Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

RfC: AOC comment about Politico

Should we mention that Ocasio-Cortez described the report from the Politico magazine as anti-semitic?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes not only that American news outlets covered her comment about the Politico anti-semitic report but also international news outlets like Haaretz: Ocasio-Cortez Slams Politico for 'Money Trees Next to the Only Jewish Candidate for President' Jerusalem Post: Ocasio-Cortez bashes Politico for 'antisemitic' illustration of SandersTime of Israel. Its definitely a notable comment about an anti-semitic report that was even condemned by the Anti-Defamation League.[1] (also another source that mentions AOC comment.)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - She is not an expert on anti-semitic journalism. She is a devoted Bernie fan who also happens to be in a near perpetual state of outrage. All things considered, her views on a Politico article do not rise to the level of encyclopedic importance. - MrX 🖋 01:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree - The above objection is nonsensical. For one, you don't need to be an expert on anti-semitism to identify it: walks like a duck? talks like a duck? It's probably a duck. Two: editor is suspiciously quick to disregard her comment due to a perception of AOC being a devoted "Bernie fan", which means we should also basically just delete Mike Pompeo's article, because he's equally as much of a 'Trump fan' as AOC is a "Bernie fan": that objection is just plain illogical. And three, "encyclopedic" importance is not something us editors have the liberty of selectively applying. Encyclopaedic importance in this case is met because the title of the article is 'Media coverage of Bernie Sanders', this is noteworthy media coverage of Bernie Sanders, and even more-so given how egregious the Politico article was. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• No - Activist politicians have views every day, rarely do they rise to the level of being encyclopedic. Also, she is a surrogate of the candidate and does not provide an independent viewpoint Slywriter (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree - As editors we do not have the liberty of selectively applying encyclopaedic importance. The fact the comment came from an "activist" politician does not make it less encyclopaedic, and anyway, she's a congresswoman; activists are persons outside the halls of power. Indulgence in pejorative like that speaks more to editorial bias, than to rational argument against this RfC. The editor's accusation of AOC being without an independent viewpoint is also not substantiated and is closer to ad hominem than any kind of objection based on policy. Party members 'sing from the same song sheet' whether Republican or Democrat; and that is a rather weak reason to try and discount her comment. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• No - She is a freshman congressperson whose every word is published in both right and left sources. That doesn't make her comments notable except in relation to herself. They may very well belong in her article -- but not in every article about every person with whom she has expressed an opinion. O3000 (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - She isn't an authority on the subject matter, and it is hardly surprising that a Sanders supporter supports Sanders. Her being a surrogate of the Sanders campaign makes this wholly undue. --WMSR (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes You know what? This is a reasonable proposal, and I agree with it. If we have an article about Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, then this certainly falls within that category. The sources provided (Politico, JPost, Haaretz) are reliable enough to meet WP:DUE, and AOC is a widely known politician and associate of Sanders. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

AOC isn't "the media", nor is she an expert on the media. Just because a notable person makes a comment about something doesn't mean that their comment is automatically encyclopedic. --WMSR (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that any of us can agree on a single definition of "encyclopedic." It seems relevant and appears to meet sourcing policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• No The Politico article covers this, it seems sort of appropriate there, if a bit overdone. I don't think it's that important here unless there are notables in addition to AOC commenting on the article in the same vein.Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, it was condemned by the Anti-Defamation League[2].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, they would, wouldn't they? I just don't think that this particular event is that important in terms of the press coverage overall. Note that I am not saying that a section dealing specifically with coverage in general about his being Jewish would be bad, I think that might be good, actually.Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - One context we should consider, is that she is a prominent surrogate for Sanders. In fact, it doesn't get much more prominent, as far as surrogates go, than a member of congress. - Critical Chris 17:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - AOC is the story not the source.  We should consider including that RS are reporting on her comments.  We should definitely include that the Anti-Defamation League commented on this. [3]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Is there supposed to be more than seven paragraphs to that story? That's all I can see and none of it mentions AOC. - MrX 🖋 21:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It does not mention AOC by name.  That source was just to support including text about the Anti-Defamation League.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

*No - She's biased. If it got more play to broader refs then maybe, but it didn't. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - Narratives regarding anti-semitism get added to far-less important articles, and contrary to the claim above of AOC being biased, bias could also be introduced via omission of highly relevant snippets like this regardless of how widely publicised. A lack of wide publication is potentially evidence of bias, and only makes collating this information more important. Maintaining NPOV would be my only concern; anti-semitism can be a hot topic. It is interesting to note some objections appear to come from positions of personal or political opposition, rather than actual opposition to the substance of the matter in this RfC. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Relevant statement by AOC, a prominent member of the Sanders campaign, relates to subject of this article. Articles may present notable opinions as opinions -- see WP:YESPOV. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rolling Stone also mentions the study.[4]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further elaboration on reversion of lede changes

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Reason given: "this is undue"

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

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

This is simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) I actually think you have a better case on this one than on (i) – it's a bit odd that you removed (i) before (ii). The bandwagon effect does mean that coverage before the first primaries probably mattered the most. If we can co-operate on (i), I can probably agree on leaving this and instead adding the clarification, "on average," re: his coverage.

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