Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Brock, continued

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

When I have time will add this article: [1]

🌿 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)

Now @WMSR: is arguing that we should include the "media coverage" aspect of strategic lawsuits over at Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign (diff). I still think, as you may have guessed, that this should be included. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I thought WP:FOC was sacrosanct? And no, I did not [argue] that we should include the "media coverage" aspect of strategic lawsuits, I corrected the article based on what the source said, and added additional sources, not that that stopped editors from reinserting patently false information into the article. The fact that one source found one lawyer to make that assertion is hardly enough to argue that Gabbard might win her defamation suit against Clinton. As reliable sources have reported, there is hardly a legitimate debate over whether Gabbard's lawsuit is serious. Your justification for adding the above content is still a stretch. Stop mischaracterizing my edits. --WMSR (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You really shouldn't repeat claims that have been shown to be false. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

True, false, favorite, underdog. This is exactly the problem with all these articles. Why is wikipedia recording anything other than a lawsuit was filed? The misuse of people's opinions presented as facts remains a staggering problem. Tulsi can be judged when it's over. Same for the Media and Bernie. Any attempt at 2020 is doomed to failure and violating NPOV. And balancing various POV is NOT NPOV. We are here to record the facts of humanity Slywriter (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

For 2016, les jeux sont faits. And Brock's filings in 2016 should be mentioned, lest we lose sight of the point of this section of the TP. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Consensus has not changed. This article is about media coverage, not litigation. --WMSR (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

...except that they haven't, and this isn't about me. That I missed a detail does not change the fact that undue weight was/is given to the Time article. This page is not for discussion about the Gabbard article; if you take issue with my edits there, raise them on the appropriate page. --WMSR (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters

This sentence:

Media Matters, part of the Brock complex,[2] 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).[3]

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. [4] 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• This problematic material is still in article, in a slightly different form. - MrX 🖋 14:14, 31 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"[5] 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.) [6]

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)

See? Don't worry, be happy. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about CTR's deleted matter @ the Wayback Machine

Advertisement published on Wikimedia Commons

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: [7] 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)

You're not lost. I asked a question; I didn't argue. Let's mark those refs up while we're here and write some text:

In April 2016, Correct the Record made a press statement saying that $1 million would be used to pay people to argue against "false narratives" on social media. In their coverage of the story, the Daily Beast quoted the Sunlight Foundation's Libby Watson (formerly of Media Matters) saying that while "campaign finance lawyers" were not convinced by CTR's claims to have the right to coordinate with the Clinton campaign, with the FEC "deadlocked", there would be no enforcement.

References

New question: should this be included? Bernie & Sanders & media & false narratives are all mentioned in the CTR press release. Again this is related to social media coverage. I'm not sure the DB makes clear they covered this the day the press release was published, though you can see that at the wayback machine.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done After 10 days without response I've gone ahead and posted it. It is remarkable how many of these stories got deleted. I likewise had to dig up the original that The Guardian linked to for their story because the Las Vegas Sun had deleted it (§), just as this Daily Beast story linked to a deleted CTR page, just as the Huff Post story above linked to 3 deleted CTR pages. Funny coincidences that all of Brock's stuff gets deleted, even at the Las Vegas Sun. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed illustrations

I had a look at Wikimedia Commons for some images that might help illustrate the article. The result is here. I see Snoog couldn't even let me finish before deleting the one related to one of the themes of the entry. Which one? Well, I bet you'll be able to guess... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans do you know if there's a headshot somewhere I'm missing? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

To keep track of things, here are some articles that have been deleted (either from the entry or from their original site).

References

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)

FWIW: wikimedia foundation labs (wmflabs.org) data on en.wp coverage / cf. wp:primary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Prior to Sanders' announcement of his intention to run for the Democratic nomination on April 30, 2015, his Wikipedia entry was 54K in length, whereas Clinton's page was 208K. By July 12, 2016 Sanders' entry was 160% larger, having grown to 140K. By contrast, Clinton's page had grown to 242K, an increase of 16%. From 1 May 2015 to 30 June 2016, Sanders' entry was modified 3279 times, 92% more often than Clinton's entry, which was was modified 1702 times. During the two years 2015 & 2016, Clinton's entry was protected 15 times, Sanders' 10. 1, 2 The data does not indicate what level of protection was applied (pending changes, extended confirmed, full protection, etc.) In terms of reader interest, the WMF does not provide data on the period from May 01, 2015 to June 30, 2015, but for the period from July 01, 2015 to 12 June 2016, Sanders' page was viewed 15.7 million times (45.2K views per day) and Clinton's page was viewed 7.9 million times (22.6K views per day) source 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Compare to search data below.

CNN's moderators have been widely lambasted for bias against Sanders after the last debate

The backlash on the part of Sanders supporters is big enough to deserve mention. But the backlash also came from media figures, and even a journalism think-tank, the Poynter Institute. Below are some links demonstrating it:

• The Poynter Institute called the conduct of moderator Abby Phillip toward Sanders, "Stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism."
• The Poynter Institute's comments (and other criticism aimed at CNN) were cited by the Associated Press
• Fox News says critics "on both sides" of the aisle have blasted CNN's anti-Sanders bias: CNN blasted over ‘clear bias against Bernie Sanders’ amid ongoing anyone-but-Trump agenda
• Jeet Heer, at the Nation, says CNN is unafraid to display its bias against Sanders: CNN Has It In for Bernie
• The Intercept: AT THE IOWA DEBATE, BERNIE SANDERS’S MOST VOCIFEROUS OPPONENT WAS CNN
• Rolling Stone: CNN’s Debate Performance Was Villainous and Shameful
• FAIR: The Big Loser in the Iowa Debate? CNN's Reputation

In addition, there has been criticism from the Sanders campaign and its supporters. The above, however, is just from nominally non-partisan sources, but even the narrow selection above, with the high number of articles and high notability of the sources, should justify the inclusion of CNN moderator bias against Sanders into the entry. — Rafe87 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You may have a point. But, your point would have been better made if you hadn't included some biased sources and a duplicate of a source. Quality trumps quantity. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where I posted a duplicate? And a number of the sources above are considered bona fide Reliable Sources on Wikipedia, fit even as references for pure facts, even more so for opinions and criticism. — Rafe87 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rafe, this is a very helpful list for me and helping me to see things in a more accurate light. Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If you meant both the citation to the Poynter Institute and the cite to AP covering it, that isn't a duplicate or redundant - it's useful to have both a WP:PRIMARY source as a courtesy to readers and a WP:SECONDARY source to establish due weight and to provide the interpretation and analysis we need to really write anything about it. Anyway, I think those and Rolling Stone are enough to justify a sentence or two on this. I'd avoid going into excessive depth, though, for WP:RECENTISM reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone want to take a try at writing something for us to consider? In my experience when it's something difficult like this it can sometimes need to use a little more than a little less... As for RECENTISM, anyone that reads our Trump articles knows that a lot of stuff goes in them practically within hours of when it happens, in some ways a sign of the times we are presently living in, perhaps. Gandydancer (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The CNN-sponsored debate between Democratic pre-candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator Abby Philips's handling of a controversy between Sanders and fellow Senator and pre-candidate Elizabeth Warren. The criticism came not only from Sanders' campaign and his supporters on social media, who made #CNNisTrash trend on Twitter, but also from journalists and political analysts from a wide range of political perspectives, such as Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and Steve Cortes, CNN's own pro-Trump contributor. Journalism think-tank Poynter Institute lambasted Philips's treatment of Sanders, describing it as "stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism." — Rafe87 (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start a new thread with this suggested wording. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi followed Trump's campaign for Rolling Stone and wrote a really good piece for them that is well-worth a read even now. He said that these days he found that there's such a mad scramble to be the first outlet to get news out that fact checking is a thing of the past. And here's a 2016 interview with Amy Goodman that is a short and good read IMO. [8] Gandydancer (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gandydancer. I added this reference to the article. @Rafe87:, would you consider adding what the actual "souped up" story was? It seems strange not to mention it. (i.e. that Sanders said or didn't say something to Warren in private in 2018). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but some editors have expressed concern over WP:UNDUE. Since the article is about Media Coverage of Sanders, I focused just on the media handling of the issue instead of the issue in itself..Rafe87 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I just think it fits very well with the more general criticism of media coverage of political horseraces (conflict between candidates) rather than treatment of issues. You've got an illustration next to your paragraph now that won't make much sense until the teapot tempest is mentioned. (Apparently progressive foundations are trying to get the candidates to cut it out.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: "you hadn't included some biased sources" - Might I remind you that under RS, sources can still be biased and reliable. Thats not a qualifier for inclusion or removal. Only unreliability and non-verified statements.--WillC 02:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, this is what I was talking about in the #Debate info section above.--WillC 02:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay but Fox News pundits bashing CNN is hardly out of the ordinary. --WMSR (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is important. Biased sources can be used, but for political controversies it's best to have at least one unbiased source at least mentioning a controversy to show that it's WP:DUE - partisan sources will eagerly cover everything that might advance their views, so it means less when they breathlessly treat something as world-shattering than it would from a less biased source. That said, the AP story and the Poynter institute is sufficient for that IMHO. (EDIT: Also, the AP story isn't just citing the Poynter institute; it also covers a lot of the responses on Twitter, which are the sort of thing we can't cover directly but can mention when a reliable secondary source does - especially a relatively unbiased one like the AP.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What did you think of the paragraph I wrote above, as a suggestion for insertion into the entry? — Rafe87 (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Fox News contains a quote from a CNN contributor, Steve Cortes, criticizing his employer's bias against Sanders. That is hardly business as usual. —Rafe87 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• The header says moderators in plural. But, the sources seem to talk to one sentence by one moderator. O3000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Even Fox News & MSNBC (no friends of Sanders) have been highly critical of CNN, on this matter. Heck, even the audience at Iowa debate reacted with laughter. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Amusingly, no sign of this criticism in the three articles about it in the NYT. I saw that Barney Frank was their go-to quote guy for an analysis of the Warren-Sanders rift. Somehow they forgot to mention just how much he loves Sanders. ^^ Sydney Ember, again... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The content belongs in one form or another. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal and re-writing of academic content

The editor SashiRolls has made numerous changes to the academic content in this article, whereby the editor has reduced this content, as well as re-written it in a way that makes it less coherent and readable. The re-writes also fail to accurately summarize the studies and academic assessments (often times removing relevant findings on media bias that relate to Sanders). This is what the page used to look like before/after SashiRolls's changes:

The lead (before changes):

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. All 2016 candidates received vastly less media coverage than Donald Trump, and the Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.

The current lead:

Thomas Patterson's Shorenstein Center study showed that during 2016 presidential primaries from March 15 – May 3 the Republican primary dominated the Democratic primary in number of stories in the media outlets studied 64:36. The Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61:39. Stories about Clinton were slightly more often positive than negative (51:49) and Sanders' "particularly sparse" coverage was negative (46:54). This is the only time in the 2016 campaign that the majority of the coverage that he got was negative.

The "Academic analyses" section (before SR's changes - with some compromises):

According to the 2018 book Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America by political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck, Sanders benefitted from media coverage in 2015, which was more positive than media coverage of Clinton. The amount of news coverage he received exceeded his share in the national polls at that time. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis shows that "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated." They write, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."

In her 2018 book, The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up. According to Bitecofers's analysis, Trump received more extensive media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.

A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy on media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries. The report found that the Democratic race "received less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Regarding Sanders, the analysis found that his campaign was "largely ignored in the early months" when he was barely ahead of the other lagging Democratic contenders, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb. However, as the Sanders campaign "began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic." Throughout the 2016 primaries, "five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did." The analysis found that "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."

In her 2018 book on the 2016 election, communication studies scholar Colleen Elizabeth Kelly noted that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage that was similar to their eventual primary results, until the stage of the campaign when Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Sanders received the most favorable coverage of any primary candidate. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias. Right, because the media was too little interested in the Democratic primary to give him the coverage he needed early, and wrong, because, on average, Sanders's coverage, though initially scant, was more often positive than any other candidate's coverage prior to voting.

In September 2015, John Sides, a Political Science Professor at Vanderbilt University, found that the volume of media coverage of Sanders was consistent with his polling, noting that candidates who poll well get more news coverage. Sides also concluded that the coverage Sanders received was proportionally more positive than that received by Clinton. Jonathan Stray, a scholar of computational journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for the Nieman Lab in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders received coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.

The "Academic analyses" section (after SR's changes):

Jonathan Stray, a computational journalism researcher at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for Nieman Lab in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders got coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.

A June 2016 report by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy analyzed the media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries. The report found Trump received more coverage than any other candidate, with the Democratic race getting "less than half the coverage of the Republican race." Patterson wrote that the Sanders campaign was "largely ignored in the early months", but that once Sanders did begin to get coverage in 2015, it was "overwhelmingly positive in tone": Sanders had the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate (Republican or Democrat) in 2015." Patterson also found that coverage of Sanders was "particularly sparse" during the "middle period" of the primary (March 15-May 3). Sanders himself focused on the data the Shorenstein Center provided showing that coverage of issues was vastly inferior (10%) to coverage of the primary process and the political "horserace" (90%).

A 2018 book co-written by three political scientists said that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."

In her 2018 book, Rachel Bitecofer writes that even though the democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was heating up. Bitecofer found that Trump received more media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.

References

Can we please restore the version before SashiRolls's changes? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Important: The following section has been moved by SS from the pertinent section above. They have also modified the text I was responding to, but still pretends I am the author of text they themselves authored. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep making false claims? I am not responsible for all the other material being deleted: you, for example deleted the first sentence of the first paragraph above.

evidence

You reverted my last proposal:

Studies of media coverage showed that the overall coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during the invisible primary period in 2015, when his coverage was variously described as exceeding his polling or lagging. Analysis of the language used concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, except during the period from March 15 to May 3 when Sanders was the subject of 39 percent of the stories about the Democratic primary in the surveyed media. At this time, the "particularly sparse" coverage of Sanders was evaluated to be 54 percent negative while Clinton's was slightly more positive. Stories about Republican candidates, and particularly about Donald Trump, dominated media coverage during this "middle period" of the primaries.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, it looks like I accidentally copy-pasted a portion that you added to the body to the lead while I was reverting your edits. I'll go ahead and restore the version of the lead that summarizes the studies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comments, I can remove the two versions of the lead above or strike through them for the sake of clarity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Some people would call this lying, others disruption, but we Wikipedians know that it's a sin to accuse someone of lying, and not a sin to actually lie. If you want to call your edit a mistake, that's fine. An apology would come naturally to most people in such a situation. I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your mistake. I appreciate you reducing the number of times you name check or initial check me from 7 to 5 and from 4 to 2 in your sub-headers. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to make any edits you want to the page. I believe that it makes sense to put 2016 studies before 2018 studies, and to have the Shorenstein study before the studies that rely on it. We also do not need to repeat the same thing five times and should definitely not ignore the middle period of the primaries as you wish to do. Again, John Sides, writing for the "monkey cage" doesn't really belong in academic studies as it is not peer reviewed. Likewise for the Vox journalists. I am willing to help you rewrite. Take things one at a time... as I've done here: 1) chronological order, 2) no repetition, especially of partial summaries which neglect the conclusions of the Shorenstein study as a whole (e.g. 90% of focus on the horserace, 10% on the issues), 3) Monkey cage squib & Vox do not belong in academic analyses. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) It makes no sense to list the academic analyses in chronological order. Rather we should start the section with summaries of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck, and the Shorenstein Center report, as those are the most comprehensive analyses of media bias in 2016. (2) If multiple academic analyses have the same findings, then we ought to cover those findings. It makes no sense to make it seem as if only one analysis found X on the topic of media bias, when several did. (3) The Sides analysis in the Monkey Cage (which is the Washington Post's political science blog and run by recognized experts) is by a recognized expert on the topic, and is clearly an academic analysis. Furthermore, the Nieman Lab analysis and the Shorenstein Center report are not peer-reviewed, but that is not a reason to remove them from the 'academic analysis' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(3) So, you think that we should include a September 2015 WaPo blogpost at the end of the academic analysis of a section studying (in principle) whether WaPo (among others) showed bias in their coverage. If you'd like we could include the following quote from that September 2015 blogpost: (You might also ask: Should media coverage even be indexed to the candidate’s changes of winning? That’s another blog post, probably. But I think the answer is yes.) This all sounds very "academic"and serious, doesn't it? paraphrased: "Unless we cover Wilma, she won't win, so it's no big deal that nobody is covering Wilma." I notice there is no discussion of issues, only of "horseracing" in your expert's testimony for the WaPo. I think we can reject any claim that this is an academic analysis, even if WSMR cites John Sides of the WaPo saying it's super-serious academic stuff again. It's an op-ed. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: John Sides is a Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt and is the author of a Princeton University Press book, which among other things looks at media coverage in the 2016 election. To say that his analysis, which is published on WaPo's Political Science blog, is not an "academic analysis" is just wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's also a 500-word blogpost at the Washington Post. Get over it. That said, I would be interested in hearing others who have run across RS on how Sides used that "washy post-it" during the 2016 or 2020 primary. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) It makes perfect sense to list the academic analyses in chronological order, since the 2018 studies base their claims on the 2016 study. Hello? (2) I'm sure you can find cherry-picked sentences from cherry-picked studies. However, as agreed above, we should try to find out what makes the studies unique, not have all of them talking about one part of the primary (pre-voting) and all agreeing with Mr. Sides that "polling" rather than "issues" are the most important factor in determining media coverage. This is a presupposition that is indeed widely shared in the for-profit media. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither the Sides, Tesler and Vavreck PUP book and the Bitecofer book base their findings on the Shorenstein Center report. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It does however cite the Shorenstein Center study quite a bit. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"It" being what? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first...

It's a Princeton University Press book. It cites a lot of things. The content that the Wikipedia article cites the book for is the authors' own analysis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

And Bitecofer's book is not a media studies book. It barely mentions media coverage of Bernie Sanders. I think you found the two occurrences, one of which was (in fact) focused on Media coverage of Donald Trump. (Don't get me wrong, the book seems pretty good, it's less POV than the Kelley book, though the specific "heating up" claim contradicts the hard data in terms of quantity of stories. I assume she is making a qualitative claim about the relatively small number of stories which appeared post March 15). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed political science book, which contains an analysis of the media coverage of the candidate. It's incredibly tiring to have to debate every single snippet of what 99/100 editors would consider basic uncontroversial content, including this debate on whether peer-reviewed academic research on the topic in question should be considered RS and DUE, and whether political science professors who write on the topic are recognized experts or nor. It's mind-numbing to have to debate these kinds of things again and again and again. Hours and hours and hours are wasted on this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed improvement of the 2nd paragraph of the lead which treats at least three elements in the body that Snoogans' version glosses over and eliminates some of the misleading bits & unchallenged presuppositions.

Studies of media coverage showed that overall coverage of the primaries focused primarily on the "competition" or the mechanics of the primaries, with only 11% of coverage being related to issues. According to some studies the fact that Sanders coverage during the 2016 election was more or less consistent with his polling performance was the most salient analysis. Study of the language used concluded that media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, except during the period from March 15 to May 3 when Sanders was the subject of only 39 percent of the stories about the Democratic primary in the surveyed media. At this time, the "particularly sparse" coverage of Sanders was evaluated to be 54 percent negative while Hillary Clinton's was slightly more positive. Stories about Republican candidates, and particularly about Donald Trump, dominated media coverage during both this "middle period" of the primaries and overall, because the media considered the Republican race to be a real "horserace".

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This version is badly written, confusing and puts undue focus on the 6 weeks during the primary when Sanders received slightly more negative coverage than Clinton. You also conflate in a very confusing way the fact that Sanders received slightly more negative stories than Clinton during a 6-week period with his share of total coverage. The lead should not get into the weeds of specific numbers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Fact-check: no, Sanders did not receive "slightly more negative stories" than Clinton. 70% fewer positive stories and 40% fewer negative stories were written about Sanders than Clinton during this important part of the voting primary. We've been through this. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm obviously talking about the ratio of positive-negative stories, which is the way everyone talks about this topic, except you (who are taking numbers from sources and recalculating them according to some meaningless metric). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, number of total stories in the sample. That's meaningless, to be sure! Meanwhile... how about that first line? Why no mention in the lead about the principal complaint? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The "horserace" thing has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders per se. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Reminder, the subject/title of the page is media coverage not media bias.

7% of the pre-primary stories about Sanders covered issues, according to Patterson, whereas 28% of HRC's did. "News statements about Sanders’ stands on income inequality, the minimum wage, student debt, and trade agreements were more than three-to-one positive over negative. That ratio far exceeded those of other top candidates, Republican or Democratic. Patterson1 (sourced to Media Tenor). Just a quick response using the same source, there's plenty more sources that argue the same thing, including Sanders himself. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cillizza's ratings of candidates performances in debates.

In the seven Democratic presidential nomination debates held so far, has CNN's Chris Cillizza declared Sanders a winner, at least once? If so, perhaps this can be sourced & added to the article, per balance. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What does that have to do with media bias? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, if Cillizza is always giving Sanders a bad rating & he works for CNN whom among their sponsors are pharmaceutical companies (which oppose Medicare for All), it's likely that CNN (and Cillizza) would be seen as biased against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN has a lot of pundits. These people have opinions (usually very unremarkable opinions). That a CNN pundit doesn't like Sanders or his debate performances is not media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that could be evidence of bias, GoodDay, but we're not allowed to take that conclusion ourselves to insert it into the entry, because that violates WP:OR. Instead, a media, academic, or political source would have to denounce the bias of his ratings in a reliable source. Rafe87 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article exists because of ample sources of mainstream news media bias against Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is way too far a reach. We cannot say that someone that offers an opinion at a news outlet defines bias in the corporation. For one thing, maybe he's right. But even if that isn't true, it still isn't an indication of bias. It's one opinion. It looks like we are trying (like some alt-right sites) too find a path to show bias. WP:OR O3000 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This in conjunction with the recent articles about CNN bias would work within a section of actions by CNN that wouldn't synth, OR, undue, or NPOV. There is certainly a source somewhere out there discussing Cillizza's views.--WillC 07:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of Sanders outside of presidential elections

One of the biggest weaknesses of this entry (as titled) is that it only focuses on his presidential runs. Could that be fixed? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Has he actually gotten that much coverage outside of presidential elections? He wasn't very well-known internationally prior to his 2016 run, and most of the coverage since then was either of that run or in anticipation of the 2020 run. We could definitely dig up primary coverage (clearly he was mentioned in the news as a Senator), but I doubt we could find much secondary coverage of how he was covered in the news outside of passing mentions, which probably aren't enough to support anything. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right Aquillion. I'm an elderly progressive so I've known a fair amount about him for years. But until his first run outside of a few elders and people from Vermont nobody knew a thing about him, especially young people. Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternative media sources

I removed this from the first chronological position in "timeline" (2016) because it is a 2019 article and talks about Rising (news show), Jacobin and Democracy Now!, not just The Young Turks. There's another on Krystal Ball covering Bernie Sanders here:

References

Anyone have an idea how this article about Sanders' more sympathetic coverage (relevant also to "bias" though that is not the page title) should be worked into the entry?

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Gladstone Cartoon on political handicapping

Political horseracing: "What gran' race is this that's gaun on here, Donald?"

I'm curious why this late 19th C. British cartoon was removed from the article. It helps readers see how some commentators (including Patterson, Higdon, Huff, Grim, Goodman, FAIR, etc.) understand the oft-repeated term horse-racing (which is in fact the title of Patterson2). This is basic encyclop(a)edic context.

(edit conflict)According to the edit summary the rich illustrations on Brock, Disney, the Washington Post, political handicapping, the January debate in Iowa, and West Virginia rallies were "unrelated" to subjects treated on this page. Perhaps I should have included a somewhat more sober image of Disney HQ? Or not. Did anyone like the illustrations?🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All of the removed content failed MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE because it did not serve to aid the reader's understanding of the article. --WMSR (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bare assertions not worth their weight in pixels. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Horse-race" is such a common phrase regarding election coverage that readers hardly need a 19th century political cartoon to explain the concept. Even if some explanation were needed, that image is certainly not the best way to do so. Maybe a link to horse race journalism would be better? Of the other pictures, the Disney one is only tangentially related to the subject of the article and definitely unnecessary. The others removed didn't really add anything either. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

1) interesting. in my part of the world it is certainly not a common phrase regarding election coverage (probably because there are very different rules regarding strict network time parity for candidates). You can use the search engine of your choice and look for "courses hippiques" (horserace) and "élection": you will learn about elections for positions in horseracing itself. 2) not sure I agree that the WaPo image adds nothing to the page... it has shown quite clearly by its presence on the en.wp Washington Post page for over 3 years that the paper is closely associated with HRC. The absence of David Brock images on commons and the association with Ready for Hillary and Correct the Record clearly makes for a very useful illustration. As for Reverend Barber and the Poor People's campaign lobbying for the discussion of real issues at the January 2020 Iowa debate rather than manufactured controversies, we can respectfully disagree... (as for the size of the rallies, well, that too has been extensively mentioned in the secondary literature). In particular, Sanders observed -- as mentioned in the entry -- that the national press did not follow him when he went to poor communities in West Virginia (only the local press did).

Pre-debate gathering in Des Moines Jan. 14 (Rev. William J. Barber II, leader of the Poor People's Campaign)

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

While the term may not translate well, it still does not need to be defined on English Wikipedia. And, as Red Rock said, if an explanation is required, a 19th-century cartoon is not the way to do it. The cartoon adds no context or definitions. The Washington Post image would certainly belong in a "Media coverage of Hillary Clinton" page, but it does not fit here at all. The fact that it is en.wiki's infobox photo is also not relevant to this article's subject matter. Not to mention you have provided no evidence whatsoever supporting your assertion that it is closely related associated with HRC. It is not. The absence of images of David Brock does not mean that a tangentially-related image of an invitation to an event should be added because it has his name on it. This article is neither about about the debates nor the Poor People's Campaign, so the Barber picture really does not belong either, not to mention that the national media usually does not follow every candidate everywhere, especially in states that aren't one of the initial four primary states. --WMSR (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you went to so much trouble I'll answer. First, please don't misquote me in bright turquoise. I said "associated with", and on English Wikipedia, the Washington Post has been associated with Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders (who both have their picture on the page) since 2016... to be precise, since June 17, 2016. Since that date the entry (with its non-free image which I dutifully filled out the non-free use template for) has been viewed 3.7 million times. It is a picture of Bernie Sanders on the cover of the Washington Post. For Brock, see the talk page section above. For Barber, see below, in this section. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I do not understand your point here. Why is a Washington Post front page depicting Hillary Clinton related to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders"? --WMSR (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It did have a side column about Bernie Sanders (I think that was his picture on there) but the resolution was so low even the headline was unreadable. Maybe that's meant to prove some kind of point? I don't know, I think it's basically standard practice in election coverage to give the more space to the winner than the loser. Either way, it's not really a great image for this article since it's not specifically related to any text in the article itself. The Washington Post is mentioned a few times, but nothing about that particular edition. Also, if it's not a free image, then I'm not sure Wikipedia's non-free image policy allows its inclusion except on article specifically about that image. Not 100% sure on that though. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. It can only be used one place. --WMSR (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide proof of this claim. The non-free use conditions do not specify only using it on one article as far as I see. It actually wasn't how the forms were initially filled out on June 17, 2016, but that does not make it law... Were it true, though, we could also retire it from use at the WaPo after its 3.5 years of loyal service. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

From WP:NFC#NFCUUI under Unacceptable use: An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). In this case, the main article would be The Washington Post. Also, per WP:F, [n]ote that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale. You did not provide a fair-use rationale for its use on this page. Images also must satisfy the requirements of WP:IUP, which all of the deleted images fail to do in this article. --WMSR (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. I filled out the fair-use rationale template for its use on this page and provided the link to that form in the comment you are responding to. I'm not sure I follow your logic, about images about images but reading the page you link, it looks like sufficiently thick wikilex jungle that we should all throw up our hands and run in the other direction. :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I read your rationale. Are you trying to assert that Wikipedia is biased against Sanders because on their page for The Washington Post, the image is a front page featuring Hillary Clinton after she won the primaries? That is a huge stretch, and will not pass muster. It is also not an assertion made anywhere in the text of the article (nor should it be). In addition to everything I've said before, which still holds true, this article is not about Wikip edia, and satire is not a legitimate fair-use rationale. Per WP:NFCCP, you must demonstrate that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --WMSR (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. The only thing I think is that Wikipedia has associated the Washington Post primarily with Hillary Clinton in advertising their June 8, 2016 front page for the last 3.5 years to 7.4 million eyeballs. This is not entirely surprising given all the Clinton Foundation people (e.g. Minassian, Oliver) on MoveCom and all the Democratic activists on en.wp. I will remove the word "satire" as indeed it is "parody", "comment" and "criticism" which allow for fair use... but as I see there's no way that you will allow the image to be used on this page regardless of what the actual law governing free use is, it's really not worth my time to play with it. Consider the issue of using the WaPo infobox illustration in this article closed, despite the fact that it shows WaPo covered Bernie Sanders on the date in question. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is not presented anywhere in the text of the article, and conspiracy theories are not adequate substitutes for reliably-sourced statements of fact. And fair use requires all of the criteria be met, including the ones I listed before, which the image does not and cannot satisfy. You are correct that I will revert any edit to re-add the image, with a clear, policy-based justification. --WMSR (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

All those who have left that image on the Wa.Po entry after the general as a nod to the Chicago Tribune "Dewey Wins!" cover are excellent satirists. We need more people here capable of such humor. As for your claim that somehow using the WaPo cover showing Sanders would be using "an image to illustrate an article passage about the image N/A, if the image has its own article N/A" ... knock yourself out with it. There is one rule on that page (about magazine/book covers) which could be stretched to make the fair-use claim inappropriate if this were a BLP rather than a media coverage page, but the one you picked is unrelated to anything. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the picture of the Washington Post page is okay, but if we're going to have pictures of media, wouldn't it be better to have them be coverage of Sanders, since that's the topic of the article? As for the Reverend Barber picture, neither he nor the Poor People's Campaign are ever mentioned in this article as far as I can tell, so there's no reason to have pictures of them. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do acknowledge that Barber is the image I had the most doubts about, because while Sanders has worked with Barber quite a bit (cf. Bernie's Podcast #1 on his senate site (Feb 2017?), their public discussion at Duke in 2018), it does seem to me unfair to associate him with one particular campaign: this would be much more justified in a media coverage of the Democratic primaries (2000-2020) article. It does illustrate the paragraph pretty well though. :P I also appreciate the link you added above, it has some sources, whereas the link I've added to the lede is one of en.wp's many zero source articles. I think that link should probably be changed. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Renewed BRD violations and other behavioral problems

The editor SashiRolls has now on many many occasions made new changes to the article that other editors have reverted and challenged on the talk page. When these changes are reverted, SashiRolls follows up with an immediate restoration of his changes, thus putting other editors in a position where they have to revert him again (edit-warring) or effectively let SashiRolls write the article as he exclusively pleases, even when he is in a clear minority on a specific issue on the talk page (this is covered well under WP:OWN). Furthermore, when attempts are made to address content, the editor not only casts aspersions but fills the talk page with ramblings that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand or tangentially related, thus making it nearly pointless to try to discuss content with him and others. Given that I have volunteered not to edit-war (per Awilley's pressure) and given the extensive nature of SashiRolls's tendentious editing, it is nearly impossible to edit this page anymore.

• On 19 Jan, I reverted a new change made by SashiRolls.[9] Twenty minutes later, the content was restored.[10] Furthermore, multiple editors have challenged all the David Brock related content that this editor has added to the page.

• On 21 Jan, I reverted new changes to the lead made by SashiRolls.[11] Ten minutes later, the content was restored.[12]

It is not feasible to edit under these conditions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware nobody has objected to the Brock content in the article right now. As I recall MrX put it exactly where it is right now.

Team "Notherethere" has deleted multiple RS in their crusade against having too much front-facing information about Brock in this entry. That's a possible choice, not my preferred one admittedly, given all the solid sources. Goodness, six name checks. What terrible thing could I have done? Oh, yes. Made the title of the entry the first words of the entry, as per convention.

Also, this is your history on this page. (Thanks, Σ) 🎻 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, your assertion that nobody has objected to the Brock content in the article right now is simply untrue. Your tendentious editing has just made it impossible to edit this article. As time goes on, I (and I imagine others as well) am less likely to edit this article because I don't want to deal with the roadblocks you constantly put up. Snooganssnoogans hit the nail on the head. --WMSR (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This same behavior has been used by Snooganssnoogans. So you aren't really making a good example there. Attempts at editing and then reverting any changes made.--WillC 08:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the facts show that WMSR has only ever deleted content or added POV tags to the entry, they have done none of the work of actually building it. (Their one consequential "green" edit was a self-revert after Bbb23 called for an admin to block them for edit-warring with another contributor.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Since SS has seen fit to bring a whole new section to the TP to complain about "behavioral problems", I think it's only fair to give my opinion of SS. SS has long had what I have considered a biased opinion of Sanders as seen here [[13]] where he removed long-standing info on the media coverage calling it "nonsense." Furthermore, I try to avoid SS, for example just staying away from from working on the ecology section of our Trump articles (where he does a great deal of editing) even though I am the leading editor of the Trump environmental article after he in one strike wiped out all the changes I was making to try to improve the rambling of what was rather a rat's nest at that article. Then when I went to his talk page, for example he complained saying that I too should have have made all of my changes in one swoop, something I sure hate when other editors do and I'd guess that most other editors do as well. At any rate, I have not followed this discussion but considering my experiences with SS anyone that tries to work with him here has chosen a tough row to hoe. No doubt he will complain about my post but he is the one that started this section wherein to place negative comments about other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The "behavioral problems" in question: (1) I made one bold edit on the Bernie Sanders and I do not believe I reverted when you reverted my bold edit.[14] Zero problem. (2) The other problem that you bring up is when you made a bold edit (which inaccurately suggested that Trump became a climate change denier after his election in 2016)[15], and I reverted you. I then explained to you that inaccuracies should be reverted immediately[16]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The question here is not whether any editor has biased views. We all do. We are human. The question is whether editors can successfully check their biases at the door when editing on this project. If your argument is that Snoogans should not be allowed to edit this article because of their perceived bias against Sanders, then the same should certainly apply to several editors of this article who have clearly demonstrated bias in favor of Sanders. Furthermore, nothing I have seen from Snoogans's edits indicates anything other than good faith. I cannot say the same for editors who have engaged in personal attacks on this talk page and mischaracterized others' edits. We are here to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and verifiable facts. Sometimes that information might not fall in line with your perception, and that's okay! We are not here to litigate what you believe, but the solution to that issue is not focusing your search for sources on unrelated material that portrays someone in a more positive or negative light. It is certainly not discouraging community editing by making tendentious edits. Your views matter, but so do others', and that's what makes Wikipedia the excellent resource it is. --WMSR (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of your behavioural problems WMSR, why do you revert edits (images) and then refuse to discuss when sections are opened about your revert on the talk page, preferring to rant about others rather than to explain your slashing? Smells like typical tag-team WP:GAMING to me...🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You are again moving into WP:PA territory, which I would urge you to stop. I am not attempting to game the system. Regarding the removal of images, I explained myself in the edit summary; the images were not relevant to the text of the article, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Regardless, these debates should be about content, yet you constantly find it necessary to go after editors instead when they make edits that don't fit your view of the subject. --WMSR (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finally replying 24 hours after your reversion and after being called out on it. Your bare assertion carries no weight. Red Rock Canyon made an argument, which, while it was inaccurate, was pretty clearly meant to be constructive.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing Red Rock Canyon said was incorrect. Please stop casting aspersions at other editors. Your conduct at this talk page has been less than civil, and I really have no desire to go to a noticeboard again about this article. --WMSR (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: saying that someone made an inaccurate argument is not casting aspersions. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Alleging that I have behavioural problems most certainly is. --WMSR (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This section was created to accuse SashiRolls and is called (Renewed BRD violations and other "behavioral problems").--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I did not create this section. The editor who did laid out specific instances, with diffs, of SashiRolls's violations of BRD in the article and lack of civility on the talk page. Second, I have no record of any wrongdoing (beyond an accidental 1RR violation which I acknowledged and self-reverted), so accusing me of having behavioural problems with no evidence is the literal definition of casting aspersions. --WMSR (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• General note: the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improvements for the associated article, not to discuss the behavioral problems of other editors. But since this is here... @Snooganssnoogans: This article is currently under a 1RR restriction, but per the examples you cite, that's not preventing SashiRolls from immediately reinstating their changes over your objections. Do you think adding an additional "24hr BRD" sanction on top of the 1RR would help? (In my mind it might help level the playing field a bit and would prevent the 10 and 20 minute knee-jerk reverts, but wouldn't fully prevent slower long-term gaming of 1RR.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I opened a WP:FOC compliant section below.
• The present header—having been edit-warred onto the talk page—should be closed now.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, it's totally understandable that you're too busy to get into the weeds of this, and I hope all is well in your personal life. This is more an example of an editor, which I have a long history with, exploiting my voluntary editing restrictions, which is precisely what I warned would happen. Due to my editing restrictions, I'm essentially incapable of editing this page anymore, even to restore a status quo version from controversial new changes. The two examples I mention above are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of examples where (i) SashiRolls makes a new change, (ii) I revert part/all of the change, and (iii) SashiRolls immediately restores the contested new changes. As you can see from the editing history of the page, I've mostly given up editing this page since early January (the two examples above are among my rare edits since then), because SashiRolls steamrolls over every edit I make. The current state of the article (which I would consider to be very sub-par, both in terms of writing and substance) does not reflect consensus and compromise among editors, but is essentially whatever SashiRolls has decided should or should not be in the article (albeit with some exceptions). A clear example of this mind-numbingly tendentious editing is that content sourced to a 2018 Princeton University Press book (Sides, Tesler and Vavreck 2018 – the most comprehensive treatment of the subject of the article) has been dwindled down to two brief sentences in the body and is wrongly summarized in the lead of the article (SashiRolls has even basically admitted that he hasn't read the book). If I were to respond in kind and slowly edit-war to restore the status quo version, I would violate my voluntary editing restrictions. And given that SashiRolls contests every single change I make, it is not feasible to seek multiple dispute resolutions (because I have a life, even though SashiRolls insults me as some kind of "unemployed" loser[17]). I don't think there is much point putting up 24-hr-BRD and 1RR rules when the other editor in question is willing to game those rules (I'm also pretty sure that the editor has on several occasions violated the existing 1RR rule but I don't have time to compile the data – confirmed on at least 1 occasion where he was formally "warned" by an admin on the EW noticeboard) to slowly edit-war rather than abide by the spirit of BRD and consensus requirements for new changes. The solution here is to make sure that the other editor starts behaving in the spirit of the rules, because the rules alone do not work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• What "voluntary editing restrictions" were these, Snoog?
• 00:42 22.01.20 revert #1
• 00:45 22.01.20 revert #2

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, the change proposed by Awilley would apply to the article, not the talk page. There was no discussion at all of imposing additional restrictions here. Your edit warring on the talk page is certainly worth bringing up somewhere, but it's not what's being discussed here. --WMSR (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC is policy. I was trying to help Snoog avoid being blocked for their 2nd clear-cut policy violation in 21 days (510 hours), weirdly. I stopped as soon as I realized how dumb that was. Snoog did not.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Snooganssnoogans I'm with you on this. I'm having the same issues you are without any self-imposed restrictions, just trying to abide by 1RR. Editors have made little effort on the talk page at civility (see the title of the thread below) and the article as a whole is clearly written to make a WP:POINT, no matter how hard editors work to maintain neutrality. If you have any ideas on how to go forward, I'm all ears. --WMSR (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls has nothing to apologize for. This entire section is a fatuous personal attack and should be deleted.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Should AWilley's 24hr BRD disciplinary doodad be installed on the TP?

Comment -- I wasn't asked.  :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply -- You're welcome to comment anyway, but it's not really a vote. ~Awilley (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't care too much: It tends to keep pages shorter, but is as open to abuse as all rules (as a general rule, it makes tag-team inclusion difficult, but facilitates tag-team deletion). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The 24hr BRD rule was suggested for the article, not the talk page. --WMSR (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

For it to be valid it is supposed to be included in the TP header. The mass revert Snoog effected was a revert of a lede change that has stood ever since with two or three modifications (one responding to his one legitimate (and quickly fixed) concern about "political handicapping"). Reverting any change to the lede allowing the title to be in the first line would have been possible with this BRD. Rewriting (substantially to respond to specific complaints) is a legitimate reaction to a reversion on a 24h BRD page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --WMSR (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:American politics AE. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest renaming this thread to be more clear then? --WMSR (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure! Suggest away... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate

I cleaned up content from the 2020 section about the January debate, as the last paragraph was just repeated assertions that CNN was being unfair. That point is still made, without rebuttal, but Gandydancer reverted my edit. My edit was in good faith and, at very least, moved that paragraph closer to compliance with WP:NPOV. My edit should be restored. --WMSR (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph is an awesome use of sources to create POV especially the use of a RS to claim relevance that Bernie supporters made a hashtag go "viral". Look forward to every "viral" hashtag getting it's own Wikipedia immortality. Slywriter (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WMSR's changes were an improvement. That paragraph is unduly long. Both the "2016 primary campaign" and "2020 primary campaign" are written as blow-by-blow accounts of every minor and major event and controversy, and give far to much weight to coverage from the time. The goal should be a broad overview of events from secondary sources written after the fact. This is somewhat unavoidable in the 2020 section since it is a currently ongoing event, but Gandydancer's revert made the article worse. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. The wording "he said she said controversy" was changed to "Sanders allegedly told Warren" and then more than half of the section was removed and called a "clean up". Considering that this entire article is supposed to be about the media's treatment of Sanders, I see no reason to make everything as brief as possible. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Everything that I removed had already been stated in the paragraph. There is no reason to list every single pundit and columnist who took issue with Phillip's question. I also defined the nature controversy, which the article now fails to do. --WMSR (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of media coverage of Sanders over the years. There have been a half dozen debates just for this primary cycle, and there are going to be several more. If someone were to write a biography of Sanders after his death, or if an academic were to write an article about how the media affected the 2020 elections, how much space would they give to this particular incident? Of course, we have to guess, since that is necessarily making predictions about the future, but I'd say by any reasonable metric, we're giving way too much space to this single incident. We're covering it in an entirely one-sided way, and relying mainly on opinion pieces written shortly after the event took place. It really needs to be pruned down to comply with NPOV. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I thanked WMSR for the changes. Even though the result was at least as POV as the original text (probably more), I do think this should be much shorter, unless/until more in-depth analyses are published. I would probably chose the three best refs (Taibbi, Poynter, ...) that talk about the CNN manufactured controversy. (I didn't understand what grounds there were for deleting the Poynter Institute reference, however. Perhaps WMSR will explain why they chose to delete that particular reference.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, there is no need to bludgeon the reader with different sources all saying the same thing. --WMSR (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The dispute over the debate should be covered, but it should be done so concisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be no support for my position so I will stand aside. However, I still don't like the change from "he said she said controversy" to "Sanders allegedly told Warren". Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the he-said she-said aspect is well-sourced to Taibbi citing CNN itself admitting that's what it was. It should not be deleted. I also think the Poynter ref should be kept (without the lambasting language). The Intercept article provides further analysis of a few other rhetorical tricks. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is not a review of literature. The source needs to back up whatever is in the article. --WMSR (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

🐟 🎣 🍥

 Done 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede

Gandydancer, please revert your edit adding {{cn}} to sentences in the lede. The citations can be found in the body of the text. The lede of an article usually does not contain citations. --WMSR (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually I believe that WP suggests that if there is likely to be contention lead citations should be used and it seems that there is plenty of that surrounding this article. Furthermore, in my experience if some statements in the lead have citations but not others, as was the case here, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will soon come along asking for a ref. (Thanks to Sashi for fixing it.) Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Further number-crunching for the 2016 primary

This article by decisiondata.org studies archive.org from June 2015 to January 2016 and observes the following correlation:

Candidate	Web searches	Press Coverage	Ratio
Hillary Clinton	9,235,231	87,737	105:1
Bernie Sanders	21,536,032	29,525	729:1
Donald Trump	37,046,010	183,903	201:1

FWIW. Compare to consultation of en.wp numbers given above... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is precisely why WP:SYNTH exists. We cannot and should not draw conclusions from this (or any) data. --WMSR (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The denialism is strong with this one. Corroborating hard data from every direction, but lalala didn't hear that. ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Coverage from June 2015 to January 2016 is actually coverage from 2015, no? Not 2016. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

2016 as opposed to 2020. I've edited the header to make that clearer.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The following was deleted on the basis that caucus states would make it such that Sanders' would be massively underepresented in the 78% total (since caucuses, which Sanders primarily won by wide margins except for IA, & NV) are excluded from the tally):

"According to Patterson, Sanders got two-thirds of the coverage Clinton got during the Democratic primary as a whole, as compared to 78% of the votes she got in the Democratic primary."

So, for example, in Washington only 19K votes were counted for Sanders, though he won by a 45% spread in a state with a population of over 7 million. [[18]]. Hilarious.

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I opposed it for two reasons: (i) This is WP:SYNTH. Your own personal analysis of media bias does not belong on this encyclopedia. (ii) I do not have much interest in debating your own analysis with you, but raw vote count is an imprecise and flawed measurement if the goal is to try to link vote count to an appropriate share of media coverage. Not only did a bunch of states have caucuses (which massively reduce participation and thus alter vote shares), but a bunch of primaries took place after the Associated Press had called the race for Clinton, thus affecting participation in those primaries. Furthermore, coverage closely tracks polling, and if one candidate is an overwhelming favorite in polls before the actual primary voting starts, then the amount of total coverage will reflect that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that media coverage lagged even farther behind voter interest (and online interest) even than the clear data I presented above. I also notice that you cited Hillary Clinton's memoir in the first line of her section in your new entry: Media_coverage_of_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Hillary_Clinton, after deleting Jeff Weaver's book with lots of verifiable facts about media dirty tricks from this page. I hope most people see your double standard and selective quoting. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(i) That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. (ii) Clinton's memoir was cited as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("In her book, she argued X") and it was sourced to BBC News. I'm unclear what you're referring to with your "Weaver" content, but this content[19] was not cited as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV but instead stated the content from his book as fact. Furthermore, there was no secondary RS coverage of anything Weaver said, making it WP:UNDUE. It's an illustrative example of what policy-compliant content looks like, and what policy-noncompliant content looks like. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As anyone can see, Weaver's name is in both sentences with the claims attributed to him. This isn't the only time you deleted the source. You also deleted it here where it draws attention to an article in the HuffPost about ol' Brock. MrX had previously prétendu (means "claimed" in French, amusingly) that there was no such chapter title. ctrl-f: fishy. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥}

The HuffPost article does not mention Weaver. The HuffPost article also has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders. A pro-Clinton Super PAC criticizing Sanders is not media bias against Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As you very well know Weaver talks about the HuffPost article and Brock. Weaver is an excellent reference on Brock.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"reported" and "described" suggests that what Weaver is saying is factual. It's not ATTRIBUTEPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Remind me did I ever restore that content once WMSR decreed that we should not have a social media coverage section? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That is clearly not within the purview of this article. In the case of this article, "the media" refers to journalistic media. --WMSR (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In-text attribution is very different from attribution in the ref. And, again, what happened to WP:FOC being sacrosanct? --WMSR (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

🐟

1RR Reminder

Connor Behan, please revert your most recent edit, as it violates the 1RR restriction on this page. --WMSR (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, can you explain why this statement of fact is not sufficiently corroborated by a Rolling Stone columnist when the same source is used for several other parts of the article? If you have an issue with all of them, that is the purpose of the AfD.

SashiRolls, can you suggest a wording for the AM Joy segment that avoids whatever problems you were hinting at earlier today? The fact that you can pull this on MSNBC and not be fired hasn't generated the 1,000 articles I might've hoped for. But it clearly generated a notable backlash that fits in nicely with the paragraph that already covers the Warren-Sanders dispute. Connor Behan (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't. That source (and also Common Dreams) really shouldn't be anywhere in the article. I will say that the facts presented are WP:UNDUE, as the purpose of this article is not to list and dissect every time Sanders received negative coverage. Including content from op-eds, even if attributed, is problematic, because they are more likely to point out negative coverage as opposed to neutral or positive coverage. --WMSR (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you "can't [sic]" explain why my source is not sufficient, then it should go back. Grammar aside, I am clearly not trying to add every piece of negative coverage. But I am trying to add this one because (1) Sanders took the rare step of demanding an apology regarding it, (2) it's sourced to an author already used in this article, (3) it fits the topic of a paragraph we already have and (4) any reasonable person can see that it's blatantly dishonest... the kind of stuff you find on RT. Your claim that we shouldn't use WP:BIASED sources is not the usual standard. For many contentious topics, the most reliable sources are also biased. We satisfy neutrality by using a wide range of them that represent all non-WP:FRINGE points of view. Connor Behan (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't was in response to your question (can you explain why this statement of fact is not sufficiently corroborated by a Rolling Stone columnist when the same source is used for several other parts of the article?). As I stated in my answer, the reason I can't justify its inclusion there is because I can't justify it anywhere in this article. It is true that WP:BIASED states, Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject, but this is only true when multiple points of view are expressed in an article. That is not the case here. You said yourself that We satisfy neutrality by using a wide range of them that represent all non-WP:FRINGE points of view, yet every partisan source cited in this article is advocating the same POV. --WMSR (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the point of view defending the media is barely represented here outside the academic sources. Sources that could help change this are a Washington Post article which calls Bernie's critique bogus and a Guardian article which asks if it's Trumpian. Are there other sources along these lines that have been pushed out? The disputes that appear most active right now focus on a Clinton Super PAC which has little to do with the topic of media bias or lack thereof. Connor Behan (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Connor Behan, I admire your desire to compromise, but the answer to the issue of putting too much weight on opinion from one side is not to add more opinion from the other side. That would create an argument to moderation, which we should absolutely avoid. We should be relying on facts, not opinions, in this article. --WMSR (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about facts that are most heavily discussed in opinionated sources. And in this case, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE do require us to balance one side with the other. Tired proseline like "X said Sanders was right, Y said Sanders was wrong" would not help the article but there are a lot of things that would.

• Joy Reid interviewing a guest who claimed she could "read" Sanders" is a fact.
• Sanders being asked about wealth inequality at least five times in 2016 and then ignoring or forgetting about this is a fact.
• Sanders referring to a political journalist as a "gossip columnist" early in his career is a fact.
• Sanders still using Amazon platforms despite his criticism of Bezos and his holdings is a fact.

There's also some statement about him pranking CBS and AP which I had trouble parsing. If the AfD results in "keep" again, I think this is the best direction for this article to take. From the history I've seen, there have been relatively few attempts to improve the neutrality of this article through additions rather than deletions. Connor Behan (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

All of your points are true, but very little of that has to do with media coverage of Sanders. The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media, nor is it about his criticisms of Amazon. Turning the article into a WP:COATRACK won't really help either. If the Reid incident wasn't notable enough to be covered anywhere besides opinionated sources, I would argue that it's not notable enough to be covered here either. --WMSR (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You say, "The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media..." So you are saying that the article should not cover his responces? Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Because this article should not be a WP:COATRACK. It is, at least nominally, about how the media covers Sanders. Nothing more. A sentence about his responses may be appropriate if his response to specific media coverage was notable, but that should not be the focus of the article. The example above does not satisfy that criterion. --WMSR (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That's an essay and not a very good one at that. There is no good reason to not include Sanders' replies to what has been written about him if it has a RS. Gandydancer (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That essay is widely cited on this project, and itself cites policy. Regardless, WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP, also apply here. --WMSR (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Naked 1RR is out, enforced BRD is back in

A while back I lightened the restrictions on this page from enforced BRD to just 1RR. This, due to consensus among admins that, as a general rule, we start with the basic restriction, and only if they prove inadequate add either the enforced BRD or the Consensus required enhancements. Anyway, I am getting the sense that 1RR is not really working out here, so I'm reintroducing enforced BRD. Now, in the case of violations —as for your various Arbitration enforcement requests— I recommend submitting these at AE, not at the more chaotic, threaded AN/I. El_C 00:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN/DNC

Any suggestions as to how we should write up the confirmed information about Donna Brazile leaking CNN townhall questions to the Clinton campaign but not to the Sanders campaign in March 2016?

[20],[21], [22] etc. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This was not a media action. It was a DNC action. She was also a contributor to CNN and was terminated when this was discovered. She now is a Fox contributor. This is not relevant to media coverage of Sanders. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the misclick, I did not mean to revert your comment, I meant to reply. I wonder why you think that it would be "nothingburgerish" for CNN to be employing an operative who was sent debate questions which she only released to the Clinton campaign? This should be added to a section on DNC control over media debates and townhalls, IMO. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)She did not "only" release debate questions. She was a panelist, as she is now on Fox. She did not do this at the behest of CNN. She did it in her role at the DNC. And shame on her. But, CNN fired her when they found out. To suggest CNN purposely employed someone to release debate questions is devoid of evidence. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Strawman alert: I did not say CNN purposely employed someone to release debate (sic) questions. I said that CNN employed a DNC operative (who apparently was sent questions by Roland Martin [23]). Again, structural bias... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually you did. I wonder why you think that it is normal that CNN is employing an operative who was sent debate questions which she only released to the Clinton campaign? But you edited it out while I was responding. As for "structural bias", that belongs elsewhere as any such bias was in the DNC, not the media. There is no evidence that CNN played any role in this entire affair. O3000 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Obj, don't be tendentious. The two turquoise claims in the two preceding comments are not at all the same. Mine says it is pretty dumb for CNN to be hiring such people in the first place, not that they did so in order to send her stuff. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As I alluded to in my Delete vote, a great deal of discussion of the Bernie Blackout, remember that is what this article was supposed to be about, entails the bubble of corporatists these journalists are surrounded by at places like CNN and anywhere in Washington DC. The opinions of these theoretically well meaning journalists are easily swayed by the barrage of people with an agenda. It is an unconscious reflex from that environment to assume, Bernie can't win so lets move on to who else will replace him. And that is what is conveyed in their coverage. The perpetrators behind this message might have malisciious intent, Brazille included in that, but front line journalists, possibly even the management who hired Brazille, might not even be aware of the inherent bias of their decisions and words. Trackinfo (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sashi, I made my point. I see no reason to continue discussion with you since you are now falsely claiming I'm being "tendentious". Not unlike your recent accusation that I was tag-teaming you and you reverted my defense to the accusation. You need to learn to discuss instead of lashing out when you can't find a good response. O3000 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You really need to read FOC instead of continually violating it and then using it against others. Have a good debate. O3000 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been an extremely difficult article to get to know and since reading what Trackinfo says here and at the delete article I am gradually beginning to understand why. As best as I can understand Objective seems to be correct here about Brazille, though I so often feel like I'm sitting in on the impeachment debate, which I've had going on in the background (and is making me feel sick...). Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'm glad I could bring some clarity for you, others have thanked me too. This subject, from the Democratic side, is part of a big picture problem that pre-shadowed the corruption of Trump. Operatives favorable to the results do not want the stain of their complicity included in history. Many progressives believe Bernie would have won, an article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie would have won about it was deleted by this crowd. The Bernie blackout . . . media bias reflected in the "before" version of this article, the admitted DNC corruption to fix debate scheduling and content (Brazille), actual election tampering and the systematic, pro-establishment corruption of Superdelegates robbed voters of a populist candidate and instead forced in an un-popular candidate that was almost as corrupt and un-popular as the Republican's candidate. It caused Voter apathy which essentially is what elected Trump in the first place. Whether any of you agree with or are willing to admit to understanding this, millions of people have this opinion. They feel robbed by the DNC establishment in 2016 and expect an encore, already in progress in 2020. Wikipedia's failure to cover this subject fairly, the seizure of this article, deletion of others, propaganda insertion into others. And if these operatives are not able to delete the articles, they are inserting slime to discredit the subjects and the new media figures who have been and are reporting these stories. They are all related. Its a big problem for wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As O3000 said, this has nothing to do with media coverage of Sanders and, as such, should not be included here. If it is not there already, perhaps it would fit better in 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums or Donna Brazile. --WMSR (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

regulatory capture / category:criticism of journalism

At the end of the month, Sanders' campaign manager (Faiz Shakir) was invited to CNN's Reliable Sources to talk with Brian Stelter about media bias. Shakir criticized debates and talking head spots on networks like CNN being interspersed with pharmaceutical industry commercials. When asked what issues the campaign wanted to discuss more than the daily dissection of Trump's tweets, Shakir spoke of regulatory capture.

References

(MrX deleted the above here, in one of his three reverts to this article in the last 12h). I am surprised by the brash nature of this act. Some say being brash is being bold, though, I suppose. In which case, if all of their edits were "bold" revisions, this removal of the category "criticism of journalism" is accompanied by some rule-breaking. I am filing a report at the appropriate venue.

Here, let's focus on content. Should the two sentences above be included on the page? (h/t to the person who made me aware of this en.wp page incidentally) Are they due or undue?

Should this page be in the category "criticism of journalism"?-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a coach complaining about the referees or press. And please stop interspersing your comments about editors with demands that others FOC. O3000 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, because this is a primary partisan source, which is exactly what this article does not need more of. And good on you for filing a report in the proper place. This is not the proper place to complain about other users' conduct, as you have repeatedly pointed out here. --WMSR (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You are still not learning. Stop talking about other editors. As it is you have ownership issues with this article as evidenced on this talk page and your need to respond to every comment in the RfD. And no comment from Sanders' Campaign should be used. It's simple, they are a biased source. Slywriter (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me that your point of view is that the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page should not contain any actual media coverage of Bernie Sanders' campaign. I feel so much wiser now! Nobody has answered the question about whether the "Category: Criticism of Journalism" should be included.13:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)