Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Altering lead

FYI I've change the lead to this:

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders has been largely unbiased according to multiple studies, however some alternative media have alleged that a bias against Sanders in the mainstream media does exist. Their allegations primarily concern Bernie Sanders' 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

I've changed the first sentence in accordance with MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:FIRST: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. The subject in this case is "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders."

What the coverage of Bernie Sanders is, is largely unbiased according to reliable, independent sources. If this article is really about Sanders Campaign's allegations, then the article should be moved to Bernie Blackout or whatever they're calling it. – Anne drew 03:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please dont put that in Wikivoice, independent sources you mean the corporate media? It is what this article is about. Also what are these "multiple studies" that say the coverage is unbiased? We have only one study and another study by FAIR that says the media is biased.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the heart of the problem behind this article: there is a constant push to turn this article back to what it originally was - a poorly written soapbox. We should absolutely be writing in what you call "Wikivoice" and we should absolutely use "corporate media" sources because what you consider to be "corporate media" are reliable sources in the eyes of most Wikipedians. Additionally, we have multiple studies cited in the article showing how Sanders' coverage was overly positive compared to other candidates. If you don't want to write in a "Wikivoice" and ignore reliable sources, you are free to do so on your blog or any other website, but please don't do it here. — Chevvin 12:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We have multiple "non-corporate" studies, and they didn't find bias against Sanders. There was a Harvard study about his coverage in 2016 that didn't find any bias against him. For the 2020 campaign, we have studies by Northeastern University's School of Journalism, which showed Sanders having a more positive media sentiment than both of the other leading contenders, Biden and Harris.

I'm all for documenting the allegations of bias, but we can't just regurgitate COISOURCE talking points in the first sentence and call it a day. – Anne drew 22:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not a neutral point of view lead. That is objectively stating right out that this article is lies and a marketing tool. It is not handling this article as a national discussion in media beyond just the Sanders campaign. To start an article with "is unbiased" is basically going against every source in the article that points out that media coverage is not equal among the candidates and that several sources have published multiple negative articles in small timeframes. Yall forget, that NPOV goes both ways.--WillC 07:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead cannot actively take a stand on this issue. It cannot say it is biased nor can it say it is unbiased. That would be an automatic violation of NPOV.--WillC 07:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It cannot say it is biased nor can it say it is unbiased. That would be an automatic violation of NPOV. That is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We must weigh our sources according to their reliability, as not to present a false balance. Wikipedia recognizes that some sources are better than others.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
— WP:NPOV

The Trump Campaign often alleges that the mainstream media is biased against him. We cannot have an article called Media coverage of Donald Trump that starts with:

The Donald Trump campaign and alternative media have alleged that the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Donald Trump, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

Instead we must look for scholarly sources to see whether or not they support this claim. – Anne drew 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the fundamental issue is that the first sentence of an article must simultaneously:

1. Define the subject of the article (in this case "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders")
2. Summarize the content of the article

Right now this article is article is written from the POV of the Sanders Campaign, with actual studies of bias against Sanders delegated to the "Response to criticisms" section. I now realize that this article used to be called "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", and it shows. – Anne drew 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Business Insider cites NYT analysis as proof that media is under-covering Sanders relative to Biden and Warren, and suggests Sanders' chances are being played down in the press:

Sanders gets less media attention that other top-tier candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, according to an analysis from The New York Times. Though some of this is likely due to Biden's name frequently being referenced in relation to the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, it could also reflect that the media is discounting and perhaps underestimating the Vermont senator.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-could-be-most-underestimated-2020-candidate-2019-12

In addition, Politico has published stuff on Sanders that has been widely lambasted as anti-semitic.

• https://www.jta.org/2019/05/28/opinion/politicos-cheap-shot-at-bernie-sanders
• https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-slams-politico-profile-anti-semitic
• https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/politico-magazine-accused-of-anti-semitism-over-bernie-sanders-illustration
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aaronfreedman/bernie-sanders-is-rich-but-hes-a-worker
• https://forward.com/fast-forward/424975/politico-magazine-accused-of-anti-semitism-over-bernie-sanders/
• https://thehill.com/homenews/house/445562-ocasio-cortez-progressives-trash-antisemitic-politico-illustration-of-bernie

Wikipedia has yet to mention the article in this entry, apparently because editors here are approaching this subject from a pro-media perspective.Rafe87 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@MrX:, This is where I found the reference. I've read it referred to by quite a few authors in addition to those cited here. Could you explain your reasons for deleting this content in a new section?

In May 2019, in an op-ed pubished in JTA, Andrew Silow-Carroll commented on the brief controversy regarding Politico's caricature of Bernie Sanders in "The Secret of Bernie's Millions".

There were a couple articles in Haaretz, at least one in the JP, as well as mention from Halper in one of her three articles, not sure which... there's also Jacobin, TYT. After looking into the story, I'd found a lot of outlets covered this, that's why I added it.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls I guess I would have to read the other articles to be convinced that this is noteworthy. The content itself is very thin. It doesn't explain why Silow-Carroll's opinions are important, or how it fits into the overall context of this article's subject. The whole thing was based on an awkward tweet. How is this encyclopedic? It seems more coatrackish and trivial. - MrX 🖋 15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess Halper refers to it obliquely in the 2nd line of the 2nd para of this article. Searching the article for "Zionist" also suggests this is not an isolated issue. I chose this article not because it was first, but because it seemed honest and well written (and also because he's a well-known journalist/editor-in-chief). In fact, you've slashed two editors in chief today (Jewish Week & The Nation). such bold, so cutting room floor. :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I completely agree the the lede as it is constitutes a flagrant NPOV violation. I restored your rewording of the lede and it has since been reverted again. @Rafe87: if by pro-media perspective you mean prioritizing reliable sources, then yes, editors should certainly approach their work with such a perspective. WMSR (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no united "reliable source" view on this subject. Editors like you are cherrypicking the views they wish to promote as the only correct one.Rafe87 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There definitely isn't a consensus on "media not being biased according to reliable sources" as to change the entire lede to reflect it – especially not in such a straightforward, nuance-free fashion. Time and again, even sources concluding that media bias allegations are largely unfounded still make concessions that Sanders does suffer from it in some ways (see the 'Response to criticisms' section). If there's a consensus, I argue it is this: Sanders has benefited from positive coverage on average (especially from leftist media), but the low amount of coverage he's received has at the very least canceled out that benefit. On top of that, the negativity of it has spiked before important election days – e.g. the 16 negative WaPo articles in early March. So, as you can see, it's hard to draw simplistic conclusions on the topic, meaning it should be treated with nuance and care.

I should also add that the reason behind the name change discussion (that led to "bias against" -> "coverage of") was to address title NPOV concerns – not to move the goalposts for the article's contents. Several editors raised concerns that this change would act as validation for changing the tone of the article over time to, "Media coverage of him is fair & allegations of bias wrong, unless proven otherwise." This backdrop should be kept in mind when using the new title as grounds for major changes in the content or tone – particularly as the merits of the existence of a page on media bias against Sanders were already litigated in the lengthy AfD that did not result in article deletion. Selvydra (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the result was "no consensus", which means the article may be put back up at AfD in the future as the community did not definitively rule on the merits of this article's existence. Slywriter (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The "unbiased" lead was a plain violation of "Prefer nonjudgmental language" section of NPOV. It was taking a stand on the issue that isn't supported by a clear majority nor supermajority of sources.--WillC 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Research studies are preferred as sources over political opinion pieces. – Anne drew 23:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The version you've just inserted is a clear violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. Saying "X says P, even though Z says P is not the case" is WP taking a stance in favour of Z and against X, by implying P to be incorrect. The studies are already described at length in the following paragraph and there's no need to insert them into the very first sentence. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Those same studies say the coverage was positive but still say he received less coverage. I wouldn't call that strictly unbias. Regardless, it still takes a judgment on the situation which violates NPOV.--WillC 10:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: How does this version violate NPOV?? Sanders and alternative media say X while multiple studies say Y is an impartial description of the situation. It is "neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view", as prescribed by WP:IMPARTIAL.

The studies are already described at length in the following paragraph and there's no need to insert them into the very first sentence

I see. You just want your preferred POV to be the only thing mentioned in first sentence. – Anne drew 13:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly in violation of no judgmental language. It is taking a stand in an issue when sources are conflicted and there is no clear majority. The only way a majority is seen is by having an impartial view on the subject and thus it would be making a judgment in language. The current lead as least isn't trying to make a judgment but is clearly stating the subject of the article. Saying it is clearly unbiased is not stating the subject but is trying to convince the reader of a position in the first sentence. That isn't NPOV.--WillC 05:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Content by "Paste magazine"

Should the following content by "Paste magazine" be included? If so, which version: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Version A:

• Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' declaration to run, the Post published four negative articles about him, two of which were by the same author, Jennifer Rubin. Rubin had criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate, predicting that his launch would be a resounding failure; the next day Sanders reached record fundraising numbers. Rubin continued to disparage the senator's success in what Ryan called, "a great big point-missing whiff, and a lame attempt at self-justification after being made to look like a fool a day earlier."[1]

Version B:

• Paste Magazine criticized The Washington Post for publishing four negative opinion editorials about Sanders, including two by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin.[2]

Survey

• Should not be included. If it's included, then B is the better version. - This should preferably not be included, because it's (1) by a non-RS, (2) incredibly petty (who cares that WaPo published four negative op-eds about Sanders over the course of two days?), (3) this is not a RS so it's unclear whether WaPo also happened to run positive or neutral pieces about him during this period, and (4) because it's a BLP violation: Rubin does NOT describe Sanders as a dated, unpopular politician whose campaign launch will be a resounding failure.[3][4] If it's to be included, then B is better than A, because it's short, to the point and free of the BLP violation. Version A claims that this is a "report" by Paste magazine but Paste magazine is not a RS; it should be attributed as an opinion. Version A is also incredibly long, obscures that the author is criticizing WaPo for publishing op-eds ("articles" may make readers think these are news reports by WaPo), and includes some in-the-weeds tangential criticism by the author of one of Rubin's op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What makes Paste a non-RS? Cause it has been sited by CNN and the Chicago Tribune, while having won an award by the latter. Seems like a reliable source to me. You ask why negative posts by a mainstream publication is important in an article about media coverage? Why are spiders important in the Arachnophobia. The answer is pretty clear. Certainly when the article isn't focused on the fact it happened but the speed and number of articles with relation the fact it happened before. This article is about media coverage. Stop trying to downplay all media coverage.--WillC 14:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover, It seems that Paste is highly factual as well according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/paste-magazine/. I am not a fan of some sources, but I try to be neutral in my assessment. The data seems to show that it's a factual source. As for it being biased, I'm pretty sure there's a Wikipedia guideline that allows them if they are attributed. Correct me if I'm wrong on that last bit. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources can be biased and still be reliable too according to RS.--WillC 14:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

MediaBias/FactCheck is not a RS: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable."[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I didn't know that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't demonstrate that Paste is unfit for Wikipedia.Rafe87 (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You've completely misused the RS rule. Are you saying that Paste magazine is not a reliable source for the things that Shane Ryan says? RS is and never has been a blanket. If Shane Ryan prints in Paste that he thinks something, then Paste is RS for that. The only RS argument there would be whether Paste is known for making up fake people and posting articles under their name. Even still, Paste is completely RS for the fact that Paste printed it. The rest of your points fail by the same token. Whether or not Rubin said that, Ryan said she did. Well, there's also point 2, and it's completely irrelevant. Seriously, "who cares" has to be the weakest objection to inclusion of content on WP I've ever seen. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• A mix of the two. - I think this is a false choice to be honest. There are more choices than these two. I think it can be trimmed but that maybe Version B is a little too trimmed. The first thing we can do is add that they are opinion pieces. As for Paste, mediabiascheck rates them as highly factual. So, I do believe, that the fact that the opinion piece goes against what was actually happening makes it kind of noteworthy. So, after looking at the source, I think something like this could work : Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' campaign launch, the Post published four negative opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan argued these columns were a way of manufacturing consent. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  Snooganssnoogans what do you think? MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. (1) This is not "reporting". (2) The piece is a petty superficial analysis in an obscure outlet, which would not belong on any Wikipedia page and would be easily removed if not for the gatekeeping that is unique for this page. There is nothing notable about a major news outlet featuring op-eds against a candidate. If the content is to be included (which it should not be), version B gets to the point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, woah, I'm sorry to say this, but you don't need to sound condescending. I was merely trying to help. I have no dog in this fight and I've even thanked you multiple times for your edits. I've also added some RS to the page (NYT, Politico, ABC News, CNN & Business Insider). In this case, I was just giving my opinion that's all, since I think the option I gave still follows WP:DUE and I attributed the claims for the source. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Keep version A. Rafe87 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Use version B is it is in compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and significantly more encyclopedic. WMSR (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep version A relevant and gives more context.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Should not be included'. If it's included, then B is the better version. - I agree completely with the arguments put forth by Snooganssnoogans Here come the Suns (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• What part of UNDUE does this cover? Cause I'm not seeing it.--WillC 04:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delete it - I have asserted that Paste is not a good source for a subject like this. It's a music magazine. I don't see other newspapers or news programs routinely citing Paste in their coverage of politics (WP:USEBYOTHERS). With all due respect to Shane Ryan, I simple don't find his attack of The Washington Post, and specifically Jennifer Rubin, to be substantive. This is not the type of material we should source for anything in a serious encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 19:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX, even though I changed my vote, I would be in favour of trimming it honestly -- especially since another editor on the noticeboard mentioned that Paste was an RS. I'm partial to what I wrote before by the way, since it fits better on the article. In case you missed it, this is what I mentioned : Shane Ryan from Paste Magazine reported that 48 hours after Sanders' campaign launch, the Post published four negative opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan argued these columns were a way of manufacturing consent. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose that the above be named "Version C". (consider: "reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch...")🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2: Right now, the RSN RfC is trending no consensus. In my view, shortening the wording does not fix the issue that the source article is little more than a swipe at a respected newspaper by a devoted Sander's supporter. It's not very objective and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 13:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

WaPo might be respected on Wikipedia, but outside of it, many left-leaning people have been wary of it since its acquisition by the world's wealthiest person, and its countless negative stories against Sanders during crucial time windows. This last point is something that people are constantly overlooking. For instance – in statistics, they could theoretically reach 50/50 positive/negative or inclusive/exclusive coverage of him by covering him at 60% positive/inclusive at most times, and at 10% positive/inclusive on the days after debates and before important primaries. (And I don't think I need mention right-leaning people's respect for WaPo.) Selvydra (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Status quo option (keep) I'm changing my vote due to another editor showing me that Paste is actually an RS on the RS noticeboard. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Remove it - Followed the RSN thread here. This sort of subject has a lot of reliable sources writing about it. A music magazine doesn't carry enough weight with such a body of literature available. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Change to C. Consider shortening it from A (though B is a little too devoid of context) – the version (C) above by MikkelJSmith2 seems like a decent compromise. As incendiary as Rubin is against Sanders (and sometimes Warren), the Wikipedia account of it needn't be such. I would support B for this incident if it was then augmented with more examples of WaPo's or Rubin's coverage of Sanders. Selvydra (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep A. It is relevant to the article topic and there is nothing wrong with version A. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Change to C, a significant improvement over A, or remove. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support C as it is more encyclopaedic than A. Don't oppose leaving it out though. --BEANS X2 (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• C. Article needs to be a lot shorter to remain readable. I think C can be further shortened; i.e., is it questionable that the "four negative opinion pieces" is a fact? If not, remove the "according to" and move it closer to the claim of manufactured consent, the attributable opinion. I'm all for raising the bar for RS but I don't think this is the battle. There is the reliable, reported fact of WaPo's output and then there is Ryan's attributable opinion, both of which should be kept to a minimum unless itself the subject of secondary source commentary. czar 04:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: during the RfC the sentence in question was removed from the article leaving the reference stranded only in the lede. I have removed the reference in the lede which summarizes nothing in the body while we figure out what to do about it.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Studies

This has been disputed by studies was removed from the first sentence by SharabSalam with the edit summary there are studies which have proved the bias. I do not see those studies referenced in the article. Could you please provide them here? Thanks – Anne drew 18:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, there are many. Like "Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored" or this [6] or the one by FAIR. Also cherry-picking studies and not the analysis reports in the lead doesn't sound like balance.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's go through the three links you provided.

• A study by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy

Here's an excerpt: Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate.

Not sure why you think that study supports the allegation that "the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Bernie Sanders".

• An article in In These Times, "an American politically progressive monthly magazine of news and opinion"

This is not a study nor a scholarly source. However, it is already mentioned in the first sentence: Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources have alleged...

• An analysis by FAIR, "a media critique organization"

This source is listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which notes, most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions

Unless there are actual studies that back-up the allegations, we should add "this has been disputed by studies" back into the first sentence. – Anne drew 19:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, I think you are correct here and the claim should be added back. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, in summary: (For each edit's reasoning, see the edit summaries by using the links)

• 1Anne drew Andrew and Drew first contributed "this has been disputed by studies."
• 2 I edited it to, "this has been variously disputed or validated by studies and analyses."
• 3 Anne drew Andrew and Drew changed it back.
• 4 I reverted the change.
• 5Snooganssnoogans removed the part entirely.
• 6 Anne drew Andrew and Drew changed it back to "this has been disputed by studies".
• 7 This was reverted by SharabSalam.

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, kindly note here the distinction between 'studies' and 'analyses'. Other editors (largely those opposed to this article in the first place) have stressed that 'only analyses' have been used to support the idea of bias against Sanders. Taking their concerns into account, I added that word into the lede too. In addition, the studies have also made some concessions to their overall verdicts:

• [...] By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton's leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged [...]
• [...] Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias [...]

For these reasons and WP:NPOV, I think the lede should mention both the 'for' and 'against' sides – and the analyses in addition to the studies, if a mention of the latter is wanted there. I hope this clears up some of it. Please ask me to elaborate if I didn't convey something clearly enough. Selvydra (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Selvydra, the summary of edits has confused me... MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It's just meant to be a chronological listing of changes to this particular disputed line, so that editors wouldn't have to go through the revision history page one edit at a time. Still, I reformatted it in the hopes it'd be clearer now. Also, I noticed I missed some detail in between. Selvydra (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Those analyses are already mentioned in the first sentence: Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources have alleged.... That's the "for" side. The "against" side are the actual studies that have called that allegation into question. – Anne drew 21:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

They are still the same function, The difference is the academic background or the corporate structure. It is still looking at the ratio of positive vs negative coverage and therein. The question then comes are those published and peer reviewed by a journal or just released by the institution.--WillC 21:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew – I see your point, but it says 'alleged', not 'used analyses to allege'. As I explained in my first reversion summary at 2, this leaves it as "allegations" vs. "studies", which is misleading (statistical analyses are not allegations). Selvydra (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that the analyses give credence to the allegations (the 'for' side), while the studies give credence to the 'against' side, and so we should include the analyses in the first sentence, as to present a balance? – Anne drew 01:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that there isn't such a clear-cut consensus of bias being roundly debunked that it could be worded to appear such in the very first sentence of the article – that wouldn't be WP:NPOV. It's more nuanced than that, and that should show. But note that last time it commented on studies and analyses in each direction, Snoogans objected to and deleted the whole bit about it. So, adding those mentions is going to be complicated. Personally, I think a reader of this article is best served by reading on and forming their own idea, instead of being told what to think in the first 1–2 sentences. Selvydra (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay I understand your point. I still have a problem with how it was phrased: this has been variously disputed or validated by studies and analyses. That makes it sound like there have studies that support the allegations. In reality, there were studies that disputed the allegations and informal analyses that support the allegations. If I may offer a compromise revision which sounds less misleading:

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders has been characterized as negatively biased by the Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns; studies have disputed this, while other analyses have validated it.

This revision also makes the first sentence conform to MOS:BOLDTITLE. – Anne drew 16:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we should write "X have accused the media of bias; studies have disputed and analyses have validated it. I don't think we should combine the accusations and the studies, because the studies do not explicitly respond to the accusations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you propose then? Have the first sentence—which has to define "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"—only include the allegations of certain WP:COISOURCEs? – Anne drew 18:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

i think having a second paragraph on the studies suffices. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening sounds fine.--WillC 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The word 'alleged' is already critical of the left-media / Sanders campaign assertions, as it does not confirm nor deny them as being true. Contrast that to if the word 'stated' had been used instead.

This most recent version is better than the mere "has been disputed by studies," but it's still would up in a state of using loaded words that I don't think are accurate. The word 'quantitative' there is misleading (makes it seem the analyses are merely qualitative). Moreover, as I've already said, the studies don't exclusively dispute the allegations.

One study says Sanders got more coverage than his polling in 2015, the other says he got less. Then they talk about positive/negative coverage, which is a different dimension altogether. None of this has discussed the timing of any bias or coverage-frequency, such as if negativity has been focused before important primaries 1. When the lede contained the following: "variously disputed and validated by studies and analysis," it was ambiguous enough to include the fact that, "parts of the studies dispute and others validate them."

Moreover, your suggestion again removes the useful links to related articles that were there before.

Combine all this with the fact that the body of the article is undergoing heavy restructuring and editing right now. I suggest we leave the lede conversation until later, when we properly know what it is that it's summarizing. Selvydra (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the word "quantitative" to "academic" per your feedback. Let's remember that these are allegations of bias and misconduct by people in the mainstream media. It would be a violation of WP:BLP define "media coverage of Bernie Sanders" by those allegations alone, when there is evidence against those allegations. – Anne drew 22:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The dlspute you're havlng would be solved by slmply not trylng to summarlze the studles lmmedlately after the lntroductlon of the accusatlons of blas. You clearly do not agree on what the studles are saylng ln regards to medla blas or you do not agree on how to summarlze lt conclsely, so why not just say what the studles found ln a separate paragraph? Also, we should not conflate "analyses" by ln These Tlmes wlth actual peer-revlewed research by recognlzed experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with it not being included in the lede, as I've stated earlier. It's been added back in some shape or form by Anne drew repeatedly after being removed. (I don't mean to sound accusatory or to insinuate that they're doing wrong, here.) Selvydra (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Per BRD, lt should not be ln the flrst paragraph unless there ls consensus here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Selvydra (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You both aren't listening. Let me repeat myself – please tell me if you disagree with any of this:

• The first sentence must define "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.
— MOS:FIRST

• There are many perspectives on "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"
  • Accusations of bias are just one of those perspectives. A perspective supported by academic studies is that the media was not biased.
• Defining "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" from just one perspective violates WP:NPOV

I am trying to assume good faith here, but I cannot understand this consistent effort to remove everything but the POV of the Sanders campaign from the first sentence. – Anne drew 00:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur. It's original structure is a hold over from when the article was written by the Pro Sanders camp as a media bias article. The article can not and should not have a lead that is POV - Slywriter (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to sound like a broken record here because I find myself having to constantly repeat the same things, but here we go one more time. Please take the 3 minutes to read carefully before replying.

1. Of course I agree with the MOS:FIRST quote. What I don't necessarily agree with is that "definition" = "summary of opinions on the topic". That is a matter of interpretation (unless that's found in a policy or guideline somewhere else; it wasn't at MOS:FIRST). Trying to summarize the opinions of academics and journalists immediately in the beginning is what I think has a greater chance of veering into POV territory, not leaving it out, as I will discuss next:
2. Accusations of bias are just one of those perspectives. I have to disagree with "allegations" being pro-Sanders. If anything, it sounds to me like a shortening of "allegations without proof". It is a false balance to assert that "allegations of bias" and "bias has been refuted" create a fair balance. That's tantamount to saying that "the media has been fair" is a balanced POV. (I mean really, are you going to believe self-benefiting allegations or studies?) Please, for once, engage with this argument re: 'allegations' (or 'characterized as', or whatever word/s you choose to use in its stead).
3. The studies have not reached a pure, easily summarizable conclusion of "there was no bias." Again, read the quotes I posted above. At best, they have disputed parts of the allegations – and Snoogans seemed to object with that form, so off it went (why it has to be removed until a potential consensus is explained below).

I'm not going to relitigate this same stuff before you engage with the arguments in question. It has been determined in discussions at WP:VPP and WP:DRN that, in this new article, older revisions and/or deletion have right of way, and changes/additions require a consensus. To that end, Anne drew Andrew and Drew, I recommend not changing the lede every time you come here, because it will be seen as edit warring and eventually I or someone else has to take it to the DRN. It's called WP:BRD, not BRBRBRBR...

SashiRolls – Just a heads-up that the lede is being discussed here right now. I appreciate your work on this article, but I'm not sure your re-work of it was an improvement. Let's try and reach a consensus or keep it at the stable version. Selvydra (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been changing the first sentence back to the same version, I keep rewriting the it address your concerns – which seem to be a moving target. What, exactly, did you find wrong with the latest version? Three other editors seem to be fine with it.

1. Trying to summarize the opinions of academics and journalists immediately in the beginning is what I think has a greater chance of veering into POV territory, not leaving it out
   • The latest version you reverted just says that some people have said it was biased, some have said it was not biased.
2. It is a false balance to assert that "allegations of bias" and "bias has been refuted" create a fair balance.
   • The version you reverted just says: with sources variously describing the coverage as biased or unbiased. Not sure what you're referring to here.
3. The studies have not reached a pure, easily summarizable conclusion of "there was no bias."
   • Did you read before you reverted? Again, it just says with sources variously describing the coverage as biased or unbiased. No longer mentions the studies. Are you denying that sources have called the media unbiased toward Sanders? Here's one: [7]

By the way, BRD doesn't require you to revert – just if you disagree with the edit. I don't know what you could find objectionable about my latest revision. – Anne drew 19:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Selvydra: I missed your ping somehow until now, sorry about that. I'm not sure why those wishing to spin the lead line to say there is no story keep claiming that the Shorenstein study only says positive things about Sanders' coverage. Perhaps they have been misled by the fact that only the first part of the text was included in the sourcing (corresponding to the "invisible primary" period). There were a number of false and misleading claims as a result of this omission (and the changing of dates from 2015 to "throughout the 2016 Democratic primary"). Snoogans has said below this was just a minor mistake in a massive edit. I have noticed that this is how mistakes most often get lodged into en.wp, hidden in the sea of a larger revert. This is important because in the second part of the article, Patterson observes that from March 15-May 3rd Sanders' coverage was qualitatively worse than Clinton's (i.e. that the percentage of negative stories was higher than the percentage of Clinton's negative stories, throughout the bulk of the relevant voting part of the primary).

Also does anyone know if any studies mention the alt-right 4chan offensive led against Sanders' supporters? Is 4chan media? You can find more about this in Weaver's book by searching for "Bernie won Brocktopus" at the Google fair (you'd have to look longer at the Dogpile...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing all mentions that Clinton got negative coverage

It's obviously relevant that Sanders's main opponent in the Democratic primary got the most negative coverage of any candidate per academic analyses. At numerous points in this article, it's mentioned that Sanders has received negative coverage relative to other 2020 contenders. If that belongs, then clearly it's relevant that he got more favorable coverage relative to his 2016 contenders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've removed a bunch of coatracked stuff about HRC (true as it may be, though I remember one of the sources was Brock's Media Matters), because it wasn't about the subject of the entry. Thoughts? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I see this in the entry already. "Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her "bad news" outpaced her "good news," usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015." Isn't that enough to say it once? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If multiple RS report this occurring, then it makes no sense making it appear as if only one or two RS report this. If we are going to cover the findings of a study on media coverage in the 2016 election, then we don't scrub findings from that study that other studies have also found. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Someday maybe another article will be written about HRC's bad press in 2015-. Perhaps you could start one... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-response noted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Content to be added back after most recent big revert

As was agreed with Snooganssnoogans and MikkelJSmith2, the big revert was done and I'll now be bringing up some removed sections for discussion per the 'D' in WP:BRD.

To coin this list, I used this 'Difference between revisions'. (It includes most edits made since.) I recommend using it for reference for the below points.

Removed part (Copy & Find at above link) – Why I think it should be added back, and how

1. Ed Schultz incident – Should be included, as it's a rare piece of insight to the inner workings of mainstream media. Trim if necessary.
2. Katie Halper in Fair documented [...] - Isolated incidents being added separately has been a common complaint, and this source helpfully collected several of them. Include in trimmed form (was quite long).
3. MSNBC panelist Zerlina Maxwell [...] - The reasoning for including this has been discussed here on the talk page. It was an important moment in Sanders' campaign, and Maxwell was the first one asked to talk. Include it & criticism that followed – in trimmed form, if necessary.
4. Politico released an analysis of the 2020 [...] - Maybe include this rewritten with a focus on how Sanders (and Warren) got 1/3 of Biden's coverage? IIRC this was objected to because, as it was written, it focussed on Biden.
5. PBS News Hour hosted a segment [...] - While an isolated incident, it is notable in its starkness. In this extensive segment, below-1-percent-polling candidates such as Bullock and Sestak were discussed. Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Harris were all covered. Sanders was the only (even slightly) notable candidate absent. Trim if needed, although this part wasn't that long to begin with.
6. Ryan Grim of The Intercept used examples of media coverage [...] - Here, a sentence was removed that mentioned the contents of Grim's reporting (examples of inequal media coverage) and one was left in saying (the aforementioned) may have in fact helped Sanders. For parity and context, the first sentence should be added back.
7. On December 15, 2019, Nate Silver, [...] Nate was deemed important enough to add in another part of the article, where he and Enten dispute the media bias. Thus, this part should merit addition too. (Yes, it cites social media, but as it is from ABC News' account, it should inherit their RS status.
8. (NYT Columnist Leonhardt) agreed with John F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico — [...] John F. Harris actually wrote about this himself – if this doesn't merit a mention in the sentence about Leonhardt, I think we should write about it in its own sentence before that. restored here.

While this might not cover everything yet, as the revert was enormous, it should get us started. Hopefully, decisions/consensuses here will also ease similar ones in the future. Selvydra (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Main issue with Schultz is that while there are a variety of sources, they all trace back to his comment. As he became a supporter of Bernie, I don't know that a political operative can be trusted to talk about a fmr. Employer.

PBS should not be included as I don't think it is covered by any Reliable Sources. It's objectivity verifiable by all of us but don't think it can't be sourced properly.

No real issue with first politico, Intercept or Nate Silver

I have concerns with politico editor because the writer is motivated to take on MSM. He has an anti-center bias of his own.

Slywriter (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree concerning #1. The story about Ed Schulz should be in, regardless of whether he and Bernie were friends or not. The network's denial concerning the reasons for his dismissal should also be presented... someone else should feel free to work on this, I won't steal anyone's thunder... I'm not going to poke around on this page for a few days, since my text editor is making me quite... cumbersome (and I have other things to do). ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding #2, I've reinstated the topic sentence of that paragraph (the reference wasn't entirely deleted. It was still in the lead, leaving the ghost of a trace of what the article was actually about...), but fear that getting too far into the weeds will end up drowning out the story. This is admittedly an extra-trimmed form, but I don't think it's a bad idea to leave the exercise to the interested reader in these sorts of cases. Feel free to expand it if you think it needs expanding. I also think Halper's Dec 19th FAIR article should added. ps: you were right to delete "quantitative", I felt the sentence needed an adjective and also felt that "quantitative" almost certainly wasn't the right one, but I forgot to go back and fix it. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Process suggestion: Please consider putting disputed content in separate sections in the future to facilitate threaded discussion, and always provide a diff or the text of the disputed content. It was a huge effort to try to cross reference this list to the list I started above.

1. Shultz material should be omitted unless much better sources can be found. "Rare" is not something we desire when writing in an encyclopedia.

2. Halper is fine in a trimmed form.

3. Maxwell I can live with per my previous comments.

4. "Politico released..." this is a bit tangential per my previous comments. If we include it, I would like to see at least one source that cites the Politico article and we should include a paraphrase of "the biggest online support belongs to Bernie Sanders".

5. I still can't support the PBS New Hour segment unless better sources are brought to bear.

6. Ryan Grim's "blackout" opinion should be left out unless other sources have taken note of it, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. The Intercept tends to take consistent position against mainstream media, which makes it questionable source for that subject. - MrX 🖋 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

7. Nate Silver cited to Tweet? No thank you. Nate Silver does find the occasional nugget of gold, but if this is noteworty, there should be an actual article written about it.

8. I have no idea what this refers to. Always include a diff or the actual text, please.- MrX 🖋 12:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, for 7, I had added the official ABC News sources. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, Selvydra, I don't know if I was ignored here.

I just want to mention that first I had added two official sources for the segment as you can see in this edit [8], this solves the complaint you raised I think.

Furthermore, I think Selvydra's is right here. Hopefully, I'm not getting policy wrong but from what I understand the following applies here Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. It was not just a tweet by the way but an official analysis for ABC News. In the end, the tweet remained since the video was sometimes unplayable on ABC's site. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2 I didn't ignore you; there was no reason to respond. Twitter is a terrible source for an encyclopedia article. If there is an actual news article, then that can be used and the problem is solved.- MrX 🖋 16:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX, as for 8, it refers to the following In an opinion column for the NYT, David Leonhardt — American journalist and columnist — agreed with John F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico — about the media having a centrist bias. The former argued this centrist bias hurt Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders., but that had not been disputed by any editors per the quick look I did, so it should remain in the page no? MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Ed Schultz stuff is literally in his article with the same sources, none of which have been deemed unreliable at WP:RSPSOURCES. It should be fine to include regardless if Schultz was biased.--WillC 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not questioning the publication as a reliable source. Questioning whether Schultz should be considered a reliable source for a workplace disagreement with his employer. If others have commented on this matter without Schultz as the source then I am fine with it Slywriter (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Logically you are asking for a reliable third party source to comment on the ongoings of a dispute between Schults and MSNBC in which he wasn't allowed to cover the Sanders' announcement because you think Schults wouldn't be reliable but somehow an organization not connected at all to the dispute would be more reliable? Also logically, that third party source would only be provided the exact same statements as MSNBC or Schults would be saying directly.--WillC 18:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Selvydra, I just want to mention that I had added official ABC News sources for the Nate Silver comment in an edit, so that solves the issue of reliability. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX: Your input is appreciated. I did provide a diff in my second line in this section: To coin this list, I used this 'Difference between revisions'. (link) As I explained above, the bold parts could be copied and used with Ctrl+F to find the changes in question from there. I wished to keep these together because the talk page is very long as it is, without lots of additional titles cluttering the place and disincentivizing people from participating. But I'll do so for a potential future batch.

1. By 'rare insight' I meant valuable insight. As in: how often does a cable TV personality open up about the biases at his workplace? Also, help me understand why for content like this having a 'good source' is pivotal, when it's Ed Schultz whose word is being relied upon – as long as there isn't reason to believe that the sources would straight-up fabricate what he said.

4. Support the addition. I will try to find another source (to anyone reading this: help is appreciated).

5. Fair enough, but again, it this because you suspect the source cannot be trusted to be truthful about the segment, or why? If the segment contained what it did, it's not like it will change depending on who reports it, as long as it is done truthfully. Or is this a rules-are-rules matter? Help me understand.

6. So you mean the part that's left there now should also be removed? I was talking about the fact that, in his article/video, he showed examples of flawed media coverage. What's there currently feels a little unbalanced to me without that context.

7. i) More specifically, it is a video found on ABC's twitter account. If the same video were found on ABC's YouTube account, that would inherit their RS status, so is the same not true of tweets on verified Twitter accounts? ii) Do you mean that a written article is more noteworthy than an interview (and that the threshold of noteworthiness in this case exists somewhere between those two)? I'm interested if WP policies/guidelines have something to say of this; if so, where could I find it?

8: In an opinion column for the NYT, David Leonhardt — American journalist and columnist — agreed with John F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico — about the media having a centrist bias. The former argued this centrist bias hurt Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Actually, I could've sworn it was truncated to something shorter, but now that I'm looking at the diff, it was in fact removed completely. I think this part should be added back, unless someone wants to argue it's not noteworthy enough or something. Selvydra (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Selvydra, I thought the policy regarding official tweets was the same as a news channels official videos. That's what we did on pages related to Canadian politics when it came to using tweets by the CBC. There was always consensus to use them and after checking policy it seemed to fit. Even if we ignore that. I had added official sources that answered MrX complaints in another edit (one of the subsequent ones). You can find it when looking at the edit history. Also, yeah, per my memory no one objected to 8, it was removed in the revert that we agreed to (the one that led to this discussion). MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

(1) Schultz should not be included because the sourcing is awful, and the content violates BLP (poorly sourced accusations against living persons). Furthermore, Schultz is a crank.

(2) The FAIR content should be trimmed considerably (I'd also be fine with deletion) for concision.

(3) I'd be fine with deleting this (one panelist on a 24/7 cable news show said something false about Sanders?). If it's to be included, it should be trimmed considerably (i.e. Glenn Greenwald's piling-on does not belong).

(4) I do not recall this content.

(5) Absolutely not. Adding content that a PBS Newshour segment dared to cover candidates that polled under Sanders is straight-up ridiculous. If I recall correctly, the sourcing was awful. If it's to be included, it should go something like "Nathan J. Robinson of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs complained that a PBS NewsHour segment covered some low-polling candidates, but not Bernie Sanders."

(6) I do not recall the content.

(7) No, plucking comments out of transcripts fails WP:DUE. Analyses written by Silver for 538 undergo fact-checking and editorial oversight. Comments made by him on air don't. I'd also presume that the written word is more nuanced, whereas comments made on-air would drop qualifiers and nuance that someone might make if they were writing an article about it.

(8) I do not recall the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored #8 here and believe I may have ended up cutting a shorter version out again after the date of that diff when I culled through the most recent(ist) items. I have no objection to its inclusion. (It can be spun differently too if someone wants to, but I do wonder if "wealth tax" isn't a good topic for this page. Cf. Just Refs, which I've heard called the "Naked Wikipedia" has an interesting representation of the entry, stripping away all of our blabla. Quite a cool little tool actually. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I agree that 6 would probably be better if it's included as something like "Nathan J. Robinson of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs complained that a PBS NewsHour segment covered some low-polling candidates, but not Bernie Sanders." It's attributed and is much more condensed. It also serves as a compromise position. As for 7, while one of the sources was a transcript, the other was the official ABC News website source, which included the analysis segment. He wasn't brought on for punditry in this case, but to resume the state of the race in an official analysis. As ABC is an RS I think it should probably be included, especially since we didn't just have a transcript, we also had the video segment in two separate occasions. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) Does your invocation of BLP here refer to Schultz himself (who is deceased) or to MSNBC bosses? And is the former employee of a company a poor source for what the company did? All throughout this talk page and the VPP / DRN discussions, not a single person has explained why a source is required to be of pristine quality to report on something that is verifiable independent of them, i.e. an interview.

(2) (3) Fine with trimming.

(4) (6) (8) Full quotes below. I will note that I had (what I thought were) clear instructions on how to quickly find the content, at the start of this section. But apparently editors are routinely skipping over what I'm writing.

(5) Sanders was the only candidate polling above 5% who was not mentioned in the lengthy segment. However, I had to revise my understanding of it after recognizing Sestak and Bullock were covered because they'd just dropped out. Still, it was pretty jarring to watch when numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 in polling were included but number 2 wasn't. My opinion on this has softened somewhat, but I think a short attributed passage on it would still be merited.

(7) I'm inclined to agree with your argument here, even if not with its practical outcome. I just think this statement of his could have been used to bring nuance to the other segment where his and Enten's article is summarized strongly against the thesis of media bias, given how contrary it is to that. Selvydra (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Phase Two

So here are full quotes of the sections, per earlier criticism.

You can use THIS LINK as aid to refer to my original comments on why I thought they should be included. Grayed items have been restored.

1. In an interview with National Review's Jamie Weinstein, MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders". 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC.

2. Katie Halper in FAIR documented a number of cases where the media was utilizing selective poll reporting and distortions of graphics. In her article, she starts with an MSNBC 2020 matchup against Trump poll on March 7. The poll showed Biden at 53 percent, Sanders at 49 percent, and Warren and Kamala at 48 percent. Sanders however, was listed as being in fourth place. A similar sequence error was made on MSNBC on March 15 with Sanders in a third place order despite being in second numerically. On May 24, Chuck Todd of Meet The Press reported a Quinnipiac Poll that found Sanders had gone up by 5 points between April 30 and May 21 whereas Todd signed it as if Sanders had gone down by 5 points. On April 29, Velshe and Ruhle of MSNBC inaccurately displayed the data of a Monmouth poll that put Sanders at 27 percent polling with white voters and Biden at 25 percent. The MSNBC graphic showed Biden at 28 percent; a three-point difference not in accordance with the poll.

3. MSNBC panelist Zerlina Maxwell said that Sanders, "did not mention race or gender until 23 minutes into the speech" in his kickoff speech. Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept described her claim as a blatant lie; Politifact also ruled her claim as "false". Maxwell later retracted her statement on Twitter after her claims were widely criticized on the social media platform, where many brought up that Sanders mentioned the issue of race and gender within the first five minutes of his speech. Greenwald criticized MSNBC for not retracting the claim on air, where it was made.

4. On November 20, 2019, Politico released an analysis of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary which showed that, like Donald Trump in 2015, Biden received more coverage than his rivals, receiving nearly three times the amount of cable news coverage as Sanders and Warren, and eight times as much coverage as Buttigieg.

5. PBS News Hour hosted a segment discussing a presidential primary election that excluded Sanders while focusing on candidates with less successful campaigns and polling numbers. Left leaning magazine Current Affairs wrote that even though the segment "found time to talk about Joe Sestak and Steve Bullock, plus plenty of candidates struggling to get out of single-digit poll numbers" it did not include "even a photo of Bernie Sanders." This article later was cited in an article by Common Dreams which levied the same accusation, describing it as part of the supposed "Bernie Blackout".

6. Ryan Grim of The Intercept used examples of media coverage and the In These Times analysis to argue that the media misreported on or omitted coverage of Sanders instead of treating him as a "top-tier candidate." He hypothesized that this alleged "Bernie Blackout" was a positive for Sanders, as it could prevent him from receiving the level of scrutiny that other front-running candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, have received.

7. On December 15, 2019, Nate Silver, an American statistician and writer who analyzes elections, also mentioned that Bernie Sanders "got less media coverage than the other front-runners" in an analysis segment for ABC News discussing the presidential primary election.

8. In an opinion column for the NYT, David Leonhardt — American journalist and columnist — agreed with John F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico — about the media having a centrist bias. The former argued this centrist bias hurt Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

I'll be waiting for Snooganssnoogans to comment on 4, 6 and 8 before beginning to summarize opinions. (My reply to his is above this sub-section.) Selvydra (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I don't have any major problems with 4, 6 and 8. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so in summary:

(1) No consensus. In that case, should we also be removing this info from the page about Ed Schultz, where it is stated with the same references?

(2) MrX and Snoogans are fine if it's trimmed

(3) MrX is fine; Snoogans wants it trimmed (particularly the pilings-on by Greenwald etc.)

(4) MrX wants to see another source citing this Politico source & paraphrase Bernie's big online support; Snoogans is fine

(5) No consensus. I'm willing to drop this one.

(6) MrX objects over WP:DUEWEIGHT and Intercept's anti-mainstream-media bent. Snoogans is fine.

(7) No consensus since it's something Silver said in an interview, not from an article with editorial oversight.

(8) Snoogans is fine. Slywriter says John Harris has an anti-center bias. MrX has yet to comment.

I'd support adding (5) somewhere else later if it's possible to concisely summarize isolated incidents without it being OR, because it was particularly striking when, in the lengthy segment they covered the #1, 3, 4 and 5 polling candidates but not #2 (Sanders). Also, the journalist who did the segment (Yamiche Alcindor) has been described by FAIR as having an anti-Sanders bias. More generally, I have asked MrX on his opinion about the isolated-incidents / continuum-fallacy dilemma.

I'm a bit baffled over (6) as well. I think most leftist sources can be described as being critical of the mainstream press. Why is the Intercept – arguably one of the better-reputed among them – an exception, here? It'd be hard to find a better place to voice criticism on mainstream media, given that mainstream media itself obviously isn't an option (no incentive to cover it fairly). I also think people may have missed that Ryan Grim brings up multiple examples of misleading / lacking coverage in the article/video – he doesn't just dig up an opinion out of nowhere. He has also lead a team that were finalists for the Pulitzer price twice (won once) – and he doesn't have the same controversy around him that Greenwald does. That has to count for something. If his opinion is a problem, we could just add something like, Ryan Grim of The Intercept discussed examples of media coverage where Sanders was omitted or misreported on.(link)

Have MikkelJSmith2, Wrestlinglover and SashiRolls objections or comments to add?

Selvydra (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've been busy arguing for article changes and with the Iran stuff happening I've been focused elsewhere. I'll look and get back to y'all later.--WillC 20:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

6 is fine. I've copy-edited by substituting a pronoun for a repeated mention of Sanders. As for MrX it may be an Omidyar thing, who knows, maybe they'll tell us.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

4 could be shorter: In November 2019, Politico reported that Biden had received nearly three times more coverage on cable news coverage than Sanders and Warren. but is otherwise fine. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

2 has already been restored (in ultra-trim form) as has 8 (which was not trimmed as severely). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

All four of the even deletions have been restored. None of the odd ones have. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for new first sentence

Could I get people's thoughts on this new first sentence?

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders has been the subject of controversy, with sources variously describing the coverage as biased or unbiased, particularly regarding his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.
— revision

For reference, here is the current stable version of the first sentence:

The Bernie Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources have alleged that the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Bernie Sanders, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns.
— revision

I think the new version addresses the WP:NPOV problem without getting into the weeds about studies/analyses. – Anne drew 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first one.--WillC 16:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the first one. The second one says "certain alternative media sources", this sounds like poisoning the well.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I am proposing that we use the first version. The second one is just the longstanding stable version of the first sentence that I included for reference. – Anne drew 16:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the first one is an improvement, but mainstream reliable sources have not alleged the existence of bias. WMSR (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That depends on the definition of mainstream reliable sources. But that's a discussion unto itself. Selvydra (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the suggested change (or as others have referred to it, the first one) is okay as well. Let's have the links in it as well, and also link-ify the first instance of Bernie Sanders thereafter (since according to MOS:LINKSTYLE we shouldn't add links to the bold title). Selvydra (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think either is a good hook which will encourage the reader to continue reading. Problems with the first include: 1) "Controversy" is not a good word for the lead and 2) "with sources variably describing the coverage as biased or unbiased" sounds like an invitation to querulous disputations. I think the lead should explain why Bernie Sanders in particular should have a media coverage page. This is what I tried to capture with the lead ADA&D deleted without a word of explanation (as modified by MrX): The media coverage of Bernie Sanders in his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaign itself became a subject of media coverage, with some alternative and mainstream media sources alleging that Sanders is covered differently than other candidates, in part due to what Sanders calls the "corporate media". Just a word to add that I don't think I was particularly successful in making the lead engaging, and may have been under the influence of vanden Heuvel's op-ed in the WaPo (which MrX has since deleted from the body).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That version isn't neutral. It only mentions the POV of people who say the media is biased. Also I don't think "hookiness" should be the top priority, at least until the lead satisfies our core content policies, namely WP:NPOV. – Anne drew

Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders during the 2016 and 2020 Presidential Primaries, particularly by mainstream media, has been the topic of numerous studies and analyses. These studies and analyses provide conflicting information as they have shown both a positive bias and a negative bias towards the campaign of Bernie Sanders, depending on the metrics used.

Slywriter (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No studies show negative bias towards Sanders as far as I'm aware. Better to mention studies and analyses separately later in the lead to avoid conflating them. That's why the version I proposed just says "sources variously describing the coverage as biased or unbiased". – Anne drew 02:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, it comes back to quantity and quality. The center study shows he had lower levels of coverage in 2015 and 2016. However if it's true that his coverage is presented as qualitatively more positive, this is not really the end of the story. People published hit pieces, as people have always published hit pieces, at opportune moments. There is no reason why Sanders should escape from this logic. So yes, quantitatively, the "studies" seem to agree from what I've read that Sanders received less coverage (so negative quantitative bias). They also seem to agree that his coverage was, on the whole, but not necessarily in specific cases or at specific outlets, more positive than Clinton's. However, with a title such as this entry's one would expect to read about some of those specifics. So this pseudo-division between "studies" and "analyses" is not very clear to me, unless it be related to quantity of coverage versus quantity of positive-quality coverage in the case of studies and more targeted questions about quality of coverage in analyses. This is especially evident in the cited pages of the first reference in the academic studies section (Identity Crisis), which looks carefully at polls but does not study any specific texts. This is less true for the Shorenstein Center report, but the main point from the quantitative studies is simple: the Democratic race didn't get nearly the coverage Trump did. "The perception that Clinton had a lock on the Democratic nomination diminished journalists’ interest in the Democratic race generally and in Sanders’ candidacy particularly." 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the word 'controversy' in either direction – perhaps other editors could weigh in on that. As for the lead should explain why Bernie Sanders in particular should have a media coverage page, it occurred to me that we should consider augmenting the sentence that follows (Accusations of bias often revolve around corporate ownership of news organizations [...]) with an explanation on this. It's obvious to people savvy in politics and media ownership etc., but a less knowledgeable reader might want to know why corporate-owned media would be predispositioned to cover Sanders negatively. Would this be possible in a neutral way? Selvydra (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not a big fan of the high-drama word "accusations". I like Slywriter's proposal above, though the term "corporate media" so prevalent in headlines about Sanders and this issue, is missing. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream media can be replaced by Corporate Owned

That sentence was written last year :) by me when the article was titled media bias. It was a bold edit to achieve consensus and replace a laundry list of political theories that weren't actually covered in the article. Those 3 issues were the main biases claimed. Now, I am not so sure whether they are relevant. Or whether we need 2 sentences to follow the neutral lead... One positive, one negative. Slywriter (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This has become exactly what I feared. The title was changed, then the article was hijacked. The numerous sources that were quoted in the original version of the article are systematically being removed and an entirely different message is being presented. We now need to start over and build an article covering the original subject, Media bias against Bernie Sanders. That is what the sources of the previous article established. Trackinfo (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

When the nature of wikipedia doesn't allow for biased topics then it is hard to retain the percieved bias that triggered the article in the first place.

The initial version misused the lead to build an unsourced lengthy and pointy narrative before running people through a chronology of events including Sander's statements, media lies & missteps, studies & analyses, news articles and opinions pieces. The connection between the 2 was left to the reader.

Tl;DR: WP:NPOV

Slywriter (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What we have is an article that has been sanitized. The information from the original article has been disappeared. Sourced content I know I included has been removed along with every supporting source for the rest of the former article. Yes, you found favorable dissenting opinions to reverse document the message you don't like, and used them as sources. By removing one side and replacing it with opposing content this article now serves as a deceptive tool to deliver an incorrect message. Bias, what bias, I don't see any bias. The current version of this article, starting from the first sentence is not WP:NPOV, it is a fraud. Trackinfo (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has not been sanitized, but it has been cleaned up. Including an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of examples is poor writing style, and fails our readers by not putting things in proper historical perspective. In my view, that applies to examples from both POVs. The best way to gauge whether one side or the other is overrepresented is to evaluate sources, in both quality and quantity.- MrX 🖋 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I am having difficulty supporting this because it seems to expand the scope of the article subject to the extent that it will become even more of a coatrack. The article originated as an article about media boas against Sanders. That is a notable subject with reasonably clear boundaries. I'm not at all opposed to addressing the imperfect wording of the lead paragraph, but I wish we could all get on the same page about what this article is actually about. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article got rolled. Exactly as Selvydra and I anticipated in the RfC. The one-sided bias now in this article will necessitate the (re)-creation of an article to discuss the Bernie Blackout, which is where this article started. Currently, the re-interpretation of reliable sources has "The New York Times reports The New York Times is doing a good job." The sources in that original version of this article are exactly the alternative news voices that reflect what is outside the mainstream sources patting each other on the back. The unfair and inaccurate reporting of mainstream reliable sources has in fact spawned and spread this alternative media. When Wikipedia puts blinders on and reports "nothing to see here, move along" even though there are tons of reports to the contrary, it hurts Wikipedia's credibility as well. When you lose the trust of a segment of the population, it is very hard to get them back. Trackinfo (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you are disappointed. I can only assume you haven't had to time to read all the articles which have been added yet. If you have constructive suggestions or things to add, feel free. I haven't seen you editing the page any time recently. Also note that there is a third lead proposal that might be combined with the first and the second in a savvy way that would make you happier. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources, that primarily you have added, continue to build up the counter-narrative to the contentions of the original version of the article. You have all sorts of studies designed to deceive people who have read those reports listed in the earlier narrative. You are pushing the position that despite what you have read, there is nothing to see here. Move along. At the same time, there has been a full scale assault on every one of the sources of the previous article to mask that side entirely. When the suggestion of a Bernie Blackout is mentioned, once in the article, it is diminished by both "hypothesized" and "alleged" in the same sentence. This is now a one-sided article, presenting the opposite (propaganda) message from the original article. WP:NPOV be damned. I almost question if this content has been overtaken by operatives of the DNC. Trackinfo (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, the solution to the issues on this page is not adding unreliable "alternative" sources. WMSR (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The preceding sentence is inappropriate behaviour.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of the left-leaning media sources added here to document allegations of media bias don't have a record of lying or otherwise being unreliable. They wear their political bent as a badge of honor, which should be allowed per WP:BIASED – at least with proper attribution. Put differently, a leftist site is usually a reliable source for leftists' opinion on something.

I can understand Trackinfo's feelings upon returning to this article and seeing the dramatic makeover it has undergone since it was first made by Azcolvin429 – because of the degree of weight that is given to a few studies that mostly tangentially cover Sanders' media coverage, and the way that left-leaning media's allegations have been pushed to the back. While the addition of the studies was definitely a benefit to this article's reliability, it could have come without diminishing the other side so. WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE concerns can be used as a valid reason for deletionism to such a degree that the removed "individual, unnotable incidents" put together would've formed a collective, and notable picture. Selvydra (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Studies that mostly tangentially cover Sanders' [sic] media coverage You mean quantitative studies determining that Sanders received a proportional amount of coverage given his position? Or studies showing that coverage of him was more positive than that of Clinton? This is sounding more and more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Certainly Sanders has been portrayed by various sources in various ways, but the way the article was written before read like a the Sanders campaign's grievances against the media. The fact that the introduction of more reliable sources into the picture has moved the article away from that point of view is a good thing, even if it doesn't fit into the original author's narrative, and it's what we pride ourselves on at Wikipedia. WMSR (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The technique you are using is WP:WIKILAWYERING. You are probably quite familiar with it, in your vast experience of 3,000 edits over 10 years proudly defending Wikipedia. Might I ask who in Washington you work for? Lets go to the first section I personally added. Under "Content that should be removed or trimmed" 1. Remove: "In an interview with National Review's Jamie Weinstein,[note 1] MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders". 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC." Why? Because it's sourced to non-RS, and includes unsourced synth at the end. Snoogans proposed it. You, WMSR, were the first one to rush to Support. You have the audio track of Schultz saying it. Are you going to accuse that as being faked? This is a clear whitewash of an incident that belongs in this article. It doesn't fit with the narrative you have been pushing, so you want it out. Trackinfo (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Might I ask who in Washington you work for? You can't be serious.

Everything Snoogans said was accurate. The National Review is not a reliable source, and the statement at the end implies that the two incidents are related when there is no evidence to support that. You are not disputing either of those things. There is no Wikilawyering happening here. WMSR (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) In contrast, I have a long history of defending content. I am also saying that the sources I provided clearly show the quote from Shultz. Its there in audio in his own words. To remove it is snoogans and you wikilawyering to make legitimate content disappear. And yes, I am saying the Shultz getting fired from MSNBC is related. And more importantly Shultz believed the two incidents are related. And here is a source to that effect. Trackinfo (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, he did say that, on a Russian propaganda network which was paying him. There is no effort here to remove legitimate content; we are all here to build an encyclopedia. And lay off the personal attacks. This kind of behavior will land you at WP:ANI. --WMSR (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Your behavior here is inappropriate and not constructive. I urge you to strike that and all of your other personal attacks against me. That's not why any of us are here. --WMSR (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I honestly find it hard to fathom that editors are genuinely asserting that Schultz was being untruthful in his interview – or that we should be giving more value to Phil Griffin's immunity from Schultz' words than, well, Schultz' words. How is WP:RS even a variable when it's an interview complete with an audio recording – unless there's reason to believe that National Review fabricates audio records? Lastly, "X is not a reliable source" is not the same as "X is an unreliable source" – in this case it means, "there is no consensus on the reliability of X."

As much as I disagree with Trackinfo's manner of going about this, using WP:RS in such a whitelist-y way – with no consideration of whether or not the content is externally verifiable – seems like "[a]biding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" to me. Perhaps we should take this question to WP:RSN or WP:VPP? Selvydra (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I spent some time looking at policies, guidelines and an essay, and made a new section about it. This discussion is in an unrelated section, anyway. Selvydra (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The interview was on RT, which was Schultz's employer at the time. RT is a straight-up propaganda machine for the Russian government. That makes it highly suspect IMO. --WMSR (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions about some recent contributions

This is a thread for anyone who has questions about contributions.

To kick off the thread here are a couple:

1) This page has always had the following quote on it: Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary.

On 24 Dec 2019 a regular contributor changed it to read,

Throughout the 2016 primaries, five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary."

Why was this change made? Was it related to the extensive rearrangements made? (Things previously introduced by "In 2015" are now introduced by "Throughout the 2016 primaries"... Was there confusion about the four mentions of the calendar year 2015 in the original text (not including the title of the document, or "invisible primary" in the sentence itself)?

2) A radical change was made to this paragraph by the same author on the same date. Could that author explain the use of the categorical term "rejected", when in fact what the writer being quoted said can be read below. I would also be interested in why the spin of the paragraph changed direction 100%: surely the two descriptions linked above (at "paragraph") couldn't both be faithful representations of the source document? Was the original more faithful to the text?

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging me in some weird effort to pick fights again over nothing ("radical change", "spin"). #1 is obviously a simple error. As for #2, Malone literally says "There's not a media blackout." when she's asked whether there has been a media blackout. Again, what leads you to create a talk page discussion about this is beyond me, but I hope you find it all very fulfilling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I find the systemic tolerance of this sort of mistake troubling. But you know that.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Both of these changes seem like improvements to me. The excessive use of quotes bumps up against WP:COPYVIO, and it's lazy writing. I don't see that we lose anything by losing the excessive detail. - MrX 🖋 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying "Throughout the 2016 primaries" rather than "Throughout 2015" amid a large overhaul to paraphrase large blocks of direct quotes is completely outrageous, and I should be banned for it. Furthermore, who wouldn't sift through dozens of edits to find out who made this "radical change", create a separate talk page discussion about it and tag the editor who made the error? Thank you so much for creating a talk page discussion about it. The world needs to know about this error. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed mutiple issues tag, placed before rewrite

In the interest of finding out whether people still think this page violates NPOV or undue now that it has been rewritten, I've removed the tag pending discussion here. Neither the initial page author nor Snoogans is the primary contributor to this entry any more. I've written a bit less than a third at the moment and became the primary author yesterday, apparently. Feel free to change that... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't add it back yet but the lead does have problems of placing a single point of view above others. A resolution on that issue is needed for the tag to remain off. Slywriter (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead to correspond more to the content, might still need some POV scooped out, I'm not sure. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: A side issue, but the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead doesn't seem to scan correctly - Negative media campaigns were led, as in previous US elections, this time by a super-PAC called Correct the Record - What's the significance of "led"? Or of "as in previous campaigns"? I had a look at the online reference, but couldn't find an easy, unambiguously correct, fix. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the line because it was just bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

David Brock's role in the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders is attested by multiple sources in the body of the document. Why don't you want the lead to summarize the body? I have reverted your edit pending discussion on the Talk Page that is more policy-based, or argumented, than "because it was just bizarre". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a brazen violation of WP:BRD. You're mass-restoring newly added challenged content, most of which was horribly sourced, had nothing to do with the topic, and was incredibly poorly written. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As for the line you are edit-warring back into the lead, the single RS (a Huff Post article[9]) does absolutely not say that Correct the Record "led" the negative media campaign against Sanders. The other source is a book by Sanders's former campaign manager (not a RS). Also, there's literally one line in the body of the article that mentions Correct the Record, and it's sourced to the same Huff Post article. It's just your own poorly sourced original research and it absolutely does not warrant a place in the lead. The text is also just confusingly written ("as in previous campaigns"?). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The idea is to give the reader an idea of how banal such media campaigns are in elections, and to make a link to the larger Media bias in the US page. Do you see a way of improving it? I added the Internet Research Agency, because they are mentioned too in the context of Sanders, (see the quote tag).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is not a blogpost for you to present your poorly sourced and dubious theses on how "media campaigns" work in US politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Cf. WP:BAIT & WP:SANCTIONGAME #1, 3, and 4. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There are myriad PACs with run negative campaigns in every election. The fact that Sanders was a target of one such campaign is not WP:DUE in the lede. SashiRolls, your efforts to improve this page are appreciated, but please try to check your own biases when you edit. I'm with Snoogans on this one. --WMSR (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Were there other PACs whose action the media covered concerning Bernie Sanders? I provided 9 solid references for media about Brock-Sanders coverage below (in the section about the lead sentence). I provided another about the IRC (that can be developed). Do you see other examples in the body the lead is supposed to summarize? If not, feel free to add them. Negative (and positive) media campaigns are indeed a big part of media coverage. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Media "coverage" does not include media "campaigns" and PACs are not "the media". WMSR (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that PACs were the media (you've inadvertently built a strawman argument there). If media covers media campaigns against Sanders (as Brock's campaign is covered by 9 articles gathered quickly) then media campaigns against Sanders are part of media coverage of Sanders. That seems pretty easy to understand to me, I'm puzzled by your comment. Nice to meet you WMSR. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no further comments on the lede right now. That said, David Brock has been covered by the media pretty regularly – oftentimes for his comments on Sanders – as merely a "Clinton ally," without disclosure of his past position as an outsourcee of negativity (of which Sanders was a target). Add to that CTR's intimate coordination with the Clinton campaign and past incidents of the Clinton campaign placing stories in media (not saying other campaigns don't do this), and the CTR–media connection is suddenly not so inconceivable. Selvydra (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Brock, continued

Should we cite the Podesta-Tanden correspondence about Brock's campaign against Sanders?

When I have time will add this article: [10]

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in that piece has anything to do with Media bias against Sanders, except the line that is already in the article on Brock apologizing for criticizing Sanders too hard at times. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

1) The subject of this entry is Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. 2) reread the article, please. You can search for all the occurrences of "Sanders" pretty easily with ctrl-f.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

3) The piece directly supports the claim that negative campaigns were led during the 2016 election.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In one place, Brock wrote criticisms of Sanders. In another, Brock apologized for criticizing Sanders. That is it. That is the only relevance this article has to the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to say no. We need to approach the subject more generally and from a more scholarly perspective. It's already too coatrackish.- MrX 🖋 14:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I hesitate because, as Lessig said, they are stolen emails. I suppose a better pull quote from the article would be something more humble, like: Throughout the campaign, good government groups also criticized Brock’s Correct the Record for trampling federal restrictions on campaign spending by asserting its right to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign. or During the Democratic primary, Brock declared that “black lives don’t matter to Bernie Sanders” and called on the septuagenarian Sanders to release his medical records in order to cast aspersions on his health. This article also doesn't mention the three filings with the FEC mentioned by Wald-Seitz. Brock led a media campaign, MrX, Snoog; nobody serious really sees it any other way. Media coverage is affected by media campaigns. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The mere existence of Brock is not media bias against Sanders. The last line of your comment is the bizarre original research that you're trying to edit-war into the lead and other parts of the article: "a pro-Clinton advocacy group existed (sourced). That group caused media bias against Sanders (unsourced nonsense)." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Where, anywhere, does the en.wp entry say that? You are consistently confusing "media coverage" and "media campaign" with "media bias". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh? You hesitate to what? You hesitate to approach the subject more generally and from a more scholarly perspective becuase they are stolen emails??? Please help unconfuse me. - MrX 🖋 15:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I asked, Should we include the Podesta-Tanden correspondence? You said no. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, why do I get the feeling you two are following me around? Granted I pinged you at RSN MrX after you followed my recent contribs to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. And I don't know why Snoog is getting involved over there. ^^ (1 2) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to discussing content only here. - MrX 🖋 16:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Brock's 3 FEC complaints

OK. Why did you delete

At the end of the month, Alex Seitz-Wald reported in MSNBC that David Brock had filed three complaints with the FEC against the Sanders' campaign through his American Democracy Legal Fund. Seitz-Wald said it marked the first time this group had initiated action against a Democrat and that it was unlikely to lead to any result given the FEC's structural deadlock.

References

saying that it had nothing to do with news coverage? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That a pro-Clinton advocacy group or the Clinton campaign tried to create negative coverage of Sanders and good coverage of their preferred candidate (as is the case in every single political campaign) is not media bias against Sanders and is not notable in the slightest. That is politics. It's WP:COATRACK. What's next? Adding Clinton's criticisms of Sanders to the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of media bias against Sanders in that article. You seem to be suggesting that "sometimes are used more to generate news coverage than actual enforcement action." means that American Democracy Legal Fund was trying to drum up negative press about Sanders in 2016. If so, you need sources that say that unequivocally, not "sometimes are used". - MrX 🖋 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

lol. If you follow the links in the first paragraph of the article to the three complaints (conveniently marked complaint, another, and the third)... you will see that the AFDL deleted all three. It must not have gone that well, huh? :) Also, this is a page about media coverage, it says so right at the top of the page. Let go of that old title ("media bias"). It is history (because the vast majority of people surveyed found that it was a bad title for an entry, and that further developments should strive to cover "media coverage". It will remain history until there is another move proposal. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters

This sentence:

Media Matters, part of the Brock complex,[11] reported on a September 2015 study by Andrew Tyndall, which showed ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race (338 to Republicans, 128 minutes to Democrats, of which 8 minutes were about Sanders).[12]

contains WP:SYNTH. The editor apparently wanted to school readers by combining two unrelated sources. I would appreciate it if someone could fix this.- MrX 🖋 17:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The line connecting Media Matters to Brock is synth and should be removed. The repeated additions of this over multiple challenges also constitute a violation of WP:BRD and possibly the 1RR editing restrictions on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That's my impression as well. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I notice there is a lot of talk about "weaponizing" info and "weaponized" politics in the article you don't like being used to provide contextual info. Here's a fine pull quote to speak of what Brock brought to the table just out of the 2016 election: In the run-up to his weekend donor confab, Brock promised to build a complex that would “weaponize” information to savage all things Trump. Media Matters would strafe the press, ShareBlue would be turned into a “Breitbart of the left,” American Bridge would churn out oppo research, and his legal center would bury Trump and appointees in legal suits. [13] 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Brock blames Sanders for Clinton's loss in NBC News, 3 Jan 2019

The repeated restorations of "Brock wrote an anti-Sanders op-ed in 2019"[14] is a violation of WP:BRD and possibly the other editing restrictions on this article. Again, this op-ed has nothing to do with the topic: that someone wrote an anti-Sanders op-ed is not media bias against Sanders and it fails WP:DUE. The obsession with David Brock (which includes insinuations across multiple years that Wikipedia editors are working for Brock) and the attempts to turn this article into an article about him via edit-warring and over the objections of multiple editors needs to stop. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For those wondering what is/was actually written in mainspace: In January 2019, prior to his campaign announcement, David Brock criticized Sanders in NBC News for having given Trump talking points.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a new subject I've added an appropriate section title based on the first line of the essay you don't think is relevant. Your habit of casting of aspersions without evidence, as in the comment directly above, is, of course, a major policy violation. You have no evidence of what you claim. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The material needs to removed as WP:UNDUE. The heavy handed restoration of the material against the objections of at least two editors, and the apparent obsession with Brock, is very concerning. - MrX 🖋 16:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to Correct the Record, I have only ever made one edit (in Sept. 2016) to Mr. Brock's en.wp BLP or TP (in order to add a hatnote still present in the article today). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Snoogans and MrX. I also see no policy violations in Snoogans's comment. This is starting to get out of hand. The scope of this article is journalistic media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Lots of people have opinions that they express online or in advertising/social media or through PACs. None of that belongs in this article. WMSR (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, you have a consensus of three like-minded individuals. Do what you wish. Obviously I disagree concerning Brock's obsession with Sanders, but if you want to say that you think in good conscience that a political operative like David Brock having such free access to NBC News in order to say he "blames Hillary Clinton's defeat" on Bernie Sanders is not noteworthy, it is difficult to argue with you given the current situation at NBC News... (I do think it's funny he used the same word ("poisonous") that was used in the Jan 2017 to describe his methods.) [15]

Regardless, the claims made by Snoog above are not policy compliant: feel free to reread WP:ASPERSIONS concerning evidence-less claims. And saying an editor is "obsessed" is just a little poisonous, too. But I'm used to MrX and Snoog's methods. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanders's campaign manager is regularly on CNN. That is not evidence of a CNN bias in favor of Sanders, it's just CNN interviewing a primary source. If Sanders's CM worked for CNN, that would be a major problem, but that isn't the case. In terms of Brock having "free access" to NBC, nobody got more free media coverage during the 2016 election than the current president, who regularly took advantage of this coverage to attack Hillary Clinton. Yet there is no page on "Media coverage of Hillary Clinton" because it isn't notable; "the media" weren't the ones constantly portraying Clinton negatively, it was Trump and his campaign surrogates, which was exacerbated by the media's disproportionate coverage of—not bias toward—Trump. And all of that information either falls within the purview of her 2016 campaign page or the election page. For that reason, I'm still not convinced this page meets notability guidelines, but I especially don't see a single talking head as having as much influence or notability as you have repeatedly claimed he does. This article does not exist to make an argument, it exists to present notable and well-sourced facts. --WMSR (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

1) I've always seen then Weaver & now Shakir identified in those interviews as Sanders' campaign manager (usually both visually and orally, before he starts and often while he is speaking). NBC News does not explicitly identify Brock as being associated with Clinton at all in this article. (Granted, Brock himself does (towards the end), but NBC News does not, prefering to say: David Brock is the author of five political books, including Killing the Messenger (Hachette, 2015) and Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (Crown, March 2002). He founded Media Matters for America in 2004 and then American Bridge 21st Century in 2011. source)

2) According to Patterson, Clinton received extensive negative media coverage except during the period March 15th-May 3rd. So, contrary to what you assert, she did, in fact, get a lot of what used to be called "bad press".

3) I remain agnostic as to where all this stuff should end up. As I suggested in the move discussion, Media coverage of Democratic presidential primaries (2000-2020) would be a good place to put coverage of Democratic presidential primaries. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

But once again, you're now moving into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. And I didn't assert that coverage of Clinton wasn't negative, rather that it wasn't biased. Regardless, I remain unconvinced that any of this is notable enough for its own article; the lede plus sources could be moved to a section in the Sanders article and we could call it a day. Sanders's claims of bias would make much more sense there, where he is the subject, than here, where the subject is the media's coverage of him. --WMSR (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not mainspace. What I wrote in mainspace is neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR. People can discuss whether it's WP:DUE if they want, but let's not confuse the issue, OK? As I already said, "do what you want".🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

CTR gets outed sending HuffPost journalists oppo research

I see that MrX has deleted a HuffPost article, and reference to Jeff Weaver's chapter on Brock, added about a week ago, because he was unable to find a chapter title in Weaver using google.

quote: I'm challenging this content. The book has no such chapter. Something is fishy here...

psst MrX: look!

Hmmm... what was the subject, again? Oh yes, CTR trying to compare Sanders to Maduro & Corbyn and getting called out on it. Go figure. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the reference as there was nothing fishy about the sourcing.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, There was no discussion here, let alone consensus to restore that content. Frankly, I did not even notice that you had posted here since you did not start this thread at the bottom of the page. I understand that you have your own opinions and beliefs regarding the content of this article, but please leave that behind when editing this page. I am also asking you to revert your re-addition of the content you mentioned here per WP:BRD. I am getting worn out responding to your constant additions of POV content, and I imagine other editors are as well. Please try to look at this issue objectively. Best, WMSR (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, go ahead and revert the content if you wish. I think it should stand, it is well sourced and due description of issues surrounding media coverage. (There's more WP:V stuff in Weaver for those who want to dig.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot revert it because of 1RR. And the fact that you're digging for more information that fits your POV speaks volumes. --WMSR (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a look at that ANI thread you started briefly. Here's some dig-reading: The Archaeology of Sausage. Someone'll probably be along shortly. There is no deadline. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about CTR's deleted matter @ the Wayback Machine

Can anybody dig up an archival version of the deleted press release from the CTR site saying it was inspired for its social media campaign by BernieBros? Here's the Daily Beast story: [16] Like the three FEC filings mentioned above, it seems to have been deleted from Correct the Record. Oh, that was easier than I thought, it's been archived 342 times at webarchive.org

So Brock *was* behind this, at least from 21 April... : "Many of Hillary Clinton’s female supporters in particular have been subject to intense cyber-bullying and sexist attacks from swarms of anonymous attackers."

Are Daily Beast and the Wayback Machine aimed at Brock's site sufficiently reliable sources to include in this article? I'm not a big fan of the Beast in general but this story does check out (using one of their links augmented by the Wayback Machine). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm lost. What are you arguing here? --WMSR (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lead which summarizes research should be restored

Amid SashiRolls's edit-warring of his preferred changes to the lead and attempts by others to restore the stable version of the lead, the 2nd paragraph which summarizes the research on the subject has not yet been restored. It should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This long and winding paragraph was summarized in one sentence (the second one) below in "revised version". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I understand that SashiRolls has tried to summarize this in the sentence "A quantitative study of qualitative coverage by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.", (you are mistaken) -- SashiRolls but that leaves reader a bit in the dark. The paragraph should be restored in some form.

Perhaps something along these lines:

Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls. Analysis of the language used also concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage. A study by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the primary.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you integrate the fact that the qualitative analysis is done by algorithm? Giving at least a vague idea about methodology would be appropriate when speaking of studies. Also, it might be better to avoid the present perfect, which is not an encyclopedic tense/aspect. Perhaps add dates for the studies and use the simple past. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, could you provide a pull quote and page number about the Northeastern Study from Colleen Elizabeth Kelly's book please. (I just want to be sure you haven't gotten us confused with the 2019 study.) I'm fairly certain you wouldn't have just moved that 2019 study back to 2016, so I will be interested to read about the earlier study in Kelly's own words. The Post's 32 stories (16+16), at the very least, should probably be mentioned somewhere in the lede as it is probably the most widely known story.. ( Clinton is still celebrating victory on the en.wp Washington Post page).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't but maybe Snooganssnoogans can. I am accepting on faith that this study is authoritative/representative based on the fact that you two have advocated for it being in the lead. I'm just reaching for a compromise here. I'm not necessarily apposed to including that the qualitative analysis is algorithmic, although that doesn't seem noteworthy given that we all work on an encyclopedia that does the exact same thing without anyone batting an eye. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you've misunderstood completely (so I'll take the time out of my day...). The second line of the first paragraph is the summary of Snoogans missing paragraph. The current second paragraph of the lede does not need messing with as it has nothing to do with Snoog's long paragraph (or 2016), though I gather you would like to see the paragraph about 2020 deleted too? Nice job confusing everyone MrX! :D Also, as I mentioned repeatedly to Snoog, this is not the Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page. Maybe you could help Snoog get that one started? The main quantitative study being cited by the books about 2016 is "Patterson" in the bibliography/works cited. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why does the lead now only summarize the Shorenstein Center study when there are multiple academic assessments, including a peer-reviewed Princeton University Press book on the topic? And why does the lead get into the nitty gritty of mentioning specific numbers? That's not how a lead works. The second paragraph of the lead is barely readable now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about the lead sentence

Original version
The Bernie Sanders campaign and certain alternative media sources have alleged that the mainstream media in the United States is biased against Bernie Sanders, primarily concerning both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. Accusations of bias often revolve around corporate ownership of news organizations, misleading graphics, and a perceived lack of coverage of Bernie Sanders.

problems: the stated subject of the page is Media coverage of Bernie Sanders now, not accusations of bias. I did not vote for that title, in fact, but maintain that it entails discussion of efforts to influence media coverage, such as those undertaken by Team Brock, TeamIRA, and Team 4chan.

Revised version

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders became an object of study during the 2016 Democratic primary in the United States. Quantitative studies augmented by software evaluating qualitative article slant (positive or negative) have agreed that overall Sanders received coverage proportional to his polling and that within that set of articles his coverage was more often positive than Hillary Clinton's coverage was. Negative media campaigns were led, as in previous US elections, this time by a super-PAC called Correct the Record and a foreign operator called the Internet Research Agency. References

With the removal of this version of the lead the only mention of the fact that the Internet Research Agency had instructed its multipliforous minions not to criticize Sanders is gone. Poof! We also lose all reference to one of the themes mentioned in the body of the article (though there are renewed efforts to remove them, I see).

Perhaps Team X could instead add the relevant reports on Russki Meddling in Homespun spinner-space, so we can see the bigger picture, rather than deleting reliably sourced information. (Will add a list of all the deleted Brock stuff once its ref-group assembles itself.) Time-consuming all that. Hm. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the subject of the article is (purported) Media bias against Bernie Sanders. The title changed, but the subject of the article did not. Let's please try to keep this (and all) discussions on a collegial level. - MrX 🖋 18:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of your preferred version (1) "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" is not an "object of study". (2) The quant-qual dichotomy is a misrepresentation of the cited research. The description of "software" used in some of the studies is undue. A lead should be clear and concise. (3) The last sentence is bizarre. It's poorly sourced original research which is not only barely readable, but hypes Correct the Record and Russian interference as the key actors on the subject (which appears to only be your personal take on the topic, rather than one reflected by RS). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have put the Brock references a (very) cursory search has turned up in the course of rewriting this entry from top to bottom. Several have been deleted from the page entirely. I've put this all back into the "revised version" above. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, the assertion that the focus on quantitative analyses (and software driven quantitative analyses of quality) is misleading is an assertion. No evidence or argument has been presented to convince me that assertion is correct.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the studious approach in the revised version, and the added references. I feel like it might be missing the mark a little on the topic, though. This article started as detailing numerous cases (and some analyses) of Sanders being misreported on or omitted from coverage – where many individual cases seemed to paint a consistent picture. Then, as counterweight there are the studies that give a more nuanced and reserved picture, as well as rebuttals by journalists and pundits affiliated with mainstream media. Now, the individual cases and analyses are not mentioned in the lede at all – it seems you've chosen to address that 'side' with the CTR and Russia stuff instead. As far as we know, neither of those parties have direct control over what mainstream media is doing, however.

It's also a bit hard to read and understand. I know it's far from easy to write text that's NPOV, precise, inclusive of necessary content AND easy to read at the same time. But I actually preferred the earlier title in that regard.

I hope you can put forward a suggestion that addresses some of these concerns. I can try myself too, but I'm currently busy trying to get consensus on content, so that'd only be at a later date.

Lastly, I would recommend leaving the lede be as it was before consensus is achieved on a new version. I said this same thing to the previous editor who kept changing it after it being reverted, so it'd be inconsistent if I didn't ask the same here, too. You could consider adding these new references somewhere else than in the lead to have a better chance of it sticking.

Selvydra (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, as I recall, I submitted this bold proposal partially because I accidentally tried to use the edit summary line as a search box. ^^ It is a general principle that we start an article with Title of article is/was... I just did a test and this was true of 5/5 random articles. This is why I believe the article starting with the title is better than not starting with the title. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: The subject of the article is not (purported) Media bias against Bernie Sanders. It is Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. The article was moved because the old title was not neutral. The lead must reflect that some sources say there is bias and some say there isn't bias. – Anne drew 18:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I disagree. The title was changed because editors thought it was a non-neutral title. From the move request: "Media bias against Bernie Sanders → Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns or Bernie Blackout – several editors have expressed that the current name is POV so I propose this title which I think is neutral. Another option is Media bias controversy about 2020 US Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders" I have seen no consensus to suggest that the subject of the article has changed. - MrX 🖋 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In any case, the title was chosen by 17 people. You did not participate. Maybe next time you should. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No case. The title is the neutral version of an article about media bias against Bernie Sanders. - MrX 🖋 22:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

From WP:TITLE: The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. In other words, the title defines the subject of the article. – Anne drew 21:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "indicates" with "defines". - MrX 🖋 22:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

k. From later in WP:TITLE: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. – Anne drew 00:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it usually should. I would have voted against renaming the article because there is plausible case, as borne out by sources, that Sanders has been treated differently than other candidates by major media organizations, notwithstanding the contrary point of view which also has merit. As is evident by the first edit to this article, the article creator did not set out to create an article about everything related to media coverage of Bernie Sanders, which some editors are not construing as meaning social media, and no doubt, will soon include oil painting, watercolor, and pastels. - MrX 🖋 13:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Section: perspectives on social media and alternative media coverage

A section titled "perspectives on social media and alternative media coverage" was deleted yesterday with the edit summary: "Removed section. Social media, while it contains the word "media," does not constitute media coverage."

This seems to me a mistake. A number of the sources already in this article talk specifically about alternative media and social media coverage of Bernie Sanders, for example the Washington Post piece by the publisher of The Nation [17]. The title of the page is not "mainstream media coverage" but "media coverage" which includes alternative media coverage and social media coverage.

Now, I understand that the person who deleted it (WMSR) probably was focused on the fact that the specific detail I chose to create that section with was Bernie Sanders' campaign manager's expertise concerning which troll armies were covering the Sanders campaign's social media instruments (Facebook, for example). (One of the "disadvantages" of being pushed to social media is that anyone can edit social media.)

I believe this section should be restored as social media coverage and alternative media coverage are important parts of the subject "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR was justified in removing that section. It has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders, and social media is obviously a completely different thing than "media" in the sense used in this article (the press). It doesn't matter that some sources used in this article happen to mention social media when describing Sander's coverage in THE media. - MrX 🖋 12:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that so? Consider:

I thought this had been mentioned before, but not finding it I'll risk repeating: "The Anatomy of MSNBC" at Jacobin mentions the Ed Schulz story. I assume there is coverage of RT/Sputnik coverage of Sanders just as there is coverage of RT/Sputnik coverage of Stein & Gabbard? Maybe it would be worth adding the Atlanic Council's take on that? [18] ^^ I see that the NYT covered the Internet Research Agency's non-aggression towards Sanders in February 2016. I learned that through coverage on a social media site owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a reach. It seems to me that you're saying that the media covered social media trolls, and therefore the social media trolls are notable enough to be included. If the solution to this is renaming the article again to "Press coverage of Bernie Sanders" then I'm fine with that, but we all know what media means in this sense, and the deleted section did not contain anything related to the substance of the article. --WMSR (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sh, don't tell, but Gutenberg's defunct... Concerning the page title there was nearly univocal agreement about this entry title (Media coverage of Bernie Sanders) because it's a smart one. Media bias against Bernie Sanders & Press coverage of Bernie Sanders are not as good. After all, what place would there be for discussion of the grassroots (#FeelTheBern) hashtag, (the trajectory of which was remarked by scholars & journalists alike, and certainly is/was frequently borrowed by journalists and editors looking for a headline.[19], [20], ...)

References

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I supported the move as well, and I did not foresee this discussion because no reasonable person would interpret the current title as including non-journalistic media. I understand that you have political views—we all do—but please keep them out of this article. If you can't find the information you want to include in a reliable source, there's probably a reason for that. It doesn't matter if the reason is corporate control of the media; WP:RS still applies. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please identify the articles above which are not RS. If you cannot do so, cease and desist with insinuating I want to use non-"RS" sources.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I misspoke. I should have said "relevant sources." Sanders's social media presence is not within the scope of this article, nor are any other social media campaigns. I apologize for the RS statement. WMSR (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted, I'd come back to change "cease and desist from" to something like "please don't". One thing I've always disliked on en.wp is those who respond who have clearly not read the articles you've just posted to determine their reliability (or relevance). I'm sorry to have responded so peevishly. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

All good :) That said, I stand by my comment several threads up (which was not directed at you, but the user above you). That was probably the source of my confusion—there are a lot of threads going on here. WMSR (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Ed Schultz interview

This section concerns the following deleted passage:

In an interview with National Review's Jamie Weinstein,[note 1] MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was told by then-president of MSNBC [redacted] that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders". 45 days later, Shultz was terminated by MSNBC.

Reason: "Because it's sourced to non-RS, and includes unsourced synth at the end."

I spent some time looking at policies, guidelines and an essay on interviews, which led me down a rabbit-hole of cross-references. Bear with me.

• According to WP:IV, Schultz talking about things that happened to himself constitutes a primary source:

[A]ny statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material.

• Section WP:IV#Reliability further details:

– If the material is primary, then it is treated as if the interviewee had written the same content on their website or Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies.

– Publications with a reputation for reliability can usually be trusted to report their interviewees' words accurately and without embellishment, but there is no guarantee that other publications will do the same.

To my understanding, when there's audio or video of an interview, that should move the needle towards it being a WP:RS in that context.

• Regarding primary sources, WP:OR#Primary and WP:RSPRIMARY have it that they can be used, but any interpreting of their content isn't allowed and should be relegated to a secondary source.
• Meanwhile, WP:SPS has,

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...],

with some caveats (I suggest having a look at them). Of the caveats, two might apply: 1. Does the MSNBC President here constitute a third party? 2. Is Schultz talking about Griffin disallowing him from covering Sanders an exceptional claim?

In summary, the section should be allowed as long as i) it is not interpreted, ii) if the MSNBC President doesn't enjoy third-party protection and iii) Schultz isn't making an exceptional claim. Let's discuss. Selvydra (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I don't mind the removal of the section about Schultz' termination, if that does constitute synth. Selvydra (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

My issue is that the audio and video are from RT, his employer at the time. To me that's highly problematic. --WMSR (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In and of itself it is problematic, but – as I detailed above (did you read it?) – as long as there isn't reason to believe that the source faked the interview, the source's RS status isn't inherited. Rather, an interviewee talking about themselves is a primary source and it counts as self-pub. Could I ask you to engage with this? Selvydra (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with WMSR. The first two sources are not good sources. Accuracy in media is probably fine for this article. For an article like this, we should almost never use primary sources, except to provide readers a reference for what is already covered in reliable secondary sources. If this material is important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article, there will be better sources that have covered it. If in doubt, leave it out. And yes, a claim about why someone was fired is an exceptional claim and WP:IV is not a policy or guideline. I recommend not looking for loopholes in our actual policies. - MrX 🖋 16:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

1. So is it a primary source like WP:IV says, or should we not listen to IV because it's an essay?
2. I would argue that "better sources" won't cover this not because a former MSNBC host is untrustworthy, but because doing so is contrary to their interests. CNN, NYT or WaPo aren't going to cover MSNBC being biased against a leftist candidate. Of course it's going to mainly be picked up by right-wing and left-wing media, both of which have an interest in challenging established centrist media. For this article at large, it's going to be hard to find a reliable source that doesn't have a stake in this one way or another. The list of what editors consider RS is dominated by established outlets – mostly owned by very wealthy people – that stand to lose financially from the election of a 'big change' candidate. Of these revered outlets, the NYT is perhaps the least directly affected money-wise, and even they were in favor of his opponent in 2016. So, it ends up being a built-in POV issue in articles that challenge them – especially when the RS standard is used not just to attribute opposing views but to remove them entirely. Selvydra (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
3. And yes, a claim about why someone was fired is an exceptional claim [...] A claim about why he couldn't cover Sanders' launch, not why he got fired. But if I understand correctly, person A alleging that person B said anything not-obvious is probably an exceptional claim and needs to be verified to be included.
4. For me to "look for loopholes in our actual policies," someone would have had to present me with actual policy that addresses the aforementioned open questions regarding interviews. Thus far, I and like-minded editors had mainly been asked to take other editors at their word. I appreciate that your response here was actually substantive. Could I still ask you to comment on the dilemma I voiced at 2.? Selvydra (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(did you read it?) I'm getting really tired of responding to accusations on this page. I clearly read it, because somehow, the fact that it was an RT interview, along with the fact that Schultz was employed by RT at the time, were conveniently absent from any mainspace additions. We are talking about a foreign and adversarial state media organization interviewing their own employee, so yeah, I tend to doubt whatever the interview "uncovers". For example, RT (along with many other media organizations, foreign and domestic) reported that Volodymyr Zelynsky said that he felt "no pressure" from Trump to investigate Joe Biden, and indeed there is video of him making this statement. Yet clearly, we cannot accept this statement prima facie because of the pressure applied to him. The same applies here, since there is a clear pressure that employers in the media place on employees (isn't that the entire point of this discussion?). There should be a healthy amount of skepticism surrounding claims like this. --WMSR (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was an interview by Jamie Weinstein of the National Review, while Schultz was an employee of RT. While I appreciate the point that his employee could have pressured him to answer a certain way, it's another thing to say they did so to Weinstein too. (As a caveat, he may of course have had a pro-conservative-media line.) Were it an interview by RT, I think your arguments would be valid – so the fact that he was employed by them at the time does give the arguments partial merit. So, thank you for engaging with mine. Selvydra (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminate revert of changes

I made numerous changes to the article.[21] These included:

• removing newly added content which lacked consensus (e.g. Sanders's proposals on changing the media)
• adding some new content (a Jennifer Rubin op-ed)
• restoring content that there was broad consensus on (e.g. academic analyses of media coverage in the 2016 election in the lead)
• copyedits and fixing factual errors (e.g. Sides et al. only find that Sanders's media coverage exceeded his polling during 2015).

These changes were reverted in their entirety by SashiRolls[22]. In one of his edits, SashiRolls simply stated, "No consensus for these changes"[23], but some of the content that he was restoring was newly added content (like the "Correct the Record"/David Brock type content that numerous editors on the talk page have challenged) which should not be in the article unless there is consensus for it (per BRD and per agreement by every active editor on the talk page, except SashiRolls who repeatedly edit-wars newly added content back into the article). Some of the content also clearly seemed to have consensus for it (such as including the academic analyses on media bias in the 2016 election). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I will not waste my time arguing with you. If you want to add the Jennifer Rubin page go ahead (though I would wait to get consensus). Removing Sanders' essay in CJR is silly, he's obviously talking about media coverage and this has been widely commented upon. List any specific content you wish to modify below, but be aware that there was no consensus for adding further wiki-text to the lead. The information on 2016 is already adequately summarized.

I also notice that you deleted the following (the only reference to the 2016 part of the Patterson study):

From March 15 – May 3, the Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61:39. For the first time in the campaign, Clinton's press was positive (51:49) and Sanders' press was negative (46:54).

References

Any reason why you claimed to be adding things about 2016 when in fact you were deleting them and only padding stuff about the 2015 period? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of this period, we should also mention the Daily Kos' decision to start kicking Sanders' supporters off the platform in March 2016.. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please not use this part of the talk page to discuss unrelated changes? It's hard enough to try to talk with you and keep you on topic, as is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not delete that text from the Patterson study. I moved the text verbatim up into the right section of the article. Maybe you should look at the changes made before you indiscriminately mass-revert them. There also seems to be a clear consensus for including text on the studies of media coverage in the 2016 election in the lead. It's also tendentious to assert that I need to get consensus for any new content that I add while you edit-war your new changes into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, you deleted it from the chronology and padded the pre-primary stuff in the lead, while removing Sanders' media critique. Also, should we include info about the person who Daily Kos apparently fired in 2020 after the Sanders' campaign complained?

I assume you are referring to MrX's confused section above where he was trying to say the Northeastern study was the Patterson study?

The academic / journalist distinction you introduced was tactical. But I notice you left stuff about Vox in that section... The presentation should be chronological as there were important differences in the media coverage of Bernie Sanders at strategic points of the campaign.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already explicitly asked you not to discuss unrelated changes to the article in this part of the talk page (note that this is occurring while you completely fail to respond substantively to all the content you removed and the new content you're edit-warring back into the article). Why do you then keep bringing up some Daily Kos content you want to add to the article? I have no idea what you're talking about with "MrX's confused section" – please stay on topic. The location of the "stuff about Vox" has nothing to do with the changes in question - please stay on topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Snoogans on this one. Sashi violated BRD in these mass reverts, and is clearly pushing a POV on this page. The section title change was also inappropriate. WMSR (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

And I am going to leave en.wp (for the night, don't get your hopes up) ^^ Thank you for removing my name from the TP header (a clear violation of policy that you havv repeatedly been admonished for) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear: You (1) reverted every single change that was made, (2) insisted that all the changes needed consensus, (3) restored new changes made by yourself in the absence of consensus, (4) came on the talk page and misrepresented the changes that you reverted (indicating that you had no idea what you were reverting), (5) started discussions about all kinds of unrelated content you wanted to add, (6) rambled about your grievances with Mr.X., and (7) left the discussion without substantively addressing any of the changes you made and with zero indication that you're going to remove the newly added content that you just edit-warred back into the article over the objections of multiple editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

1 and 2 (correct). 3 (nope, this page has been stable for quite some time... I know you want to delete everything related to Brock, but I haven't added anything to this page in quite some time. 4) you *did* delete the Patterson study of 2016 from the chronology. I mispoke, suggesting you deleted it entirely. Interesting fact: earlier you were misrepresenting the pre-primary part of that study as the whole study. Prior to my intervention on the page, that reference was not included. 5) Yes, we need to talk about Daily Kos in 2016 & 2020 on this page. 6) Don't play dumb. You know I am talking about this part of the talk page where MrX was throroughly confused (notice footnote 3 which misrepresents Kelly), this is your supposed consensus, I assume... and 7) I have spent the time responding each of your claims. You're welcome. (Oh, there was also 8, I fixed the one "error" you identified by being more precise (substituting "in 2015" for "at that time") rather than rewriting the entire sentence to change its spin and 9) now that you've given me a moment to think, I've been able to improve your HRC-heavy version of the lead to something more NPOV and factually accurate. G'night. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The absurd CTR content that has been challenged by multiple has again been edit-warred into the article by SashiRolls.[24] How many times is this editor going to be allowed to edit-war newly added content into the article despite the objections of multiple editors? It's a brazen violation of BRD and the consensus-required requirements that all the other editors are abiding by. The editor was just days ago warned on the edit-warring noticeboard for edit-warring on this page, but immediately comes back to edit-war this nonsensical content into the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Chill. The content I restored was deleted on the grounds that the chapter title of one of the two sources was "fishy", seemingly suggesting that it did not exist. I restored the edit after proving that the source said exactly what I wrote that it said and providing a link to the page where it did. Please stop misrepresenting matters. I notice you did not provide a link to that discussion at ANEW which was closed within 27 minutes of being opened. In the interest of transparency concerning what really happened, I'll add a link since it was just archived. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you are repeatedly restoring content that has been challenged by multiple editors, and which has not been supported by any editor except yourself. It's a direct violation of BRD and the consensus-required requirements, and it makes it impossible to edit this article. You were literally "warned" on the edit-warring noticeboard, so your link just shows what I said. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on content. The only comment on content you've made is a bare assertion that the content is "absurd", an assertion with which two publishers and three authors obviously disagree. Otherwise, you've been making accusations. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The correct title is "Media Bias against Bernie Sanders".

Neolibs are the worst.

Change it back.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was reached (between proponents of both keeping and deleting this article) on changing it to this name. Some of the more prominent editors here, though, continue to interpret the article and its content according to its original name, so this shouldn't be a significant change. It's the content that has been more contentious. Selvydra (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Academic analyses – and how it's summarized in the lede

I haven't been able to check the contents of the books that have been cited in the Academic analyses section, as they're paid material. However, the one study I could check (Shorenstein) had been summarized selectively – leaving out the fact that Sanders' coverage was lagging even after he polled ahead of O'Malley and Webb, and that his increase in coverage or its positivity didn't make up for the previous lack of coverage. This last argument was attributed to him having a major name ID disadvantage, which is why amount of coverage was more crucial than tone of coverage.

The books, though, have been summarized in such a way that they arrive at a very different conclusion. Even Colleen Elizabeth Kelly's book, that cited the Shorenstein study, apparently overlooked what was outlined above. The lede has no mention of it either, instead concluding that – according to academic studies – his coverage was ample and positive.

If the editor who wrote these paragraphs is still around, could I get them to post the book text they used as source material?

Also, is there a reason why the John Sides mention is in the Academic analyses section? It's a journalistic study, similar to the In These Times one. The Nieman Labs one feels more rigorous, although I think "...at least online" should be replaced with "in online news".

I figured I'd post this and give people a chance to reply before I start editing, since I'm partially in the dark not knowing the contents of those books. Selvydra (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've tracked both down. Sides Tesler Vavreck media coverage Sanders and A_Rhetoric_of_Divisive_Partisanship media coverage finds the books at google books. The latter rather artfully avoids speaking about the Shorenstein Center's analysis of the March 15th-May 3rd period on page 72. HIH. ps: there was a fun disciplinary interlude where I was taken to the edit warring board for removing a word I myself had added a few minutes earlier ("slightly") because it was wrong. I was sleepy last night, shouldn't have messed with the page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggest in particular reading Chapter III (The "outsider" rhetorical behavior of Bernie Sanders") to understand Kelley's POV. There's some good quotes in there; e.g. "That Bernie Sanders lacked any clear concept of party loyalty was not altogether surprising considering his history. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The book is not POV, and the addition of the quote to the article should be removed ASAP, as it has nothing to do with the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

John Sides is a political scientist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Why on Earth has his academic assessment now been moved from the 'academic analysis' section to the godawful 'timeline' section? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Politico's "antisemitic" article against Sanders

I inserted the following, but was reverted due to its length. Can anyone suggest a shorter version? The article is clearly an important piece to understand the media's relationship with Bernie and it garnered a lot of attention of its own (mostly negative):

In May 2019, Politico published a feature article on Sanders's income. Both the article and tweets from official Politico accounts on Twitter promoting the text, described him as "rich" and "cheap"; the article itself also contained a montage of a giant Sanders holding three houses. In part because Sanders was then the only Jewish candidate in the race, the article was considered anti-Semitic by many on social media. Politico deleted one of its tweets promoting the text and replaced the aforementioned illustration with another, showing Sanders in a backyard with a money tree in the background. Criticism, however, continued to flow in Politico’s direction, including from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; she, who later endorsed Sanders in October 2019, asked on Twitter: "Can ⁦@politico ⁩ explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how “cheap” and rich he is *isn’t* antisemitic? Or are they just letting this happen because he’s a progressive politician they don’t like?" Articles in other media outlets, such as Buzzfeed News, Jacobin, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, also disagreed with the tone and arguments of Politico’s article or warned that upholding Sanders to "double standards" risks inflaming anti-Semitism. Sanders himself labeled the article anti-Semitic days later.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafe87 (talk • contribs) January 13, 2020 20:11(UTC)

This material was disputed before, but the discussion dwindled. Can you indicate which of these six source best explains how the Politico article and tweet represent media bias against Sanders? - MrX 🖋 21:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've put it back. There's nothing wrong with it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at each of these sources. None of them relate to media bias against Sanders. I think this material should be omitted, and I know that the proposed text is far too detailed for any encyclopedia article (and WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 23:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The entry is not called "media bias against Bernie Sanders", but "media coverage of Bernie Sanders". In addition, several of the references described the Politico article as anti-semitic. I honestly don't understand your confusion. Most of the references frame Politico (or at least its article) as biased against Sanders, and even as anti-semitic. Rafe87 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about supposed media bias against Sanders. That didn't change when the title changed. This is not a WP:COATRACK for everything loosely related. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's also rich how you revert GPRamirez5 under the 1RR, but fail to understand you did the same thing as he. Rafe87 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I adhered to WP:1RR. What exactly do you think I failed to understand? - MrX 🖋 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about supposed media bias against Sanders. No, it is about the media coverage of Bernie Sanders in general?. The content is obviously related to the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm unwatchlisting this coatrack per WP:IDGAF. Cheers. - MrX 🖋 23:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To illustrate how this is relevant, read this if it makes sense: Media outlet^Politico "racist" coverage^{"antisemitic" article} against Sanders. Is it obvious now how this is related to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"?. BTW, in the edit summary I meant to say WP:Stonewalling not WP:STONEWALL.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not how WP:BRD works. There was not clear consensus to restore that edit, and I suggest that whoever restored it revert themselves. It makes sense to include a sentence or two about the Politico article and the resultant pushback, but devoting an entire paragraph to it is absolutely WP:UNDUE. WMSR (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh so it is now UNDUE, I thought it was a coatrack? One sentence for a controversy that promoted many social media angry because it was racist and Politico deleted the tweets. Also, AOC criticised the anti-semite article. How can we write all of this in one sentence?. These are all related.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"In May 2019, Politico published an article on Sanders's income, which some, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders himself, deemed anti-semitic." WMSR (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a decent start, but it should make at least some mention of the words and picture used. To that end, I suggest (feel free to work on this further):

"In May 2019, Politico published an article on Sanders's income. Some – including (any less biased parties?), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders himself – deemed the coverage anti-semitic, because the article described him as "rich," "cheap" and featured a montage of a giant Sanders holding three houses, and later an illustration of Sanders in a backyard with a money tree."

I think this is better split into 2 sentences for clarity, although you could probably mash it into 1 long run-on sentence if you really felt that it is otherwise undue. Selvydra (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitic depictions of Sanders are obviously an example of media bias against him, and even more obviously a significant example of media coverage. To shorten the section, I would recommend not quoting AOC's tweet and simply mentioning that she questioned how the article couldn't be seen as antisemitic. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We should stop pretending that the Ed Schultz interview didn't happen or isn't notable.

User:WMSR is trying to keep the section on Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC using the following reasoning: Removed section; the entire section is based on a now-retracted interview, conducted by a non-RS right-wing site, of an RT employee. Subsequent sources were also not RS.
So what he's saying is: National Review can't be used as source for interviews that National Review itself performed, and Ed Schultz can't be used as a source of information regarding Ed Schultz.
I can't believe that this is backed by Wikipedia policy. Schultz is a notable enough that he has a Wikipedia entry on his person -- how can he not be deemed as notable source of information on things that happened to himself? Rafe87 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please revert yourself immediately. This is a violation of 1RR restrictions placed on this article. --WMSR (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR is only valid a day. I only reverted the deletion once today, so I'm not in violation of it. And I have already been reverted, so no need to go crying to the administrators again. Rafe87 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, you should take the opportunity to tell the other editors here how Ed Schultz (who's notable enough to merit an entry on Wikipedia) is, nevertheless, not a notable source of information on things that happened to himself? Rafe87 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article history says otherwise. You have reverted twice in the last 24 hours. For your second point, Wikipedia requires reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, so Ed Shultz is not a reliable source on himself. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll need better secondary sources for this. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. It's about certain users who think (or do they?) that a Ed Schiltz's interview can't be used as a source of information on Ed Schultz himself. I challenge anyone to show that it's Wikipedia policy to ban the use of personal interviews (or secondary sources commenting on the interview) as a source of biographical information on the interviewee himself. Rafe87 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the talk page and consensus was reached. 1RR applies to periods of 24 hours. I have just reverted some of my own edits for this reason, as I did not read policy closely enough and did not realize that the rule applied to reverts of different sections. WMSR (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• It was widely reported that he said this so can be included only as Ed Schultz's opinion of why he was fired. I'd support including a modified version only if the inadequately sourced BLP content was removed. Dartslilly (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• In addition to the poor sources, I think there may be a problem with adding Ed Shultz’s opinion about why he was fired at MSNBC in this article or the MSNBC article given that this interview appears to have occurred while he was working for RT America, a Moscow outlet. MSNBC coverage has been very negative towards Moscow. Tying this to Bernie Sanders increases the length of the stretch. With better sourcing, I could see it in the Ed Shultz article as to his opinion. O3000 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The interview has been retracted in full by the National Review. There is absolutely no reason for its inclusion anywhere in my opinion, but especially not here. WMSR (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What is even your source for this? The interview is still available at the NR website: https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-jamie-weinstein-show/episode-55-ed-shultz/ Rafe87 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Try to play the interview. WMSR (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous figure in edit summary

Sunday night, I was warned for "edit warring" because I removed the word "slightly" which I had erroneously added to the lede. I was actually not warned before the filing, it was sort of a gotcha' thing...

For the math, I added it in an edit summary but sadly typed 31% instead of 39% total coverage for Bernie Sanders. So, in sum: Bernie received 46 percent positive stories out of a total of 39% of the total coverage: this makes for slightly less than 18% of the positive coverage in the Democratic primary being for Sanders during the bulk of the voting period. By contrast, HRC received 61% of the total coverage, of which 51% was positive: this means that more than 31% of the positive coverage in the Democratic primary was for HRC. A simple calculation: 31% of total coverage divided by 18% of total coverage = 1.73. This means that HRC received significantly more positive coverage (73% more) during the March 15-May 3rd part of the Democratic primary, not slightly more. 🌿 She also received 41% more negative coverage (<30% : 21%). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is clear WP:SYNTH in addition to cherrypicking; there is nothing significant about those dates. --WMSR (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why did the scholar Patterson chose to report them? When was the New York primary again? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do think it would be good if the entry would note which outlets were covered by the study. I may go back and read more carefully to see what I can do there, but I have page numbers to dig up at the moment. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The calculations you're adding to the lead are mind-numbingly bizarre (of course, the candidate that gets far more coverage gets both more negative and positive stories) and a clear example of WP:SYNTH (you're plucking numbers out of secondary sources and re-interpreting them). It's beyond understanding why you consider it wise to make these calculations (which are absolutely meaningless) and to then opt to highlight "Hillary Clinton received 73 percent more positive coverage in the Democratic primary than Sanders" without mentioning that she received a larger share of negative coverage, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this is not the Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page. Such a page would talk about all of those stories about Goldman Sachs speeches and email servers (which, as you recall, Sanders suggested the press stop obsessing about) and DNC leaks and destabilizing Libya and etc. and etc. which could explain her negative coverage. This is not the page to develop such things, but I encourage you to create one where you do. Once you do, I would be happy to look into, for example, whether anyone commented on the Jacobin's extensive coverage of the Clinton efforts in Haiti in the week before the general, which I remember surprised me.

Also, as concerns the mid-sentence quote which Snoog has stood alone above, I would remind the reader never to trust what they read on the talk page as being an accurate representation of what has happened in mainspace. (cf. intra-sentence cherry-picking of wiki-text explicitly linked to a particular time period by use of that crazy adverb "when"). Breaking news: I've updated to the crazy adverbial "during which time" and provided explicit link to the supporting source. As I said in the edit summary, remember that Fox was included in the pool of media outlets and someone (not me) deleted the data provided on their anti-Clinton bias from the entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What on Earth has anything to do with creating a Media coverage of Hillary Clinton page? Please stay on topic and stop all the inane rambling. The point is very simple: you're plucking numbers out of a source and misleadingly presenting them to give readers the false impression that the coverage of Clinton was vastly more positive than Sanders by omitting the negative coverage. Per the source, the positive-negative balance of coverage was 51-49 for Clinton, and 46-54 for Sanders during this period. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of the language used concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, except from March 15 to May 3, during which time he received 73 percent fewer positive stories than his primary opponent did in the media outlets surveyed in a Harvard Shorenstein center study.

I would not be opposed to replacing "73 percent" with "significantly", incidentally. Both accurately summarize the data presented in the source. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

51-49 for Clinton, and 46-54 for Sanders is not "significant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that Objective3000 has now made their third edit to the entry: the first was to remove the inaccurate word "slightly" a couple minutes after MrX filed an ANEW report about the word, following WMSR's similar reversion without having studied the source. The second was to revert WMSR's self-revert on another matter (after WMSR had been called out for clear cut 1RR violations by Bbb23 at ANI), the third was to revert new text again to the mistaken word "slightly" after it was demonstrated by 1+1=2 that the degree adverb was misplaced / wrong. (Also removing the reference for the claim.) One might wonder how Objective3000 suddenly found this page (& ANEW) and why it is of such interest to them suddenly that they want to restore a misleading claim . Difficult to guess. I notice that all of Objective3000's contributions have been reverts and there is still no sign of them on the TP... though they did make a couple comments at ANEW. Most curious, as always. Again 46% of 39% of X is slightly less than 18% of X, where X is the total # of stories in the media outlets studied from 15.03 to 03.05.2016. 51% of 61% of X is a bit more than 31% of X. 18 times 1.73 = 31.🌿 Thinking back to chemistry class: since there are only two significant digits, we really should say 70% more (or significantly more). I'll see if there's something more direct in the article to satisfy the (again) curiously stubborn... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls:One might wonder how Objective3000 suddenly found this page. I’m an editor here. I tire of people asking why I edit articles. Seriously, considering your block history you should drop the WP:BATTLE attitude. As for your text, it was obvious WP:SYNTH. We don’t take data from a source and manipulate it to come up with new numbers. Now, I do think that the text could use improvement. If you have a suggestion on how to make the text more clear, make it. Meanwhile, we can’t let your WP:OR stand. O3000 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Better to mislead the reader than to get out a calculator, I guess. (Cf. WP:HERE) From the article about what Patterson calls "the middle period" (15 March-3 May) during which the Republican primary dominated the Democratic in the sources he studied 64:36: The tilt was such that Clinton got barely more coverage than Cruz. Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. He received only two-thirds as much coverage as Clinton[.] Later, he says, concerning the positive or negative quality of that sparse coverage: The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage. That candidate was Clinton[.] Earlier when presenting the same figures I demonstrated the significant difference with above, he says: In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided, with Clinton getting 61 percent of the coverage to Sanders’ 39 percent. Would you consider self-reverting, or do you prefer that the article have an NPOV tag and a failed verification tag because of your desire to talk about "battles"? We've already talked about my role in exposing Sagecandor on this page, that's done. You're welcome. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you strike the pointless crap at the start and end of your post, I'll respond to it. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV & failed verification tags

Aw obj don't go all truculent on me. I've given you what you need to rewrite the misleading text. I also added a bit more detail in the body to help the reader understand what's wrong with your preferred lead.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

fixed. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to note that SashiRolls included a personal attack in his comment (another editor removed it because it violated Wikipedia policy)[25], insulting me as "unemployed or underemployed". When SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018, he was allowed to edit again with the condition that he be kept on a tight leash, but he has since then on three separate occasions by two administrators (El C and Awilley) been blocked for harassment, personal attacks and battleground behavior, and been warned countless times by both administrators and editors. Some of these personal attacks that he was blocked for were targeted at me. Before his Nov 2018 block, he was explicitly warned by an administrator for engaging in a "strategy to harass" me[26] by following me around and removing content that I added (including removal of peer-reviewed research to obscure pages that he had no reasonable expectation to edit on). When is enough going to be enough? How much more of this am I supposed to put up with? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you should take it to AE or AN/I, Snooganssnoogans. I, and I suspect Awilley as well, are rather burned out when it comes to dealing with SashiRolls. It's time other admins do some of the heavy lifting, if needed. El_C 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have zero expectation that any case I bring will be successful, because it will just draw in every editor with grievances against me, leading to a mess of a noticeboard discussion and with a complete unwillingness by admins to sift through the information and take the correct decision. I also do not have the time to compile all the relevant data (what I mentioned above is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the harassment and battleground behavior by this editor), and be engaged in this at this particular time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think an AE request would be more orderly than you might envision. Also, you don't need to compile everything, just a few of the examples which you consider most egregious. But if you choose to do nothing, that is your prerogative, of course. My preference is to have quorum of admins involved, rather than placing it all on the shoulders of a single admin — that scenario seems unlikely to occur at this time. El_C 16:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC All of the above should be removed as "personal attacks", so should "brazen, absurd, nonsensical, indiscriminate, obsession, plus all the unsubstantiated ad hominem claims meant to discourage/chill work on this entry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to start a noticeboard request yourself toward that end, then. From what I've read, none of the comments in this subsection constitute personal attacks. When you stop making disparaging comments such as these, perhaps such subsections will not be needed. El_C 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Know WP:SELF

Since MrX doesn't want me painting any impressionistic rainbows, I won't suggest that we include WMF data for page views on Bernie Sanders & Hilary Clinton for July 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016. Still... is WMFLabs a secondary source as regards en.wp? ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're trying to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In principle, the wikimedia foundation provides a media platform to those who can be trusted to keep their POV at bay. At tools lab there are a number of tools allowing one to study wikimedia coverage of many subjects in many ways. As it happens, several of the tools are down at the moment (find author / find addition). But pageviews isn't. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Creation of a "timeline" section and moving academic assessments to the back

In a series of bad changes[27] to the article, SashiRolls has decided to re-create the horrid "timeline" style organization of content (there seemed to be a consensus against this type of organization) and move academic assessments of bias so they fall after this timeline. The academic assessments should obviously be front and center, as they are providing overviews of bias and are the strongest sources. The "timeline" content is just back-and-forth accusations, op-eds and other low quality content. We should strive to summarize the content, not create a coatrack with a bunch of incidents, op-eds and other random content in chronological order. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As time goes by, I am unable to keep up with all of the unwarranted, undue, and plainly POV edits to this article because of 1RR. Makes me think AfD is the next best option if editors are going to keep POV-pushing and edit-warring content into the article. This page is a WP:POVFORK and despite strong efforts from several editors, it seems that some people are determined to keep it that way. --WMSR (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As you write more, you would think there would be more references, evidence, and argumentation. Sadly, this is not the case. Just more accusations being lobbed.

I notice, looking through archives 1, 2 and this page, that there was never any consensus for putting "academic assessments" (like the POV Kelley book) "front and center". Since you seem to think that there was such a consensus Snooganssnoogans to justify your late December 2019 rearrangement of the article, could you provide a link to that discussion, please? Could you also explain what problem you have with putting things in chronological order? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"The academic assessments should obviously be front and center, as they are providing overviews of bias and are the strongest sources. The "timeline" content is just back-and-forth accusations, op-eds and other low quality content. We should strive to summarize the content, not create a coatrack with a bunch of incidents, op-eds and other random content in chronological order." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In other words, no, you can't point to a previously existing consensus. Thanks for your answer. PS: "obviously" means "in my opinion". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate info

So I'm here to start the discussion on whether the material and backlash regarding the debate should be added to this article as several articles are popping up from name credible sources that say CNN has it in for Sanders. With the loaded questions that were asked and the backlash from them, I think a modest section would be warranted. Definitely notable.--WillC 21:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the clear POV issues in your comment, I assume you are referring to the questions asked about Sanders's alleged comment to Warren questioning the viability of a female candidate. Those comments were verified by CNN and The New York Times. Obviously the two of them were the only people in the room during the actual conversation, but keep in mind that there are two sides to this story, and one has significantly more evidence than the other. From Warren's perspective, Sanders baselessly called her a liar on national television, and she was then subject to sexist internet trolling by Sanders supporters. My point is that there's a strong case that Sanders isn't the victim here. --WMSR (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s a bit misleading. It is not possible to “verify” such comments if the only 2 witnesses disagree. Warren’s side has exactly the same evidence and weight as Sander’s - their own words. Maybe they verified that Warren told those people what she said Sanders said, but they are not able to verify if Sanders actually said it, due to his strong denial. Warren has been notably loose with the truth now in a few other situations. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hearsay evidence is evidence. And when has Warren been notably loose with the truth? What matters is what reliable sources say, and in this case it's a range from ambiguity to support of Warren. --WMSR (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Although heavily covered at the moment, I'm not seeing any mainstream RS claiming any imbalance in coverage. Which is to say the episode has nothing to do with this article at this point. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Objective 3000 - best to let go for a few days at least and see where it goes from here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no way to evaluate whether to create a whole section on this when no RS have been brought up on this topic that suggest media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A Rhetoric of Divisive Partnership

I have removed this paragraph because the wiki-text is exclusively based, as written, on parts of the already summarized Shorenstein Center study. Moreover, no mention is made of Sanders' coverage data during the "middle period" of the primaries, for example, as far as I can tell, so the study is used selectively. As mentioned above, it has a strong POV, with claims like how it is "unsurprising" that BS "had no sense of party loyalty" (one example among many). If the book were used for something that the entry didn't already cover we could include it. For example, I believe Kelley suggests that Sanders ran as a Democrat because it allowed him to have more media coverage. That is not mentioned anywhere in the entry, unless I'm mistaken. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party. Are you saying it is surprising that he had no sense of party loyalty? --WMSR (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed book by a recognized expert. There's nothing to suggest that it is unreliable or that the book has a strong POV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm saying very simply that we do not need to include a partisan source to say the same thing quoted in the first part of the Shorenstein Study and the Boston Globe article. If this source has something unique to contribute to the article, by all means, write it up and add it. Partisan sources can be used, but should not be used to restate the same material 15 different times, as was the case in this article. You asked me my personal opinion, so I will answer: the assumed premise of the argument "BS showed no party loyalty" is what I would object to, given that he campaigned for Clinton without fail. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing partisan about a recognized expert stating in a peer-reviewed publication that an Independent Senator "had no sense of party loyalty". You may personally disagree with this expert's assessment, but that has no bearing on anything. The book is clearly relevant to this article, because it evaluates Sanders campaign's claim that there was media bias in the 2016 election, concluding that he was right in one sense but wrong in another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And that conclusion of her study is on... page 6, right? Could we have a link to her en.wp page, please? some other sort of sign that she is an important scholar? Thanks. I haven't found much with google for the moment, but will continue to look, if you'd like. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You're now disputing that she's a recognized expert? She's an Associate Professor of Communication studies at Penn State, and wrote a peer-reviewed book about the 2016 election. Give it up, dude. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you need to provide something unique from the book if you want to include this book (apparently her first?) in the article. Saying "he's right and he's wrong" is not very interesting. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)