Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Matthews comments

That editor who just reverted someone for typos, now has removed sourced content saying this isn't Matthews' article, just because I copied part of it here. The removal was selective so that it removes the reason why Matthews comments were viewed badly, the editor removed that reason which is that Bernie Sanders family were killed by Nazis and that he is Jewish--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the editor WMSR.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:, Sanders's family history is not the issue here. This article is about media coverage of Sanders as a whole. It is not a collection of every perceived slight against Sanders from every pundit. Matthews said something that was fundamentally wrong. He faced criticism for it. He apologized for it. That does not warrant a deep dive into the lives of Sanders's ancestors on an article about media coverage. --WMSR (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No body said that Sanders family is the issue. The issue is explaining why Matthews comments were viewed badly, without the explanation nothing seems controversial about Matthews comments. Matthews comments in MSNBC got international coverage just because the fact that Bernie is Jewish and his family was killed by Nazis and Matthews in MSNBC likened him to Nazis. If he was not Jewish, like if he was Trump, Matthews comments would not have gotten this international coverage. So obviously, the fact that he is Jewish and the fact that his family were killed by Nazis is part of this media controversy. You said in the edit summary "This is not Matthews article" and here you have changed the goalpost to "Bernie Sanders family is not the issue". You obviously have got no argument.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is combining separately researched material with the Matthews comment that is not contained in either cited source for this section. Sanders' press secretary made a statement about family members being murdered in the Holocaust that was quoted in the NYT, but neither source confirms it. This reads like WP:SYNTH, which is prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam Refactoring header. Read WP:TPG. Do not phrase talk page headings as criticisms, implied or direct, at other editor's actions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted my deletion for procedural reasons, but I want to clarify that I still don't believe that the content you introduced belongs in the article. This article should not be a collection of instances of the media treating Sanders well or poorly. I'm not saying this incident isn't notable, but I am saying that we don't need to go into detail about it. I hope that's a worthwhile compromise. --WMSR (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again, another goalpost. We are not going into details, we are clarifying why that was controversial. Removing that part make the whole controversy unclear. Also, are you saying this article should be deleted?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please keep this about content. In general, yes, I think this article should be deleted, but in that comment, my point was that a list of instances doesn't demonstrate anything about the notability of a subject or give the reader a concrete understanding of the issue at hand. If this article doesn't make strides in that direction, my view in favor of deletion will remain. --WMSR (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 (edit conflict), the source from SPS says Mr Sanders was born in New York to a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland. Many of his relatives were killed in Nazi death camps during the Holocaust.[1]

Other sources also mention that but in attribution.

The fact that Bernie's family was killed by Nazis is obviously the most important reason why Matthews comments were controversial.

Also don't change the header again, the only reason I am in here is because the editor is removing content without without providing an argument.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam Don't make demands. The header is meant to reflect what specific content is under discussion so that it the thread can be easily followed by other editors. Not for you to grind an axe against other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I provided one, you just didn't agree with it. The previous paragraph discussed Sanders's religion, and Nazi comparisons are distasteful no matter one's religion. --WMSR (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: This is what happens when we have an article exclusively focused on a niche subject like "coverage of a candidate." This could be summed up in a paragraph or two at Bernie Sanders. SharabSalam, I presume you're familiar with WP:NOTNEWS since you've cited it before. How do you feel that policy applies to a page like this? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You are disruptively making deletionist arguments in this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Matthews's comment was newsworthy. I just think that portraying his comment as akin to the norm of Sanders's media coverage is problematic. --WMSR (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict), This is absolutely a notable controversy. You're obviously not familiar with what WP:NOTNEWS means you should also be familiar with WP:GAMING, suggest you read it. Also, WMSR, your edit summary was not a reason to remove that part. Your response here is also a totally different argument. And yet none of your arguments are actually arguments. Removing the core reason why this is a controversy is not justified by your arguments when every relevant source mention it, either attributing or in its voice.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on content. And no, I've been consistent. Clearly we disagree about the core of the controversy though. It was wrong to compare Sanders to Nazis, as it would be wrong to compare any non-Nazi to Nazis. I understand that most of these articles have an aside about Sanders being Jewish. This article also mentions that fact in the previous paragraph. All of that Sanders's family history is largely irrelevant here, since there is, I think, broad consensus that nobody should go around calling people Nazis. --WMSR (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am focusing on the content. What you think is interesting but it's irrelevant here. We go with sources, all sources note that the controversy was about Sanders being Jewish and his family were killed by Nazis, the same people who Matthews likened him to. Even this reliable Australian source says Mr Sanders was born in New York to a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland. Many of his relatives were killed in Nazi death camps during the Holocaust.[2]-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That is true of most people with Ashkenazic backgrounds, and this article has noted that Sanders is Jewish. Like I said before, I get that several articles include Sanders's religion as an aside, but we summarize the information presented in sources, and that once sentence is not the basis of these articles. It certainly does belong in Sanders's biographical article. --WMSR (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The core of the controversy is that Sanders is Jewish and his family were killed by Nazis who the MSNBC Matthews likened him to. That's what reliable relevant sources say. "This is true for most Ashkenazic people", how is this related to this discussion? This isn't an argument, you are again changing the goalpost, now "this is true for most Ashkenazic backgrounds". We go with what reliable sources say, we don't go with your opinions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. The sources do not say that. They mention that he is Jewish, but say that the controversy is about Matthews's comments. --WMSR (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The source literally says Mr Sanders was born in New York to a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland. Many of his relatives were killed in Nazi death camps during the Holocaust.[3] why would relevant sources note that Bernie Sanders family were killed by Nazis?. Also read the other sources. They all report that those who criticised MSNBC comments noted that Bernie Sanders family were killed by Nazis. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources allege that Sanders's religion is the core issue of the controversy. --WMSR (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That Sanders religion is the core of the controversy? You mean that he is Jewish? What are they saying then?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: for what it's worth, I agree with the removal here: [4]. This is not a Matthews article, and the present level of detail is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Selective removal of the core reason why a controversy is a controversy is not acceptable. Removing that part made it unclear why Matthews comments were bad. The part that was removed was about Bernie being Jewish and his family were killed by the same people who Matthews compared him with.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's sad to come back on here and still see the attempt to delete this by the same editors simply because they dont like the subject matter. There appears to be a large amount of bias and desire to remove leftist pages, not based on policy but based on an agenda.--WillC 03:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

State of this article

This article is nothing more than a compilation of quotes from opinion pieces and statistics from second-tier sources. Just about anything tangentially related to "coverage of Bernie Sanders" seems to be dumped into this still very short article. Frankly, this article offers very little in terms of concrete information and offers very little value. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review have failed to earn consensus, but I think it's time we start a merger discussion with Bernie Sanders. Some of the content can be salvaged, but by and large this page doesn't have much to stand on its own. Thoughts? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. I think I should note this in your ANI thread.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, what you're apparently not understanding is 1) a deletion review is different from a merger discussion, and several votes against deletion in the AfD review noted they'd support a merger, and 2) ANI is not for content disputes, it's for personal attacks, not unlike how your comments on this page might be construed. I suggest a change in attitude and more focus on content or you might find yourself at ANI having to explain your own comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You can start a merge discussion. I want to see you making a comment under every vote as you did in the last deletion review.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The comment above is a personal attack. Please remove it. --WMSR (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In the second AfD, some editors who defended this page in the first one (including the original author) seemed to begin coming around to support TNT-ing it, because (according to them) the current article is nothing like what it started as, and had become a PoV-slanted piece of advocacy in favor of "there has been no meaningful bias." They said the rename (which was aimed at placating editors who thought the title was biased) was a large factor in this happening and thus was a mistake. Instead, they voiced support for a new article titled "Bernie Blackout" or some other. But, I'm guessing the "delete" advocates would be vehemently opposed to it and see it as trying to relitigate an achieved rename consensus.

This article would be significantly longer were it not for heavy moderation and preference-for-deletion from multiple active editors. WP:COATRACK concerns have been discussed many times already, seemingly with no consensus. Regarding that, I have personally warned about the continuum fallacy that makes it easy for someone to argue that nearly nothing should be written here as, in the end, the media bias phenomenon consists of individually pretty meaningless incidents that together, when they mount up, become a significant topic of discussion. Taken to the logical extreme, the fallacy would only allow for inclusion of media studies and other such review-like tertiary sources, which would leave this article a stub.

So, here are my thoughts. I don't really know what to support at this point, because the very motivated detractors of this article have made contributing to it more effort than it seems worth, but then giving up would set a precedent of letting whichever side is more motivated and has more time to curate what gets and doesn't get added to Wikipedia as they see fit, regardless of rules or other such qualifiers. Selvydra (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not for Original Research, which this article largely becomes when editors cherry pick pundit statements to 'prove' a preferred viewpoint (ie individually pretty meaningless incidents that together, when they mount up, become a significant topic of discussion). American politics and it's media are so decisive these days it's very easy to show bias or hatred of any national politician by just pulling articles from companies that don't support them.

Second, an article that can not be written in the Wikipedia voice should always be questioned as whether it should exist. Heavy use of attribution is the sign that a topic is composed of opinions, not facts.

Third, I would support at this point moving the article to "Bernie Blackout". At least then, a coherent article might be written with a specific goal and rebuttal. POVFORK may be an issue, but at least "Bernie Blackout" is a real topic of discussion.

Point against the move is that redirect traffic shows "Bernie Blackout" is not all that popular a term on wikipedia.

Slywriter (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Merging this article into the Sanders article. It's merely a form of deleting this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - per GoodDay. Arguments in favor of merger seem strained at best. Jusdafax (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: seems sufficient for a stand-alone article. To avoid issues of WP:OR, it's best to draw from sources that specialise in Media criticism. It may be harder to find such for the 2020 campaign vs 2016, but there are plenty of newsrooms that have media reporters, i.e. those that specialise in analysing media coverage. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent removal of content and sources

Recently this editor has removed a lot of content from the article including the one which we are discussing above claiming that there is lack of consensus. The editor also removed Media bias in the United States and added Bernie Bros to the see also.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source from the WaPo instead of medium, which MxR removed because it was not reliable, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/10/clinton-warrior-david-brock-offers-an-apology-and-his-allegiance-to-bernie-sanders/ --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would that be removed? Even if it's an opinion piece it reports on facts. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, medium is a blog, a self-publishing source. It should be avoided but I have provided a source from the WaPo above.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a section to discuss the article improvements which took me 30 minutes to research and make. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be indiscriminate collections of loosely related facts artlessly arranged by date. My goal is for this article to read as a cohesive work that adequately covers the subject rather than a tit-for-tat between media giants and media midgets. My edit summaries explained my edits, but here are some further explanations:

[13] Phases like "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who months later would endorse Sanders, described the article as anti-semitic" are amateurish. It is not information worthy of a serious encyclopedia. I explained above why "...to remove attacks on Sanders" misrepresents the source.
[14] The In These Time paragraph adds little to the overall subject. Vice is not a high quality source. The reader is left wondering why "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and why it matters.
[15] This is excessive detail about Chris Matthews' comments.
[16] This is not about the subject overall. It's an isolated example of a very narrow window of time.
[17] Medium is not a reliable source.
[18] I added the year.
[19] I added Bernie bro to the see also section because I had removed an WP:EGG link in a prior edit.
[20] I removed an unused heading.
[21] I fixed the Bernie Bro link.
[22] I moved (not removed) a wikilink from the see also section to the the article.
[23] SharabSalam pressed a button and reverted all of my edits at once, with an edit summary that seems to disregard WP:ONUS. - Mr X 🖋 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What AOC said about the politico report is definitely notable. Don't make subjective arguments, we need a reasons for the removal not opinions. Reliable sources reporting AOC comment about a coverage of a major newspaper and says it's anti-Semitic is definitely due weight.
You said, [t]he reader is left wondering why "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and why it matters. How doesn't matter? And why would the reader wonder? It's about the amount of coverage. the times was talking about the amount of coverage. Your overall argument here is totally subjective and not based on a reason.
I agree with the summary about the Chris Matthews but I wasn't able to pick it and revert it back using my phone.
You removed content and a source from media watchdog fairness and accuracy which was referenced in many books and reports e.g [24][25][26]
I removed medium in my next edit and I said that I will remove it in my next edit when I reverted. I have provided a source from the WaPo.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance of Brock in any of this. He did not work for a media outlet, and if we are classifying content from PACs and interest groups to be on the same level as journalism, that opens a lot of doors that really should stay closed. We also should not be using number of mentions as a metric for media bias. Joe Biden's son has been involved in a major controversy during pretty much the entire course of the primaries, and Biden's name tends to come up when his son is mentioned. --WMSR (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

On AOC, have other congressional members chimed in? Have any Jewish members? If the answer is no, then there is zero reason to include one member who is an ACTIVE supporter/surrogate of Bernie Sanders

I find all references using quantity as barometer to be useless. Shall we also include sources that show Bernie got 10x more coverage than his opponents in the 4 minutes after midnight on some random day? It's cherry picked data. Editors have a responsiblility to the reader to provide meaningful data with proper context, not pick data based on it furthering a narrative. Stats don't lie, statisticians do. Slywriter (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it is in Wikipedia, if reliable sources give AOC relevant comment on the subject weight then it's going to be included. Also your findings are interesting but we should not rely on them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Alas, in the days of 24 hour news networks, RS comment on most everything. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Support all changes. The signal to noise ratio has been a problem with this article. The fact that the article uses many less than stellar resources for a massively covered campaign suggests that it is an article searching for a purpose. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for commenting. I have restored some of my changes that are not substantially opposed here. I still think the FAIR paragraph and the In These Times paragraph should be removed, but I will hold of to see if there is consensus to retain them. - Mr X 🖋 22:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, why do you want to remove the in these times report?

Anyways, In your recent edit you added that you need a secondary source for fairness and accuracy, here are some [27][28]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the In These Times quantitative analysis is flawed and unscientific. Vice and Jacobin seem to pick up this flawed analysis and run with it like a child with scissors. Both authors have "interesting" takes [29][30] on the slate of democratic candidates that lead me to believe that they are not the most objective journalists reporting about Bernie. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that they really like Bernie and believe he is being treated unfairly:[31][32]. Oh, and Clio Chang from Vice, freelance writing for Esquire, has a dog in this hunt also:[33] - Mr X 🖋 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, those concerns can be raised in WP:RSN, not here. Those sources are considered reliable. If anyone is going to make such an argument as yours, Trump-supporters editors or right-wing editors would not see CNN or NYT as a reliable source because their writers are criticizing Trump every single day or criticizing right-wing politicians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, "I my opinion" should not be used to justify the removal of content. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam Those concerns can and have been raised here. Comparing Vice and Jacobin with CNN and NYT is just silly. Of course editors' opinions factor into content decisions, irrespective of whether content is being removed or inserted. I'm aware that not everyone agrees with my opinion (or yours), but from the discussion above, I don't see anything resembling consensus for keeping this material in the article. - Mr X 🖋 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you are not making an objective argument for the removal. Sources are reliable and considered reliable. Saying that you and like-minded editors just dont want that content is not going to change the fact that there is no objective reason to remove that content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That's just not the case. The sources here are a progressive magazine, a democratic socialist magazine, and an editorial. That does not add up to a reliable source. WP:RSP makes no determination about the reliability of Vice. --WMSR (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so. I backed my argument with reasoning about about the questionable quality of the reporting, and the Bernie cheerleading by the very reporters writing some of the articles. You have offered little more than policy shortcuts, misinterpretations of policies, and an elbow to the groin about "like-minded editors". (Unless, by "like-minded editors", you actually mean "consensus"?) - Mr X 🖋 03:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"[debate]... in which Sanders did not perform well"

@Critical Chris: I just wanted to let you know that "in which Sanders did not perform well" is neither subjective nor unsourced.[34] It is found in the cited Washington Post article, twelfth paragraph:

But if you're going to take a one-day sample — on a day when Sanders was coming off a debate performance that was widely panned — you're going to find a lot of opinion and analysis that reflects that consensus.
— [35]

Note also the link to the Salon article with the headline Sanders slips during debate: Bernie needed a good showing in Michigan, but instead came across as condescending and short-sighted. - Mr X 🖋 16:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I restored the characterization of Sanders' performing poorly at the Michigan debate, and included the source for that characterization: Amanda Marcotte writing at Salon. - Critical Chris 17:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also added a contrasting source (Vox Media) for better balance. - Critical Chris 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent removal of content and sources

Recently this editor has removed a lot of content from the article including the one which we are discussing above claiming that there is lack of consensus. The editor also removed Media bias in the United States and added Bernie Bros to the see also.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source from the WaPo instead of medium, which MxR removed because it was not reliable, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/10/clinton-warrior-david-brock-offers-an-apology-and-his-allegiance-to-bernie-sanders/ --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would that be removed? Even if it's an opinion piece it reports on facts. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, medium is a blog, a self-publishing source. It should be avoided but I have provided a source from the WaPo above.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a section to discuss the article improvements which took me 30 minutes to research and make. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be indiscriminate collections of loosely related facts artlessly arranged by date. My goal is for this article to read as a cohesive work that adequately covers the subject rather than a tit-for-tat between media giants and media midgets. My edit summaries explained my edits, but here are some further explanations:

[36] Phases like "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who months later would endorse Sanders, described the article as anti-semitic" are amateurish. It is not information worthy of a serious encyclopedia. I explained above why "...to remove attacks on Sanders" misrepresents the source.
[37] The In These Time paragraph adds little to the overall subject. Vice is not a high quality source. The reader is left wondering why "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and why it matters.
[38] This is excessive detail about Chris Matthews' comments.
[39] This is not about the subject overall. It's an isolated example of a very narrow window of time.
[40] Medium is not a reliable source.
[41] I added the year.
[42] I added Bernie bro to the see also section because I had removed an WP:EGG link in a prior edit.
[43] I removed an unused heading.
[44] I fixed the Bernie Bro link.
[45] I moved (not removed) a wikilink from the see also section to the the article.
[46] SharabSalam pressed a button and reverted all of my edits at once, with an edit summary that seems to disregard WP:ONUS. - Mr X 🖋 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What AOC said about the politico report is definitely notable. Don't make subjective arguments, we need a reasons for the removal not opinions. Reliable sources reporting AOC comment about a coverage of a major newspaper and says it's anti-Semitic is definitely due weight.
You said, [t]he reader is left wondering why "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and why it matters. How doesn't matter? And why would the reader wonder? It's about the amount of coverage. the times was talking about the amount of coverage. Your overall argument here is totally subjective and not based on a reason.
I agree with the summary about the Chris Matthews but I wasn't able to pick it and revert it back using my phone.
You removed content and a source from media watchdog fairness and accuracy which was referenced in many books and reports e.g [47][48][49]
I removed medium in my next edit and I said that I will remove it in my next edit when I reverted. I have provided a source from the WaPo.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance of Brock in any of this. He did not work for a media outlet, and if we are classifying content from PACs and interest groups to be on the same level as journalism, that opens a lot of doors that really should stay closed. We also should not be using number of mentions as a metric for media bias. Joe Biden's son has been involved in a major controversy during pretty much the entire course of the primaries, and Biden's name tends to come up when his son is mentioned. --WMSR (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

On AOC, have other congressional members chimed in? Have any Jewish members? If the answer is no, then there is zero reason to include one member who is an ACTIVE supporter/surrogate of Bernie Sanders

I find all references using quantity as barometer to be useless. Shall we also include sources that show Bernie got 10x more coverage than his opponents in the 4 minutes after midnight on some random day? It's cherry picked data. Editors have a responsiblility to the reader to provide meaningful data with proper context, not pick data based on it furthering a narrative. Stats don't lie, statisticians do. Slywriter (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it is in Wikipedia, if reliable sources give AOC relevant comment on the subject weight then it's going to be included. Also your findings are interesting but we should not rely on them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Alas, in the days of 24 hour news networks, RS comment on most everything. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Support all changes. The signal to noise ratio has been a problem with this article. The fact that the article uses many less than stellar resources for a massively covered campaign suggests that it is an article searching for a purpose. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for commenting. I have restored some of my changes that are not substantially opposed here. I still think the FAIR paragraph and the In These Times paragraph should be removed, but I will hold of to see if there is consensus to retain them. - Mr X 🖋 22:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, why do you want to remove the in these times report?

Anyways, In your recent edit you added that you need a secondary source for fairness and accuracy, here are some [50][51]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the In These Times quantitative analysis is flawed and unscientific. Vice and Jacobin seem to pick up this flawed analysis and run with it like a child with scissors. Both authors have "interesting" takes [52][53] on the slate of democratic candidates that lead me to believe that they are not the most objective journalists reporting about Bernie. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that they really like Bernie and believe he is being treated unfairly:[54][55]. Oh, and Clio Chang from Vice, freelance writing for Esquire, has a dog in this hunt also:[56] - Mr X 🖋 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, those concerns can be raised in WP:RSN, not here. Those sources are considered reliable. If anyone is going to make such an argument as yours, Trump-supporters editors or right-wing editors would not see CNN or NYT as a reliable source because their writers are criticizing Trump every single day or criticizing right-wing politicians.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, "I my opinion" should not be used to justify the removal of content. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam Those concerns can and have been raised here. Comparing Vice and Jacobin with CNN and NYT is just silly. Of course editors' opinions factor into content decisions, irrespective of whether content is being removed or inserted. I'm aware that not everyone agrees with my opinion (or yours), but from the discussion above, I don't see anything resembling consensus for keeping this material in the article. - Mr X 🖋 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, you are not making an objective argument for the removal. Sources are reliable and considered reliable. Saying that you and like-minded editors just dont want that content is not going to change the fact that there is no objective reason to remove that content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That's just not the case. The sources here are a progressive magazine, a democratic socialist magazine, and an editorial. That does not add up to a reliable source. WP:RSP makes no determination about the reliability of Vice. --WMSR (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so. I backed my argument with reasoning about about the questionable quality of the reporting, and the Bernie cheerleading by the very reporters writing some of the articles. You have offered little more than policy shortcuts, misinterpretations of policies, and an elbow to the groin about "like-minded editors". (Unless, by "like-minded editors", you actually mean "consensus"?) - Mr X 🖋 03:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"[debate]... in which Sanders did not perform well"

@Critical Chris: I just wanted to let you know that "in which Sanders did not perform well" is neither subjective nor unsourced.[57] It is found in the cited Washington Post article, twelfth paragraph:

But if you're going to take a one-day sample — on a day when Sanders was coming off a debate performance that was widely panned — you're going to find a lot of opinion and analysis that reflects that consensus.
— [58]

Note also the link to the Salon article with the headline Sanders slips during debate: Bernie needed a good showing in Michigan, but instead came across as condescending and short-sighted. - Mr X 🖋 16:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I restored the characterization of Sanders' performing poorly at the Michigan debate, and included the source for that characterization: Amanda Marcotte writing at Salon. - Critical Chris 17:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also added a contrasting source (Vox Media) for better balance. - Critical Chris 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Studies on Sanders media coverage

It seems that every one or two weeks, someone edits the lede to remove mentions of the Shorenstein study that stated Sanders' coverage was lacking even after he started performing well in the polls. Once again it is WP:NPOV and reads as though studies have concluded that allegations of bias are wholly unfounded.

The lede is supposed to reflect the existing body of work on the topic, not omit mentions of one side in favor of the other. And there is absolutely no reason to constantly reshape its wording, which up until now has been the reason given (if any) to disappear the Shorenstein study's mentions.

If an editor has a case for why the study's content should not be represented in the lede, they should come forward with it rather than deleting it in the guise of an unrelated change. Selvydra (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans – I see that you removed the aforementioned content twice since I last restored it (with another editor restoring it in between). Instead of repeatedly removing mentions of Sanders' lacking coverage in 2016 from the lede based on linguistical reasons, I ask you to argue on the merits of substance:

Why should the lede claim, without any caveats, that his coverage was correlated with his standing in the polls, when the Shorenstein study says that his coverage lagged behind his position in the race? Selvydra (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Where does the Shorenstein Center report say his coverage lagged behind his position? It only says his coverage lagged behind Clinton's. This has already been discussed, if I recall correctly (and I made this exact same point). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Emphasizing the only six-week period in which Sanders received negative coverage, as you do here[59] is undue. If someone receives a particular benefit 9 out of 10 times, then it's absurd to state: "According to research, X received more of the benefit. By contrast, research also shows during period Y, he did not receive the benefit." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The edit[60] also falsely presents this as a dispute between researchers when there is none. Saying Sanders lagged behind Clinton in coverage is not a contradiction that he received coverage consistent with his polling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Less coverage of the Democratic side worked against Bernie Sanders’ efforts to make inroads on Clinton’s support. Sanders struggled to get badly needed press attention in the early going. With almost no money or national name recognition, he needed news coverage if he was to gain traction. His poll standing at the beginning of 2015 was barely more than that of the other lagging Democratic contenders, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb. By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary.[23] Clinton got three times more coverage than he did.[24]"

1st Shorenstein report in the article, under title "The Democratic Race".

It's a bit of of a leap of faith to summarize this study as, "Yeah, his coverage was fair." There needs to be some form of caveat. Furthermore, the assertion (in "Academic analyses") that his coverage only lacked because he was polling around the same as O'Malley, Webb & co. is synth. The study clearly says that even after he surpassed them, his coverage lagged. Selvydra (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to your 2nd paragraph: That isn't my original content; I just restored it from the old version. To your point, that timespan comprised about a third of the entire primary, so I don't think it's undue. (I did trim it though, as you may have noticed.) The reason I restored it in the first place is because it is a caveat and nuance to the otherwise absolute-sounding 'his coverage was more positive'. The timespan *is* relevant here – e.g. WaPo's coverage of Sanders in the 2015–2016 timespan might have averaged positive, but if they drop a dozen negative articles of him at a time of heightened attention (a debate and a primary that would likely have ended his campaign had he lost), it is lopsidedly effective at its intended goal, and a due inclusion, at the very least as a brief note.

3rd paragraph: If you're referring to the word "Other" I added – I'm open to having it changed. I put it there to convey to the reader that the text moved on from Sides' book to the Shorenstein study. It wasn't meant as "on the contrary," but more as a neutral, "In other findings, [...]". I don't think it can be inferred from the text that his coverage specifically lagged "behind Clinton." It reads not as a relative measure but an absolute one ("his coverage was lacking" – before *and* after polling poorer than the also-rans), and trying to judge it implicitly as relative veers into OR or synth, again. Selvydra (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The study is not assessing whether Sanders's campaign coverage lagged behind his polling or some other standard of where it should be. From what I can tell, the term "lagged" is entirely in relation to Sanders' coverage vs that of the front-runner Clinton. The text you're adding to the lead is synth, and should be removed, given that there is no consensus for the inclusion of this text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Is RedState an unreliable source? Is preferential coverage of Biden off topic?

These edits were deleted. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=944070335&oldid=944051977

Here are the deleted lines:

A story on the run up to Super Tuesday by conservative website RedState noted that, "Meanwhile, the media at large have been taking a crowbar (to) the knees of Sanders and his supporters since his big win in Nevada." https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/03/03/super-tuesday-predictions-sure-to-go-wrong/

and

The Biden campaign credited their Super Tuesday success in part to free, positive media coverage. "It's been an earned media tsunami into Super Tuesday," a Biden campaign aide said Monday night. "All you're seeing is Joe Biden." https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/media/joe-biden-earned-media-reliable-sources/index.html

Do other editors agree that these are unreliably sourced or off-topic? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

(I) Of course, RedState is not an RS. (II) It's not media bias that a candidate receives disproportionate media coverage after winning a primary, has all similar candidates drop out of the race to support him, and quickly surges to front-runner status. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No, RedState is not a reliable source, especially not a random contributor, and even if attributed it fails the undue weight test. And the CNN "analysis" piece on Biden is off-topic in this article, as the piece addresses coverage of Biden, and does not discuss coverage of Sanders. It's synthesis to use this piece to make some sort of point about Sanders (and of course is completely unremarkable, given that obviously a candidate who experiences a surge of support and electoral victory will receive correspondingly greater news coverage). Neutrality^talk 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that these sources are both referring to news coverage BEFORE the South Carolina primary, when Sanders was the leading candidate. According to both your arguments, it should have been Sanders receiving massive, positive news coverage, not Biden. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't gaslight us. The CNN source literally refers to the 72-hr window from the South Carolina primary win and explicitly refers to how Biden has capitalized on his SC win and the endorsements that followed his SC win. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Also note that the CNN article talks about coverage, not positive coverage. So talking about "free, positive" media is misleading. Also the connection between coverage of Biden and coverage of Sanders needs to be explicitly made by the source. Making the contrast if the source doesn't make the contrast is WP:OR. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Fourth deletion nomination?

When would a fourth deletion nomination be possible? Bernie Sanders won the 2020 California Democratic primary by a large margin, so clearly, there is no need for an article of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. If there was substantial bias against him, he wouldn't have been able to win California. Ylevental (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It's too soon. I'd support such a nomination, but at this point, a new AfD is just going to rehash the arguments of the last one, and I'm not sure Sanders's victory in CA makes a point one way or another. --WMSR (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for replying. Ylevental (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll be arguing for a --strong keep-- as this article addresses an aspect of critical importance (the issue of the way the campaign has been covered in the news media) to understanding the 2016, and 2020 election cycle, and has encyclopedic relevance to a student studying political journalism, or political science. --Critical Chris 17:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already one such article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election. The sole reason why a separate Bernie Sanders article was created was to lend credence to a largely unsubstantiated Sanders campaign talking point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Heh, you might mention who created that article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit history and talk page would be of interest to a journalist student, not the article. As to the topic at hand, let this article age and Wikipedia editors can discuss it on more rationale terms at a later point. Slywriter (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

No point. AfDs of POVForks rarely succeed. Give it six months. O3000 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Given the recent results of Biden winning a number of states in spite of exit polls suggesting Bernie would, there still a lot of water to go under this bridge, and it's basically proving the point that Sanders is subject to bias to attempt deletion with such frivolous haste. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Smerconish conoravirus comment

The Smerconish comment about coronavirus recently restored by SharabSalam should not be part of this article. It is a scantly reported comment that does not speak to the overall subject of the article. It is WP:UNDUE inasmuch as the sources reporting it are one that we should avoid (Newsweek, Fox News, The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Caller, and Russia Today). - MrX 🖋 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

People say stupid things on TV all day long. Are we really going to documant them all? O3000 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like there is consensus not to include this at this point. - MrX 🖋 14:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be included because it is relevant media coverage of Bernie Sanders. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review analyzes Bernie coverage

This piece from CJR sill needs to be added (I haven't gotten to it): "Coverage of Bernie Sanders suffers from a lack of imagination". This is exactly the type of professional analysis that should be included. If there are too many opinions in the article about the 2020 primary, this could replace them. The author discusses many of these other opinion pieces. "After ABC News wrapped its debate on Friday night, its political panel didn’t substantively mention Sanders for 13 minutes. Over on MSNBC, Chris Matthews launched into a bizarre anti-Sanders rant, railing about the Cold War, Castro, 'the Reds,' and 'executions in Central Park.' Also last week, Matthews compared Sanders to 'some old guy with some old literature from his socialist party,' and to George McGovern.... it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that important parts of the media—newspaper opinion sections and cable news panels, in particular—lack an adequate conceptual framework for the discussion of progressive politics and issues." Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Computational social scientist's study shows "Bernie Bros" are a myth

"There is hard data that shows 'Bernie Bros' are a myth". Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a serious study. There is no peer review. It was made by a grad student supporting Bernie Sanders, and there is no access to the methodology, source code, or internal data. Zeleyou (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree - Are you able to expand on this claim the study was not "serious"?

Much less veracious sources are used without being held to the same standard, and being written by a grad' student adds to an article's veracity, rather than subtracting from it. AFAIK Salon is a reputable source and opinion pieces are actually fine if the claims are attributed to the author per WP:RS. The methodology is explained in the article. The data is on Twitter and requiring source code in order to permit an edit is an unreasonable expectation. Casting aspersions based on political views is also tantamount to a personal attack. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the editor did not cast aspersions or make a PA. Indeed, by claiming so, you are casting aspersions. A significant percent of your edits contain PAs based on a misunderstanding of WP guidelines. Please reread those policies and be more careful. And, please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this. Certainly relevant to the media coverage of Sanders. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone also mentions the study.[61]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Studies don't have to be peer reviewed to be significant, they need to have drawn attention in reliable sources. It's not rocket science to show that the typical Sanders supporter was not, as the Clinton campaign contended, an angry misogynist, racist, beer-swilling frat boy, any more than the typical Obama Boy (that's the actual term they used!) was an angry street thug and Black Muslim. They were merely false narratives in order to place Clinton in the vital center between the rednecks and the coloreds. TFD (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(1) This has nothing to do with media bias. (2) The author is not a recognized expert on the topic (and the guy's Twitter account is exclusively pro-Sanders tweets). (3) This analysis, as described in the Salon article, does not in any comprehensive show whether Sanders has a uniquely large segment of tocix supporters, and it would never be accepted in a credible political science journals. (4) In the 2016 election, Sanders supporters bandied about a "study" by a computational science PhD student, which purported to show that large-scale electoral fraud had been committed against Sanders. It was of course not a peer-reviewed study, ignored by all mainstream RS except fringe-left websites, and panned by actual recognized experts in political science. I'm glad it was not added to Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not using the report as a source but an article in a reliable source about it. Note that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what news sources should cover, but to relay what they do cover. Assuming as you believe that the frat boy and Obama boy narratives are true does not stop us from presenting other views because the criterion for inclusion is not what reflects our opinions but reflects opinions in reliable sources in proportion to their coverage. That means for example that minority views are also included to the extent they have received attention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This can receive a brief mention with attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Book is imprecise for Sides et al. It's a study.

An IP editor is edit-warring out a description of a 2016 study. By describing it as a "book", the editor makes it unclear to readers whether its contents are academic or not. Referring to it as a "study" makes it clear that this is a peer-reviewed academic book, and that we are describing the study's findings (rather than some random person's opinions). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Further elaboration on reversion of lede changes

So, this has been a long-term dispute that, to my mind, has been fought with Wikilawyering rather than discussing the heart of the matter: How does the lede read to a person visiting this page? Instead of a discussion here that engages with that, there has mostly been silence – followed by edits that gradually and unidirectionally shift the formerly neutral POV; each time with different reasons given that disregard the always-same consequences to NPOV.

Although it seems to be a dead end, I'll regardless engage with the reasons that were used to remove only the aspects of unfavorable coverage of Sanders and leave the favorable aspects in place:

(1) Reason given: "it's synth to juxtapose this with the findings of the other study. this particular study is not evaluating where the coverage relative to some standard like polling, but rather in terms of simply whether he was behind or ahead of clinton. the next sentence makes it perfectly clear that Sanders received less media coverage. in the absence of consensus for this content and the fact that it's synth, it should not be in the lead."

This sentence isn't juxtaposed with the findings of the other study vis-a-vis correlation with polling, but on the nature of his coverage. To discuss the polling correlation at such length in the lede would likely be undue (too in-depth and too much focus on this aspect) anyway. Without the context provided by this sentence, Sanders receiving less coverage than Clinton comes off as 'fair coverage disparity' given the earlier-mentioned polling (which the Patterson study directly contradicts). In fact, its removal resulted in synth, reading as: "Coverage was proportional to polling" and only that is why "Sanders received less coverage."

Finally, if the removed content is objected to, then I object to the lede paragraph as it would stand without it (with the skewed POV). One way or another, the basic tenets of NPOV should be met; UNDUE is meant to serve NPOV, not be used as a means to get around it.

(2) Reason given: "this is undue"

One research group finds x, another group (of no less merit) finds y; can't say "research has found x" and omit y as undue without breaking NPOV. Keep both or remove both.

Instead of whittling away at the lede with a thousand cuts, we should establish a consensus on its tone and contents as a whole. Then, concerns of synth and undue etc. can be addressed while preserving NPOV. Selvydra (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This is simple:

(i) The Sides et al. study and the Shorenstein report both found that Sanders received less coverage than Clinton (the lead covers this). The Sides et al. study found that Sanders got disproportionately much media coverage relative to his polling during the early campaign, but that overall, the media coverage he got was correlated with his polling (the lead covers this). The Shorenstein report did not assess whether Sanders's coverage exceeded his polling (thus, text that suggests that they did should not be in the lead).

(ii) Emphasizing how Sanders received negative coverage during a small part of the race is undue for the lead. The lead should cover how he was covered overall throughout the race.

Therefore, the content that you're trying to add to the lead is a violation of NPOV and UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't new content but a reversion to an older version. If anything, the way the lede and its POV stood with this content removed is the new content. If I followed this logic, I would have to remove the entire paragraph as it stands now as NPOV (which I don't wish to do as it's rather destructive), and asking for consensus before it be restored, like happened to that content. Remember that there was no lede paragraph on studies at the early weeks / months of this article. At no point has a consensus been established on one whose POV is in clear opposition to allegations of bias.

(i) This is centered on the premise that the study paragraph discusses coverage related to polling alone, which needn't be the case (is it said somewhere that it has to?) The paragraph should represent study findings fairly, and not stick to some arbitrary focus (such as coverage related to polling) so as to leave out research results that did not explicitly compare coverage to polling. In order to preserve NPOV, instead of removing the Shorenstein content entirely, the text could have been modified to clarify the paragraph isn't about that focus. Could you (or we) do that, instead?

For example, prefacing the sentence with, "Of the amount of coverage Sanders received, [researchers have said...]" would make it clear that polling correlation was only the topic in the earlier sentence, and clarify that there is no juxtapositioning on that.

(ii) See, the problem with averaging it out over the entire race is the voting didn't evenly happen from mid-2015 to mid-2016. If coverage of a candidate is bad when they need it most (at later parts of the primary season, when the actual voting happened), it affects them disproportionately and merits a mention. An example is the infamous 16 negative articles by WaPo, timed during a debate and primary seen as pivotal. There needs to be some caveat or nuance to account for this, to preserve NPOV and balanced representation of findings.

For example, it could be changed to: "...research shows that the tone of media coverage of Sanders favorable on average[Sides] and in the earlier stages of the primary, and unfavorable at later points[Patterson]."

Again, I ask you to address the problems with NPOV of the paragraph as a whole as it stands now, instead of exacerbating them with unrelated changes. Do you consider "Sanders received less coverage than Clinton" being the only caveat in the otherwise entirely anti-Sanders-POV paragraph as enough representation of the findings that back up the bias-allegers? If you do, argue in favor of it. Selvydra (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Re (i): The lead already notes that Sanders received less coverage than Clinton. Why should a sentence be added after text on the Sides et al. finding to repeat that Sanders received less coverage than Clinton? It's unclear to me what purpose such a sentence would serve except to challenge the Sides et al. finding (which is not what the Shorenstein report is doing), which is what your text tried to do.

Re (ii): That's getting into OR territory where we as editors are deciding what were the important periods of the race. As far as I can tell, and as the Bitecofer reference in the article makes clear, Sanders had pretty much lost the nomination at the same point of the race when the news coverage was net negative for once. That makes it an even more egregious violation of UNDUE to emphasize this period specifically in the lead. And in terms of thinking about media bias, it is not surprising that a losing candidate receives less favorable news coverage (i.e. about losses, falling short, Clinton's lead expanding) at that particular point in a race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(i) Indeed it does, but that – together with the earlier mention of correlation with polling – forms synth where only one explanation (polling) is given for this coverage disparity. You didn't give any reasoning for your "premise that the study paragraph discusses coverage related to polling alone" that I brought up in my earlier reply. Merely stating Sanders got less coverage is like saying grass is green; it's not some caveat that brings the otherwise one-note paragraph any semblance of NPOV. The Shorenstein report didn't just conclude that he received less coverage – it gave the coverage disparity important context (clearly laying out that it lagged even when Sanders was 2nd – some of which time they were nearly tied in polling). As it currently stands, the paragraph omits this finding entirely and ascribes the coverage disparity purely to the polling.

Also, you didn't address your premise that the study paragraph discusses coverage related to polling alone that I brought up in my previous reply. Why should this paragraph, in your opinion, be centered on "coverage vs. polling" – isn't it "academic findings on coverage" broadly? Without that arbitrary focus, there are no constraints that prevent the inclusion of the Shorenstein findings. It juxtaposes neither "coverage vs. polling" nor "Sanders got less coverage" – it is its own sentence in the paragraph and in no way subject to Sides' findings.

(ii) I actually think you have a better case on this one than on (i) – it's a bit odd that you removed (i) before (ii). The bandwagon effect does mean that coverage before the first primaries probably mattered the most. If we can co-operate on (i), I can probably agree on removing this bit in lieu of the added clarification, "[...research shows that], on average, [the tone of media coverage of Sanders...]"

Still requesting that you address NPOV concerns of the paragraph as a whole, if you continue to defend the wholesale removal of (i). Selvydra (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Re (i): The Shorenstein Center did not say that Sanders got less media coverage than he deserved or that a candidate of his stature should have gotten. It just said it was less than Clinton's when they were in a two-horse race (which is what the lead already says). At all points in the race, Sanders was less likely to win the nomination than Clinton by any standard (delegate count or polling) and by all sources. You're resorting to your own original analysis in this section and arguing, clearly incorrectly in my view, that at some point in the race, Sanders was neck-and-neck with Clinton and should have therefore received the exact same amount of media coverage. There is no RS that substantiates that way, it directly contradicts the Sides et al. study and therefore the lead should not include your own analysis. The fact that the lead doesn't include your own original analysis doesn't mean that the lead has NPOV problems. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, is there a way to read the relevant section(s) of Sides' book to verify how it's currently being represented here? Where did the current information come from, since the link only leads to a book abstract?

In the same vein as the Shorenstein Center didn't say Sanders got less coverage than he "deserved" or "should have gotten," (as far as I know,) neither does Sides' book say that "candidates should get coverage with linear proportion to their polling" (e.g. 1% polling = 1% the coverage). And yet, the tone of the paragraph makes it read as such. You're talking about rigid wording, while I'm talking about the POV (and tone), which is borne not only out of words but from between the lines. This is discussed e.g. in WP:SYNTH – implicit context (or lack thereof) alone can be enough to cause synth.

WP:NPOV states in its first paragraph: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This is currently not the case with the paragraph. It represents only views favorable or neutral to Sanders detractors, and is unrepresentative of the body of studies that it's aiming to summarize.

Sanders getting less coverage than Clinton is not the same significant view as his coverage lagging. Shorenstein Center stated: "By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year." This is a significant view distinct from (and contrary to the tone of) Sides' findings, but is not addressed in any way. Sanders not receiving "the exact same amount of media coverage" as Clinton is not the issue here; what I quoted from the study is. Selvydra (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first half of your comments: "the tone of the paragraph makes it read as such." Their finding is literally described, and obviously it will be read as indicating there wasn't media bias. Sides literally states as much here[62]. It's not a NPOV problem or a SYNTH problem that we state their finding and that anyone with a brain interprets it in a logical way. For example, we would not remove a quote by David Duke that denigrates black people from his page with the justification "this quote gives people the impression that he's racist. SYNTH!" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As for the last part, the Shorenstein report is saying that in the context of Sanders needing lots of media coverage to win the election, and that even when he was getting lots of media coverage, it wasn't enough to defeat Clinton. The fact that Sanders received less coverage than Clinton is already in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're finally engaging with how the paragraph actually reads. Maybe we can actually reach a compromise, rather than an outcome that will leave the lede a source of perpetual controversy. Now look at the paragraph as a whole – there is not one fragment of a sentence there that acts as a caveat to bias allegers, even though the Shorenstein studies have them in abandon. As I explained, Sanders receiving less coverage does not count towards that. The paragraph leaves the reader with the impression that studies are unanimous in their decree that the coverage of Sanders was fair and the allegations were unfounded, which is not true and goes counter to what WP:NPOV states. Sides' WaPo article is fair enough, although it's from Sept. 2015 when many others weren't rating Sanders' chances (and thus the 'anticipated importance' he mentions) high, either.

The Shorenstein report is saying that in the context of Sanders needing lots of media coverage to overcome the name ID disadvantage, and that even during the brief times he was receiving comparable coverage to Clinton, it wasn't enough to defeat her because of her former advantage in coverage and ID. This is an important difference in nuance (name ID advantage vs. general strength as a candidate) and shouldn't be left out.

I would suggest amending the paragraph as follows (additions in bold, otherwise the same or with words moved around):

A book about the 2016 election says that the amount of media coverage of Sanders during 2015 exceeded his standing in the polls, and was strongly correlated with his polling performance over the course of the whole campaign.[Sides] On average, research shows that Sanders received substantially less media coverage than Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, but that the tone of his coverage was more favorable than that of any other candidate.[Sides][Patterson1,2] During the 2016 election, the media provided substantially more coverage of the Republican primary than the Democratic primary, and Republican candidate Donald Trump dominated media coverage[Patterson2]; this was described as depriving him of the coverage needed to overcome Clinton.[Patterson1]

Selvydra (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, the media's treatment of Martin O'Malley's campaign could also be described as depriving him of the coverage needed to overcome Clinton. --WMSR (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not mind adding "on average" and "substantially". That last line is unnecessary though. It goes without saying that getting more media coverage would help a candidate. Sides et al. even explicitly link Sanders' disproportionate coverage and the positive nature of that coverage to his relative success, yet we wouldn't add a line saying that the favorable tone and disproportionately large coverage aided his candidacy, because that would be undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WMSR – You're not wrong. If there is a study that thought this hypothetical statement constituted a point of discussion (as Shorenstein did with Sanders) and if there is an article on media coverage of O'Malley, it would in my opinion belong there.

Snooganssnoogans – Sides et al. (I found the excerpts on Google Books now) link Sanders' amount of coverage to his popularity (rallies, etc.) to his polling every bit as much as they do the other way around. In fact, that was one of the surprisingly few things in his book I found that supported bias allegers' claims. So, it would be undue if and only if you didn't also add that caveat.

The last line is of the "goes without saying" nature specifically because I wrote it to be as neutral as possible. As you may be aware, this debate was sparked by you removing my initial, more explicit lines. The significance of this newer line (what makes it due and not redundant) is that (i) it helps bring the paragraph closer to being NPOV in tone, (ii) balances out the disproportionate representation of research (the comparatively undue space given to Sides), and (iii) a research group even took the time and space to discuss this at length (and without contrary caveats, unlike Sides et al.). Selvydra (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sides et al. link polling and media coverage. They do not link rallies and media coverage – linking the two is your own personal analysis. Your own analysis has now shifted from Sanders and Clinton were even in polls and thus should have received the exact same media coverage to Sanders had large rallies and thus should have received far more media coverage. Neither of those personal analyses belong in this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What you're trying to do with the last line is a clear example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The notion that a candidate performs better if they get more news coverage is clear to anyone. The spin you're trying to put on it is to imply that a media bias against Sanders prevented him from performing better. As I mentioned earlier, one could write the exact same version of the line that you're proposing except to put the spin that says "Sanders benefited from disproportionate and positive media coverage" and cite Sides et al who explicitly say this. Yet I have not proposed doing that because that is clear violation of UNDUE. Just as your proposed spin is a violation of UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Sides et al., page 106: "The question for Sanders was how to turn enthusiastic rallies into meaningful support on a national scale. Many candidates have done better at attracting crowds than winning votes. [...] So it was appropriate to ask, as an MSNBC headline put it the day Sanders kicked off his campaign, "Can Bernie Sanders take the 'Burlington Revolution' national?" This is where news coverage came in. Many of the spikes in coverage of Sanders came after days on which he held rallies (figure 6.4). This again served the function of "conferring status," whereby media coverage signals that someone's "behavior and opinions are significant enough to require public notice."'" The crowds at the rallies were interpreted as evidence of a viable campaign, as is often true of horse race news coverage."

"They should've received exactly the same amount of coverage" was your conjecture, not my "spin." See my earlier reply at 01:07, where I already refuted it.

Not "a media bias against Sanders prevented him from performing better" so much as "Sanders had a name ID disadvantage and didn't get the amount of coverage necessary to overcome that." If that is spin, it's Shorenstein's spin, not mine. Sides' "strong correlation" between Sanders' coverage and polling is just as much of a spin – I don't see him divulging the R^2 value and comparing that to commonly accepted thresholds for varying levels of correlation. It serves to set a tone that is in keeping with his opinions on his WaPo article – that the coverage disparity was just and deserved.

As I said earlier, the reason you would add my suggestion, but not Sides' line on Sanders benefiting from disproportionate and positive coverage, is that the majority of the paragraph is already about Sides' book rather than Shorenstein's studies.

I am fine with altering the suggested line to make it clear that it isn't trying to spin it the way you're alleging, but that it neutrally conveys e.g. that "Sanders struggled to get badly needed press attention in the early going. With almost no money or national name recognition, he needed news coverage if he was to gain traction. [Patterson1]" Instead of shooting down ideas, please either put forward a suggestion or explicitly say why you think the paragraph as it currently stands is NPOV and a representative summary of research on the matter. Selvydra (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a line is needed that essentially says that "media coverage of a candidate is good", but with a strange spin that attempts to suggest that the media was biased against Sanders (when the spin could also be that a biased media helped his candidacy). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(i) Current paragraph already gives Sides undue weight, (ii) it says more than that (puts it in the context of the race and Sanders' coverage). Selvydra (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is now that we should not include a peer-reviewed study by leading political scientists in the best political science press which looks precisely at the topic of this Wikipedia article? Why? Because you personally disagree with the findings of their research? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of the constant overshooting hyperbole and straw-men, please spend a few extra seconds and read what I actually wrote. I am arguing for inclusion, not exclusion. Selvydra (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This source has been used to provide a spin which the authors did not intend. For example, the statement, "the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015" is clearly wrong. It implies that the authors have concluded that the level of coverage was fair. The source says the percentage of news stories mentioning Sanders was the same as his percentage in the polls. They don't say whether it should have been higher or lower or refer to a mention as coverage. All it means is that 25 to 45 percent of the articles about Hillary Clinton mentioned that Sanders was also in the race. TFD (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is literally what Sides et al. say on page 105: "At this point in time, Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls." And Figure 6.4 clearly shows that the news coverage share far exceeded the polling share during 2015. If anything, our Wikpiedia article underplays this finding from Sides et al. because it drops the "far" from "far exceeded". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"All it means is that 25 to 45 percent of the articles about Hillary Clinton mentioned that Sanders was also in the race." This is your own ridiculous unsubstantiated original research. Thankfully, on Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources (and in this case it's a peer-reviewed study by recognized experts in the top political science press). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The chart says, "The line indicates the share of news stories mentioning Sanders. the dots indicate individual polls." So when Sanders was polling 25%, 25% of articles mentioned The writers do not say that is necessarily fair coverage. I raised the issue at NORN. TFD (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Matthews comments

State of this article

More articles claiming bias against Sanders in the media

Recent removal of content and sources

"[debate]... in which Sanders did not perform well"

Recent removal of content and sources

"[debate]... in which Sanders did not perform well"

Studies on Sanders media coverage

Is RedState an unreliable source? Is preferential coverage of Biden off topic?

Fourth deletion nomination?

Smerconish conoravirus comment

Columbia Journalism Review analyzes Bernie coverage

Computational social scientist's study shows "Bernie Bros" are a myth

Book is imprecise for Sides et al. It's a study.

Further elaboration on reversion of lede changes