Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buggie111 (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 1 December 2019 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Media bias against Bernie Sanders

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Media bias against Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article engages in significant speculation and scope and caliber of sources (WP:N, WP:RS). Rather soapbox-y as well per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Inclusion justifies inclusion of "Media bias against (other candidate)" articles (i.e. Yang/Tulsi/Kamala/etc.), Trump in 2016, etc.. You can find people rankled up about lack of coverage for any candidate for elected office anywhere, it's not notable that some of them have mediums being used as sources here. Buggie111 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to amend: Can also possibly be merged into the relevant "Polls and news coverage" sections of Bernie Sanders (2016/2020). Buggie111 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Edit to add: Per WP:SPINOFF, "Article splits are permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. On the other hand, having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident." The POV of this article is questionable to say the least, and regardless, the existence of this article gives undue weight to a minor aspect of one candidate's campaign. Miadtkt (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would have to see some evidence that this really opens the door to "media bias" articles about every Democratic candidate. The examples for Bernie Sanders are much more widespread considering all the records he has broken for supporter size, number of volunteers and approval ratings. Many of the sources we cite consider anti-Bernie bias to be emblematic of the situation facing Yang and Tulsi anyway. The article currently has a few borderline claims. But after we remove them, it will still be much longer than what we normally relegate to a subsection. Connor Behan (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article may be a candidate for deletion under some guideline not yet mentioned, but I think that the links mentioned (Bernie Sanders § Polls and news coverage and Bernie Sanders § Polls and news coverage 2) are good starting points, but really lacking compared with the page being proposed for deletion. While the article has soap-boxy elements, I'm in favor of trimming and improvement rather than deletion. I think the amount of relevant and documented content makes it too expansive to be merged into any existing section of an existing relevant page that I'm aware of. I'm not clear on what Buggie111's means with: "it's not notable that some of them have mediums being used as sources here" Slapbox (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was in reference to the soapboxy vibe of the article. Given the, uh, open-natured aspect of "alternative media" sources from such sites are less likely to be fair, reliable sources and more someone venting that their preferred candidate isn't getting fair treatment. There's a case for a fair discussion of the subject after removing said sources and their associated content, but by that point I think it'll be small enough to just place in either an article about the candidate or about the campaign. Buggie111 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is newsworthy if the news is talking about it, which they are. This article fits all five criteria listed by Wikipedia:Notability. And yes, candidates could engage in, and do engage in it. However, the media has reported substantially on this topic. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete - Ignoring all other problems that this article has, this article clearly violates WP:NPOV to the point where it is probably better to TNT instead of trimming this article to what would likely be a stub otherwise. Hell, even the title of the article isn't written in a neutral point of view. This article seems far more suitable to be one or two sentences in the subsections mentioned above than a full article riddled with POV problems. — Chevvin 19:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. The liberal media bias against Sanders is absolutely blatant. Nineledarmoc (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Nineledarmoc (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Rvoskoboynikov (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia is not a blog (this reads like a Medium post by an aggrieved campaign surrogate). Wikipedia also certainly shouldn't be a place to validate (or attempt to validate) conspiracy theories espoused by a political campaign (directly or indirectly). "Bernie Blackout" as a term is one created by the campaign itself, as acknowledged in the lede. The Media bias against Bernie Sanders § 2020 primary campaign section seems to serve no purpose whatsoever, other than to: complain about journalists or commentators saying mean things about Bernie Sanders (this happens to all political candidates); suggest that MSNBC or other media outlets were purposefully nefarious because a graphic they displayed on-screen for seconds wasn't perfectly presented (this paragraph in particular is difficult to follow, and I'm not sure of the actual "bias" being described here); suggest that a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards (the Washington Post) is inherently biased against Bernie Sanders because Bernie Sanders criticizes Jeff Bezos (again, conspiratorial); and, lastly, serve as a soapbox for campaign surrogates like David Sirota with an entire paragraph seemingly dedicated to his Twitter feed or his "Bern Notice" newsletter. I fail to see the purpose of the article. Do we need to create articles like this for all other candidates, including tables showing exactly how many times they're mentioned on cable television in comparison to Donald Trump or other political candidates? I think most here would say no. Why don't we have a Media bias against Donald Trump article? Do we need one? Again, I think most here would say no. And I strongly disagree with other suggestions that any of the content in this article be included in Bernie Sanders § Polls and news coverage for the same reasons I believe this article should be swiftly deleted. Quac (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire comment "reads like a soapbox" yet you're smearing the entire article the same way. Pure projection. Nineledarmoc (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Nineledarmoc (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Rvoskoboynikov (talk • contribs). [reply]
If you don't mind, could you explain why you think this argument is a "smear" towards the article? I read it as a solid case against the article, albeit with a bit of WP:AON near the end. — Chevvin 21:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, articles like this for other candidates aren't absent because only Sanders supporters feel strongly enough to make charts assessing his positive and negative mentions. Charts like this for multiple candidates have been made and they show that the Sanders coverage is the least favourable. That's what makes this not a conspiracy theory — data acquired by journalists. And as for your Trump comparison, we already have an article in this vein. It's quite plausible that it would've been given the title "media bias against Donald Trump" had he lost the election. Connor Behan (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is clearly not conspiratorial in nature at all. As a matter of fact, only one journalist accused it as being a conspiracy. All of the others agreed that some form of bias exists but for different reasons that what Sanders or his campaign say. Also, the fact that we have an article about Trump derangement syndrome makes it shockingly obvious that this article is not nearly as controversial of a topic. Maybe it needs a different title, but the topic stands on its own for notability and verifiability. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again deletionism run rampant and completely ignoring all the important principles of the Wikipedia project such as WP:PAPER and WP:SOFIXIT. Destroying is always easier than creating, and Wikipedia is the epitome of the former. Deletion is the lazy way out -- not the academic way out. Anywhere else there is POV, the solution is to SOFIXIT. For some reason the solution here is never to SOFIXIT. People will spend plenty of time coming up with justifications for removal of content rather than spend time coming up with improvements to it. It's not encyclopedic, it's the opposite. - Keith D. Tyler 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the reason to delete the article is that its existence justifies the existence of other articles, why not just create those other articles? If similar well-sourced claims exist with the other campaigns, it seems that either those pages SHOULD exist, or there should be an article which covers electoral candidates. Lalichi (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to comment and say that there have been more problems with the article than just the (lack of) existence of other articles, namely NPOV concerns. Additionally, arguments based entirely around WP:AON, as yours is, are typically weaker compared to others. — Chevvin 21:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly documents the issues that have been widely reported by media sources. Wether or not the issue is legitimate or not, it fits well into the criteria for notability. The article documents the commentary made by both mainstream and “not-so-mainstream” sources. The article may violate NPOV in some instances, but this is due to the nature of the content discussed and can be adjusted with a few edits to make it appear more neutral. The reality is that there is no consensus on wether or not there is legitimate bias in the media against Bernie Sanders; however, it is very clear that it is discussed by the media and very few detractors have stated that it is not real. Only one commentator that I am aware of called it a conspiracy. Most other reports contend that there is some evidence of bias and that includes several studies that are cited in the article. As a matter of fact, some of the critics have agreed that there is a bias but attempt to give explanations as to why—hence the section about criticism and response to the accusations. The very fact that the media is talking about it indicates it notability. I would argue that we could just an article title name change and some various structural and wording changes. But a deletion is unwarranted and quite frankly, bias in its attempt to censor information that some Wikipedia editors find unsavory to their liking.
Additionally, in response to claims of article uniqueness, I would argue that we could potential have other articles such as bias against Yang or Trump; however, they would need to fit the criteria of notability. In Trumps case, there have actually been a great deal of studies that have found the media to be explicitly bias against him. One of the studies cited in this article even discusses it. As for Yang or Tulsi. So little media attention has been given that it renders it not notable.
I can tell you that when writing the article, the number of sources about the bias concerning Sanders was overwhelming. I tried my best to give a decent picture of what secondary sources were saying about the matter. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Azcolvin429, are you the same person who posted this article to multiple pro-Bernie Reddit sites? (Redacted) Because if so I would strongly warn you against violating WP:MEATPUPPET, and dissuade canvassing/meatpuppetry attempts by other accounts in all 3 threads you posted - as in my (non-admin) opinion keeping links up is indirect meatpuppetry. Buggie111 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those posts were made in good faith to encourage contributions in the article development. The dates clearly indicated posting long before any AfD was initiated. There is no meat-puppetry. Your accusations are unwarranted as you can explicitly see an open invitation to edit the article both before posting to the mainspace and after. Later comments from others came after the AfD. In addition, an anti-Sanders Reddit that links (here) was absolutely canvassing to encourage support for the AfD nom. As for the other posts, I will gladly delete them if needed. Though one has been locked by moderators already. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, well then please continue to explicitly dissuade any such canvassing and meatpuppet actions in those links by others, if you intend to keep any up. Buggie111 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some people from Enough_Sanders_Spam found your article and reported it for deletion. Typical liberal cowards. Nineledarmoc (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Nineledarmoc (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Rvoskoboynikov (talk • contribs). — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rvoskoboynikov (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep There is an established history for this topic – spanning from 2015, meeting descriptions in pre-existing literature (Chomsky, Konst, etc.) and conforming to rudimentary logic (US media is for-profit and owned by conglomerates that stand to lose substantial profit if a left-wing candidate like Sanders is elected). The same is happening to leftist Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, where half of the top newspapers are owned by 2 billionaires, and their coverage is adversarial towards him. For conglomerate-owned media to cover Sanders fairly would be financially unwise for them – and their entire business model is based on profit (rather than e.g. state media, like the BBC). Media bias against candidates like Sanders is more than maybe / maybe-not speculation – it is to be expected. With Sanders likely being the most prominent leftist in the US – and the US's place in the world – this, if anything, meets the WP:N criteria.
Given that this topic is critical of leading US media, it seems unreasonable to demand under the guise of WP:RS that the 'reliable sources' targeted by this criticism impartially discuss their own bias. Thus, the definition of RS here should be extended (within reason) to include sources outside of corporate-owned media.
Concerns with WP:NPOV of the author should be addressed with constructive editing, as the author collecting an allegedly lopsided selection of information here is still in keeping with WP:BOLD and does not invalidate the authenticity of the collected information itself. That this article should be deleted because there may be a lot to add or amend (due to this article's length) constitutes catch-22 type reasoning, as had the article been shorter, it could've been criticized as an stub that doesn't merit its own article. There needs to be a possible avenue for adding new content as per BOLD, even if it is disagreed with by some. Selvydra (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would also add that I would strongly recommend an interested editor to find information and sources that respond to the accusations of bias to give the article a more balanced perspective. The criticism section was my attempt—thought to be honest, I was hard-pressed to find refutations. Almost all the sources gave some credence to the bias, including the sources that responded to the accusations by Sanders, his campaign, or his supporters. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could get behind support of a merge with a broader article like the one you linked. This might be a good compromise of an obviously notable subject. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you provide some examples that indicate the article is unsalvageable? The article consistently mentions instances where respondents disagree or interpret the accusations. Also, if you'd like, you are welcome to cite sources that refute the accusations. There is criticism section that does this. It is short, but that is due to the fact that I was unable to find many criticisms from the media. What I did find was a lot of articles agreeing that some for of bias or misreporting exists but is explained by alternative causes. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders&oldid=928831494"