of bias, just questions & answers. A brief look back suggests 2004 could be added too. Apparently a media" manipulation" made Dean look like he'd come unhinged.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a brief comment re: the 'FWIW': Having actively followed US politics 2015–2019, I don't recall ever reading anyone accusing DM Register of anti-Sanders bias. Most commonly it has been CNN, (MS)NBC, NYT and WaPo. Less commonly, CBS, ABC, NYDN and some others. For what little my personal opinion is worth, smaller news sources have generally seemed to treat him and other candidates fairly. Selvydra (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders as the best alternative to the current, wildly inappropriate title. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why does Bernie Sanders in particular need an entire media coverage page? This whole page is Citation overkill.

See WP:OVERCITE. What makes him so special compared to other current and former candidates such like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Yang, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, and so forth?

Most of the articles don't even highlight an actual controversy, but talk about a small handful of instances where he might have not received enough coverage. There are way too many articles per each alleged instance. Should be merged into his campaign pages. 129.21.46.187 (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There was already an entire AfD over this and it failed to result in deletion or merging. If you have a recommendation for how to improve the article, then mention it in a new talk page section. Master of Time (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The AFD was rigged. A merger discussion will happen again someday, and your response does not answer the original question. 129.21.255.179 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

More reliable sources

I quoted Inquisitr reporting on a Twitter thread. Are you suggesting their coverage of what is happening on Twitter is falsified? That it does not exist? They have screen captures. Are they unreliable? The content is visible and supportable from Twitter itself. Inquisitr reported on its existence. This is another media source whose record of existence is wiped out because it is not on a list reliable sources. Lets take the most unreliable source imaginable, the National Enquirer and they report a typical headline, Khloe has baby with Martian. The fact that they said it is not sourcable to the National Enquirer? This goes beyond logic. Trackinfo (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We rely on RS for two reasons: (1) accuracy and relevant context, (2) WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you arguing that we should add "Khloe has baby with Martian" to Khloe's Wikipedia page simply because a source said so? — Chevvin 23:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Business Insider cites NYT analysis as proof that media is under-covering Sanders relative to Biden and Warren, and suggests Sanders' chances are being played down in the press:

Sanders gets less media attention that other top-tier candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, according to an analysis from The New York Times. Though some of this is likely due to Biden's name frequently being referenced in relation to the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, it could also reflect that the media is discounting and perhaps underestimating the Vermont senator.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-could-be-most-underestimated-2020-candidate-2019-12 Rafe87 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

TYT

The Young Turks has extensively covered the media's bias against Bernie, wouldn't that be a reliable source? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, there does not seem to be consensus on TYT. It isn't mentioned. I know the Hill mentions them in their newspaper at times, but that's pretty much it for me. Someone else would have to answer. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
TYT is not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:RSPSOURCES says nothing about TYT so where are you getting your information?--WillC 22:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Wrestlinglover, it seems the user was not giving me accurate info. It says nothing about CounterPunch either. I didn't know about it, which is why I asked my question earlier. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
MikkelJSmith2 He has a tendency to do that. He thinks sources that are biased are unreliable when policy says they are reliable and sometimes are the only available sources for controversial topics. He thinks opinion articles are unreliable when policy says otherwise. It only says don't push opinion off as fact. He is trying to label everything as a opinion so it doesn't look like fact. I keep having to call him out on giving wrong information.--WillC 00:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The Young Turks is not a reliable source, because it doesn't meet the definition at WP:RS. WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list. - Ryk72 talk 04:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72 why doesn't it meet the definition at WP:RS?.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
TYT is a YouTube current affairs opinion channel, not a news organisation. They do opinion content, and they don't have a demonstrable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But really, we don't just assume reliability of sources; the onus is on editors wanting to reference those sources to show that they are reliable. - Ryk72 talk 05:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
So what you are saying is they can be used for opinion content but not to cover factual events. To explain fact checking and accuracy is a bit difficult because you would basically need a third party source to examine the actions taken by another. Which in and of itself do not sound objective. It is in the best interest of a competitor to make another sound like a bad agency. I'd reject the stance of "they are just a youtube channel" because the article on TYT by itself says it isn't just that. It has a show with that name but is also a multi-tier network. Besides that, here is an article examining TYT. Problem is now it has to be deemed a reliable source and so the issue grows. Politifact doesn't have anything on the organization when I searched. The Capitalist Research Think-Tank does and I'm sure that isn't going to slanted in anyway. So really, what manner are we to take to really prove its ability. This is what I gathered by simply google searching "The Young Turks fact checking".--WillC 07:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do not presume to tell other editors what they are saying. - Ryk72 talk 08:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you should be more careful with your phrasing then. Because all you said was it was an opinion content. Which means it can be used for opinions but not factual information. Tell me exactly where my statement was wrong in characterizing yours statement? Did you not say it was opinion content?--WillC 10:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I think what I wrote is clear enough. I wrote that TYT produces opinion content, not factual news content. I did not write that that means that it can be used as a reference for opinion content in this article. - Ryk72 talk 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, I thought that you couldn't use a source only for opinion content? Btw, like another user pointed according to mediabiascheck.com, TYT does produce factual news. I'm not a fan of theirs but that would indicate reliability I think? It would explain why I've seen the Hill and other news sites mention some TYT reporting. I think they broke some stuff about the Pete Buttigieg campaign. MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that mediabiascheck was unreliable when I wrote this MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
My view is that TYT is undoubtedly a biased organization, but at the same time, they are an "almost-mainstream" organization. They are the biggest online news show. They have been covered in mainstream media. Cenk is a highly influential man (and, as of recently, a political candidate). All in all, I believe that they are an appropriate source for opinions ("Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks believes....") but maybe not statements of fact. For an article of this nature, if we only restrict ourselves to mainstream (read: corporate) media, then the article will obviously be slanted in a pro-corporate-media direction. Hence the need to include reputed voices in independent journalism. CompactSpacez (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
CompactSpacez, I heard they had some written journalism that was mentioned in the Hill, but I'm not sure about that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

TYT is biased in favor of Bernie, but that doesn't mean they're not reliable when they report on how he has been covered.  They're rated as not having failed a fact check besides their reporting on GMOs[9]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring a misrepresentation into the lead

The editor Rafe87 has now edit-warred on multiple instances (despite the editing restrictions on this page and despite warnings on his talk page) this into the lead:[10]

  • Analyses published by the press, moreover, have been interpreted in some media outlets as showing that the Sanders campaign is, indeed, being less covered than would be expected from his polling numbers,[12] especially when compared to Joe Biden's campaign.[13] Data elsewhere also suggests that he receives more negative coverage than other top-tier candidates on MSNBC.[14]

The first sentence is not what the cited sources say: they do not say Sanders is getting media coverage incommensurate with his polling (the sources simply say that Sanders and the other candidates receive less media coverage than the front-runner). The last sentence does not at all belong in the lead, and it's also misleading. What the analysis shows is that Sanders received nearly all of those negative mentions on two MSNBC shows. The fact that two MSNBC shows gave negative mentions of Sanders does not belong in the lead, and it cheapens this Wikipedia article. Furthermore, this is an analysis by "In These Times", which is not a RS, yet this content is described as "data" in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you should assume good faith. This has nothing to do with edit warring. I reverted that same paragraph yesterday when it was pointed out to me that I was in violation of 1RR, but that rule covers only one day, not several. And I do not agree that any content has been misrepresented, and the small differences in interpretation between you and me don't warrant this hysteric language from you. I'll let other editors decide. I will insist, however, that it is about time that the intro reflects 2020 developments instead of giving prominence only to 2015 data which conveniently undercuts the arguments against media bias.Rafe87 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear: (1) you seriously think that an analysis by In These Times should be described as "data" in Wiki voice (and in the lead of all places)? That the fact that two MSNBC shows were negative towards Sanders belongs in the lead (!) ? This text is not at all in any of the cited sources: "showing that the Sanders campaign is, indeed, being less covered than would be expected from his polling numbers", yet you refuse to remove that from the lead? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Attributed the sentence. The use of the word data implies a study with information that can be peer reviewed, which this is not.
Also doesn't belong in lede
Slywriter (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with *shutters* Snoogan for once.--WillC 10:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Naked 1RR now in effect

Which is to say 1RR only. Other restrictions can be added later as needed. El_C 22:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Should be useful. This page is edited way too much as is.--WillC 01:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

USA Today's analysis of 12/19/2019 debate doesn't even mention Bernie

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/19/democratic-debate-who-won-and-who-lost-the-december-debate/2691818001/ Wikinetman (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

...or Warren, or Steyer, or Bloomberg, I could keep going. It's not supposed to be a comprehensive guide about the candidates. It also didn't list him as a "loser" which I would think is evidence against the existence of an anti-Sanders bias. WMSR (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:OR, Editors can not infer facts. Need an RS to write an analysis that shows USA Today leaving Bernie out was meaningful.
Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but does anyone think Warren or Steyer won the debate? Because there's evidence that plenty of people thought Bernie won the debate. Wikinetman (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
does anyone think What people think doesn't matter per WP:OR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems overly pedantic for the talk page, but fine, I suppose I should have written "is there any evidence" rather than "does anyone think" -- does that satisfy? Wikinetman (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Debates winners are subjective, so no it will never satisfy.
Slywriter (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent editing

Due to the issue of 1RR in effect, I figured I'd bring this issue to the attention of everyone.

  • There have been 29 individual edits done by User:Snooganssnoogans with ranging captions. Some of which are false. Over these edits there has been substantial change to the entire article. Some information has been removed entirely and claimed to have been unreliable. One of which, is the information from Ed Schultz about him being told to not cover Sanders which was just a transcribe by Washington Examiner from his National Review interview. It was also sourced by the Washington Free Beacon and had a wayback machine of the interview with National Review attached. None of these sources are listed as unreliable on WP:RSPSOURCES.
  • Some edits are mischaracterizing the statements of articles. Particularly in this edit which changes the point of Greenwald saying that the would be a concerted effort laid out over stages to create a smear, to just one about the media being hostile to him. Which isn't what he is saying. He isn't just saying they will be hostile to him, he is literally laying out that the media will conduct a campaign against him similar to the issues that happened in the recent General Election surrounding Jeremy Corbyn. Should the section be re-written, yes I agree. It wasn't well written in the first place, but this turn isn't even covering what the source says and is way too concise.
  • This happens again later when the section regarding the FAIR analysis is "trimmed" by being turned from a paragraph to just a two sentence section. Which also doesn't convey what the source says accurately. The article has 6 sections covering issues, the section only says 4. One of those is said to be by CNN, which the article only mentions MSNBC for all 6 instances. I know because I hit find and typed CNN in the article and got zero results. The mysterious CNN mention also includes the word "mistake" of which the article doesn't say any of this is a mistake and is actively taking the stance these are being done on purpose. The original section also doesn't say anything about CNN. I know because I also hit find and got no hits for CNN in that section. This new section is also very vague to what these "mistakes" are, while the previous is covering the topic of media coverage. Now I've written upwards of 60 articles that have gone under review, and if I wrote a section that doesn't even cover the topic or the content of the source adequately I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass review. Again, was the section artistic prose? Not really. This isn't any better though.
  • This edit changes the topic from the interviewer to the interviewee when the transcript also has the interviewer say "The Tyndall report did a study of airtime spent on the candidates and they found that Donald Trump, duh, is the most covered with 234 minutes during the time period that they measured. Clinton was next with 113 minutes. And Sanders got 10. 10! And yet, he is consistently one of the most highly searched on Google." While I agree the original statement was pointless, it's very odd to completely leave this entire point out by the exact same person in the article. Which is hilarious considering the edit caption was complaining about misrepresentation of the source. Removing a sentence about a source fact checking another reporter, claiming they were just a pundit when Greenwald was the person who broke the Ed Snowden leak.
Personally I'd like to assume good faith and while some of the other edits are fine but having some of these same issues, I feel some of these are an example of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing brought on by an obvious bias that has been displayed while also being examples of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. As in "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources", "Repeating the same argument without convincing people" (as above), "Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others", "Crusading against a specific POV", "Seeing editing as being about taking sides", "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." I feel above is enough information to support at least the entertaining of my claims and considering the nature of this article, maybe justly. I'd suggest people take a look at these edits.--WillC 12:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) The Free Beacon and the Washington Examiner are not RS (note also that the Wash Ex piece is explicitly an op-ed). We don't pluck out comments from random transcripts. Furthermore, it's a BLP violation to include those poorly sourced accusations against Phil Griffin. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:RSPSOURCES says opposite. Another example of "Repeating the same argument without convincing people". WP:RS says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources" So again you are wrong and have continued to push that false argument.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Snooganssnoogans. Those sources should be avoided for an article like this. Also, items covered by weak source should also be covered by better sources, otherwise we run afoul of WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:COATRACK. - MrX 🖋 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Please divulge me on exactly how those policies apply. Because I feel people feel they mean anything that gives weight to a potential bias is automatically undue weight. Which in an of itself is against NPOV as it gives undue weight to the idea that there isn't. All viewpoints are to be given. Citing DUE is an attempt to silence those especially considering Ed is dead and the actual National Review interview should entirely sufficient here.--WillC 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
If we don't allow biased sources, there will be nothing left except scholarly studies and the allegedly biased media's opinions on its own bias to cite on the topic. Right- and left-wing sources should be allowed, with attributions of their bias added where their spin or selection bias may have affected the content. Selvydra (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(2) An enormous paragraph laying out Gleen Greenwald's prediction of all the ways that the media will go after Sanders is pretty much a classic example of WP:UNDUE. As far as I'm concerned, not even a sentence should be devoted to his unhinged punditry, but I left it in out of a desire for compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Must I remind again as I have done repeatedly, punditry means "expert". So basically you are saying "Unhinged expert analysis". You point at UNDUE without realizing what that section say: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Your following statement says you are actually in conflict with it because you wish to not fairly represent the viewpoint of the actual source. Summarizing a 7 stage media campaign with sources for each accusation as "hostile" isn't fairly representing.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Greenwald is an esteemed journalist who happens to be very opinionated. He tends to distort facts to fit a narrative. He should be cited sparingly in any article about a U.S. election. - MrX 🖋 17:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
That sounds more like an opinion than an actual fact. I'd figure a Pulitzer Price winning journalist wouldn't have any restrictions.--WillC 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(3) We do note need to recount every single detail published in a FAIR piece. The text was completely unreadable, and the examples cited were petty as hell. As far as I'm concerned, even the remaining sentences are UNDUE (the analysis is so extraordinarily petty), but I left them in out of a desire for compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Compromise? You completely butched what the source said by inaccurately stating what it said, removing the actual media criticisms displayed by the source, and then shrinking the number of instances. And now you are actively violating NPOV by saying you wanted the fair representation of ALL VIEWPOINTS removed.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
FAIR has been blatantly overused in this article. I've tried to trim a couple of the more trivia instances, but was reverted. Consensus is required for inclusion of material. - MrX 🖋 17:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
No because there was already a consensus to include the material and not once above to my knowledge has there been objection on that content not belonging in the article. The only issue is that it lends credence to issues with there being any sort of media coverage bias. I'm not hearing an actual issue with the source other than it being used alot. The article is not entirely based on that source. There is no limit to how much we use a source in articles. I used one source 7 times in the GA Bound for Glory IV and another two 5 times in the FA Turning Point (2008 wrestling). Issues did not arise with this same issue as long as material had merit.--WillC 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: Would you please link to the consensus for including the FAIR material that was removed by Snooganssnoogans and me? - MrX 🖋 17:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
MrX I'd be happy too right here at WP:EDITCONSENSUS where it says "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time." The fact the material has stayed in and not been objected and wanted removal until now.--WillC 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
In other words, there is no previous consensus. You are just claiming there is because you don't like it when editors remove content from the article. Contrary to what you may think, material does not earn consensus by simply being put into an article. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you having trouble reading the article? Because the policy clearly states a consensus has been accomplished by simply editing the article. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If you don't like articles going by policy, I'd suggest you have an issue on your hand. Per policy, you have to get a clear and concise consensus to remove material. I'm going to guess you are going to ignore this just like other editors because it is a roadblock to your desired ends. Maybe, you should read policies more.--WillC 05:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I will echo that if content has been added to the article and stayed undisturbed for a reasonable amount of time (for an article with frequent editing like this, something in the ballpark of a week should be plenty), then per WP:EDITCONSENSUS it has implicit consensus. Isn't it a little harsh to require that every segment added to an article be white-listed in a Talk page debate or be indefinitely subject to removal until a clear consensus is achieved to put it back? To my reading, WP:ONUS doesn't grant such indefinite deletion priority, but speaks of a situation where consensus has not yet been reached. And this is where WP:EDITCONSENSUS takes precedence. Selvydra (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Selvydra, I think part of the reason why the consensus talk is present on this page is due to the fact that until yesterday or two days ago you had to go to the talk page after a revert. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(4a) The interviewee is brought on the show to offer her take on media bias against Sanders. It's unclear whether the interviewer personally holds the opinion that he gives in his question or whether he's giving the interviewee something to respond to. Furthermore, he makes statements in the interview that could both be interpreted as confirming that there is media bias and disconfirming that there's media bias. This is a perfect example of why we don't randomly pluck comments out of transcripts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pluck comments out like you did with your edit? You focused on the part that fit your viewpoint and did not fairly represent the information in the interview. The Interviewer brought up the information I gave which is also in this article and would have fit nicely right next to it when he asked 538 about media coverage of Sanders. He stated a fact. Not an opinion. A fact. You chose not to include it. If anyone plucked, it was you.--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(4b) Greenwald is a crank op-ed writer, not a news reporter. Why would we cite him when there is literally a fact-check from a RS that can instead be cited? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The George Polk Award and a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter is nothing more a crank op-ed writer which is still reliable and notable per RS? How much longer are you going to clearly violate TE by continuing "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources", "Repeating the same argument without convincing people" (as above), "Crusading against a specific POV", "Seeing editing as being about taking sides", etc?--WillC 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You can disagree with Greenwald's political inclinations, but that doesn't disappear his journalist's merits and certainly does not unmake his being a reporter. Selvydra (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Blackout in 2020

The Business Insider interpreted the NYT data as supporting the idea of a Bernie Blackout. Considering that the intro is attacking the idea of it based on 2016 data, can't we make room to say something about 2020, as well? I inserted a paragraph, but I had to delete it because of edition rules (I thought the article was under 3RR, but someone brought to my attention that it is under 1RR). The paragraph is as follows:

Analysis from the New York Times,[ref] however, suggests that the Sanders campaign is being less coreved than would be expected from his polling numbers.[ref] Data from another source also suggests that he receives more negative coverage than other top-tier candidates on MSNBC.[ref]

Rafe87 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The NYT tracker[11] shows that (1) Sanders is in the top three for media coverage and (2) throughout the campaign, Sanders has received nearly identical levels of coverage as Elizabeth Warren and that (3) both Warren and Sanders have received less coverage than Biden. Throughout the campaign, Biden has been the clear front-runner whereas Sanders and Warren have at various times been #2, with Warren being the only one who has come close to achieving parity with Biden in national polls. As for the last comment, I do not know what source you are referring to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
That tracker also shows that Biden has received more coverage than Sanders and Warren put together, despite only polling ~50% higher in the nat'l average. Yes, some of it is inevitably because of non-primary coverage (Hunter Biden / Trump), but 1) there's no evidence that said coverage has been detrimental to his campaign, and 2) Trump likely benefited from the mass amount of coverage of him in 2016, even if it was negative. So, the tracker still bears out Sanders (and Warren) as a loser in media coverage. Selvydra (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
You're close to engaging in original research. If reliable sources have interpreted the data as showing Sanders to be under-covered, then this needs to be reflected in the entry. Rafe87 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And these metrics mean what exactly? They are covering the front runner. Everything else is speculation. Absent a smoking gun memo that shows collussion in mainstream media, this entire exercise is one of perception bias by those who support a particular candidate. 

Slywriter (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't be analyzing or interpreting the content in the article. The content is either included because it is relevant to the topic, or excluded because it is found not to be from a reliable source or verifiable. Trying to recast the content to have this or that meaning is completely inappropriate. WP:SYN. WP:OR. "I don't agree with that article" is not a valid reason to exclude content. - Keith D. Tyler 18:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this Esquire article discusses the Bernie Blackout phenomenon and seems to agree that it is real: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30299555/bernie-sanders-blackout-media-bias-coverage-campaign-2020/ Rafe87 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Content that should be removed or trimmed

The following should be removed or trimmed:

  • 1. Remove: "In an interview with National Review's Jamie Weinstein,[note 1] MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders".[18][19] 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC." Why? Because it's sourced to non-RS, and includes unsourced synth at the end.
  • 2. Trim: "In the same month, Glenn Greenwald published an article entitled, The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition, arguing that "the political and media establishment" would become increasingly hostile and shrill against Sanders and his supporters as both the electoral support for his campaign and the sense of threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination increased. The article proposes the existence of seven distinct stages in the way in which both the political class and the media respond to campaigns of theretofore poorly recognized socialist politicians against establishment-favored candidates, starting with Stage 1 ("polite condescension...") and ending on Stage 7 ("full-scale meltdown..."). At the time of his publication, Greenwald estimated that, "The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6". Stage 5 amounts to, "Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize...", and Stage 6 to, "Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected".[28]" Why? This op-ed content is incredibly long and redundant. It can be shortly and sweetly summarized as "Greenwald predicted that the media would become increasingly hostile to Sanders as his chances of winning the democratic primary increased".
  • 3. Trim: The Shorenstein Center report does not need two huge blockquotes. This content can be paraphrased and concisely summarized.
  • 4. Trim: "Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll reporting and distortions of graphics.[5] In her article, she starts with an MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53%, Sanders at 49%, and Warren and Kamala at 48%. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being in second numerically. On May 24, Chuck Todd of Meet The Press reported a Quinnipiac Poll that found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27% polling with white voters and Biden at 25%. The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28%; a three-point difference not in accordance with the poll. In a segment by Rachel Maddow on April 29, she showed a graphic with candidates leading with female donations. Kirsten Gillibrand was highest at 52% with women while Sanders was at the bottom at 33%. Maddow did not mention that the data was only based on donations of $200 or more (the only data that is itemized based on gender).[5] According to the Sanders campaign, in the first quarter of his campaign, 46% of his donations were from women.[5] " Why? We do not to list every graphic and mistake made on cable news shows. This text is completely unreadable. This can simply be summarized in one sentence as "MSNBC published a number of misleading graphics" or something like that. The last two lines are incredibly petty and nitpicky.
  • 5. Trim: "MSNBC panelist Zerlina Maxwell said that Sanders, "did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech" in his kickoff speech.[5] Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept described her claim as a blatant lie;[6] Politifact also ruled her claim as "false".[57] Maxwell later retracted her statement on Twitter after her claims were widely criticized on the social media platform, where many brought up that Sanders mentioned the issue of race and gender within the first five minutes of his speech.[5][6] Greenwald criticized MSNBC for not retracting the claim on air, where it was made.[6]" Why? Greenwald is completely redundant in this paragraph.
  • 6. Remove: "Around the same time, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir told CNN,[59] In about, you know, a minute or so or two minutes or so you’re going to cut to commercial breaks and you’re going to see some pharmaceutical ads. You’re going to see a lot of ads that are basically paying your bills and the bills of the entire media enterprise. And what that ends up doing is incentivizing you and others to make sure that you’re asking the questions and driving the conversations in certain areas and not in certain areas." Why? This is randomly plucked out a transcript. If this is important, it should be reliably sourced and it should be paraphrased. There is nothing to justify a whole blockquote for this.
  • 7. Trim: "Sanders responded to the entire discourse in the end by stating, "So this is not into conspiracy theory. We are taking on corporate America. Large corporations own the media in America, by and large, and I think there is a framework, about how the corporate media focuses on politics. That is my concern. It's not that Jeff Bezos is on the phone every day; he's not." Chris Cillizza from CNN opined that Sanders and Shakir,[60] "have zero evidence to back up these big claims is beside the point for many supporters of the independent senator from Vermont. They believe deeply in Sanders and see anyone who disagrees with them as a corporate shill or part of the Big Bad Establishment. Which is their right. But it doesn't make these claims true." Why? Sanders' comment can simply be summarized as "Sanders rejected that it was a conspiracy". Cilizza's mind-numbing punditry should preferably not be on this encyclopedia, but if it is to be included, then it should paraphrased in a concise manner.

Can we move ahead with these change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)

Discuss this as a section at a time because that is too much to cover at once.--WillC 14:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to do that. The changes that I'm proposing have all been clearly stated, and you're free to respond to them in whatever manner you want. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying you'd get more discussion with each section discussed cause editors are lazy and won't read walls of text.--WillC 10:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Some of these have already been done, and I made some a few hours ago only to be reverted. - MrX 🖋 19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I just want to mention that this is also being debated in other sections below. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the separate handling of this as MrX's edits are greatly overlapping. Discuss the bulk of these edits under the same header instead (currently the most active being MrX's) to keep things together. Selvydra (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • National Review is not RS? For an op-ed? What? How? And what do you mean that CNN is not a reliable source for something someone said on CNN? I don't even. Sounds more like an excuse to remove content you don't like, rather than do the right thing which would be to find better sources if you don't like those. - Keith D. Tyler 18:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

NYT has an op-ed out on centrist bias in the media and how it hurts Sanders (and Warren)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/22/opinion/warren-sanders-wealth-tax.html Rafe87 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we should avoid opinion columns unless they are cited by at least a couple of other reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 19:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. Multiple observations of a phenomenon are relevant to the topic. If there was an article on people hating, say, gay or black or Jewish people, citations of people talking about those people being hated would be completely valid content. The very act of op-eds pointing out a problem is relevant to the article on the problem. - Keith D. Tyler 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders/Archive_1&oldid=1074304310"