Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why should this be removed?

For context this is the sentence I'm talking about :

On December 19, 2019, in an post-debate analysis, David Axelrod, an analyst and senior political commentator for CNN, said that CNN never talks about Bernie Sanders and that the Senator was doing well in the polls.

I changed the word argued to said to reflect the source more after one user mentioned that argued wasn't the right term, which is true. But, I don't understand why it was removed.

The journalist is talking to CNN journalists about media coverage, so I don't understand why it shouldn't be included when it fits the purpose of the page and the context is clear. For more information on context, here's what a UC Berkeley writer who has been mentioned in The Hill multiple times said : https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1208259904789721088. I'm not using the former as a source, but it does confirm that the context is clear here. Note : For full disclosure, I came across this tweet when exploring what people had to say on Twitter after the debate and I remembered this person's name from The Hill. I'm not going to use the tweet btw, I'm just showing it to offer context.

Furthermore, the talk show argument that one user mentioned is inconsistent with other sources that mention talk shows on this page or are from a talk show (e.g. Nate Silver's polling and media coverage analysis from an ABC talk show). Finally, it is an RS : CNN. So, why would it be removed?- MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

First, punditry on CNN is not RS. News reports by CNN are RS. Second, my edit summary gets to why this does not belong: "this is both UNDUE and a misrepresentation of the source. comments made by pundits on talk shows do not meet WP:DUE. Axelrod does not say CNN and it's unclear whether he's saying that he believes that Sanders is underrated or that the media is biased against him. the former seems more likely, but this is precisely the problem with plucking random comments out of transcripts." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, it is attributing what a CNN journalist said. How is this undue weight?--SharabSalam (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Because you are conflating the words "pundit" and "journalist." WMSR (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

WMSR The word pundit means expert. I wish people would understand terms they use when they try to put things in negative lights.--WillC 01:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear. I was interpreting it to mean the third definition here. WMSR (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Might want to examine the first two definitions of 1) an honorary title and 2) a teacher. Neither of which make pundit a bad thing or unreliable.--WillC 11:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

WMSR, but by that logic, Nate Silver's analysis on this page doesn't qualify either. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Random comments made by Nate Silver on TV or on the 538 podcast do not belong on this page. A published analysis by Nate Silver would belong, if it's attributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, that makes no sense, since Silver's analysis on this page refers to data -- even if he does so as a pundit. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I responded to those claims in the paragraph. You're only responding to part of what I said. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The statement is literally " I think that...". Which makes it's an off the cuff opinion.

That is not what an encyclopedia should be striving to include.

Axelrod is just another person with an opinion, not some expert.

As for Nate Silver, his comment doesn't really belong either, since it is not one of his data backed reports. Slywriter (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Slywriter, analysis can happen on a talk show. To remove data, because it was included in a segment is rather weird especially since Wikipedia policy places importance on experts in a field. So, Silver's analysis can still be mentioned, especially since he was brought on for an analysis segment.

As for Axelrod and it being an opinion, prior consensus on this page allows mentions of op-eds .So, an opinion relevant to the page can be published. I could change the word to opined if you want. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason I removed the paragraph is because the paragraph is extremely overblown over a single throwaway sentence that Axelrod makes. Additionally, punditry is not a RS and shouldn't be mentioned - we don't cite Fox News pundits for the same reasons why we don't cite CNN pundits - they're simply not reliable sources, especially when the source is a single sentence informally saying that they should talk more about Sanders. — Chevvin 22:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Chevvin, so if I changed the word said to opined would that work? We've had op-eds mentioned here, so opinions are valid, no? MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2, changing "said" to "opined" makes the sentence slightly better, but we are still giving significantly undue weight towards a single throwaway sentence that Axelrod made during a long discussion after the debates. If there was a whole discussion about the topic I'd be inclined to keep the paragraph, but as far as I can tell it was a single sentence made, which isn't enough to be worthy of an entire paragraph, in my opinion. — Chevvin 22:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Chevvin, I can understand your stance. The reason why I'm inclined to keep it is that I find it relevant to the page. I've agreed with some of the editors I'm talking to now and I've thanked multiple edits they made on this page. I just disagree on this particular issue. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Not sure I agree that there is consensus on Op-Eds being part of the article(and really it's misused throughout political pages by editors to claim inclusion of a line despite NPOV), though could be a discussion I missed. And Nate Silver does have more credibility than a commentator but it's not Data like he provides on his website. Axelrod's comment is in the midst of banter. It holds no real weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC) a

Chevvin Which wiki policy says punditry isn't RS? Because RS literally says bias and opinions are reliable to use on Wikipedia but to not push them off as facts but instead as analysis.--WillC 01:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a load of unequivocal crap. Go read RS again and get back to us. Particularly the section [In Specific Contexts -- Quotations]. Completely invalid. These arguments to exclude like "he's not a journalist" and "it's not one of his studies" are pipe dreams. They said these things. That is fact. The venue in which those said things were recorded are reliable sources for those quotations. End of story. Matter of fact, WP:OR specifically supports the use of this sort of content. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)