Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Scrub Wisconsin? Scrub New York?

This revert is not encyclopedic, though I do not object to removing the humor ("agree with each other"). In fact, rereading more closely, they really don't say much the same thing at all (as was originally suggested when I got to the prose, as I recall). This revert was not encyclopedic because it removes the context explicitly included in both articles: Wisconsin and New York. Feel free to see the footnotes for reference to Wisconsin and click on the links to verify that both talk (one at length) about New York (specifically the New York Daily News interview -- MrX scrubbed Juan Gonzalez's comments about the same thing from the en.wp entry a few days ago with an edit summary that is worthy of careful study.

Original: After Sanders' win in the Wisconsin primary the next week, Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias of Vox agreed with each other that the media was biased in favor of Sanders because it had a vested commercial interest in exaggerating how close the race was in the weeks prior to the NY primary.

.

Revision: In April 2016, Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias of Vox wrote the media was biased in favor of Sanders because Clinton's lead was becoming increasingly insurmountable, yet the media had a vested commercial interest in exaggerating how close the race was.

References

The amusing formulation ("agreed with each other") should not be restored, the two primaries mentioned should be. I think I'll add that Klein agreed with Grim and Gonazalez's assessment of the coverage of the NY Daily News interviews. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I was pinged. I don't really have an opinion about the content in dispute beyond not understanding how a revert can be unencyclopedic. My edit from a few days ago was a substantial improvement and the edit summary perfectly explains why. - MrX 🖋 23:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You were pinged because I spoke about you removing reliably sourced material with no good reason. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My reasons were good & plenty. Democracy Now! is a partisan source. Citing it twice is twice as bad. The New York Daily News "is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism." - MrX 🖋 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Daily News has won multiple Pulitzers, most recently in 2017.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Then why are all 3 of these sources talking about a great swell of journalistic accounts of their interview with Sanders? Insofar as it was so widely discussed as a "bungling", we should include the first ref from DN, Grim & Klein who all agree on the fact that this assessment was inaccurate (with Grim pointing out Daily News' factual errors in their questions, for example).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 ·     🍥} 00:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's the Grim reference if someone else wants to write up the Wisconsin - New York period Snoog & MrX want deleted. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Wisconsin primary and the upcoming NY primary are not particularly pertinent to the point they're making about media bias, which is that the media exaggerated how close the race was at a time when Sanders was becoming increasingly unlikely to actually win the race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly not what the sources say. Reread Klein. Yes, he starts the section on bias for Sanders with a paragraph saying that positive stories on him did very well on social media and so there was a temptation to write them, because that was what people liked reading. He does not say that the press after Wisconsin was positive, he says the headlines sometimes were but that the articles were not (in the 3 paragraphs on Wisconsin of 28 full paragraphs in the article). It continues with a paragraph saying that the press were biased to believe that Sanders, unlike Clinton, was likely being honest.

Much more substantially, he then turns to the Washington Post, Atlantic, Clinton narrative on the NY Daily News interview, which he agrees was a false representation of the transcript. He spends 8 paragraphs on this subject. To represent his views fairly one would not focus on 3 paragraphs (that are more nuanced than your text) and completely ignore the vast majority of the article, which talks about other matters.

One example which echoes with Patterson's criticism of the press ignoring Sanders in the early part of the campaign: "because Sanders had never shown much ability to mobilize supporters during his time in Congress, the press missed how good he would be at it when he began running for president, and so didn't take his challenge seriously enough at the outset."

I'll fix the misrepresentation when I have time unless someone else does it before I have time. Finally, if you wish to show "good faith" you are welcome to apologize for the demonstrably false accusation directed at me in your edit summary about "The Poisonous Politics of David Brock". Show us (again) how you roll, Snoog! It's easy to write false statements, it takes no time at all. Digging up the truth takes time, and I'm afraid I'll be late for work now, if I don't hurry... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a great deal of conjecture and opinion and opinions of opinions here. We'er not here to "dig up the truth." O3000 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, Obj. There is very much a truth about what an article is about primarily, and whether someone has been edit warring. Here the "digging" I'm referring to is reading the article and seeing what it says (and proving with wikiblame that Snoog was not telling the truth). Feel free to try it, rather than making comments vacated of any substance... :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) O3000 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you not see the contradiction in attacking editors and then accusing them of making attacks? O3000 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You are not the one who has been lied about repeatedly on this page, Obj. Drop the stick. Comment only on comment content from now on, please, as those above you have all done.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it irony to remove someone's comment telling you not to make personal attacks as a personal attack while making a personal attack? GMG^talk 20:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any editor has lied about any other editor here. --WMSR (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SashiRolls: Snoogans was right: no accusations of misconduct by him have been proven. You changed the content slightly when you re-added it. I'm also not sure why you're bringing that up in a totally unrelated discussion with a different editor. That said, if you are really as concerned as you claim to be about personal attacks, I strongly suggest removing the end of your post above. O3000 shouldn't have said what he did, but your behavior here is admittedly making civility quite difficult. Responding to editors acting in good faith with sarcasm, as you did above, is unacceptable. --WMSR (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see the first attack was the accusation against Sashi for "edit warring" in certain content. But really everybody here should get the personal issues off of this page and into AN/I, presuming there are any real issues.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to the content, opinions are notable when they come from notable people in notable publications. Juan Gonzalez is a two time winner of the George Polk Award who writes for the award-winning NY Daily News. His testimony is significant and I'm restoring it.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The text you wrote inaccurately characterized him as areporter. Furthermore, his testimony was plucked out of a TV show transcript. Additionally, the text was confusingly written: the gist of what Gonzalez is saying is that he personally disagrees that Sanders performed poorly in an interview and that the Clinton campaign is at fault for the media criticizing his debate performance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll work on this this weekend if it hasn't been restored by then. Gonzalez is a member of the editorial board, and as stated in the transcript, was reporting on the opinions of his fellow editorial board members. Unfortunately the little time I had yesterday for en.wp was consumed with defense against false witness being borne against me and with the misrepresentation of a Vox article discussing the NYDN interview in 8 paragraphs. One does wonder why this entry is so important to the "no there there" folks. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't even use editorials -- much less someone discussing not-in-print opinions of editorial board members. And you are sarcastically attacking other editors yet again. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"We don't even use editorials" What you mean is you don't use editorials. I didn't elect you to speak for me. Editorials are media, television is media, and attributed opinions are different from Wiki-voice.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, Saturday morning cartoons are media. Black Sabbath albums are media. The Onion is media. What exactly is meant by the word in this article? And what do you mean by "print is dead" in your edit summary? O3000 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

🐟 🎣 🍥

You're comparing commentary by award-winning journalists, working for respected news sources, to Saturday morning cartoons? You're not serious.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Firstly, I was directly responding to your statement about what media is. Secondly, you are referring to a transcript of a TV interview on DemocracyNow containing hearsay about opinions editorial board members of the NY Daily News expressed in private. Lastly, I don’t see what this has to do with this article. Looks like it’s just an attack against the NYDN editorial board and Hillary Clinton, perhaps deserved, perhaps not. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of hearsay, before you click, how many Google results do you think the Google query "site:washingtonpost.com" "according to sources familiar with" will retrieve? (Keep in mind this is just the WaPo itself, not those citing it...) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is an issue with the reliability of The Washington Post, that belongs here, not on this page. --WMSR (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

New proposal on Wisconsin / New York

I have listened to the criticism made by Snoogans and have changed the word "reported" to "said". I have also given a more faithful representation of one of the two biases that Klein identifies but had not been mentioned at all in the summary of his piece. (NB: I didn't feel the need to mention the other as he simply quoted Yglesias, but I have no objections if someone wants to say he quoted his fellow Vox columnist or to add that he said journalists generally liked Sanders and found him more "authentic" or worthy of "trust" than Clinton or Cruz) Listening to MrX I removed one DN! ref, and added HuffPost & the Vox article. I was unable to discern any content contributions from any of those who have been recently dominating the talk page discussion (after voting delete in the AfD). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "proposal"? You just added a pile of opinion with no consensus. And you just added more nasty comments here. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you've had time to read the 3 articles in 11 minutes. Here's an excerpt from Grim for you: This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong.. Facts matter, obj. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, why does the WaPo call Chris Cillizza a reporter (This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders) when this is obviously an op-ed on the "fix is in" blog? :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Content- Klein article is cherry picked to highlight one negative quote out of an article that paints the media as pro bernie or half and half but certainly not anti. Grim article is one man's opinion that the editorial board shouldn't hold a presidential candidate to the same standards as a president.

And delete still remains the best way of maybe seeing a coherent article emerge or at least stopping Wikipedia from hosting biased content. And calling for Deletion doesn't remove my right to defend NPOV and stop overzealous editors from editwarring and badgering an article to the way they want it :)

Slywriter (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It is obviously impossible to contribute to this entry as it has been taken over by Snoogans, MrX, WSMR, O3000 & Slywriter. Cf. WP:OWN Material has been actively distorted: the single subject to which Klein devotes the most space (8 paragraphs) in his Vox article is the April 4th New York Daily News interview and the mainstream press reaction to it. Like Grim in the Huffington Post (also deleted by WSMR as a "dubious" source) Klein says: the reason the interview was treated as such a disaster for Sanders is that many in the media already believed what the interview purported to show about Sanders — that he's a single-issue candidate who doesn't even know his single issue all that well.) I did not quote this, as he is just paraphrasing Grim; however, the false claim of cherry-picking made by Slywriter above is not borne out by a volumetric analysis of the Klein article.

Below is the text that has been deleted by WSMR:

After Sanders' win in the Wisconsin primary the next week, Matthew Yglesias of Vox said that the mainstream press had a vested commercial interest in exaggerating how close the race for delegates was, leading into the April 19 NY primary. Ryan Grim, Juan Gonzalez, and Ezra Klein were all critical of the strongly negative mainstream press reaction to the New York Daily News Bernie Sanders interview on April 1. Grim listed a number of factual errors made by the editorial board in their questions (on Dodd-Frank, on drones, on US policy towards Israeli settlements) and concluded more generally that the interview was "meant to expose what the media ha[d] already decided [wa]s true". Klein echoed Grim's argument, adding that the same problem of anchored preconceptions had led journalists to discount Sanders' ability to mobilize voters. Juan Gonzalez said that members of the NYDN's editorial board he had spoken with "were surprised by the furor" surrounding the interview, which Gonzalez said was "largely fueled by the Clinton campaign and their surrogates."

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Further information on the furor raised by Clinton surrogates: Here is Bloomberg (named for a billionaire running to prevent Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2020), The Atlantic citing two of the error-containing questions Grim identified, WaPo 1 (Capeheart), WaPo2 (Cillizza), Slate (cites Clinton surrogates on Twitter), CNN (cites Clinton)

NB: the date of the interview has been updated in the text above (April 1), April 4th was the transcript publication date. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• You are now claiming that this article: has been taken over by Snoogans, MrX, WSMR, O3000 & Slywriter. Cf. WP:OWN. This is an amazing statement. You are claiming that since five editors disagree with your actions here, they (not you) have taken ownership. Think about that. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Given my small number of edits and particularly reverts, it's a baseless statement. So I'll just embrace the Wikipedia way and encourage others to disregard statements by a biased Non-RS. Nor will I bother with the npa filter, better for everyone to judge facts accordingly. Slywriter (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, you know the process is BRD right? Any comment on content or can I restore this since nobody has discussed the content after 60 hours, not even the one who deleted the 3 corroborating sources and the contextual information about Wisconsin & New York? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This entire section is a discussion. Editors giving up on the conversation does not give anyone license to restore changes lacking consensus. --WMSR (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Logging that I'm opposed to the re-introduction of this content. The sourcing is still very thin and the material does not reflect an concise overview of media coverage of Bernie Sanders. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see a discussion starting here. On the topic of thin sourcing, it would have been possible to cite 10 if that's your cup of tea but I chose three. CNN (obviously reliable), Slate (by a journalist considered trustworthy on other articles) and Democracy Now (avowedly left wing but this is outweighed by the fact that Juan Gonzalez was an editor of NYDN and is therefore highly relevant). Your second comment about the material itself does not make sense. The reason we have a dedicated article for this is precisely so that we don't have to limit ourselves to an overview. An overview goes in the lead but the body should go into specific incidents that are germane to the article. This incident involves members of the media writing about how other members of the media reacted negatively to a Bernie Sanders interview conducted by members of the media — pretty much the definition of "media coverage of Bernie Sanders". Connor Behan (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's talk about sources

While not deprecated, several sources which are heavily cited in this article are either potentially unreliable or require attribution and clarification about the nature of the source (per WP:RSP):

• FAIR: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support exceptional claims regarding living persons. Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions.
• Democracy Now!: There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
• The Intercept: Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.
• The Nation: Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
• Jacobin: Not assessed by RSN, but the lede on its WP page is Jacobin is a democratic socialist quarterly magazine based in New York offering American leftist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.
• BuzzFeed News: In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.
• Media Matters for America: There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.
• The Daily Beast: Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.
• Rolling Stone: Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. Some editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be attributed.

While some of these sources are generally reliable, I would argue that the controversial nature of this article means that the use of these sources should be drastically reduced, if not eliminated, except when used to cite uncontroversial statements of fact. --WMSR (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources are used to make exceptional BLP claims and all of the material attributed to them is attributed in wiki-text unless I am mistaken. WMSR should provide any counterexamples below.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if all content cited to them is attributed, it remains an issue that most of the content in this article relies on them. Any acknowledgement of sources being biased is largely absent from the article. And this article is chock full of exceptional claims; if mainstream sources are not reporting these claims, then they are by definition exceptional. If mainstream sources are reporting the claims, those should be cited instead. --WMSR (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The heavy reliance on attribution in any other article on Wikipedia would be a sign of a bad article. It is a misguided interpretation of Wikipedia policies to use attribution as the backbone of an article. I realize the claim is MSM isn't covering it but for every other article in AP, the lack of main stream coverage is an absolute reason to NOT include 'facts', even attributed ones Slywriter (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

5 of the 9 you list are considered generally reliable at RS/N but have been attributed anyway. The recent question about the New York Daily News interview is an excellent example. Originally it was sourced to DN! then when I added Huffpost & Vox (RS without caveat at RS/N) it was reverted wholesale without comment: the goalposts shifted backward, just as—excitingly—a bunch of fog was poured into the page via MrX / Snoog / WMSR / O3000's AE case, so I'm not sure whether kicking a field goal is still feasible or not. I suppose I'll be rushed off the field now. Over and out :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you trying to say here? This has nothing at all to do with AE. --WMSR (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I really love how constantly you use WP:WEASEL to tear down sources you don't like. As if it mattered. So, should WP never use MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Newsweek, The Nation, National Review, all because the ever-anonymous SOME PEOPLE say they are biased? How absurd. SOME PEOPLE, incidentally, say WP is biased. So, WP should cease to exist. SMH - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No, WP should not cease to exist. But, we never use WP as a source. O3000 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way WP lost its way when it comes to politically charged articles. Fact is many sources that are generally reliable for facts get tagged as unreliable because editors don't like the source rather than question the substance. That's not the case here. Editors are challenging whether the facts are distorted by the source to create a narrative that doesn't exist. And by extension, create a Wikipedia article that supports said narrativeSlywriter (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) —Rafe87 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) According to his own links, these two sources have been ruled reliable on Wikipedia. —Rafe87 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rafe87: The sources I listed are all noted on WP:RSP as either potentially unreliable or biased sources, which is why I listed them. Unless I missed something, other sources cited in this article are not listed as such. If you want to discuss the points I made with regard to the content of the article, please go ahead. If you're here to attack me, this discussion won't go anywhere and we'll end up back at ANI. I would really rather not do that. --WMSR (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not what the links say - they say they've been ruled as generally reliable. Stop misrepresenting wikipedia policy for once. — Rafe87 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the WMSR, and have made very similar arguments previously. FAIR is cited five times, which is approaching excess. I don't think we should use MMA at all. The Intercept should be limited to maybe 1 or 2 cites. Rolling Stone is generally a good (albeit liberal) publication, but Matt Taibbi does not write objectively about the subject in my opinion. Democracy Now is cited twice, which I'm OK with. More than that would be excessive. The other sources should be used sparingly. Best practice would be to favor scholarly sources and mainstream sources that cover the subject objectively, with minimal opinion. - MrX 🖋 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Some recent articles on the primaries have been discussing media bias against Sanders

• The media keep falling in love — with anybody but Bernie Sanders (Washington Post)
• MSNBC's Chuck Todd uses 'journalistic sleights of hand' to insult Trump, Sanders voters, critics say (Fox News)
• MSNBC's Chuck Todd under fire for reciting quote comparing Sanders supporters to Nazis (Salon)
• CNN Has It In for Bernie (The Nation)
• Media Stupidity Is Uniting Left and Right (Rolling Stone)

—Rafe87 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Rafe87 and this is a new one from yesterday [1]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes made

I made several changes to the article and wanted to lay out my reasoning here:

• Several uncontroversial copyedits.
• Removed text sourced only to potentially unreliable sources.
• Removed text sourced to opinionated sources which made exceptional claims without corroboration
• Removed a sentence regarding the page of the NYT which featured Sanders's campaign announcement. This is irrelevant. Clinton's was on page 10.
• Removed a citation of the Guardian, since the Guardian's piece in turn cites the Las Vegas Review, which is cited here.
• Deleted a Brock quote that didn't really help make the point.
• Deleted excessive quoting from Sides
• Removed text directly contradicted by citations
• Restored background insofar as it was sourced and, well, provided background. --WMSR (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most all of these changes. The MSNBC graphics controversy perhaps should remain in some form, although I think we should only use The Intercept as a source sparingly. The same goes for FAIR which is cited five times. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Vice and more report on media bias after NH primary

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxegbq/analysis-bernie-sanders-wins-new-hampshire-primary.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.gq.com/story/mainstream-media-vs-bernie-sanders

And a piece in WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-media-keep-falling-in-love--with-anybody-but-bernie-sanders/2020/02/12/0f55cc12-4d9c-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add content to the article, but note that the articles you linked are opinion pieces. Any NPOV source needs to be attributed, and even then, that's problematic in an article like this. --WMSR (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't everything in an article like this going to be based on opinion, other than some kind of statistical analysis?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Vice is not good source, and I think we should avoid in-the-moment opinion columns, otherwise it's going to be an excruciating primary season. - MrX 🖋 13:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that it would be a good idea to include this information about the New Hampshire primary.  We don't need to discuss every primary; this is a good example of what opinion pieces have been reporting for a long time.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. I would like to hear opinions from some other editors. - MrX 🖋 12:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The last thing this article needs is more material from opinion pieces and primary sources. We should wait to see what kind analysis is published in secondary sources instead of jumping on every news story as it comes out. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Back and forth

I am removing this back and forth from the fifth paragraph of the '2020 primary campaign' section. It makes Wikipedia look like it's a host for a petty argumens. If anyone objects, I would be happy to explain further.

Sanders rejected that his claim was a conspiracy theory. NPR wrote that Sanders's comments bore similarities to Trump's criticism of the media. CNN columnist Chris Cillizza said that Sanders had no evidence for his claims.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 13:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX's "manufactured outrage"

User:MrX is now in the business of deciding, on his own, when a controversy discussed in reliable sources is simply "manufactured controversy" and is therefore not worth mentioning in this entry. What authority does he have to decide this on his own? The consensus not only in this entry but in the encyclopedia in general, has always been that the content of its pages should reflect what reliable sources say. It is not his role to decide which controversies mentioned in reliable sources are worthy of recognition here and which are merely "manufactured outrage". As a WMSR, he also thinks that the use of The Intercept and the Nation - not coincidentally one of the few media outlets not hostile to Sanders - should be restricted as sources, although both are considered "generally reliable" by Wikipedia.

None of this is based on Wikipedia policies; this is nothing but POV-pushing. —Rafe87 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rafe87: Please self-revert. You violated both editing restrictions on this page. On the substance of your comment above, I edited according to our policies. I don't claim to have any authority, but I do have the right to edit the article, including removing material that is WP:UNDUE, poorly sourced, or contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia article. - MrX 🖋 14:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have already self-reverted merely on account of the editing-restriction policy. My objection to your edits are the same: you're cherry-picking which reliable sources are reliable enough for you, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and choosing to shrug off controversies amply discussed in reliable sources as mere "manufactured outrage", in what is an ad hominem attack either against said media sources or editors here. — Rafe87 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rafe87: You did a partial revert. Please revert these ones also which violate 1RR.

I'm not "cherry picking" any sources. I made a judgement about each sources based on the underlying content, relevance, each source's reputation on Wikipedia, and the extent to which they are routinely cited by high quality sources. My edits occurred over the course of an hour and 22 minutes. I researched sources and previous talk page discussions, and left descriptive edit summaries. You, on the other hand, blithely reverted all of my edits in the course of four minutes. You didn't even use an edit summary!

If anyone can articulate a reason why any specific edit I made is bad, I will be happy to respond in kind. - MrX 🖋 14:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

in what is an ad hominem attack either against said media sources. This entire article reads like argumenta ad hominem against the media. O3000 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment, (Personal attack removed). 2804:7F7:DC80:7F30:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

More articles claiming bias against Sanders in the media

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)

Didn't I tell you? I'm not the only one who's been noticing your proclivity to trolling and bad faith editing. — 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 [2], MSNBC [3], RealClearPolitics [4], Poynter Institute [5] Common Dreams [6], Newsweek [7].--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 Colombia 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:

• Shephard, Alex. 2020. "How Pundits Manipulate Math to Dismiss Sanders". The New Republic, Feb. 13, 2020.

: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)

Last deletion discussion

This is an obvious WP:POVFORK. It appears this article primarily serves to promote the notion that Bernie Sanders has been treated unfairly. It only maintains a facade of neutrality by giving short-shrift to opposing views. This is not a topic with significant enough mainstream attention to warrant a spinoff.

I can already hear some responses that I've seen from the delete discussions: "Well, that's the point! The mainstream media is unfair to Bernie!" Wikipedia goes by mainstream sources. Whoever closed the last discussion with "no consensus" obviously did not give any evaluation to the relative strength of the arguments for keep versus not. This article is just a compendium of quotes from commentators with little lasting relevance and reference to opinion pieces criticizing the media and praising Bernie Sanders as a politician. Here's a wonderful comment from the last delete discussion: Third Way Dems are upset over Sanders' populist message, but this isn't the way to go about disagreeing with it. The reviewers of these discussions have done a horrible job of disregarding editors who are obviously and openly POV pushing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I will instead be proposing a deletion review of the discussion. Even a cursory review of the quality of arguments for Keep gives the impression that the no consensus result was highly questionable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that you haven't made even a slight look at the arguments in that discussion. The arguments were all based on the notability of the subject. Your argument here is the one that should not be counted because it's nothing but "I just don't like it" argument.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:, I suppose you believe I haven't reviewed the arguments because I came to a different conclusion than you did. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, indeed. Your vote, it is a notable, controversial issue that is widely covered in reliable sources. Definitely should have its own article. Content disputes and I just dont like it are not reasons for deletions. Is the type of conclusory, self-supporting argument that should carry no weight. An assertion about notability requires reference to sources except in the most obvious of cases' it is not affirmed by editors' opinions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is an interaction from the deletion discussion page that shows me you clearly do not understand the distinction between op-eds and objective news articles when it comes to WP:DUE, along with similar accusations of bias or "content disagrements" that you've made against me here.

The issue is that reliable sources haven't really covered the subject. They have published opinions about it. The article is not about reactions to media coverage of Sanders, yet that's all that seems to be present. There is very little verifiable factual information about the subject. Furthermore, saying that Sanders is becoming a frontrunner is not only WP:CRYSTALBALL, but largely irrelevant. Biden does not have a comparable page. I also don't understand how deleting the article is true WP:COATRACK, since an article can't be a coat rack if it doesn't exist. --WMSR (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC) I am not sure what CRYSTALBALL are you talking about. The content is discussed in the media extensively. The media coverage of Bernie has been widely called "Bernie Blackout" and sources are discussing this. Content disputes are not reasons for deletions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC) I am talking about How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden (emphasis mine). Nowhere did I say that content disputes were reasons for deletion, but the actual reasons that I gave in the nomination are. Media sources discussing a topic is much different than sources reporting on it. There are very few, if any, sources in this article with concrete facts; as it stands now, most of the article is quoted or summarized opinions of pundits. There are not enough reliable sources with verifiable facts pertaining to the subject to prove notability. I understand that it's tempting to give in to confirmation bias, but at the end of the day, a thousand op-eds alleging mistreatment of Sanders by the media does not an article make. --WMSR (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you adhere to WP:AGF more closely and learn to develop your arguments rather than making ad hominems against other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have provided sources to back my arguments there, and there are sources above, you can also search in Google "Bernie blackout" and you will find sources. This is a notable controversy that is been widely discussed by reliable source. Go ahead and propose a deletion review.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, when did I make an ad hominems argument? you have literally mocked all the keep votes saying "I can already hear some responses that I've seen from the delete discussions: "Well, that's the point! The mainstream media is unfair to Bernie!".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well for one thing, news reporting is only the first draft of history. Fortunately we are able to use analysis as well. And mainstream media also report their coverage. For example, the New York Times ombudsman said that her paper gave less coverage to Sanders' campaign because they concluded that he was not running to win the nomination but to make a point. There's also the socialism angle. TFD (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

include items via Some More News?

• 7 Ways The Media Sure Is Freaking Out About Bernie Sanders on YouTube published Feb 11, 2020

X1\ (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Propoganada is not media. Slywriter (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

New Vanity Fair article: "Fox Has Been 'More Fair': Why Bernie’s Team Has Had It With MSNBC"

A piece published today by Vanity Fair seems relevant for this article:

• Kludt, Tom. 2020. "Fox Has Been 'More Fair': Why Bernie’s Team Has Had It With MSNBC", Vanity Fair. February 18, 2020.

Enjoy! :bloodofox: (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

More on MSNBC's coverage:

• Pompeo, Joe (February 24, 2020). "'Phil Is Doing His Best to Give Bernie His Due': After a Sanders Surge and a Matthews Gaffe, MSNBC Prepares to Pivot". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
• Stelter, Brian (February 24, 2020). "What is MSNBC's problem with Bernie Sanders?". CNN Business. Retrieved February 25, 2020.

czar 01:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of quote from Patterson's Shorenstein Center paper

A study done by the Harvard/Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, authored by Thomas Patterson, is cited in the section Academic Analyses. I added a direct quote from the cited article stating that Bernie Sanders received two-thirds of the primary news coverage of Hillary Clinton, but it was deleted for being 'meaningless' and misleading. Here is the diff of the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&oldid=prev&diff=942395442 What do other editors think? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts. A direct quote is not necessary. It would be easy to simply paraphrase it without loosing any meaning or violating copyright. Second, I'm not sure it's important because it only spans approximately six weeks. If we are going to select this particular statistic out of a primary source, then I think we should have the backing of at least one secondary source that takes notice of this information. - MrX 🖋 14:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

These kinds of deletions make Wikipedia look really bad. But I guess people are used to that by now. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How so? - MrX 🖋 15:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because it cites a statistic as a stand alone fact and ignores any and all context. Hillary Clinton had a major story about emails and FBI investigation that lead to additional coverage of her, while Bernie said his usual spiel day in, day out. To pretend none of that happened and just lay the stat in the article is misleading the reader. Slywriter (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant, neutral point of view, reliably sourced material demonstrating reliable source recognition of media bias

Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=942405881&oldid=942404812 And here is the reason for deletion: "This material has problems. The sourcing is not great, and some of the material is not verifiable in the source." The sources are cited, and the material is directly based on the cited sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the text that I removed

At the end of December, The Nation declared in a headline that, "The Bernie Blackout is Over". An article in Salon pointed out that the mainstream media had slighted Sanders by downplaying his support, misreporting polling data, ignoring his endorsements by public figures, and questioning the level of support for his policy positions.

Sources

The phrase "The Nation declared" is editorializing. None of the sources say the Nation "declared" anything. The phrase "An article in Salon pointed out that the mainstream media had slighted Sanders by... misreporting polling data," seems to an interpretation of what the source actually wrote, which is

In the most egregious examples, the news media seems to deliberately misrepresent the facts. CNN recently offered one of the most outrageous examples, when it reportedly twice-aired a six-week-old poll from Iowa showing Bernie in fourth place. At the time of their reporting, more recent polling showed Sanders clearly in second place behind Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

The words "Seems to" and "reportedly" are equivocations that are not captured in your text.

"Salon pointed out" is also editorializing. The correct phrasing would be "according to Salon" or "in an article in Salon". - MrX 🖋 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious editing of lede to remove mentions of lacking coverage in study

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[8] 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[9] 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)

More on Politico's anti-semitic attack on Sanders

Some editors here are trying to downplay criticism of Politico's anti-semitic attack on Sanders by ascribing the criticism to progressive sources only; however, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency also published an article on the subject clearly taking issue with the Politico and describing the text as anti-semitic, and as far as I know that publication doesn't have a noticeably progressive reputation. I've been reverted after removing this false description (shocker!) so I can't do that again today, so let's arrive at a consensus here. — Rafe87 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, you need to substantiate your revert, in detail. And forget about the typo — that can be easily fixed. El_C 17:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Jacobin is a "democratic socialist" magazine. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes calling Politico's article antisemitic is irrelevant if there are legit secondary sources which describe it as such. There was no source for the sentence about a video mocking Sanders's appearance. --WMSR (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, the piece has an addendum which reads: This story has been updated to remove additional references to Bernie Sanders’ physical appearance. El_C 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Mocking" and "references to" are different. If a secondary source reports that there was mocking, that would potentially warrant inclusion. --WMSR (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"...a line in the article that mocked Sanders's physical appearance.". — Rafe87 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to the most of this edit, restored by SharabSalam. There is nothing in the ThinkProgress article[10] about an article being "emended to remove attacks on Sanders' physical appearance". The article says "This story has been updated to remove additional references to Bernie Sanders’ physical appearance." We don't allow WP:OR.

I'm strongly opposed to including AOC's reaction, which adds less than nothing to the understanding of the subject of this article. - MrX 🖋 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post described one the line that was removed as "mocking" Sanders's appearance: "...a line in the article that mocked Sanders's physical appearance.". That's not Original Research. — Rafe87 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it's not original research. MrX, the mere fact that you "strongly oppose" adding AOC comment is not an argument. I suggest you read WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. AOC's reaction is notable enough to be in the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)