Jump to content

Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 6

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 06:28, 25 March 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 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 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)
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)

But it’s clear, too, why some Sanders supporters still feel hard done by, even if their candidate is winning, and are exerting what leverage they have in angry response. Many of their concerns are legitimate! The more information we get about Iowa, the easier it is for suspicious supporters to raise their eyes at the data-handling disaster that deprived Sanders of anything like a clear victory narrative. Much of the media’s subsequent coverage of Sanders—particularly his victory in New Hampshire—has been no less baffling. Sanders is now undeniably the front-runner. That should have been “the story.” Instead, his win has repeatedly been narrated as a failure or setback or defeat. No wonder Sanders’ supporters find it suspect. It is.

Sanders stans aren’t the only ones losing all sense of proportion. If last week is anything to go by, TV anchors seem to be melting down over Sanders’ surge, what with Chris Mathews implicitly comparing the senator to Fidel Castro and saying a victory for the “reds” might have meant his own execution, and Chuck Todd approvingly sharing a quote from a conservative site calling a Jewish candidate’s supporters “digital brownshirts.” This last was so far beyond the pale that one fails to understand how Chuck Todd remains on the air without at the very least offering an apology.

— https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/bernie-or-bust-is-bad-but-i-get-it.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7f7:dc80:7f30::1 (talk • contribs) 12:45, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose using any of this. It's not a high quality source (as evidenced by the silly claim that "Sanders is now undeniably the front-runner"). It's muckraking and unqualified opinion churn. - MrX 🖋 12:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You're the same dude who said Politico anti-semitic article on Bernie was not fit for discussion in the entry, as it didn't even count as an example of media coverage of Sanders. (Personal attack removed) — 2804:7F7:DB80:852D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) — 2804:7F7:DB80:852D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This article, "Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?", saw publication February 12 at GQ.com, and it looks quite relevant to this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was mentioned three sections up. You may want to comment there as well (or Kolya Butternut could comment here). - MrX 🖋 17:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
User:MrX, all the dictionaries I consulted defined a front runner as the person leading in the race or most likely to win. While you may be valid and persuasive reasons to omit the proposed edit, throwing out obviously false arguments is trolling. It creates ill will among editors and distracts them into arguing over silly things, such as definitions. TFD (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I didn't say that Sanders wasn't a front-runner. The text I referred to says "Sanders is now undeniably the front-runner", which does not jibe with the reality that he is two delegates behind Buttigieg. Do you want to rethink that "trolling" comment now? - MrX 🖋 17:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
No reasonable sources are making the argument. If you got it from somewhere else, I would appreciate it you would tell us where. But to return to my point. Whether or not Sanders is the front runner has no bearing on your argument. Certainly you are not saying that if Sanders had one more projected delegate than Buttigieg you would be happy with including the material. You are just picking at tangential comments with the result that editors are getting into irrelevant discussions, holding up improvement of the article. TFD (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Huh? I literally got it from the block quote in original post in this section. Would you please not jump into a discussion without any idea of what's going on and accuse me of "picking at tangential comments" and "trolling". - MrX 🖋 18:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) — Rafe87 (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC themselves found it notable that a voter would find MSNBC's coverage of Bernie to be negative. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/n-h-voter-i-voted-for-sanders-because-of-media-s-cynical-coverage-of-him-78561349927 Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

They didn't find that a voter would find MSNBC's coverage of Bernie to be negative. They found that one voter said this. And this would appear to be an example of non-biased coverage. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a proof of media bias, the voter said she only voted for Bernie because of the media bias, also that happen in live coverage so they couldnt hide it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
How is one anonymous voter's opinion proof of anything? O3000 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Objective3000, I dont think that "anonymous" is the right word here. She was randomly selected and her face was shown. One thing for sure, this incident has been covered by reliable source and therefore should be included in this article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It's one single voter's comment. It means nothing. For all we know, the voter came to that opinion by reading this article. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The judgment of notability and inclusion should be based on how news media treat the subject. The voter opinion was notable because it was reported in many notable news media outlets. AlterNet [5], MSNBC [6], RealClearPolitics [7], Poynter Institute [8] Common Dreams [9], Newsweek [10].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Has anyone asserted that this voter is an expert in the field of media analysis? If not, WP:UNDUE applies. --WMSR (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Reporting an incident that is widely covered in the media is nothing UNDUE, your UNDUE reference sounds like gaming the system. I am not going to write her opinion is in Wikivoice. Her being a voter who only voted for Bernie because of the media bias is significant news and was covered widely in the news.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How is that gaming the system? No matter how many sources report this one non-notable person's opinion, it is still WP:UNDUE. --WMSR (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Another example from CJR 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.
Also the source agrees that Sanders is the frontrunner, the frontrunner means that he leads in national polls, latest polls show that Pete has 11% of support nationally while Sanders 29%.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We could use more opinions at #Vice_and_more_report_on_media_bias_after_NH_primary  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The Columbia Journalism Review piece, "Coverage of Bernie Sanders suffers from a lack of imagination", also linked to just above by User:SharabSalam, seems like exactly the opinion piece 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.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's another recent piece from the New Republic that I think may be useful for this article:

:bloodofox: (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Article makes no sense. Like stocks, you look at how someone did relative to how they were expected to do. Sanders was expected to do well near his home. Seems like pundits are just looking for something to say, and it could be argued that this article is an example of media bias in Sanders favor. There exist a huge number of pundits. It's easy to find some that say anything you'd like to hear. We are dealing with a great deal of WP:RECENTISM here. O3000 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
As it turns out, Warren, Biden and Buttigieg were all projected to win New Hampshire at various times. Warren not only is from near New Hampshire, but most New Hampshire residents watch Massachusetts rather than Vermont media. And Deval Patrick was governor of Massachusetts. Also polls showed that home state advantage did not translate into state support for Harris, O'Rourke, Gillibrand or Booker either - which is why they dropped out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 16:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Here are another sources,
[11][12]. I will add the content of these sources to the article in the upcoming days.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:27, 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. - MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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] - MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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"?) - MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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] - MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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"?) - MrX 🖋 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. - MrX 🖋 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). Neutralitytalk 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders/Archive_6&oldid=947255002"