Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

RfC: AOC comment about Politico

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to add AOC's criticism of the Politico article. Numerically, it's a tie, and even from a "strength of arguments" standpoint it's pretty well-balanced. Examples follow; those for say because she is involved with the Sanders campaign that makes it newsworthy, those against say because she is involved it shouldn't be included; "AOC is widely known and quoted" is used by both sides as well. Given the relative stalemate, and the fact that the article has been criticized by other orgs, the motion fails, and so the content will not be added. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 removing this bit in lieu of the added clarification, "[...research shows that], on average, [the tone of media coverage of Sanders...]"

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

Re (i): The Shorenstein Center did not say that Sanders got less media coverage than he deserved or that a candidate of his stature should have gotten. It just said it was less than Clinton's when they were in a two-horse race (which is what the lead already says). At all points in the race, Sanders was less likely to win the nomination than Clinton by any standard (delegate count or polling) and by all sources. You're resorting to your own original analysis in this section and arguing, clearly incorrectly in my view, that at some point in the race, Sanders was neck-and-neck with Clinton and should have therefore received the exact same amount of media coverage. There is no RS that substantiates that way, it directly contradicts the Sides et al. study and therefore the lead should not include your own analysis. The fact that the lead doesn't include your own original analysis doesn't mean that the lead has NPOV problems. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, is there a way to read the relevant section(s) of Sides' book to verify how it's currently being represented here? Where did the current information come from, since the link only leads to a book abstract?

In the same vein as the Shorenstein Center didn't say Sanders got less coverage than he "deserved" or "should have gotten," (as far as I know,) neither does Sides' book say that "candidates should get coverage with linear proportion to their polling" (e.g. 1% polling = 1% the coverage). And yet, the tone of the paragraph makes it read as such. You're talking about rigid wording, while I'm talking about the POV (and tone), which is borne not only out of words but from between the lines. This is discussed e.g. in WP:SYNTH – implicit context (or lack thereof) alone can be enough to cause synth.

WP:NPOV states in its first paragraph: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This is currently not the case with the paragraph. It represents only views favorable or neutral to Sanders detractors, and is unrepresentative of the body of studies that it's aiming to summarize.

Sanders getting less coverage than Clinton is not the same significant view as his coverage lagging. Shorenstein Center stated: "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." This is a significant view distinct from (and contrary to the tone of) Sides' findings, but is not addressed in any way. Sanders not receiving "the exact same amount of media coverage" as Clinton is not the issue here; what I quoted from the study is. Selvydra (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first half of your comments: "the tone of the paragraph makes it read as such." Their finding is literally described, and obviously it will be read as indicating there wasn't media bias. Sides literally states as much here[4]. It's not a NPOV problem or a SYNTH problem that we state their finding and that anyone with a brain interprets it in a logical way. For example, we would not remove a quote by David Duke that denigrates black people from his page with the justification "this quote gives people the impression that he's racist. SYNTH!" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As for the last part, the Shorenstein report is saying that in the context of Sanders needing lots of media coverage to win the election, and that even when he was getting lots of media coverage, it wasn't enough to defeat Clinton. The fact that Sanders received less coverage than Clinton is already in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're finally engaging with how the paragraph actually reads. Maybe we can actually reach a compromise, rather than an outcome that will leave the lede a source of perpetual controversy. Now look at the paragraph as a whole – there is not one fragment of a sentence there that acts as a caveat to bias allegers, even though the Shorenstein studies have them in abandon. As I explained, Sanders receiving less coverage does not count towards that. The paragraph leaves the reader with the impression that studies are unanimous in their decree that the coverage of Sanders was fair and the allegations were unfounded, which is not true and goes counter to what WP:NPOV states. Sides' WaPo article is fair enough, although it's from Sept. 2015 when many others weren't rating Sanders' chances (and thus the 'anticipated importance' he mentions) high, either.

The Shorenstein report is saying that in the context of Sanders needing lots of media coverage to overcome the name ID disadvantage, and that even during the brief times he was receiving comparable coverage to Clinton, it wasn't enough to defeat her because of her former advantage in coverage and ID. This is an important difference in nuance (name ID advantage vs. general strength as a candidate) and shouldn't be left out.

I would suggest amending the paragraph as follows (additions in bold, otherwise the same or with words moved around):

• A book about the 2016 election says that the amount of media coverage of Sanders during 2015 exceeded his standing in the polls, and was strongly correlated with his polling performance over the course of the whole campaign.[Sides] On average, research shows that Sanders received substantially less media coverage than Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, but that the tone of his coverage was more favorable than that of any other candidate.[Sides][Patterson1,2] During the 2016 election, the media provided substantially more coverage of the Republican primary than the Democratic primary, and Republican candidate Donald Trump dominated media coverage[Patterson2]; this was described as depriving him of the coverage needed to overcome Clinton.[Patterson1]

Selvydra (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, the media's treatment of Martin O'Malley's campaign could also be described as depriving him of the coverage needed to overcome Clinton. --WMSR (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not mind adding "on average" and "substantially". That last line is unnecessary though. It goes without saying that getting more media coverage would help a candidate. Sides et al. even explicitly link Sanders' disproportionate coverage and the positive nature of that coverage to his relative success, yet we wouldn't add a line saying that the favorable tone and disproportionately large coverage aided his candidacy, because that would be undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WMSR – You're not wrong. If there is a study that thought this hypothetical statement constituted a point of discussion (as Shorenstein did with Sanders) and if there is an article on media coverage of O'Malley, it would in my opinion belong there.

Snooganssnoogans – Sides et al. (I found the excerpts on Google Books now) link Sanders' amount of coverage to his popularity (rallies, etc.) to his polling every bit as much as they do the other way around. In fact, that was one of the surprisingly few things in his book I found that supported bias allegers' claims. So, it would be undue if and only if you didn't also add that caveat.

The last line is of the "goes without saying" nature specifically because I wrote it to be as neutral as possible. As you may be aware, this debate was sparked by you removing my initial, more explicit lines. The significance of this newer line (what makes it due and not redundant) is that (i) it helps bring the paragraph closer to being NPOV in tone, (ii) balances out the disproportionate representation of research (the comparatively undue space given to Sides), and (iii) a research group even took the time and space to discuss this at length (and without contrary caveats, unlike Sides et al.). Selvydra (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sides et al. link polling and media coverage. They do not link rallies and media coverage – linking the two is your own personal analysis. Your own analysis has now shifted from Sanders and Clinton were even in polls and thus should have received the exact same media coverage to Sanders had large rallies and thus should have received far more media coverage. Neither of those personal analyses belong in this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What you're trying to do with the last line is a clear example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The notion that a candidate performs better if they get more news coverage is clear to anyone. The spin you're trying to put on it is to imply that a media bias against Sanders prevented him from performing better. As I mentioned earlier, one could write the exact same version of the line that you're proposing except to put the spin that says "Sanders benefited from disproportionate and positive media coverage" and cite Sides et al who explicitly say this. Yet I have not proposed doing that because that is clear violation of UNDUE. Just as your proposed spin is a violation of UNDUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Sides et al., page 106: "The question for Sanders was how to turn enthusiastic rallies into meaningful support on a national scale. Many candidates have done better at attracting crowds than winning votes. [...] So it was appropriate to ask, as an MSNBC headline put it the day Sanders kicked off his campaign, "Can Bernie Sanders take the 'Burlington Revolution' national?" This is where news coverage came in. Many of the spikes in coverage of Sanders came after days on which he held rallies (figure 6.4). This again served the function of "conferring status," whereby media coverage signals that someone's "behavior and opinions are significant enough to require public notice."'" The crowds at the rallies were interpreted as evidence of a viable campaign, as is often true of horse race news coverage."

"They should've received exactly the same amount of coverage" was your conjecture, not my "spin." See my earlier reply at 01:07, where I already refuted it.

Not "a media bias against Sanders prevented him from performing better" so much as "Sanders had a name ID disadvantage and didn't get the amount of coverage necessary to overcome that." If that is spin, it's Shorenstein's spin, not mine. Sides' "strong correlation" between Sanders' coverage and polling is just as much of a spin – I don't see him divulging the R^2 value and comparing that to commonly accepted thresholds for varying levels of correlation. It serves to set a tone that is in keeping with his opinions on his WaPo article – that the coverage disparity was just and deserved.

As I said earlier, the reason you would add my suggestion, but not Sides' line on Sanders benefiting from disproportionate and positive coverage, is that the majority of the paragraph is already about Sides' book rather than Shorenstein's studies.

I am fine with altering the suggested line to make it clear that it isn't trying to spin it the way you're alleging, but that it neutrally conveys e.g. that "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. [Patterson1]" Instead of shooting down ideas, please either put forward a suggestion or explicitly say why you think the paragraph as it currently stands is NPOV and a representative summary of research on the matter. Selvydra (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a line is needed that essentially says that "media coverage of a candidate is good", but with a strange spin that attempts to suggest that the media was biased against Sanders (when the spin could also be that a biased media helped his candidacy). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(i) Current paragraph already gives Sides undue weight, (ii) it says more than that (puts it in the context of the race and Sanders' coverage). Selvydra (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is now that we should not include a peer-reviewed study by leading political scientists in the best political science press which looks precisely at the topic of this Wikipedia article? Why? Because you personally disagree with the findings of their research? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of the constant overshooting hyperbole and straw-men, please spend a few extra seconds and read what I actually wrote. I am arguing for inclusion, not exclusion. Selvydra (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This source has been used to provide a spin which the authors did not intend. For example, the statement, "the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015" is clearly wrong. It implies that the authors have concluded that the level of coverage was fair. The source says the percentage of news stories mentioning Sanders was the same as his percentage in the polls. They don't say whether it should have been higher or lower or refer to a mention as coverage. All it means is that 25 to 45 percent of the articles about Hillary Clinton mentioned that Sanders was also in the race. TFD (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is literally what Sides et al. say on page 105: "At this point in time, Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls." And Figure 6.4 clearly shows that the news coverage share far exceeded the polling share during 2015. If anything, our Wikpiedia article underplays this finding from Sides et al. because it drops the "far" from "far exceeded". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"All it means is that 25 to 45 percent of the articles about Hillary Clinton mentioned that Sanders was also in the race." This is your own ridiculous unsubstantiated original research. Thankfully, on Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources (and in this case it's a peer-reviewed study by recognized experts in the top political science press). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The chart says, "The line indicates the share of news stories mentioning Sanders. the dots indicate individual polls." So when Sanders was polling 25%, 25% of articles mentioned The writers do not say that is necessarily fair coverage. I raised the issue at NORN. TFD (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible deletion of article

I have been watching this page and noticed that most of the biased editors have left by now. The main issue is that most media coverage of Bernie Sanders was not unusual, as it is consistent with his poll numbers. Even most of the sources say this. 107.194.194.207 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2020

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders → Media coverage of Bernie Sanders Campaigns – Most of the coverage is about his campaigns, and not about his life and views in general. Atdevel (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)