Jump to content

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 19 January 2020 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

RfC: Content by "Paste magazine"

Should the following content by "Paste magazine" be included? If so, which version: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Version A:

  • Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author, Jennifer Rubin. Rubin had criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate, predicting that his launch would be a resounding failure; the next day Sanders reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier."[1]

Version B:

  • Paste Magazine criticized The Washington Post for publishing four negative opinion editorials about Sanders, including two by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin.[2]

Survey

  • Should not be included. If it's included, then B is the better version. - This should preferably not be included, because it's (1) by a non-RS, (2) incredibly petty (who cares that WaPo published four negative op-eds about Sanders over the course of two days?), (3) this is not a RS so it's unclear whether WaPo also happened to run positive or neutral pieces about him during this period, and (4) because it's a BLP violation: Rubin does NOT describe Sanders as a dated, unpopular politician whose campaign launch will be a resounding failure.[3][4] If it's to be included, then B is better than A, because it's short, to the point and free of the BLP violation. Version A claims that this is a "report" by Paste magazine but Paste magazine is not a RS; it should be attributed as an opinion. Version A is also incredibly long, obscures that the author is criticizing WaPo for publishing op-eds ("articles" may make readers think these are news reports by WaPo), and includes some in-the-weeds tangential criticism by the author of one of Rubin's op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
What makes Paste a non-RS? Cause it has been sited by CNN and the Chicago Tribune, while having won an award by the latter. Seems like a reliable source to me. You ask why negative posts by a mainstream publication is important in an article about media coverage? Why are spiders important in the Arachnophobia. The answer is pretty clear. Certainly when the article isn't focused on the fact it happened but the speed and number of articles with relation the fact it happened before. This article is about media coverage. Stop trying to downplay all media coverage.--WillC 14:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Wrestlinglover, It seems that Paste is highly factual as well according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/paste-magazine/. I am not a fan of some sources, but I try to be neutral in my assessment. The data seems to show that it's a factual source. As for it being biased, I'm pretty sure there's a Wikipedia guideline that allows them if they are attributed. Correct me if I'm wrong on that last bit. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Sources can be biased and still be reliable too according to RS.--WillC 14:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
MediaBias/FactCheck is not a RS: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable."[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, I didn't know that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't demonstrate that Paste is unfit for Wikipedia.Rafe87 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
You've completely misused the RS rule. Are you saying that Paste magazine is not a reliable source for the things that Shane Ryan says? RS is and never has been a blanket. If Shane Ryan prints in Paste that he thinks something, then Paste is RS for that. The only RS argument there would be whether Paste is known for making up fake people and posting articles under their name. Even still, Paste is completely RS for the fact that Paste printed it. The rest of your points fail by the same token. Whether or not Rubin said that, Ryan said she did. Well, there's also point 2, and it's completely irrelevant. Seriously, "who cares" has to be the weakest objection to inclusion of content on WP I've ever seen. - Keith D. Tyler 18:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


  • A mix of the two. - I think this is a false choice to be honest. There are more choices than these two. I think it can be trimmed but that maybe Version B is a little too trimmed. The first thing we can do is add that they are opinion pieces. As for Paste, mediabiascheck rates them as highly factual. So, I do believe, that the fact that the opinion piece goes against what was actually happening makes it kind of noteworthy. So, after looking at the source, I think something like this could work : Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' campaign launch, the Post published four negative opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan argued these columns were a way of manufacturing consent. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    Snooganssnoogans what do you think? MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. (1) This is not "reporting". (2) The piece is a petty superficial analysis in an obscure outlet, which would not belong on any Wikipedia page and would be easily removed if not for the gatekeeping that is unique for this page. There is nothing notable about a major news outlet featuring op-eds against a candidate. If the content is to be included (which it should not be), version B gets to the point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, woah, I'm sorry to say this, but you don't need to sound condescending. I was merely trying to help. I have no dog in this fight and I've even thanked you multiple times for your edits. I've also added some RS to the page (NYT, Politico, ABC News, CNN & Business Insider). In this case, I was just giving my opinion that's all, since I think the option I gave still follows WP:DUE and I attributed the claims for the source. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete it - I have asserted that Paste is not a good source for a subject like this. It's a music magazine. I don't see other newspapers or news programs routinely citing Paste in their coverage of politics (WP:USEBYOTHERS). With all due respect to Shane Ryan, I simple don't find his attack of The Washington Post, and specifically Jennifer Rubin, to be substantive. This is not the type of material we should source for anything in a serious encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 19:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
MrX, even though I changed my vote, I would be in favour of trimming it honestly -- especially since another editor on the noticeboard mentioned that Paste was an RS. I'm partial to what I wrote before by the way, since it fits better on the article. In case you missed it, this is what I mentioned : Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' campaign launch, the Post published four negative opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan argued these columns were a way of manufacturing consent. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I propose that the above be named "Version C". (consider: "reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch...")🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@MikkelJSmith2: Right now, the RSN RfC is trending no consensus. In my view, shortening the wording does not fix the issue that the source article is little more than a swipe at a respected newspaper by a devoted Sander's supporter. It's not very objective and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
WaPo might be respected on Wikipedia, but outside of it, many left-leaning people have been wary of it since its acquisition by the world's wealthiest person, and its countless negative stories against Sanders during crucial time windows. This last point is something that people are constantly overlooking. For instance – in statistics, they could theoretically reach 50/50 positive/negative or inclusive/exclusive coverage of him by covering him at 60% positive/inclusive at most times, and at 10% positive/inclusive on the days after debates and before important primaries. (And I don't think I need mention right-leaning people's respect for WaPo.) Selvydra (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Status quo option (keep) I'm changing my vote due to another editor showing me that Paste is actually an RS on the RS noticeboard. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove it - Followed the RSN thread here. This sort of subject has a lot of reliable sources writing about it. A music magazine doesn't carry enough weight with such a body of literature available. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Change to C. Consider shortening it from A (though B is a little too devoid of context) – the version (C) above by MikkelJSmith2 seems like a decent compromise. As incendiary as Rubin is against Sanders (and sometimes Warren), the Wikipedia account of it needn't be such. I would support B for this incident if it was then augmented with more examples of WaPo's or Rubin's coverage of Sanders. Selvydra (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A. It is relevant to the article topic and there is nothing wrong with version A. - Keith D. Tyler 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Change to C, a significant improvement over A, or remove. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support C as it is more encyclopaedic than A. Don't oppose leaving it out though. --BEANS X2 (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • C. Article needs to be a lot shorter to remain readable. I think C can be further shortened; i.e., is it questionable that the "four negative opinion pieces" is a fact? If not, remove the "according to" and move it closer to the claim of manufactured consent, the attributable opinion. I'm all for raising the bar for RS but I don't think this is the battle. There is the reliable, reported fact of WaPo's output and then there is Ryan's attributable opinion, both of which should be kept to a minimum unless itself the subject of secondary source commentary. czar 04:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: during the RfC the sentence in question was removed from the article leaving the reference stranded only in the lede. I have removed the reference in the lede which summarizes nothing in the body while we figure out what to do about it. [1]

References

  1. ^ Shane Ryan (February 21, 2019), "The Washington Post, Picking Up Where They Left Off in 2016, Runs Four Negative Bernie Sanders Stories in Two Days", Paste, archived from the original on October 21, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Altering lead

FYI I've change the lead to this:

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders has been largely unbiased according to multiple studies, however some alternative media have alleged that a bias against Sanders in the mainstream media does exist. Their allegations primarily concern Bernie Sanders' 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

I've changed the first sentence in accordance with MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:FIRST: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. The subject in this case is "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders."

What the coverage of Bernie Sanders is, is largely unbiased according to reliable, independent sources. If this article is really about Sanders Campaign's allegations, then the article should be moved to Bernie Blackout or whatever they're calling it. – Anne drew 03:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please dont put that in Wikivoice, independent sources you mean the corporate media? It is what this article is about. Also what are these "multiple studies" that say the coverage is unbiased? We have only one study and another study by FAIR that says the media is biased.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the heart of the problem behind this article: there is a constant push to turn this article back to what it originally was - a poorly written soapbox. We should absolutely be writing in what you call "Wikivoice" and we should absolutely use "corporate media" sources because what you consider to be "corporate media" are reliable sources in the eyes of most Wikipedians. Additionally, we have multiple studies cited in the article showing how Sanders' coverage was overly positive compared to other candidates. If you don't want to write in a "Wikivoice" and ignore reliable sources, you are free to do so on your blog or any other website, but please don't do it here. — Chevvin 12:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
We have multiple "non-corporate" studies, and they didn't find bias against Sanders. There was a Harvard study about his coverage in 2016 that didn't find any bias against him. For the 2020 campaign, we have studies by Northeastern University's School of Journalism, which showed Sanders having a more positive media sentiment than both of the other leading contenders, Biden and Harris.
I'm all for documenting the allegations of bias, but we can't just regurgitate COISOURCE talking points in the first sentence and call it a day. – Anne drew 22:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
That is not a neutral point of view lead. That is objectively stating right out that this article is lies and a marketing tool. It is not handling this article as a national discussion in media beyond just the Sanders campaign. To start an article with "is unbiased" is basically going against every source in the article that points out that media coverage is not equal among the candidates and that several sources have published multiple negative articles in small timeframes. Yall forget, that NPOV goes both ways.--WillC 07:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The lead cannot actively take a stand on this issue. It cannot say it is biased nor can it say it is unbiased. That would be an automatic violation of NPOV.--WillC 07:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It cannot say it is biased nor can it say it is unbiased. That would be an automatic violation of NPOV. That is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We must weigh our sources according to their reliability, as not to present a false balance. Wikipedia recognizes that some sources are better than others.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
— WP:NPOV

The Trump Campaign often alleges that the mainstream media is biased against him. We cannot have an article called Media coverage of Donald Trump that starts with:

The Donald Trump campaign and alternative media have alleged that the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Donald Trump, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

Instead we must look for scholarly sources to see whether or not they support this claim. – Anne drew 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the fundamental issue is that the first sentence of an article must simultaneously:

  1. Define the subject of the article (in this case "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders")
  2. Summarize the content of the article

Right now this article is article is written from the POV of the Sanders Campaign, with actual studies of bias against Sanders delegated to the "Response to criticisms" section. I now realize that this article used to be called "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", and it shows. – Anne drew 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Business Insider cites NYT analysis as proof that media is under-covering Sanders relative to Biden and Warren, and suggests Sanders' chances are being played down in the press:

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

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-could-be-most-underestimated-2020-candidate-2019-12

In addition, Politico has published stuff on Sanders that has been widely lambasted as anti-semitic.

Wikipedia has yet to mention the article in this entry, apparently because editors here are approaching this subject from a pro-media perspective.Rafe87 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@MrX:, This is where I found the reference. I've read it referred to by quite a few authors in addition to those cited here. Could you explain your reasons for deleting this content in a new section?
In May 2019, in an op-ed pubished in JTA, Andrew Silow-Carroll commented on the brief controversy regarding Politico's caricature of Bernie Sanders in "The Secret of Bernie's Millions".[1]
There were a couple articles in Haaretz, at least one in the JP, as well as mention from Halper in one of her three articles, not sure which... there's also Jacobin, TYT. After looking into the story, I'd found a lot of outlets covered this, that's why I added it.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Andrew Silow-Carroll (May 28, 2019). "Politico's 'cheap' shot at Bernie Sanders". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The text of the original tweet touting the piece, since deleted, read "Bernie Sanders might still be cheap, but he's sure not poor.". A Jew, banknotes, that word "cheap" – how is that not anti-Semitic? That's what critics wanted to know. At first, I wouldn't take the bait...

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls I guess I would have to read the other articles to be convinced that this is noteworthy. The content itself is very thin. It doesn't explain why Silow-Carroll's opinions are important, or how it fits into the overall context of this article's subject. The whole thing was based on an awkward tweet. How is this encyclopedic? It seems more coatrackish and trivial. - MrX 🖋 15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess Halper refers to it obliquely in the 2nd line of the 2nd para of this article. Searching the article for "Zionist" also suggests this is not an isolated issue. I chose this article not because it was first, but because it seemed honest and well written (and also because he's a well-known journalist/editor-in-chief). In fact, you've slashed two editors in chief today (Jewish Week & The Nation). such bold, so cutting room floor. :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I completely agree the the lede as it is constitutes a flagrant NPOV violation. I restored your rewording of the lede and it has since been reverted again. @Rafe87: if by pro-media perspective you mean prioritizing reliable sources, then yes, editors should certainly approach their work with such a perspective. WMSR (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
There's no united "reliable source" view on this subject. Editors like you are cherrypicking the views they wish to promote as the only correct one.Rafe87 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
There definitely isn't a consensus on "media not being biased according to reliable sources" as to change the entire lede to reflect it – especially not in such a straightforward, nuance-free fashion. Time and again, even sources concluding that media bias allegations are largely unfounded still make concessions that Sanders does suffer from it in some ways (see the 'Response to criticisms' section). If there's a consensus, I argue it is this: Sanders has benefited from positive coverage on average (especially from leftist media), but the low amount of coverage he's received has at the very least canceled out that benefit. On top of that, the negativity of it has spiked before important election days – e.g. the 16 negative WaPo articles in early March. So, as you can see, it's hard to draw simplistic conclusions on the topic, meaning it should be treated with nuance and care.
I should also add that the reason behind the name change discussion (that led to "bias against" -> "coverage of") was to address title NPOV concerns – not to move the goalposts for the article's contents. Several editors raised concerns that this change would act as validation for changing the tone of the article over time to, "Media coverage of him is fair & allegations of bias wrong, unless proven otherwise." This backdrop should be kept in mind when using the new title as grounds for major changes in the content or tone – particularly as the merits of the existence of a page on media bias against Sanders were already litigated in the lengthy AfD that did not result in article deletion. Selvydra (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the result was "no consensus", which means the article may be put back up at AfD in the future as the community did not definitively rule on the merits of this article's existence. Slywriter (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The "unbiased" lead was a plain violation of "Prefer nonjudgmental language" section of NPOV. It was taking a stand on the issue that isn't supported by a clear majority nor supermajority of sources.--WillC 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. Research studies are preferred as sources over political opinion pieces. – Anne drew 23:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The version you've just inserted is a clear violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. Saying "X says P, even though Z says P is not the case" is WP taking a stance in favour of Z and against X, by implying P to be incorrect. The studies are already described at length in the following paragraph and there's no need to insert them into the very first sentence. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Those same studies say the coverage was positive but still say he received less coverage. I wouldn't call that strictly unbias. Regardless, it still takes a judgment on the situation which violates NPOV.--WillC 10:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: How does this version violate NPOV?? Sanders and alternative media say X while multiple studies say Y is an impartial description of the situation. It is "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view", as prescribed by WP:IMPARTIAL.

The studies are already described at length in the following paragraph and there's no need to insert them into the very first sentence

I see. You just want your preferred POV to be the only thing mentioned in first sentence. – Anne drew 13:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It is clearly in violation of no judgmental language. It is taking a stand in an issue when sources are conflicted and there is no clear majority. The only way a majority is seen is by having an impartial view on the subject and thus it would be making a judgment in language. The current lead as least isn't trying to make a judgment but is clearly stating the subject of the article. Saying it is clearly unbiased is not stating the subject but is trying to convince the reader of a position in the first sentence. That isn't NPOV.--WillC 05:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Questions about some recent contributions

This is a thread for anyone who has questions about contributions.

To kick off the thread here are a couple:

1) This page has always had the following quote on it: Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary.

On 24 Dec 2019 a regular contributor changed it to read,

Throughout the 2016 primaries, five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary."

Why was this change made? Was it related to the extensive rearrangements made? (Things previously introduced by "In 2015" are now introduced by "Throughout the 2016 primaries"... Was there confusion about the four mentions of the calendar year 2015 in the original text (not including the title of the document, or "invisible primary" in the sentence itself)?

2) A radical change was made to this paragraph by the same author on the same date. Could that author explain the use of the categorical term "rejected", when in fact what the writer being quoted said can be read below.[1] I would also be interested in why the spin of the paragraph changed direction 100%: surely the two descriptions linked above (at "paragraph") couldn't both be faithful representations of the source document? Was the original more faithful to the text?

References

  1. ^ "Has There Been A Bernie Sanders Blackout? | On the Media". WNYC Studios. And now he's sort of edged up into 30% of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's not not there.

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging me in some weird effort to pick fights again over nothing ("radical change", "spin"). #1 is obviously a simple error. As for #2, Malone literally says "There's not a media blackout." when she's asked whether there has been a media blackout. Again, what leads you to create a talk page discussion about this is beyond me, but I hope you find it all very fulfilling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I find the systemic tolerance of this sort of mistake troubling. But you know that.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Both of these changes seem like improvements to me. The excessive use of quotes bumps up against WP:COPYVIO, and it's lazy writing. I don't see that we lose anything by losing the excessive detail. - MrX 🖋 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Saying "Throughout the 2016 primaries" rather than "Throughout 2015" amid a large overhaul to paraphrase large blocks of direct quotes is completely outrageous, and I should be banned for it. Furthermore, who wouldn't sift through dozens of edits to find out who made this "radical change", create a separate talk page discussion about it and tag the editor who made the error? Thank you so much for creating a talk page discussion about it. The world needs to know about this error. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing all mentions that Clinton got negative coverage

It's obviously relevant that Sanders's main opponent in the Democratic primary got the most negative coverage of any candidate per academic analyses. At numerous points in this article, it's mentioned that Sanders has received negative coverage relative to other 2020 contenders. If that belongs, then clearly it's relevant that he got more favorable coverage relative to his 2016 contenders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've removed a bunch of coatracked stuff about HRC (true as it may be, though I remember one of the sources was Brock's Media Matters), because it wasn't about the subject of the entry. Thoughts? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I see this in the entry already. "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." Isn't that enough to say it once? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
If multiple RS report this occurring, then it makes no sense making it appear as if only one or two RS report this. If we are going to cover the findings of a study on media coverage in the 2016 election, then we don't scrub findings from that study that other studies have also found. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Someday maybe another article will be written about HRC's bad press in 2015-. Perhaps you could start one... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 03:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Non-response noted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Studies

This has been disputed by studies was removed from the first sentence by SharabSalam with the edit summary there are studies which have proved the bias. I do not see those studies referenced in the article. Could you please provide them here? Thanks – Anne drew 18:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, there are many. Like "Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored" or this [6] or the one by FAIR. Also cherry-picking studies and not the analysis reports in the lead doesn't sound like balance.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, let's go through the three links you provided.
  • A study by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy
Here's an excerpt: Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate.
Not sure why you think that study supports the allegation that "the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Bernie Sanders".
  • An article in In These Times, "an American politically progressive monthly magazine of news and opinion"
This is not a study nor a scholarly source. However, it is already mentioned in the first sentence: Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources have alleged...
  • An analysis by FAIR, "a media critique organization"
This source is listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which notes, most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions
Unless there are actual studies that back-up the allegations, we should add "this has been disputed by studies" back into the first sentence. – Anne drew 19:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Anne drew Andrew and Drew, I think you are correct here and the claim should be added back. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, in summary: (For each edit's reasoning, see the edit summaries by using the links)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, kindly note here the distinction between 'studies' and 'analyses'. Other editors (largely those opposed to this article in the first place) have stressed that 'only analyses' have been used to support the idea of bias against Sanders. Taking their concerns into account, I added that word into the lede too. In addition, the studies have also made some concessions to their overall verdicts:

For these reasons and WP:NPOV, I think the lede should mention both the 'for' and 'against' sides – and the analyses in addition to the studies, if a mention of the latter is wanted there. I hope this clears up some of it. Please ask me to elaborate if I didn't convey something clearly enough. Selvydra (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Selvydra, the summary of edits has confused me... MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It's just meant to be a chronological listing of changes to this particular disputed line, so that editors wouldn't have to go through the revision history page one edit at a time. Still, I reformatted it in the hopes it'd be clearer now. Also, I noticed I missed some detail in between. Selvydra (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Those analyses are already mentioned in the first sentence: Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources have alleged.... That's the "for" side. The "against" side are the actual studies that have called that allegation into question. – Anne drew 21:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
They are still the same function, The difference is the academic background or the corporate structure. It is still looking at the ratio of positive vs negative coverage and therein. The question then comes are those published and peer reviewed by a journal or just released by the institution.--WillC 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Anne drew Andrew and Drew – I see your point, but it says 'alleged', not 'used analyses to allege'. As I explained in my first reversion summary at 2, this leaves it as "allegations" vs. "studies", which is misleading (statistical analyses are not allegations). Selvydra (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying that the analyses give credence to the allegations (the 'for' side), while the studies give credence to the 'against' side, and so we should include the analyses in the first sentence, as to present a balance? – Anne drew 01:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in the sense that there isn't such a clear-cut consensus of bias being roundly debunked that it could be worded to appear such in the very first sentence of the article – that wouldn't be WP:NPOV. It's more nuanced than that, and that should show. But note that last time it commented on studies and analyses in each direction, Snoogans objected to and deleted the whole bit about it. So, adding those mentions is going to be complicated. Personally, I think a reader of this article is best served by reading on and forming their own idea, instead of being told what to think in the first 1–2 sentences. Selvydra (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay I understand your point. I still have a problem with how it was phrased: this has been variously disputed or validated by studies and analyses. That makes it sound like there have studies that support the allegations. In reality, there were studies that disputed the allegations and informal analyses that support the allegations. If I may offer a compromise revision which sounds less misleading:

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders has been characterized as negatively biased by the Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns; studies have disputed this, while other analyses have validated it.

This revision also makes the first sentence conform to MOS:BOLDTITLE. – Anne drew 16:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we should write "X have accused the media of bias; studies have disputed and analyses have validated it. I don't think we should combine the accusations and the studies, because the studies do not explicitly respond to the accusations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you propose then? Have the first sentence—which has to define "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"—only include the allegations of certain WP:COISOURCEs? – Anne drew 18:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
i think having a second paragraph on the studies suffices. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Opening sounds fine.--WillC 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The word 'alleged' is already critical of the left-media / Sanders campaign assertions, as it does not confirm nor deny them as being true. Contrast that to if the word 'stated' had been used instead.
This most recent version is better than the mere "has been disputed by studies," but it's still would up in a state of using loaded words that I don't think are accurate. The word 'quantitative' there is misleading (makes it seem the analyses are merely qualitative). Moreover, as I've already said, the studies don't exclusively dispute the allegations.
One study says Sanders got more coverage than his polling in 2015, the other says he got less. Then they talk about positive/negative coverage, which is a different dimension altogether. None of this has discussed the timing of any bias or coverage-frequency, such as if negativity has been focused before important primaries 1. When the lede contained the following: "variously disputed and validated by studies and analysis," it was ambiguous enough to include the fact that, "parts of the studies dispute and others validate them."
Moreover, your suggestion again removes the useful links to related articles that were there before.
Combine all this with the fact that the body of the article is undergoing heavy restructuring and editing right now. I suggest we leave the lede conversation until later, when we properly know what it is that it's summarizing. Selvydra (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I've changed the word "quantitative" to "academic" per your feedback. Let's remember that these are allegations of bias and misconduct by people in the mainstream media. It would be a violation of WP:BLP define "media coverage of Bernie Sanders" by those allegations alone, when there is evidence against those allegations. – Anne drew 22:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The dlspute you're havlng would be solved by slmply not trylng to summarlze the studles lmmedlately after the lntroductlon of the accusatlons of blas. You clearly do not agree on what the studles are saylng ln regards to medla blas or you do not agree on how to summarlze lt conclsely, so why not just say what the studles found ln a separate paragraph? Also, we should not conflate "analyses" by ln These Tlmes wlth actual peer-revlewed research by recognlzed experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with it not being included in the lede, as I've stated earlier. It's been added back in some shape or form by Anne drew repeatedly after being removed. (I don't mean to sound accusatory or to insinuate that they're doing wrong, here.) Selvydra (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Per BRD, lt should not be ln the flrst paragraph unless there ls consensus here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Selvydra (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
You both aren't listening. Let me repeat myself – please tell me if you disagree with any of this:
  • The first sentence must define "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.
— MOS:FIRST

  • There are many perspectives on "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"
    • Accusations of bias are just one of those perspectives. A perspective supported by academic studies is that the media was not biased.
  • Defining "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" from just one perspective violates WP:NPOV
I am trying to assume good faith here, but I cannot understand this consistent effort to remove everything but the POV of the Sanders campaign from the first sentence. – Anne drew 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Concur. It's original structure is a hold over from when the article was written by the Pro Sanders camp as a media bias article. The article can not and should not have a lead that is POV - Slywriter (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to sound like a broken record here because I find myself having to constantly repeat the same things, but here we go one more time. Please take the 3 minutes to read carefully before replying.
  1. Of course I agree with the MOS:FIRST quote. What I don't necessarily agree with is that "definition" = "summary of opinions on the topic". That is a matter of interpretation (unless that's found in a policy or guideline somewhere else; it wasn't at MOS:FIRST). Trying to summarize the opinions of academics and journalists immediately in the beginning is what I think has a greater chance of veering into POV territory, not leaving it out, as I will discuss next:
  2. Accusations of bias are just one of those perspectives. I have to disagree with "allegations" being pro-Sanders. If anything, it sounds to me like a shortening of "allegations without proof". It is a false balance to assert that "allegations of bias" and "bias has been refuted" create a fair balance. That's tantamount to saying that "the media has been fair" is a balanced POV. (I mean really, are you going to believe self-benefiting allegations or studies?) Please, for once, engage with this argument re: 'allegations' (or 'characterized as', or whatever word/s you choose to use in its stead).
  3. The studies have not reached a pure, easily summarizable conclusion of "there was no bias." Again, read the quotes I posted above. At best, they have disputed parts of the allegations – and Snoogans seemed to object with that form, so off it went (why it has to be removed until a potential consensus is explained below).
I'm not going to relitigate this same stuff before you engage with the arguments in question. It has been determined in discussions at WP:VPP and WP:DRN that, in this new article, older revisions and/or deletion have right of way, and changes/additions require a consensus. To that end, Anne drew Andrew and Drew, I recommend not changing the lede every time you come here, because it will be seen as edit warring and eventually I or someone else has to take it to the DRN. It's called WP:BRD, not BRBRBRBR...
SashiRolls – Just a heads-up that the lede is being discussed here right now. I appreciate your work on this article, but I'm not sure your re-work of it was an improvement. Let's try and reach a consensus or keep it at the stable version. Selvydra (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been changing the first sentence back to the same version, I keep rewriting the it address your concerns – which seem to be a moving target. What, exactly, did you find wrong with the latest version? Three other editors seem to be fine with it.
  1. Trying to summarize the opinions of academics and journalists immediately in the beginning is what I think has a greater chance of veering into POV territory, not leaving it out
    • The latest version you reverted just says that some people have said it was biased, some have said it was not biased.
  2. It is a false balance to assert that "allegations of bias" and "bias has been refuted" create a fair balance.
    • The version you reverted just says: with sources variously describing the coverage as biased or unbiased. Not sure what you're referring to here.
  3. The studies have not reached a pure, easily summarizable conclusion of "there was no bias."
    • Did you read before you reverted? Again, it just says with sources variously describing the coverage as biased or unbiased. No longer mentions the studies. Are you denying that sources have called the media unbiased toward Sanders? Here's one: [7]
By the way, BRD doesn't require you to revert – just if you disagree with the edit. I don't know what you could find objectionable about my latest revision. – Anne drew 19:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Selvydra: I missed your ping somehow until now, sorry about that. I'm not sure why those wishing to spin the lead line to say there is no story keep claiming that the Shorenstein study only says positive things about Sanders' coverage. Perhaps they have been misled by the fact that only the first part of the text was included in the sourcing (corresponding to the "invisible primary" period). There were a number of false and misleading claims as a result of this omission (and the changing of dates from 2015 to "throughout the 2016 Democratic primary"). Snoogans has said below this was just a minor mistake in a massive edit. I have noticed that this is how mistakes most often get lodged into en.wp, hidden in the sea of a larger revert. This is important because in the second part of the article, Patterson observes that from March 15-May 3rd Sanders' coverage was qualitatively worse than Clinton's (i.e. that the percentage of negative stories was higher than the percentage of Clinton's negative stories, throughout the bulk of the relevant voting part of the primary).
Also does anyone know if any studies mention the alt-right 4chan offensive led against Sanders' supporters? Is 4chan media? You can find more about this in Weaver's book by searching for "Bernie won Brocktopus" at the Google fair (you'd have to look longer at the Dogpile...) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders/Archive_3&oldid=936492341"