Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

We should stop pretending that the Ed Schultz interview didn't happen or isn't notable.

User:WMSR is trying to keep the section on Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC using the following reasoning: Removed section; the entire section is based on a now-retracted interview, conducted by a non-RS right-wing site, of an RT employee. Subsequent sources were also not RS.
So what he's saying is: National Review can't be used as source for interviews that National Review itself performed, and Ed Schultz can't be used as a source of information regarding Ed Schultz.
I can't believe that this is backed by Wikipedia policy. Schultz is a notable enough that he has a Wikipedia entry on his person -- how can he not be deemed as notable source of information on things that happened to himself? Rafe87 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please revert yourself immediately. This is a violation of 1RR restrictions placed on this article. --WMSR (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR is only valid a day. I only reverted the deletion once today, so I'm not in violation of it. And I have already been reverted, so no need to go crying to the administrators again. Rafe87 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, you should take the opportunity to tell the other editors here how Ed Schultz (who's notable enough to merit an entry on Wikipedia) is, nevertheless, not a notable source of information on things that happened to himself? Rafe87 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article history says otherwise. You have reverted twice in the last 24 hours. For your second point, Wikipedia requires reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, so Ed Shultz is not a reliable source on himself. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll need better secondary sources for this. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. It's about certain users who think (or do they?) that a Ed Schiltz's interview can't be used as a source of information on Ed Schultz himself. I challenge anyone to show that it's Wikipedia policy to ban the use of personal interviews (or secondary sources commenting on the interview) as a source of biographical information on the interviewee himself. Rafe87 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the talk page and consensus was reached. 1RR applies to periods of 24 hours. I have just reverted some of my own edits for this reason, as I did not read policy closely enough and did not realize that the rule applied to reverts of different sections. WMSR (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• It was widely reported that he said this so can be included only as Ed Schultz's opinion of why he was fired. I'd support including a modified version only if the inadequately sourced BLP content was removed. Dartslilly (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• In addition to the poor sources, I think there may be a problem with adding Ed Shultz’s opinion about why he was fired at MSNBC in this article or the MSNBC article given that this interview appears to have occurred while he was working for RT America, a Moscow outlet. MSNBC coverage has been very negative towards Moscow. Tying this to Bernie Sanders increases the length of the stretch. With better sourcing, I could see it in the Ed Shultz article as to his opinion. O3000 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The interview has been retracted in full by the National Review. There is absolutely no reason for its inclusion anywhere in my opinion, but especially not here. WMSR (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What is even your source for this? The interview is still available at the NR website: https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-jamie-weinstein-show/episode-55-ed-shultz/ Rafe87 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Try to play the interview. WMSR (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Politico's "antisemitic" article against Sanders

I inserted the following, but was reverted due to its length. Can anyone suggest a shorter version? The article is clearly an important piece to understand the media's relationship with Bernie and it garnered a lot of attention of its own (mostly negative):

In May 2019, Politico published a feature article on Sanders's income. Both the article and tweets from official Politico accounts on Twitter promoting the text, described him as "rich" and "cheap"; the article itself also contained a montage of a giant Sanders holding three houses. In part because Sanders was then the only Jewish candidate in the race, the article was considered anti-Semitic by many on social media. Politico deleted one of its tweets promoting the text and replaced the aforementioned illustration with another, showing Sanders in a backyard with a money tree in the background. Criticism, however, continued to flow in Politico’s direction, including from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; she, who later endorsed Sanders in October 2019, asked on Twitter: "Can ⁦@politico ⁩ explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how “cheap” and rich he is *isn’t* antisemitic? Or are they just letting this happen because he’s a progressive politician they don’t like?" Articles in other media outlets, such as Buzzfeed News, Jacobin, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, also disagreed with the tone and arguments of Politico’s article or warned that upholding Sanders to "double standards" risks inflaming anti-Semitism. Sanders himself labeled the article anti-Semitic days later.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafe87 (talk • contribs) January 13, 2020 20:11(UTC)

This material was disputed before, but the discussion dwindled. Can you indicate which of these six source best explains how the Politico article and tweet represent media bias against Sanders? - MrX 🖋 21:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've put it back. There's nothing wrong with it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at each of these sources. None of them relate to media bias against Sanders. I think this material should be omitted, and I know that the proposed text is far too detailed for any encyclopedia article (and WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 23:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The entry is not called "media bias against Bernie Sanders", but "media coverage of Bernie Sanders". In addition, several of the references described the Politico article as anti-semitic. I honestly don't understand your confusion. Most of the references frame Politico (or at least its article) as biased against Sanders, and even as anti-semitic. Rafe87 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about supposed media bias against Sanders. That didn't change when the title changed. This is not a WP:COATRACK for everything loosely related. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's also rich how you revert GPRamirez5 under the 1RR, but fail to understand you did the same thing as he. Rafe87 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I adhered to WP:1RR. What exactly do you think I failed to understand? - MrX 🖋 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about supposed media bias against Sanders. No, it is about the media coverage of Bernie Sanders in general?. The content is obviously related to the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm unwatchlisting this coatrack per WP:IDGAF. Cheers. - MrX 🖋 23:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To illustrate how this is relevant, read this if it makes sense: Media outlet^Politico "racist" coverage^{"antisemitic" article} against Sanders. Is it obvious now how this is related to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"?. BTW, in the edit summary I meant to say WP:Stonewalling not WP:STONEWALL.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not how WP:BRD works. There was not clear consensus to restore that edit, and I suggest that whoever restored it revert themselves. It makes sense to include a sentence or two about the Politico article and the resultant pushback, but devoting an entire paragraph to it is absolutely WP:UNDUE. WMSR (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh so it is now UNDUE, I thought it was a coatrack? One sentence for a controversy that promoted many social media angry because it was racist and Politico deleted the tweets. Also, AOC criticised the anti-semite article. How can we write all of this in one sentence?. These are all related.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"In May 2019, Politico published an article on Sanders's income, which some, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders himself, deemed anti-semitic." WMSR (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a decent start, but it should make at least some mention of the words and picture used. To that end, I suggest (feel free to work on this further):

"In May 2019, Politico published an article on Sanders's income. Some – including (any less biased parties?), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders himself – deemed the coverage anti-semitic, because the article described him as "rich," "cheap" and featured a montage of a giant Sanders holding three houses, and later an illustration of Sanders in a backyard with a money tree."

I think this is better split into 2 sentences for clarity, although you could probably mash it into 1 long run-on sentence if you really felt that it is otherwise undue. Selvydra (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitic depictions of Sanders are obviously an example of media bias against him, and even more obviously a significant example of media coverage. To shorten the section, I would recommend not quoting AOC's tweet and simply mentioning that she questioned how the article couldn't be seen as antisemitic. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous figure in edit summary

Sunday night, I was warned for "edit warring" because I removed the word "slightly" which I had erroneously added to the lede. I was actually not warned before the filing, it was sort of a gotcha' thing...

For the math, I added it in an edit summary but sadly typed 31% instead of 39% total coverage for Bernie Sanders. So, in sum: Bernie received 46 percent positive stories out of a total of 39% of the total coverage: this makes for slightly less than 18% of the positive coverage in the Democratic primary being for Sanders during the bulk of the voting period. By contrast, HRC received 61% of the total coverage, of which 51% was positive: this means that more than 31% of the positive coverage in the Democratic primary was for HRC. A simple calculation: 31% of total coverage divided by 18% of total coverage = 1.73. This means that HRC received significantly more positive coverage (73% more) during the March 15-May 3rd part of the Democratic primary, not slightly more. 🌿 She also received 41% more negative coverage (<30% : 21%). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is clear WP:SYNTH in addition to cherrypicking; there is nothing significant about those dates. --WMSR (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why did the scholar Patterson chose to report them? When was the New York primary again? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do think it would be good if the entry would note which outlets were covered by the study. I may go back and read more carefully to see what I can do there, but I have page numbers to dig up at the moment. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The calculations you're adding to the lead are mind-numbingly bizarre (of course, the candidate that gets far more coverage gets both more negative and positive stories) and a clear example of WP:SYNTH (you're plucking numbers out of secondary sources and re-interpreting them). It's beyond understanding why you consider it wise to make these calculations (which are absolutely meaningless) and to then opt to highlight "Hillary Clinton received 73 percent more positive coverage in the Democratic primary than Sanders" without mentioning that she received a larger share of negative coverage, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this is not the Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page. Such a page would talk about all of those stories about Goldman Sachs speeches and email servers (which, as you recall, Sanders suggested the press stop obsessing about) and DNC leaks and destabilizing Libya and etc. and etc. which could explain her negative coverage. This is not the page to develop such things, but I encourage you to create one where you do. Once you do, I would be happy to look into, for example, whether anyone commented on the Jacobin's extensive coverage of the Clinton efforts in Haiti in the week before the general, which I remember surprised me.

Also, as concerns the mid-sentence quote which Snoog has stood alone above, I would remind the reader never to trust what they read on the talk page as being an accurate representation of what has happened in mainspace. (cf. intra-sentence cherry-picking of wiki-text explicitly linked to a particular time period by use of that crazy adverb "when"). Breaking news: I've updated to the crazy adverbial "during which time" and provided explicit link to the supporting source. As I said in the edit summary, remember that Fox was included in the pool of media outlets and someone (not me) deleted the data provided on their anti-Clinton bias from the entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What on Earth has anything to do with creating a Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page? Please stay on topic and stop all the inane rambling. The point is very simple: you're plucking numbers out of a source and misleadingly presenting them to give readers the false impression that the coverage of Clinton was vastly more positive than Sanders by omitting the negative coverage. Per the source, the positive-negative balance of coverage was 51-49 for Clinton, and 46-54 for Sanders during this period. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of the language used concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, except from March 15 to May 3, during which time he received 73 percent fewer positive stories than his primary opponent did in the media outlets surveyed in a Harvard Shorenstein center study.

I would not be opposed to replacing "73 percent" with "significantly", incidentally. Both accurately summarize the data presented in the source. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

51-49 for Clinton, and 46-54 for Sanders is not "significant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that Objective3000 has now made their third edit to the entry: the first was to remove the inaccurate word "slightly" a couple minutes after MrX filed an ANEW report about the word, following WMSR's similar reversion without having studied the source. The second was to revert WMSR's self-revert on another matter (after WMSR had been called out for clear cut 1RR violations by Bbb23 at ANI), the third was to revert new text again to the mistaken word "slightly" after it was demonstrated by 1+1=2 that the degree adverb was misplaced / wrong. (Also removing the reference for the claim.) One might wonder how Objective3000 suddenly found this page (& ANEW) and why it is of such interest to them suddenly that they want to restore a misleading claim . Difficult to guess. I notice that all of Objective3000's contributions have been reverts and there is still no sign of them on the TP... though they did make a couple comments at ANEW. Most curious, as always. Again 46% of 39% of X is slightly less than 18% of X, where X is the total # of stories in the media outlets studied from 15.03 to 03.05.2016. 51% of 61% of X is a bit more than 31% of X. 18 times 1.73 = 31.🌿 Thinking back to chemistry class: since there are only two significant digits, we really should say 70% more (or significantly more). I'll see if there's something more direct in the article to satisfy the (again) curiously stubborn... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls:One might wonder how Objective3000 suddenly found this page. I’m an editor here. I tire of people asking why I edit articles. Seriously, considering your block history you should drop the WP:BATTLE attitude. As for your text, it was obvious WP:SYNTH. We don’t take data from a source and manipulate it to come up with new numbers. Now, I do think that the text could use improvement. If you have a suggestion on how to make the text more clear, make it. Meanwhile, we can’t let your WP:OR stand. O3000 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Better to mislead the reader than to get out a calculator, I guess. (Cf. WP:HERE) From the article about what Patterson calls "the middle period" (15 March-3 May) during which the Republican primary dominated the Democratic in the sources he studied 64:36: The tilt was such that Clinton got barely more coverage than Cruz. Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. He received only two-thirds as much coverage as Clinton[.] Later, he says, concerning the positive or negative quality of that sparse coverage: The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage. That candidate was Clinton[.] Earlier when presenting the same figures I demonstrated the significant difference with above, he says: In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided, with Clinton getting 61 percent of the coverage to Sanders’ 39 percent. Would you consider self-reverting, or do you prefer that the article have an NPOV tag and a failed verification tag because of your desire to talk about "battles"? We've already talked about my role in exposing Sagecandor on this page, that's done. You're welcome. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you strike the pointless crap at the start and end of your post, I'll respond to it. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV & failed verification tags

Aw obj don't go all truculent on me. I've given you what you need to rewrite the misleading text. I also added a bit more detail in the body to help the reader understand what's wrong with your preferred lead.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

fixed. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lead which summarizes research should be restored

Amid SashiRolls's edit-warring of his preferred changes to the lead and attempts by others to restore the stable version of the lead, the 2nd paragraph which summarizes the research on the subject has not yet been restored. It should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This long and winding paragraph was summarized in one sentence (the second one) below in "revised version". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I understand that SashiRolls has tried to summarize this in the sentence "A quantitative study of qualitative coverage by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.", (you are mistaken) -- SashiRolls but that leaves reader a bit in the dark. The paragraph should be restored in some form.

Perhaps something along these lines:

Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls. Analysis of the language used also concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage. A study by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you integrate the fact that the qualitative analysis is done by algorithm? Giving at least a vague idea about methodology would be appropriate when speaking of studies. Also, it might be better to avoid the present perfect, which is not an encyclopedic tense/aspect. Perhaps add dates for the studies and use the simple past. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, could you provide a pull quote and page number about the Northeastern Study from Colleen Elizabeth Kelly's book please. (I just want to be sure you haven't gotten us confused with the 2019 study.) I'm fairly certain you wouldn't have just moved that 2019 study back to 2016, so I will be interested to read about the earlier study in Kelly's own words. The Post's 32 stories (16+16), at the very least, should probably be mentioned somewhere in the lede as it is probably the most widely known story.. ( Clinton is still celebrating victory on the en.wp Washington Post page).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't but maybe Snooganssnoogans can. I am accepting on faith that this study is authoritative/representative based on the fact that you two have advocated for it being in the lead. I'm just reaching for a compromise here. I'm not necessarily apposed to including that the qualitative analysis is algorithmic, although that doesn't seem noteworthy given that we all work on an encyclopedia that does the exact same thing without anyone batting an eye. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you've misunderstood completely (so I'll take the time out of my day...). The second line of the first paragraph is the summary of Snoogans missing paragraph. The current second paragraph of the lede does not need messing with as it has nothing to do with Snoog's long paragraph (or 2016), though I gather you would like to see the paragraph about 2020 deleted too? Nice job confusing everyone MrX! :D Also, as I mentioned repeatedly to Snoog, this is not the Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page. Maybe you could help Snoog get that one started? The main quantitative study being cited by the books about 2016 is "Patterson" in the bibliography/works cited. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does the lead now only summarize the Shorenstein Center study when there are multiple academic assessments, including a peer-reviewed Princeton University Press book on the topic? And why does the lead get into the nitty gritty of mentioning specific numbers? That's not how a lead works. The second paragraph of the lead is barely readable now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A Rhetoric of Divisive Partnership

I have removed this paragraph because the wiki-text is exclusively based, as written, on parts of the already summarized Shorenstein Center study. Moreover, no mention is made of Sanders' coverage data during the "middle period" of the primaries, for example, as far as I can tell, so the study is used selectively. As mentioned above, it has a strong POV, with claims like how it is "unsurprising" that BS "had no sense of party loyalty" (one example among many). If the book were used for something that the entry didn't already cover we could include it. For example, I believe Kelley suggests that Sanders ran as a Democrat because it allowed him to have more media coverage. That is not mentioned anywhere in the entry, unless I'm mistaken. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party. Are you saying it is surprising that he had no sense of party loyalty? --WMSR (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed book by a recognized expert. There's nothing to suggest that it is unreliable or that the book has a strong POV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm saying very simply that we do not need to include a partisan source to say the same thing quoted in the first part of the Shorenstein Study and the Boston Globe article. If this source has something unique to contribute to the article, by all means, write it up and add it. Partisan sources can be used, but should not be used to restate the same material 15 different times, as was the case in this article. You asked me my personal opinion, so I will answer: the assumed premise of the argument "BS showed no party loyalty" is what I would object to, given that he campaigned for Clinton without fail. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing partisan about a recognized expert stating in a peer-reviewed publication that an Independent Senator "had no sense of party loyalty". You may personally disagree with this expert's assessment, but that has no bearing on anything. The book is clearly relevant to this article, because it evaluates Sanders campaign's claim that there was media bias in the 2016 election, concluding that he was right in one sense but wrong in another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And that conclusion of her study is on... page 6 7, right? Could we have a link to her en.wp page, please? some other sort of sign that she is an important scholar? Thanks. I haven't found much with google for the moment, but will continue to look, if you'd like. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You're now disputing that she's a recognized expert? She's an Associate Professor of Communication studies at Penn State, and wrote a peer-reviewed book about the 2016 election. Give it up, dude. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you need to provide something unique from the book if you want to include this book (apparently her first?) in the article. Saying "he's right and he's wrong" is not very interesting. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears she has some previous pubs from Praeger press, now available in ebook form through Amazon and that she regularly works with Lexington Books an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. I'm not sure if that's a top-tier academic publisher or not. Perhaps that will be discussed in the RS/N thread you opened shortly after responding here, apparently without listening to the complaint about the repetitive nature of what was being cited.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm tending to feel it should be included. As for the "repetative" problem, where's the problem? So-called experts frequently come to very different conclusions. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the verbatim quote: "The Harvard analysis reveals that Sanders was right in his critique and also wrong." This is really a literature survey not independent analysis, but I don't wish to argue. I'd like to see something more related to Kelley's own analysis, as she makes some much more interesting claims in her book: e.g. citing Sanders: We concluded [...] that ... in terms of media coverage you had to run within the Democratic party. source 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'd agree that that sentence does not say much of anything. Do you have any other suggestions? I've not really looked into this article much but I spent hundreds of hours on our earlier articles and it was my impression that for whatever reasons the media pretty much ignored Bernie. I remember that after one debate that while Sanders' rallies were drawing more people than any other candidate, CNN commented on say five of the other candidates but not even one word on Sanders. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC) ...Reading your edit, well now that is something new (though I don't agree with it, which is, of course, of no concern for us here ...). Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminate revert of changes

I made numerous changes to the article.[1] These included:

• removing newly added content which lacked consensus (e.g. Sanders's proposals on changing the media)
• adding some new content (a Jennifer Rubin op-ed)
• restoring content that there was broad consensus on (e.g. academic analyses of media coverage in the 2016 election in the lead)
• copyedits and fixing factual errors (e.g. Sides et al. only find that Sanders's media coverage exceeded his polling during 2015).

These changes were reverted in their entirety by SashiRolls[2]. In one of his edits, SashiRolls simply stated, "No consensus for these changes"[3], but some of the content that he was restoring was newly added content (like the "Correct the Record"/David Brock type content that numerous editors on the talk page have challenged) which should not be in the article unless there is consensus for it (per BRD and per agreement by every active editor on the talk page, except SashiRolls who repeatedly edit-wars newly added content back into the article). Some of the content also clearly seemed to have consensus for it (such as including the academic analyses on media bias in the 2016 election). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I will not waste my time arguing with you. If you want to add the Jennifer Rubin page go ahead (though I would wait to get consensus). Removing Sanders' essay in CJR is silly, he's obviously talking about media coverage and this has been widely commented upon. List any specific content you wish to modify below, but be aware that there was no consensus for adding further wiki-text to the lead. The information on 2016 is already adequately summarized.

I also notice that you deleted the following (the only reference to the 2016 part of the Patterson study):

From March 15 – May 3, the Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61:39. For the first time in the campaign, Clinton's press was positive (51:49) and Sanders' press was negative (46:54).

References

Any reason why you claimed to be adding things about 2016 when in fact you were deleting them and only padding stuff about the 2015 period? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of this period, we should also mention the Daily Kos' decision to start kicking Sanders' supporters off the platform in March 2016.. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please not use this part of the talk page to discuss unrelated changes? It's hard enough to try to talk with you and keep you on topic, as is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not delete that text from the Patterson study. I moved the text verbatim up into the right section of the article. Maybe you should look at the changes made before you indiscriminately mass-revert them. There also seems to be a clear consensus for including text on the studies of media coverage in the 2016 election in the lead. It's also tendentious to assert that I need to get consensus for any new content that I add while you edit-war your new changes into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, you deleted it from the chronology and padded the pre-primary stuff in the lead, while removing Sanders' media critique. Also, should we include info about the person who Daily Kos apparently fired in 2020 after the Sanders' campaign complained?

I assume you are referring to MrX's confused section above where he was trying to say the Northeastern study was the Patterson study?

The academic / journalist distinction you introduced was tactical. But I notice you left stuff about Vox in that section... The presentation should be chronological as there were important differences in the media coverage of Bernie Sanders at strategic points of the campaign.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already explicitly asked you not to discuss unrelated changes to the article in this part of the talk page (note that this is occurring while you completely fail to respond substantively to all the content you removed and the new content you're edit-warring back into the article). Why do you then keep bringing up some Daily Kos content you want to add to the article? I have no idea what you're talking about with "MrX's confused section" – please stay on topic. The location of the "stuff about Vox" has nothing to do with the changes in question - please stay on topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Snoogans on this one. Sashi violated BRD in these mass reverts, and is clearly pushing a POV on this page. The section title change was also inappropriate. WMSR (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

And I am going to leave en.wp (for the night, don't get your hopes up) ^^ Thank you for removing my name from the TP header (a clear violation of policy that you havv repeatedly been admonished for) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear: You (1) reverted every single change that was made, (2) insisted that all the changes needed consensus, (3) restored new changes made by yourself in the absence of consensus, (4) came on the talk page and misrepresented the changes that you reverted (indicating that you had no idea what you were reverting), (5) started discussions about all kinds of unrelated content you wanted to add, (6) rambled about your grievances with Mr.X., and (7) left the discussion without substantively addressing any of the changes you made and with zero indication that you're going to remove the newly added content that you just edit-warred back into the article over the objections of multiple editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

1 and 2 (correct). 3 (nope, this page has been stable for quite some time... I know you want to delete everything related to Brock, but I haven't added anything to this page in quite some time. 4) you *did* delete the Patterson study of 2016 from the chronology. I mispoke, suggesting you deleted it entirely. Interesting fact: earlier you were misrepresenting the pre-primary part of that study as the whole study. Prior to my intervention on the page, that reference was not included. 5) Yes, we need to talk about Daily Kos in 2016 & 2020 on this page. 6) Don't play dumb. You know I am talking about this part of the talk page where MrX was throroughly confused (notice footnote 3 which misrepresents Kelly), this is your supposed consensus, I assume... and 7) I have spent the time responding each of your claims. You're welcome. (Oh, there was also 8, I fixed the one "error" you identified by being more precise (substituting "in 2015" for "at that time") rather than rewriting the entire sentence to change its spin and 9) now that you've given me a moment to think, I've been able to improve your HRC-heavy version of the lead to something more NPOV and factually accurate. G'night. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The absurd CTR content that has been challenged by multiple has again been edit-warred into the article by SashiRolls.[4] How many times is this editor going to be allowed to edit-war newly added content into the article despite the objections of multiple editors? It's a brazen violation of BRD and the consensus-required requirements that all the other editors are abiding by. The editor was just days ago warned on the edit-warring noticeboard for edit-warring on this page, but immediately comes back to edit-war this nonsensical content into the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Chill. The content I restored was deleted on the grounds that the chapter title of one of the two sources was "fishy", seemingly suggesting that it did not exist. I restored the edit after proving that the source said exactly what I wrote that it said and providing a link to the page where it did. Please stop misrepresenting matters. I notice you did not provide a link to that discussion at ANEW which was closed within 27 minutes of being opened. In the interest of transparency concerning what really happened, I'll add a link since it was just archived. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you are repeatedly restoring content that has been challenged by multiple editors, and which has not been supported by any editor except yourself. It's a direct violation of BRD and the consensus-required requirements, and it makes it impossible to edit this article. You were literally "warned" on the edit-warring noticeboard, so your link just shows what I said. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on content. The only comment on content you've made is a bare assertion that the content is "absurd", an assertion with which two publishers and three authors obviously disagree. Otherwise, you've been making accusations. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to note that SashiRolls included a personal attack in his comment (another editor removed it because it violated Wikipedia policy)[5], insulting me as "unemployed or underemployed". When SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018, he was allowed to edit again with the condition that he be kept on a tight leash, but he has since then on three separate occasions by two administrators (El C and Awilley) been blocked for harassment, personal attacks and battleground behavior, and been warned countless times by both administrators and editors. Some of these personal attacks that he was blocked for were targeted at me. Before his Nov 2018 block, he was explicitly warned by an administrator for engaging in a "strategy to harass" me[6] by following me around and removing content that I added (including removal of peer-reviewed research to obscure pages that he had no reasonable expectation to edit on). When is enough going to be enough? How much more of this am I supposed to put up with? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's true that 7 Nov 2016 (when I was first learning community culture of not looking into contributors edit histories to see if they were making a mess of other articles) is quite a bit before November 2018. I also noticed that while you were one of 5 contributors on Awilley's disciplinary sanctions/early warning "watchlist" compiled in Oct 2019, I was not. (I won't link to it, because some of the other contributors listed on Awilley's watchlist objected at ArbCom to the maintenance of such lists as "chilling".) Both El C & Awilley received blowback for their blocks, as you probably recall, though I did not officially appeal the latter. The former was lifted within a few hours. This section filled with false accusations and half-truths should be hatted, but won't be, as WP:FOC only applies to some. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you should take it to AE or AN/I, Snooganssnoogans. I, and I suspect Awilley as well, are rather burned out when it comes to dealing with SashiRolls. It's time other admins do some of the heavy lifting, if needed. El_C 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have zero expectation that any case I bring will be successful, because it will just draw in every editor with grievances against me, leading to a mess of a noticeboard discussion and with a complete unwillingness by admins to sift through the information and take the correct decision. I also do not have the time to compile all the relevant data (what I mentioned above is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the harassment and battleground behavior by this editor), and be engaged in this at this particular time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think an AE request would be more orderly than you might envision. Also, you don't need to compile everything, just a few of the examples which you consider most egregious. But if you choose to do nothing, that is your prerogative, of course. My preference is to have quorum of admins involved, rather than placing it all on the shoulders of a single admin — that scenario seems unlikely to occur at this time. El_C 16:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC All of the above should be removed as "personal attacks", so should "brazen, absurd, nonsensical, indiscriminate, obsession, plus all the unsubstantiated ad hominem claims meant to discourage/chill work on this entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to start a noticeboard request yourself toward that end, then. From what I've read, none of the comments in this subsection constitute personal attacks. When you stop making disparaging comments such as these, perhaps such subsections will not be needed. El_C 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate info

So I'm here to start the discussion on whether the material and backlash regarding the debate should be added to this article as several articles are popping up from name credible sources that say CNN has it in for Sanders. With the loaded questions that were asked and the backlash from them, I think a modest section would be warranted. Definitely notable.--WillC 21:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the clear POV issues in your comment, I assume you are referring to the questions asked about Sanders's alleged comment to Warren questioning the viability of a female candidate. Those comments were verified by CNN and The New York Times. Obviously the two of them were the only people in the room during the actual conversation, but keep in mind that there are two sides to this story, and one has significantly more evidence than the other. From Warren's perspective, Sanders baselessly called her a liar on national television, and she was then subject to sexist internet trolling by Sanders supporters. My point is that there's a strong case that Sanders isn't the victim here. --WMSR (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s a bit misleading. It is not possible to “verify” such comments if the only 2 witnesses disagree. Warren’s side has exactly the same evidence and weight as Sander’s - their own words. Maybe they verified that Warren told those people what she said Sanders said, but they are not able to verify if Sanders actually said it, due to his strong denial. Warren has been notably loose with the truth now in a few other situations. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hearsay evidence is evidence. And when has Warren been notably loose with the truth? What matters is what reliable sources say, and in this case it's a range from ambiguity to support of Warren. --WMSR (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Although heavily covered at the moment, I'm not seeing any mainstream RS claiming any imbalance in coverage. Which is to say the episode has nothing to do with this article at this point. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Objective 3000 - best to let go for a few days at least and see where it goes from here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an absurd interpretation of the controversy. Make a greater effort to stay true to the spirit of WP NPOV, WMSR. CNN's Anderson Cooper himself reminded the audience that there is no proof on either side - that this is a he said/she said situation; there is no verification here, only regurgitation of rumors.
In addition, both Shaun King and the Washington Post found sources that failed to endorse the version provided by Warren's campaign.
As for Warren's credibility, it has been questioned for years by Native American activists; the media, too, has been documenting Warren's alleged tendency to fib for years, as seen in the stories below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/join-my-tribe-elizabeth-warren/2018/10/16/3fb0867e-d181-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/even-warrens-cherokee-family-recipes-fakes-copied-french-chef/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/11/24/warrens-fib-on-sons-private-school-part-of-a-pattern/
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/elizabeth-warrens-troubling-relationship-with-the-truth/
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/the-credibility-gap
Sanders, on the other hand, has a much stronger reputation for respecting the truth, according to polling data. He consistently ranks first among Democratic candidates for honesty and trustworthiness. Rafe87 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no way to evaluate whether to create a whole section on this when no RS have been brought up on this topic that suggest media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

how's about you indenting here the way that the rest of us do Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Because I'm responding to OP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: Jess McIntosh is that you? Following the debate, McIntosh said the exact same thing as you, "It is verified" and Anderson Cooper right there on the pot said it wasn't verified because it is a "He said, She said" situation. It isn't verified. That is besides the point. It is the clear discussion that CNN violated ethical standards by ignoring Sanders' rebuff of the claim and followed up by asking Warren what she felt when he said it. To the point, even the audience thought that was a loaded question. There are several articles floating around discussing this very problem along with shows that have covered it. My statements don't have to conform to NPOV, the article does.--WillC 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN violated ethical standards Come on. Journalists press for information all the time. CNN felt that they had enough information to corroborate Warren's story despite Sanders's denial. I'm not saying that CNN necessarily made the right move, but I am saying that this isn't a one-sided debate. There are two legitimate points of view here that ought to have equal weight. --WMSR (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, yet you claimed CNN verified something that can't be verified. It can only be alleged. Journalists press for information but this wasn't that. This was the ex Clinton Communications Director on air saying something wasn't a he said she said but was a verified fact to only have the host at said time say she was completely wrong. That's a violation of ethical standards itself. It was also a moderator asking a question as if something was a fact and not alleged. Ethically, that is like asking someone "How do you feel about vaccines causing autism?" after someone said they didn't.--WillC 09:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Creation of a "timeline" section and moving academic assessments to the back

In a series of bad changes[7] to the article, SashiRolls has decided to re-create the horrid "timeline" style organization of content (there seemed to be a consensus against this type of organization) and move academic assessments of bias so they fall after this timeline. The academic assessments should obviously be front and center, as they are providing overviews of bias and are the strongest sources. The "timeline" content is just back-and-forth accusations, op-eds and other low quality content. We should strive to summarize the content, not create a coatrack with a bunch of incidents, op-eds and other random content in chronological order. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As time goes by, I am unable to keep up with all of the unwarranted, undue, and plainly POV edits to this article because of 1RR. Makes me think AfD is the next best option if editors are going to keep POV-pushing and edit-warring content into the article. This page is a WP:POVFORK and despite strong efforts from several editors, it seems that some people are determined to keep it that way. --WMSR (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As you write more, you would think there would be more references, evidence, and argumentation. Sadly, this is not the case. Just more accusations being lobbed.

I notice, looking through archives 1, 2 and this page, that there was never any consensus for putting "academic assessments" (like the POV Kelley book) "front and center". Since you seem to think that there was such a consensus Snooganssnoogans to justify your late December 2019 rearrangement of the article, could you provide a link to that discussion, please? Could you also explain what problem you have with putting things in chronological order? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"The academic assessments should obviously be front and center, as they are providing overviews of bias and are the strongest sources. The "timeline" content is just back-and-forth accusations, op-eds and other low quality content. We should strive to summarize the content, not create a coatrack with a bunch of incidents, op-eds and other random content in chronological order." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In other words, no, you can't point to a previously existing consensus. Thanks for your answer. PS: "obviously" means "in my opinion". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's hard for me to understand how anyone would complain that the academic commentary should not be divided into its own section. I did read that section while I could barely skim the other due to LITMTR (or whatever its called, something like lost interest too much to read). Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. As far as I'm aware, nobody is saying that academic commentary should not be divided into its own section. I also agree that an introduction to the 2016 section of the page would be helpful before getting into the details. Unfortunately, putting things together by theme/outlet (Washington Post, Brock, NYT, "media blackout", etc.) is unlikely to gain consensus, so a timeline seemed to me like the best way to organize the info. Again, the main problem with the "academic analyses" part of this article two weeks ago was that it misrepresented the Shorenstein Center study (cf. how the original authors presented the study, & how it was rewritten (3rd paragraph) on December 26th). If there is consensus to move "academic analyses" ahead of "timeline", that's fine. But until now, there has been no discussion about that. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Hopefully I won't say too many more dumb things as I once again get back into the grove here at a Sanders article. Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I'd say academic analyses should be first. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls is against placing the academic analyses section first. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I was thinking that as we continue to work with the article we may be drawing from the Timeline section, both paring it down some and adding more smaller units of information elsewhere. Actually I have not even had time to read the entire thing yet as I am busy with reading related to a few other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Academic analyses – and how it's summarized in the lede

I haven't been able to check the contents of the books that have been cited in the Academic analyses section, as they're paid material. However, the one study I could check (Shorenstein) had been summarized selectively – leaving out the fact that Sanders' coverage was lagging even after he polled ahead of O'Malley and Webb, and that his increase in coverage or its positivity didn't make up for the previous lack of coverage. This last argument was attributed to him having a major name ID disadvantage, which is why amount of coverage was more crucial than tone of coverage.

The books, though, have been summarized in such a way that they arrive at a very different conclusion. Even Colleen Elizabeth Kelly's book, that cited the Shorenstein study, apparently overlooked what was outlined above. The lede has no mention of it either, instead concluding that – according to academic studies – his coverage was ample and positive.

If the editor who wrote these paragraphs is still around, could I get them to post the book text they used as source material?

Also, is there a reason why the John Sides mention is in the Academic analyses section? It's a journalistic study, similar to the In These Times one. The Nieman Labs one feels more rigorous, although I think "...at least online" should be replaced with "in online news".

I figured I'd post this and give people a chance to reply before I start editing, since I'm partially in the dark not knowing the contents of those books. Selvydra (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've tracked both down. Sides Tesler Vavreck media coverage Sanders and A_Rhetoric_of_Divisive_Partisanship media coverage finds the books at google books. The latter rather artfully avoids speaking about the Shorenstein Center's analysis of the March 15th-May 3rd period on page 72. HIH. ps: there was a fun disciplinary interlude where I was taken to the edit warring board for removing a word I myself had added a few minutes earlier ("slightly") because it was wrong. I was sleepy last night, shouldn't have messed with the page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggest in particular reading Chapter III (The "outsider" rhetorical behavior of Bernie Sanders") to understand Kelley's POV. There's some good quotes in there; e.g. "That Bernie Sanders lacked any clear concept of party loyalty was not altogether surprising considering his history. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The book is not POV, and the addition of the quote to the article should be removed ASAP, as it has nothing to do with the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

John Sides is a political scientist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Why on Earth has his academic assessment now been moved from the 'academic analysis' section to the godawful 'timeline' section? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is from a newspaper column called "The Monkey Cage"? One wonders who the peers reviewing that "academic" platform might be.

Also, in addition to your recent use of "inane rambling" to describe contributions to this page (cf. WP:NPA), I appreciate you giving us two more modifiers as evidence of your cool attitude: "why on earth" instead of "why" & "godawful". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's an analysis by a recognized expert, and should obviously be in the 'academic analysis' section of the article, not the godawful 'timeline' section where are all the random op-eds and other low-quality content is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I am not seeing any personal attacks here, just criticism of content. You aren't helping us build an encyclopedia by making accusations against other editors. Please stop. In regards to TMC, the publication has its roots in academia, and is now published in the Washington Post. Contributions are reviewed by a team of editors, and they "do not publish traditional op-eds or editorials that advocate for political parties, candidates, or public policies." Contributors are experts in the field of political science. The name "The Monkey Cage" comes from a quote by H.L. Mencken: “Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.” Assume good faith, and don't make assumptions about sources (or editors). --WMSR (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cillizza's ratings of candidates performances in debates.

In the seven Democratic presidential nomination debates held so far, has CNN's Chris Cillizza declared Sanders a winner, at least once? If so, perhaps this can be sourced & added to the article, per balance. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What does that have to do with media bias? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, if Cillizza is always giving Sanders a bad rating & he works for CNN whom among their sponsors are pharmaceutical companies (which oppose Medicare for All), it's likely that CNN (and Cillizza) would be seen as biased against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN has a lot of pundits. These people have opinions (usually very unremarkable opinions). That a CNN pundit doesn't like Sanders or his debate performances is not media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that could be evidence of bias, GoodDay, but we're not allowed to take that conclusion ourselves to insert it into the entry, because that violates WP:OR. Instead, a media, academic, or political source would have to denounce the bias of his ratings in a reliable source. Rafe87 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article exists because of ample sources of mainstream news media bias against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is way too far a reach. We cannot say that someone that offers an opinion at a news outlet defines bias in the corporation. For one thing, maybe he's right. But even if that isn't true, it still isn't an indication of bias. It's one opinion. It looks like we are trying (like some alt-right sites) too find a path to show bias. WP:OR O3000 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This in conjunction with the recent articles about CNN bias would work within a section of actions by CNN that wouldn't synth, OR, undue, or NPOV. There is certainly a source somewhere out there discussing Cillizza's views.--WillC 07:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Know WP:SELF

Since MrX doesn't want me painting any impressionistic rainbows, I won't suggest that we include WMF data for page views on Bernie Sanders & Hilary Clinton for July 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016. Still... is WMFLabs a secondary source as regards en.wp? ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In principle, the wikimedia foundation provides a media platform to those who can be trusted to keep their POV at bay. At tools lab there are a number of tools allowing one to study wikimedia coverage of many subjects in many ways. As it happens, several of the tools are down at the moment (find author / find addition). But pageviews isn't. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: wikimedia foundation labs (wmflabs.org) data on en.wp coverage / cf. wp:primary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Prior to Sanders' announcement of his intention to run for the Democratic nomination on April 30, 2015, his Wikipedia entry was 54K in length, whereas Clinton's page was 208K. By July 12, 2016 Sanders' entry was 160% larger, having grown to 140K. By contrast, Clinton's page had grown to 242K, an increase of 16%. From 1 May 2015 to 30 June 2016, Sanders' entry was modified 3279 times, 92% more often than Clinton's entry, which was was modified 1702 times. During the two years 2015 & 2016, Clinton's entry was protected 15 times, Sanders' 10. 1, 2 The data does not indicate what level of protection was applied (pending changes, extended confirmed, full protection, etc.) In terms of reader interest, the WMF does not provide data on the period from May 01, 2015 to June 30, 2015, but for the period from July 01, 2015 to 12 June 2016, Sanders' page was viewed 15.7 million times (45.2K views per day) and Clinton's page was viewed 7.9 million times (22.6K views per day) source 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Compare to search data below.

CNN's moderators have been widely lambasted for bias against Sanders after the last debate

The backlash on the part of Sanders supporters is big enough to deserve mention. But the backlash also came from media figures, and even a journalism think-tank, the Poynter Institute. Below are some links demonstrating it:

• The Poynter Institute called the conduct of moderator Abby Phillip toward Sanders, "Stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism."
• The Poynter Institute's comments (and other criticism aimed at CNN) were cited by the Associated Press
• Fox News says critics "on both sides" of the aisle have blasted CNN's anti-Sanders bias: CNN blasted over ‘clear bias against Bernie Sanders’ amid ongoing anyone-but-Trump agenda
• Jeet Heer, at the Nation, says CNN is unafraid to display its bias against Sanders: CNN Has It In for Bernie
• The Intercept: AT THE IOWA DEBATE, BERNIE SANDERS’S MOST VOCIFEROUS OPPONENT WAS CNN
• Rolling Stone: CNN’s Debate Performance Was Villainous and Shameful
• FAIR: The Big Loser in the Iowa Debate? CNN's Reputation

In addition, there has been criticism from the Sanders campaign and its supporters. The above, however, is just from nominally non-partisan sources, but even the narrow selection above, with the high number of articles and high notability of the sources, should justify the inclusion of CNN moderator bias against Sanders into the entry. — Rafe87 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You may have a point. But, your point would have been better made if you hadn't included some biased sources and a duplicate of a source. Quality trumps quantity. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where I posted a duplicate? And a number of the sources above are considered bona fide Reliable Sources on Wikipedia, fit even as references for pure facts, even more so for opinions and criticism. — Rafe87 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rafe, this is a very helpful list for me and helping me to see things in a more accurate light. Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If you meant both the citation to the Poynter Institute and the cite to AP covering it, that isn't a duplicate or redundant - it's useful to have both a WP:PRIMARY source as a courtesy to readers and a WP:SECONDARY source to establish due weight and to provide the interpretation and analysis we need to really write anything about it. Anyway, I think those and Rolling Stone are enough to justify a sentence or two on this. I'd avoid going into excessive depth, though, for WP:RECENTISM reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone want to take a try at writing something for us to consider? In my experience when it's something difficult like this it can sometimes need to use a little more than a little less... As for RECENTISM, anyone that reads our Trump articles knows that a lot of stuff goes in them practically within hours of when it happens, in some ways a sign of the times we are presently living in, perhaps. Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The CNN-sponsored debate between Democratic pre-candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator Abby Philips's handling of a controversy between Sanders and fellow Senator and pre-candidate Elizabeth Warren. The criticism came not only from Sanders' campaign and his supporters on social media, who made #CNNisTrash trend on Twitter, but also from journalists and political analysts from a wide range of political perspectives, such as Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and Steve Cortes, CNN's own pro-Trump contributor. Journalism think-tank Poynter Institute lambasted Philips's treatment of Sanders, describing it as "stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism." — Rafe87 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start a new thread with this suggested wording. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi followed Trump's campaign for Rolling Stone and wrote a really good piece for them that is well-worth a read even now. He said that these days he found that there's such a mad scramble to be the first outlet to get news out that fact checking is a thing of the past. And here's a 2016 interview with Amy Goodman that is a short and good read IMO. [8] Gandydancer (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gandydancer. I added this reference to the article. @Rafe87:, would you consider adding what the actual "souped up" story was? It seems strange not to mention it. (i.e. that Sanders said or didn't say something to Warren in private in 2018). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but some editors have expressed concern over WP:UNDUE. Since the article is about Media Coverage of Sanders, I focused just on the media handling of the issue instead of the issue in itself..Rafe87 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I just think it fits very well with the more general criticism of media coverage of political horseraces (conflict between candidates) rather than treatment of issues. You've got an illustration next to your paragraph now that won't make much sense until the teapot tempest is mentioned. (Apparently progressive foundations are trying to get the candidates to cut it out.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "you hadn't included some biased sources" - Might I remind you that under RS, sources can still be biased and reliable. Thats not a qualifier for inclusion or removal. Only unreliability and non-verified statements.--WillC 02:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, this is what I was talking about in the #Debate info section above.--WillC 02:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay but Fox News pundits bashing CNN is hardly out of the ordinary. --WMSR (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is important. Biased sources can be used, but for political controversies it's best to have at least one unbiased source at least mentioning a controversy to show that it's WP:DUE - partisan sources will eagerly cover everything that might advance their views, so it means less when they breathlessly treat something as world-shattering than it would from a less biased source. That said, the AP story and the Poynter institute is sufficient for that IMHO. (EDIT: Also, the AP story isn't just citing the Poynter institute; it also covers a lot of the responses on Twitter, which are the sort of thing we can't cover directly but can mention when a reliable secondary source does - especially a relatively unbiased one like the AP.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What did you think of the paragraph I wrote above, as a suggestion for insertion into the entry? — Rafe87 (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Fox News contains a quote from a CNN contributor, Steve Cortes, criticizing his employer's bias against Sanders. That is hardly business as usual. —Rafe87 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• The header says moderators in plural. But, the sources seem to talk to one sentence by one moderator. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Even Fox News & MSNBC (no friends of Sanders) have been highly critical of CNN, on this matter. Heck, even the audience at Iowa debate reacted with laughter. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Amusingly, no sign of this criticism in the three articles about it in the NYT. I saw that Barney Frank was their go-to quote guy for an analysis of the Warren-Sanders rift. Somehow they forgot to mention just how much he loves Sanders. ^^ Sydney Ember, again... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The content belongs in one form or another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal and re-writing of academic content

The editor SashiRolls has made numerous changes to the academic content in this article, whereby the editor has reduced this content, as well as re-written it in a way that makes it less coherent and readable. The re-writes also fail to accurately summarize the studies and academic assessments (often times removing relevant findings on media bias that relate to Sanders). This is what the page used to look like before/after SashiRolls's changes:

The lead (before changes):

Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls. Analysis of the language used also concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage. All 2016 candidates received vastly less media coverage than Donald Trump, and the Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.

The current lead:

Thomas Patterson's Shorenstein Center study showed that during 2016 presidential primaries from March 15 – May 3 the Republican primary dominated the Democratic primary in number of stories in the media outlets studied 64:36. The Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61:39. Stories about Clinton were slightly more often positive than negative (51:49) and Sanders' "particularly sparse" coverage was negative (46:54). This is the only time in the 2016 campaign that the majority of the coverage that he got was negative.

The "Academic analyses" section (before SR's changes - with some compromises):

According to the 2018 book Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America by political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck, Sanders benefitted from media coverage in 2015, which was more positive than media coverage of Clinton. The amount of news coverage he received exceeded his share in the national polls at that time. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis shows that "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."

In her 2018 book, The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up. According to Bitecofers's analysis, Trump received more extensive media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.

A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy on media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries. The report found that the Democratic race "received less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Regarding Sanders, the analysis found that his campaign was "largely ignored in the early months" when he was barely ahead of the other lagging Democratic contenders, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb. However, as the Sanders campaign "began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic." Throughout the 2016 primaries, "five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did." The analysis found that "Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her "bad news" outpaced her "good news," usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015."

In her 2018 book on the 2016 election, communication studies scholar Colleen Elizabeth Kelly noted that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias. Right, because the media was too little interested in the Democratic primary to give him the coverage he needed early, and wrong, because, on average, Sanders's coverage, though initially scant, was more often positive than any other candidate's coverage prior to voting.

In September 2015, John Sides, a Political Science Professor at Vanderbilt University, found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was consistent with his polling, noting that candidates who poll well get more news coverage. Sides also concluded that the coverage Sanders received was proportionally more positive than that received by Clinton. Jonathan Stray, a scholar of computational journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for the Nieman Lab in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders received coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.

The "Academic analyses" section (after SR's changes):

Jonathan Stray, a computational journalism researcher at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for Nieman Lab in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders got coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.

A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy analyzed the media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries. The report found Trump received more coverage than any other candidate, with the Democratic race getting "less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Patterson wrote that the Sanders campaign was "largely ignored in the early months", but that once Sanders did begin to get coverage in 2015, it was "overwhelmingly positive in tone": Sanders had the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate (Republican or Democrat) in 2015." Patterson also found that coverage of Sanders was "particularly sparse" during the "middle period" of the primary (March 15-May 3). Sanders himself focused on the data the Shorenstein Center provided showing that coverage of issues was vastly inferior (10%) to coverage of the primary process and the political "horserace" (90%).

A 2018 book co-written by three political scientists said that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."

In her 2018 book, Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up. Bitecofer found that Trump received more media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.

References

Can we please restore the version before SashiRolls's changes? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Important: The following section has been moved by SS from the pertinent section above. They have also modified the text I was responding to, but still pretends I am the author of text they themselves authored. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep making false claims? I am not responsible for all the other material being deleted: you, for example deleted the first sentence of the first paragraph above.

evidence

You reverted my last proposal:

Studies of media coverage showed that the overall coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during the invisible primary period in 2015, when his coverage was variously described as exceeding his polling or lagging. Analysis of the language used concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, except during the period from March 15 to May 3 when Sanders was the subject of 39 percent of the stories about the Democratic primary in the surveyed media. At this time, the "particularly sparse" coverage of Sanders was evaluated to be 54 percent negative while Clinton's was slightly more positive. Stories about Republican candidates, and particularly about Donald Trump, dominated media coverage during this "middle period" of the primaries.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, it looks like I accidentally copy-pasted a portion that you added to the body to the lead while I was reverting your edits. I'll go ahead and restore the version of the lead that summarizes the studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comments, I can remove the two versions of the lead above or strike through them for the sake of clarity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Some people would call this lying, others disruption, but we Wikipedians know that it's a sin to accuse someone of lying, and not a sin to actually lie. If you want to call your edit a mistake, that's fine. An apology would come naturally to most people in such a situation. I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your mistake. I appreciate you reducing the number of times you name check or initial check me from 7 to 5 and from 4 to 2 in your sub-headers. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to make any edits you want to the page. I believe that it makes sense to put 2016 studies before 2018 studies, and to have the Shorenstein study before the studies that rely on it. We also do not need to repeat the same thing five times and should definitely not ignore the middle period of the primaries as you wish to do. Again, John Sides, writing for the "monkey cage" doesn't really belong in academic studies as it is not peer reviewed. Likewise for the Vox journalists. I am willing to help you rewrite. Take things one at a time... as I've done here: 1) chronological order, 2) no repetition, especially of partial summaries which neglect the conclusions of the Shorenstein study as a whole (e.g. 90% of focus on the horserace, 10% on the issues), 3) Monkey cage squib & Vox do not belong in academic analyses. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) It makes no sense to list the academic analyses in chronological order. Rather we should start the section with summaries of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck, and the Shorenstein Center report, as those are the most comprehensive analyses of media bias in 2016. (2) If multiple academic analyses have the same findings, then we ought to cover those findings. It makes no sense to make it seem as if only one analysis found X on the topic of media bias, when several did. (3) The Sides analysis in the Monkey Cage (which is the Washington Post's political science blog and run by recognized experts) is by a recognized expert on the topic, and is clearly an academic analysis. Furthermore, the Nieman Lab analysis and the Shorenstein Center report are not peer-reviewed, but that is not a reason to remove them from the 'academic analysis' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(3) So, you think that we should include a September 2015 WaPo blogpost at the end of the academic analysis of a section studying (in principle) whether WaPo (among others) showed bias in their coverage. If you'd like we could include the following quote from that September 2015 blogpost: (You might also ask: Should media coverage even be indexed to the candidate’s changes of winning? That’s another blog post, probably. But I think the answer is yes.) This all sounds very "academic"and serious, doesn't it? paraphrased: "Unless we cover Wilma, she won't win, so it's no big deal that nobody is covering Wilma." I notice there is no discussion of issues, only of "horseracing" in your expert's testimony for the WaPo. I think we can reject any claim that this is an academic analysis, even if WSMR cites John Sides of the WaPo saying it's super-serious academic stuff again. It's an op-ed. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: John Sides is a Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt and is the author of a Princeton University Press book, which among other things looks at media coverage in the 2016 election. To say that his analysis, which is published on WaPo's Political Science blog, is not an "academic analysis" is just wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's also a 500-word blogpost at the Washington Post. Get over it. That said, I would be interested in hearing others who have run across RS on how Sides used that "washy post-it" during the 2016 or 2020 primary. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) It makes perfect sense to list the academic analyses in chronological order, since the 2018 studies base their claims on the 2016 study. Hello? (2) I'm sure you can find cherry-picked sentences from cherry-picked studies. However, as agreed above, we should try to find out what makes the studies unique, not have all of them talking about one part of the primary (pre-voting) and all agreeing with Mr. Sides that "polling" rather than "issues" are the most important factor in determining media coverage. This is a presupposition that is indeed widely shared in the for-profit media. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither the Sides, Tesler and Vavreck PUP book and the Bitecofer book base their findings on the Shorenstein Center report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It does however cite the Shorenstein Center study quite a bit. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"It" being what? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first...

It's a Princeton University Press book. It cites a lot of things. The content that the Wikipedia article cites the book for is the authors' own analysis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

And Bitecofer's book is not a media studies book. It barely mentions media coverage of Bernie Sanders. I think you found the two occurrences, one of which was (in fact) focused on Media coverage of Donald Trump. (Don't get me wrong, the book seems pretty good, it's less POV than the Kelley book, though the specific "heating up" claim contradicts the hard data in terms of quantity of stories. I assume she is making a qualitative claim about the relatively small number of stories which appeared post March 15). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed political science book, which contains an analysis of the media coverage of the candidate. It's incredibly tiring to have to debate every single snippet of what 99/100 editors would consider basic uncontroversial content, including this debate on whether peer-reviewed academic research on the topic in question should be considered RS and DUE, and whether political science professors who write on the topic are recognized experts or nor. It's mind-numbing to have to debate these kinds of things again and again and again. Hours and hours and hours are wasted on this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed improvement of the 2nd paragraph of the lead which treats at least three elements in the body that Snoogans' version glosses over and eliminates some of the misleading bits & unchallenged presuppositions.

Studies of media coverage showed that overall coverage of the primaries focused primarily on the "competition" or the mechanics of the primaries, with only 11% of coverage being related to issues. According to some studies the fact that Sanders coverage during the 2016 election was more or less consistent with his polling performance was the most salient analysis. Study of the language used concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, except during the period from March 15 to May 3 when Sanders was the subject of only 39 percent of the stories about the Democratic primary in the surveyed media. At this time, the "particularly sparse" coverage of Sanders was evaluated to be 54 percent negative while Hillary Clinton's was slightly more positive. Stories about Republican candidates, and particularly about Donald Trump, dominated media coverage during both this "middle period" of the primaries and overall, because the media considered the Republican race to be a real "horserace".

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This version is badly written, confusing and puts undue focus on the 6 weeks during the primary when Sanders received slightly more negative coverage than Clinton. You also conflate in a very confusing way the fact that Sanders received slightly more negative stories than Clinton during a 6-week period with his share of total coverage. The lead should not get into the weeds of specific numbers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Fact-check: no, Sanders did not receive "slightly more negative stories" than Clinton. 70% fewer positive stories and 40% fewer negative stories were written about Sanders than Clinton during this important part of the voting primary. We've been through this. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm obviously talking about the ratio of positive-negative stories, which is the way everyone talks about this topic, except you (who are taking numbers from sources and recalculating them according to some meaningless metric). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, number of total stories in the sample. That's meaningless, to be sure! Meanwhile... how about that first line? Why no mention in the lead about the principal complaint? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The "horserace" thing has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders per se. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Reminder, the subject/title of the page is media coverage not media bias.

7% of the pre-primary stories about Sanders covered issues, according to Patterson, whereas 28% of HRC's did. "News statements about Sanders’ stands on income inequality, the minimum wage, student debt, and trade agreements were more than three-to-one positive over negative. That ratio far exceeded those of other top candidates, Republican or Democratic. Patterson1 (sourced to Media Tenor). Just a quick response using the same source, there's plenty more sources that argue the same thing, including Sanders himself. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative media sources

I removed this from the first chronological position in "timeline" (2016) because it is a 2019 article and talks about Rising (news show), Jacobin and Democracy Now!, not just The Young Turks. There's another on Krystal Ball covering Bernie Sanders here:

References

Anyone have an idea how this article about Sanders' more sympathetic coverage (relevant also to "bias" though that is not the page title) should be worked into the entry?

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of Sanders outside of presidential elections

One of the biggest weaknesses of this entry (as titled) is that it only focuses on his presidential runs. Could that be fixed? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Has he actually gotten that much coverage outside of presidential elections? He wasn't very well-known internationally prior to his 2016 run, and most of the coverage since then was either of that run or in anticipation of the 2020 run. We could definitely dig up primary coverage (clearly he was mentioned in the news as a Senator), but I doubt we could find much secondary coverage of how he was covered in the news outside of passing mentions, which probably aren't enough to support anything. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right Aquillion. I'm an elderly progressive so I've known a fair amount about him for years. But until his first run outside of a few elders and people from Vermont nobody knew a thing about him, especially young people. Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Gladstone Cartoon on political handicapping

Political horseracing: "What gran' race is this that's gaun on here, Donald?"

I'm curious why this late 19th C. British cartoon was removed from the article. It helps readers see how some commentators (including Patterson, Higdon, Huff, Grim, Goodman, FAIR, etc.) understand the oft-repeated term horse-racing (which is in fact the title of Patterson2). This is basic encyclop(a)edic context.

(edit conflict)According to the edit summary the rich illustrations on Brock, Disney, the Washington Post, political handicapping, the January debate in Iowa, and West Virginia rallies were "unrelated" to subjects treated on this page. Perhaps I should have included a somewhat more sober image of Disney HQ? Or not. Did anyone like the illustrations?🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All of the removed content failed MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE because it did not serve to aid the reader's understanding of the article. --WMSR (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bare assertions not worth their weight in pixels. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Horse-race" is such a common phrase regarding election coverage that readers hardly need a 19th century political cartoon to explain the concept. Even if some explanation were needed, that image is certainly not the best way to do so. Maybe a link to horse race journalism would be better? Of the other pictures, the Disney one is only tangentially related to the subject of the article and definitely unnecessary. The others removed didn't really add anything either. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

1) interesting. in my part of the world it is certainly not a common phrase regarding election coverage (probably because there are very different rules regarding strict network time parity for candidates). You can use the search engine of your choice and look for "courses hippiques" (horserace) and "élection": you will learn about elections for positions in horseracing itself. 2) not sure I agree that the WaPo image adds nothing to the page... it has shown quite clearly by its presence on the en.wp Washington Post page for over 3 years that the paper is closely associated with HRC. The absence of David Brock images on commons and the association with Ready for Hillary and Correct the Record clearly makes for a very useful illustration. As for Reverend Barber and the Poor People's campaign lobbying for the discussion of real issues at the January 2020 Iowa debate rather than manufactured controversies, we can respectfully disagree... (as for the size of the rallies, well, that too has been extensively mentioned in the secondary literature). In particular, Sanders observed -- as mentioned in the entry -- that the national press did not follow him when he went to poor communities in West Virginia (only the local press did).

Pre-debate gathering in Des Moines Jan. 14 (Rev. William J. Barber II, leader of the Poor People's Campaign)

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

While the term may not translate well, it still does not need to be defined on English Wikipedia. And, as Red Rock said, if an explanation is required, a 19th-century cartoon is not the way to do it. The cartoon adds no context or definitions. The Washington Post image would certainly belong in a "Media coverage of Hillary Clinton" page, but it does not fit here at all. The fact that it is en.wiki's infobox photo is also not relevant to this article's subject matter. Not to mention you have provided no evidence whatsoever supporting your assertion that it is closely related associated with HRC. It is not. The absence of images of David Brock does not mean that a tangentially-related image of an invitation to an event should be added because it has his name on it. This article is neither about about the debates nor the Poor People's Campaign, so the Barber picture really does not belong either, not to mention that the national media usually does not follow every candidate everywhere, especially in states that aren't one of the initial four primary states. --WMSR (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you went to so much trouble I'll answer. First, please don't misquote me in bright turquoise. I said "associated with", and on English Wikipedia, the Washington Post has been associated with Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders (who both have their picture on the page) since 2016... to be precise, since June 17, 2016. Since that date the entry (with its non-free image which I dutifully filled out the non-free use template for) has been viewed 3.7 million times. It is a picture of Bernie Sanders on the cover of the Washington Post. For Brock, see the talk page section above. For Barber, see below, in this section. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I do not understand your point here. Why is a Washington Post front page depicting Hillary Clinton related to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"? --WMSR (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It did have a side column about Bernie Sanders (I think that was his picture on there) but the resolution was so low even the headline was unreadable. Maybe that's meant to prove some kind of point? I don't know, I think it's basically standard practice in election coverage to give the more space to the winner than the loser. Either way, it's not really a great image for this article since it's not specifically related to any text in the article itself. The Washington Post is mentioned a few times, but nothing about that particular edition. Also, if it's not a free image, then I'm not sure Wikipedia's non-free image policy allows its inclusion except on article specifically about that image. Not 100% sure on that though. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. It can only be used one place. --WMSR (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide proof of this claim. The non-free use conditions do not specify only using it on one article as far as I see. It actually wasn't how the forms were initially filled out on June 17, 2016, but that does not make it law... Were it true, though, we could also retire it from use at the WaPo after its 3.5 years of loyal service. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

From WP:NFC#NFCUUI under Unacceptable use: An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). In this case, the main article would be The Washington Post. Also, per WP:F, [n]ote that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale. You did not provide a fair-use rationale for its use on this page. Images also must satisfy the requirements of WP:IUP, which all of the deleted images fail to do in this article. --WMSR (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. I filled out the fair-use rationale template for its use on this page and provided the link to that form in the comment you are responding to. I'm not sure I follow your logic, about images about images but reading the page you link, it looks like sufficiently thick wikilex jungle that we should all throw up our hands and run in the other direction. :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I read your rationale. Are you trying to assert that Wikipedia is biased against Sanders because on their page for The Washington Post, the image is a front page featuring Hillary Clinton after she won the primaries? That is a huge stretch, and will not pass muster. It is also not an assertion made anywhere in the text of the article (nor should it be). In addition to everything I've said before, which still holds true, this article is not about Wikip edia, and satire is not a legitimate fair-use rationale. Per WP:NFCCP, you must demonstrate that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --WMSR (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. The only thing I think is that Wikipedia has associated the Washington Post primarily with Hillary Clinton in advertising their June 8, 2016 front page for the last 3.5 years to 7.4 million eyeballs. This is not entirely surprising given all the Clinton Foundation people (e.g. Minassian, Oliver) on MoveCom and all the Democratic activists on en.wp. I will remove the word "satire" as indeed it is "parody", "comment" and "criticism" which allow for fair use... but as I see there's no way that you will allow the image to be used on this page regardless of what the actual law governing free use is, it's really not worth my time to play with it. Consider the issue of using the WaPo infobox illustration in this article closed, despite the fact that it shows WaPo covered Bernie Sanders on the date in question. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is not presented anywhere in the text of the article, and conspiracy theories are not adequate substitutes for reliably-sourced statements of fact. And fair use requires all of the criteria be met, including the ones I listed before, which the image does not and cannot satisfy. You are correct that I will revert any edit to re-add the image, with a clear, policy-based justification. --WMSR (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

All those who have left that image on the Wa.Po entry after the general as a nod to the Chicago Tribune "Dewey Wins!" cover are excellent satirists. We need more people here capable of such humor. As for your claim that somehow using the WaPo cover showing Sanders would be using "an image to illustrate an article passage about the image N/A, if the image has its own article N/A" ... knock yourself out with it. There is one rule on that page (about magazine/book covers) which could be stretched to make the fair-use claim inappropriate if this were a BLP rather than a media coverage page, but the one you picked is unrelated to anything. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the picture of the Washington Post page is okay, but if we're going to have pictures of media, wouldn't it be better to have them be coverage of Sanders, since that's the topic of the article? As for the Reverend Barber picture, neither he nor the Poor People's Campaign are ever mentioned in this article as far as I can tell, so there's no reason to have pictures of them. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do acknowledge that Barber is the image I had the most doubts about, because while Sanders has worked with Barber quite a bit (cf. Bernie's Podcast #1 on his senate site (Feb 2017?), their public discussion at Duke in 2018), it does seem to me unfair to associate him with one particular campaign: this would be much more justified in a media coverage of the Democratic primaries (2000-2020) article. It does illustrate the paragraph pretty well though. :P I also appreciate the link you added above, it has some sources, whereas the link I've added to the lede is one of en.wp's many zero source articles. I think that link should probably be changed. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede

Gandydancer, please revert your edit adding {{cn}} to sentences in the lede. The citations can be found in the body of the text. The lede of an article usually does not contain citations. --WMSR (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually I believe that WP suggests that if there is likely to be contention lead citations should be used and it seems that there is plenty of that surrounding this article. Furthermore, in my experience if some statements in the lead have citations but not others, as was the case here, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will soon come along asking for a ref. (Thanks to Sashi for fixing it.) Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Renewed BRD violations and other behavioral problems

The editor SashiRolls has now on many many occasions made new changes to the article that other editors have reverted and challenged on the talk page. When these changes are reverted, SashiRolls follows up with an immediate restoration of his changes, thus putting other editors in a position where they have to revert him again (edit-warring) or effectively let SashiRolls write the article as he exclusively pleases, even when he is in a clear minority on a specific issue on the talk page (this is covered well under WP:OWN). Furthermore, when attempts are made to address content, the editor not only casts aspersions but fills the talk page with ramblings that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand or tangentially related, thus making it nearly pointless to try to discuss content with him and others. Given that I have volunteered not to edit-war (per Awilley's pressure) and given the extensive nature of SashiRolls's tendentious editing, it is nearly impossible to edit this page anymore.

• On 19 Jan, I reverted a new change made by SashiRolls.[9] Twenty minutes later, the content was restored.[10] Furthermore, multiple editors have challenged all the David Brock related content that this editor has added to the page.

• On 21 Jan, I reverted new changes to the lead made by SashiRolls.[11] Ten minutes later, the content was restored.[12]

It is not feasible to edit under these conditions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware nobody has objected to the Brock content in the article right now. As I recall MrX put it exactly where it is right now.

Team "Notherethere" has deleted multiple RS in their crusade against having too much front-facing information about Brock in this entry. That's a possible choice, not my preferred one admittedly, given all the solid sources. Goodness, six name checks. What terrible thing could I have done? Oh, yes. Made the title of the entry the first words of the entry, as per convention.

Also, this is your history on this page. (Thanks, Σ) 🎻 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, your assertion that nobody has objected to the Brock content in the article right now is simply untrue. Your tendentious editing has just made it impossible to edit this article. As time goes on, I (and I imagine others as well) am less likely to edit this article because I don't want to deal with the roadblocks you constantly put up. Snooganssnoogans hit the nail on the head. --WMSR (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This same behavior has been used by Snooganssnoogans. So you aren't really making a good example there. Attempts at editing and then reverting any changes made.--WillC 08:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the facts show that WMSR has only ever deleted content or added POV tags to the entry, they have done none of the work of actually building it. (Their one consequential "green" edit was a self-revert after Bbb23 called for an admin to block them for edit-warring with another contributor.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Since SS has seen fit to bring a whole new section to the TP to complain about "behavioral problems", I think it's only fair to give my opinion of SS. SS has long had what I have considered a biased opinion of Sanders as seen here [[13]] where he removed long-standing info on the media coverage calling it "nonsense." Furthermore, I try to avoid SS, for example just staying away from from working on the ecology section of our Trump articles (where he does a great deal of editing) even though I am the leading editor of the Trump environmental article after he in one strike wiped out all the changes I was making to try to improve the rambling of what was rather a rat's nest at that article. Then when I went to his talk page, for example he complained saying that I too should have have made all of my changes in one swoop, something I sure hate when other editors do and I'd guess that most other editors do as well. At any rate, I have not followed this discussion but considering my experiences with SS anyone that tries to work with him here has chosen a tough row to hoe. No doubt he will complain about my post but he is the one that started this section wherein to place negative comments about other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The "behavioral problems" in question: (1) I made one bold edit on the Bernie Sanders and I do not believe I reverted when you reverted my bold edit.[14] Zero problem. (2) The other problem that you bring up is when you made a bold edit (which inaccurately suggested that Trump became a climate change denier after his election in 2016)[15], and I reverted you. I then explained to you that inaccuracies should be reverted immediately[16]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The question here is not whether any editor has biased views. We all do. We are human. The question is whether editors can successfully check their biases at the door when editing on this project. If your argument is that Snoogans should not be allowed to edit this article because of their perceived bias against Sanders, then the same should certainly apply to several editors of this article who have clearly demonstrated bias in favor of Sanders. Furthermore, nothing I have seen from Snoogans's edits indicates anything other than good faith. I cannot say the same for editors who have engaged in personal attacks on this talk page and mischaracterized others' edits. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and verifiable facts. Sometimes that information might not fall in line with your perception, and that's okay! We are not here to litigate what you believe, but the solution to that issue is not focusing your search for sources on unrelated material that portrays someone in a more positive or negative light. It is certainly not discouraging community editing by making tendentious edits. Your views matter, but so do others', and that's what makes Wikipedia the excellent resource it is. --WMSR (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of your behavioural problems WMSR, why do you revert edits (images) and then refuse to discuss when sections are opened about your revert on the talk page, preferring to rant about others rather than to explain your slashing? Smells like typical tag-team WP:GAMING to me...🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You are again moving into WP:PA territory, which I would urge you to stop. I am not attempting to game the system. Regarding the removal of images, I explained myself in the edit summary; the images were not relevant to the text of the article, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Regardless, these debates should be about content, yet you constantly find it necessary to go after editors instead when they make edits that don't fit your view of the subject. --WMSR (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finally replying 24 hours after your reversion and after being called out on it. Your bare assertion carries no weight. Red Rock Canyon made an argument, which, while it was inaccurate, was pretty clearly meant to be constructive.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing Red Rock Canyon said was incorrect. Please stop casting aspersions at other editors. Your conduct at this talk page has been less than civil, and I really have no desire to go to a noticeboard again about this article. --WMSR (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: saying that someone made an inaccurate argument is not casting aspersions. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Alleging that I have behavioural problems most certainly is. --WMSR (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was created to accuse SashiRolls and is called (Renewed BRD violations and other "behavioral problems").--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I did not create this section. The editor who did laid out specific instances, with diffs, of SashiRolls's violations of BRD in the article and lack of civility on the talk page. Second, I have no record of any wrongdoing (beyond an accidental 1RR violation which I acknowledged and self-reverted), so accusing me of having behavioural problems with no evidence is the literal definition of casting aspersions. --WMSR (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• General note: the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improvements for the associated article, not to discuss the behavioral problems of other editors. But since this is here... @Snooganssnoogans: This article is currently under a 1RR restriction, but per the examples you cite, that's not preventing SashiRolls from immediately reinstating their changes over your objections. Do you think adding an additional "24hr BRD" sanction on top of the 1RR would help? (In my mind it might help level the playing field a bit and would prevent the 10 and 20 minute knee-jerk reverts, but wouldn't fully prevent slower long-term gaming of 1RR.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I opened a WP:FOC compliant section below.
• The present header—having been edit-warred onto the talk page—should be closed now.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, it's totally understandable that you're too busy to get into the weeds of this, and I hope all is well in your personal life. This is more an example of an editor, which I have a long history with, exploiting my voluntary editing restrictions, which is precisely what I warned would happen. Due to my editing restrictions, I'm essentially incapable of editing this page anymore, even to restore a status quo version from controversial new changes. The two examples I mention above are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of examples where (i) SashiRolls makes a new change, (ii) I revert part/all of the change, and (iii) SashiRolls immediately restores the contested new changes. As you can see from the editing history of the page, I've mostly given up editing this page since early January (the two examples above are among my rare edits since then), because SashiRolls steamrolls over every edit I make. The current state of the article (which I would consider to be very sub-par, both in terms of writing and substance) does not reflect consensus and compromise among editors, but is essentially whatever SashiRolls has decided should or should not be in the article (albeit with some exceptions). A clear example of this mind-numbingly tendentious editing is that content sourced to a 2018 Princeton University Press book (Sides, Tesler and Vavreck 2018 – the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of the article) has been dwindled down to two brief sentences in the body and is wrongly summarized in the lead of the article (SashiRolls has even basically admitted that he hasn't read the book). If I were to respond in kind and slowly edit-war to restore the status quo version, I would violate my voluntary editing restrictions. And given that SashiRolls contests every single change I make, it is not feasible to seek multiple dispute resolutions (because I have a life, even though SashiRolls insults me as some kind of "unemployed" loser[17]). I don't think there is much point putting up 24-hr-BRD and 1RR rules when the other editor in question is willing to game those rules (I'm also pretty sure that the editor has on several occasions violated the existing 1RR rule but I don't have time to compile the data – confirmed on at least 1 occasion where he was formally "warned" by an admin on the EW noticeboard) to slowly edit-war rather than abide by the spirit of BRD and consensus requirements for new changes. The solution here is to make sure that the other editor starts behaving in the spirit of the rules, because the rules alone do not work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• What "voluntary editing restrictions" were these, Snoog?
• 00:42 22.01.20 revert #1
• 00:45 22.01.20 revert #2

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, the change proposed by Awilley would apply to the article, not the talk page. There was no discussion at all of imposing additional restrictions here. Your edit warring on the talk page is certainly worth bringing up somewhere, but it's not what's being discussed here. --WMSR (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC is policy. I was trying to help Snoog avoid being blocked for their 2nd clear-cut policy violation in 21 days (510 hours), weirdly. I stopped as soon as I realized how dumb that was. Snoog did not.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Snooganssnoogans I'm with you on this. I'm having the same issues you are without any self-imposed restrictions, just trying to abide by 1RR. Editors have made little effort on the talk page at civility (see the title of the thread below) and the article as a whole is clearly written to make a WP:POINT, no matter how hard editors work to maintain neutrality. If you have any ideas on how to go forward, I'm all ears. --WMSR (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls has nothing to apologize for. This entire section is a fatuous personal attack and should be deleted.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Further number-crunching for the 2016 primary

This article by decisiondata.org studies archive.org from June 2015 to January 2016 and observes the following correlation:

Candidate	Web searches	Press Coverage	Ratio
Hillary Clinton	9,235,231	87,737	105:1
Bernie Sanders	21,536,032	29,525	729:1
Donald Trump	37,046,010	183,903	201:1

FWIW. Compare to consultation of en.wp numbers given above... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is precisely why WP:SYNTH exists. We cannot and should not draw conclusions from this (or any) data. --WMSR (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The denialism is strong with this one. Corroborating hard data from every direction, but lalala didn't hear that. ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Coverage from June 2015 to January 2016 is actually coverage from 2015, no? Not 2016. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

2016 as opposed to 2020. I've edited the header to make that clearer.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The following was deleted on the basis that caucus states would make it such that Sanders' would be massively underepresented in the 78% total (since caucuses, which Sanders primarily won by wide margins except for IA, & NV) are excluded from the tally):

"According to Patterson, Sanders got two-thirds of the coverage Clinton got during the Democratic primary as a whole, as compared to 78% of the votes she got in the Democratic primary."

So, for example, in Washington only 19K votes were counted for Sanders, though he won by a 45% spread in a state with a population of over 7 million. [[18]]. Hilarious.

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I opposed it for two reasons: (i) This is WP:SYNTH. Your own personal analysis of media bias does not belong on this encyclopedia. (ii) I do not have much interest in debating your own analysis with you, but raw vote count is an imprecise and flawed measurement if the goal is to try to link vote count to an appropriate share of media coverage. Not only did a bunch of states have caucuses (which massively reduce participation and thus alter vote shares), but a bunch of primaries took place after the Associated Press had called the race for Clinton, thus affecting participation in those primaries. Furthermore, coverage closely tracks polling, and if one candidate is an overwhelming favorite in polls before the actual primary voting starts, then the amount of total coverage will reflect that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that media coverage lagged even farther behind voter interest (and online interest) even than the clear data I presented above. I also notice that you cited Hillary Clinton's memoir in the first line of her section in your new entry: Media_coverage_of_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Hillary_Clinton, after deleting Jeff Weaver's book with lots of verifiable facts about media dirty tricks from this page. I hope most people see your double standard and selective quoting. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(i) That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. (ii) Clinton's memoir was cited as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("In her book, she argued X") and it was sourced to BBC News. I'm unclear what you're referring to with your "Weaver" content, but this content[19] was not cited as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but instead stated the content from his book as fact. Furthermore, there was no secondary RS coverage of anything Weaver said, making it WP:UNDUE. It's an illustrative example of what policy-compliant content looks like, and what policy-noncompliant content looks like. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As anyone can see, Weaver's name is in both sentences with the claims attributed to him. This isn't the only time you deleted the source. You also deleted it here where it draws attention to an article in the HuffPost about ol' Brock. MrX had previously prétendu (means "claimed" in French, amusingly) that there was no such chapter title. ctrl-f: fishy. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥}

The HuffPost article does not mention Weaver. The HuffPost article also has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders. A pro-Clinton Super PAC criticizing Sanders is not media bias against Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As you very well know Weaver talks about the HuffPost article and Brock. Weaver is an excellent reference on Brock.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"reported" and "described" suggests that what Weaver is saying is factual. It's not ATTRIBUTEPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Remind me did I ever restore that content once WMSR decreed that we should not have a social media coverage section? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That is clearly not within the purview of this article. In the case of this article, "the media" refers to journalistic media. --WMSR (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In-text attribution is very different from attribution in the ref. And, again, what happened to WP:FOC being sacrosanct? --WMSR (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

🐟