Page semi-protected

Talk:Media bias against Bernie Sanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Controversial topic

I have created this article knowing full well the controversial nature of the topic. The topic is notable as per WP:NOTE and quite a few publications from both mainstream and alternative media cover the topic. I have attempted to write as objectively as possible and found that in the research there was very little in regards to the response to the criticism. If I missed anything major, feel free to add to the criticism section.

I tried my best to cite primary sources that were only supported by secondary sources. Some issues arose when it came to Reddit and Twitter communities as there was lots of discussion in those, but little to no coverage by media sources.

The title of the article could be perceived as contentious and could be moved to an alternate title if needed based on discussion.

The article need a bit of cleanup with formatting and internal linking. The article also needs to be linked to from other articles. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 04:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Be very careful. The wikipedia "mods" will attempt their very best to "censor" this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.226.198 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to justify censorship when it follows the guidlines outlined by Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:NPOV. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is a "Libertarian Tech Bro." I wouldn't be surprised if that general culture pervades throughout the entire site.

It does not. Wikipedia has guidelines such as WP:NPOV, which this article blatantly violates. Would (oldosfan) 09:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The entire opening section of this article contains zero sources and engages in significant speculation. I struggle to understand how something like this is allowed, it seems to be closer to the kind of stuff you see on Reddit, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.60.72 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Leads do not have to contain references. Only the body. The lead is a summary of the cited body text. This is Wikipedia policy. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the WP:LEAD section is only supposed to reflect and summarize what is found in the main body of the article and does not require any citations unless it is presenting a statement or two that is not found in the body. Ideally such statements should just be moved into the body of the article, somehow, because the main job of the lead is not to introduce ideas that aren't explained elsewhere. The layout of the article seems perfectly fine to me. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than delete this, why not find the relevant links, and input them? Drrichardpaul (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion about deletion that can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is an article with over 60 cited sources even being considered for deletion? If the topic is controversial, then the page should be locked as it is; deleting the article is tantamount to taking a side one way or the other. Being intellectually honest means examining uncomfortable issues like this one, being fair means leaving the article as is. CTDaugherty (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


Completely disagree that the topic of media coverage is controversial, i simply believe that the article contains a worrying amount of slant toward the sanders view. I honestly believe the reason for this being that much of the outlets that sanders supporters have criticized have yet to administer a proper defense of their coverage. I am not an expert but perhaps going forward, it would be good to discuss only coverage sanders received in 2016, rather than documenting coverage on an ongoing primary. The discussion should then focus on studies in reputable journals about how coverage may have slanted one way or another. Also please refrain from accusing people of bias, and that goes one way or the other. (0_0;✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The author has argued that it was difficult to find opinions contrary to media bias vs. Sanders existing – is it not possible that the "worrying amount of slant" could simply be a result of the for-vs.-against distribution at which content is found on this topic?
As a simplified example: if an article on the origins of climate change mostly contains citations from sources that purport it *is* anthropogenic and leaves dissenting opinions as a minority, would that constitute slanting the article in the favor of the former? (The back-drop being that, depending on the definition, 90–99% of the body of literature on it concludes it *is* anthropogenic.) Should the article not roughly reflect the proportions of existing data on the subject?
Furthermore, editors are welcome to do reference-searching of their own to conclude if the "there is no bias" side has been underrepresented, rather than drawing a conclusion from the coverage distribution in this article alone. Selvydra (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm with you @Selvydra on the reason for what i referred to as slant is that there is the difficulty in finding evidence in support of Sanders' media coverage, in fact i mentioned it in my comment (because i had spent an afternoon looking for it). I was just commenting on how a potential solution would be not to discuss coverage of an on-going campaign. This isn't necessarily a solution i would like to see happen, i just was putting a suggestion out their.
Also, in my personal opinion, i think there is a great amount of bias at play with the coverage of Sanders, so don't think my criticisms come from disagreement with the subject matter! (>u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the title might be improved. I suggested below that it could be changed to Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders, with some attention to and examples of positive coverage, if there has been any. I like the idea of the article, however. Mballen (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that name would be good @Mballen, i don't want to have to see it changed, but i think it would be for the best if the article had a less controversial name (0W0;✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference error fixes

There are a few reference errors that I can't seem to figure out how to fix. If you know how to fix them, please help! The In These Times section has an error that seems perfectly fine. Reference number 33 also has an error that makes no sense. References also need Wikilinks within them. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 05:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Errors resolved. Thank you Timothy.lucas.jaeger! Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A few sources not mentioned

Here are a couple sources that could be included:

Here are sources that staunchly criticizes the accusations of bias:

Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

This article exhibits clear bias on the part of supporters of Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by the talk page and the content of the article itself. The main article for Bernie Sanders already contains a section dedicated to how he / his campaigns have been covered by news outlets. This page has no reason to exist other than to satisfy the agenda of Sanders supporters.

Bernie Sanders receives a good deal of news coverage, and the coverage he gets tends to be somewhat positive. His supporters have created this article to abuse the clout of Wikipedia and justify their narrative that Sanders's current standing in the polls is due to outside forces rather than simply having less support than his opponents. The existence of a separate article also allows them to avoid the higher scrutiny they would face when editing the main article for Bernie Sanders. In addition, this seems to be the only page on the entirety of Wikipedia dedicated to the media bias against a single person.

It is for these reasons that I believe this page should either be removed entirely, rolled into an existing section of the main Bernie Sanders article, or added as a new section of the main Bernie Sanders article. At the very least this article should be held to the same standard as any other political article, as political subjects are very easily affected by bias.

I apologize for any misuse of the Wikipedia editing process. I don't have any experience with this community, but had to speak out against what I feel is a clear abuse of the platform.

Ellie.Michaels (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ellie.Michaels, this page has been flagged as a possible candidate for deletion, and you can discuss your thought's on the page's importance here. Buggie111 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


If this Wikipedia Entry is so offensive to so many that they are constantly trying to have it removed, that is evidence of controversy, and thus Wikipedia may be being used as a part of a media conspiracy against the candidate. The very act of removing this entry could therefore be evidence that the bias exists in the form of a conspiracy. Perhaps we should re-frame this article, naming it something else, such as: "Evidence and examples of proven media bias (or conspiracy) against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders 2016-2020" then the page could be more of a historical archive of the known facts and evidence, and would be unrelated to subjective opinions about Bernie Sanders or his supporters. Michael E. Russell 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Michael Russell, a.k.a. Philosopher3000 Michael E. Russell 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher3000 (talkcontribs)

There is a discussion about deletion that can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • keep or merge with main Sanders article - I've read dozens of articles examining media bias against Sanders. Whether it is true or not is debatable, but there has been a fiery public debate about it, it's noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019

66.57.237.66 (talk)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If this page gets deleted...

...I have been compiling sources pointing to a rather alarming trend toward literal f--king FASCISM taking over this country through the mechanisms of the national security state.

Fascist takeover of America/U.S. will be up within a week of this page being removed.

Consider this your one warning.

--Abbazorkzog (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This is probably not the most constructive comment, even if you are well-intentioned. Be sure to provide constructive comments that can be utilized to enhance an article's quality. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Let's make it happen. HonestManBad (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This section belongs in a action movie, not Wikipedia. Consider me impressed by your plot-making skills. Would (oldosfan) 09:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This article flagrantly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy

The New York Times was called out when they retroactively made significant changes

The New York Times was "called out"? Is that how a neutral encyclopedia discusses allegations of media bias?

Jennifer Rubin immediately criticized Sanders as a dated, unpopular candidate upon which the next day he reached record fundraising numbers.

This is one example of blatant POV pushing (not to mention abysmal writing) in the article.

MSNBC analyst Mimi Rocah proclaimed that Bernie Sanders, "made her skin crawl" suggesting to viewers that he was not a pro-women candidate.[13][29] This directly contrasted the data from Pew that showed that Sanders polls highest among women.[30][31]

Here the author chooses one poll which is favorable to Sanders and uses it to imply that Rocah's opinion is wrong. Wikipedia editors should not be using Wikipedia resources to make the case for a political candidate.

Sanders went on to write in an email to his donors,

It is really very interesting that Wikipedia now citing candidates' emails to their donors. No citation is provided, of course, since one can't verify the veracity of an email to a donor, can one?

This article suffers from many, ***many*** flagrant violations of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The author should consider recusing himself from the article. — goethean 20:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that you have failed to actually look at the references. This is what the sources say. This is why it is documented as such. I support wording changes to neutralize or clarify statements, but it is ***very*** apparent you have a vested interest in deleting this article instead of actually analyzing the sources and rewriting material to be more "neutral". I suspect that is because you don't like the idea that something you disagree with has evidence to support it. Nevertheless, you may not like what the sources state, but that is what they state whether their interpretations are true or false.
Also, the article is not citing candidates emails. It cites an article that discusses his email in response to media criticisms. This is a perfectly valid primary source supported by a secondary source that exemplifies the campaigns stance on the issue that they believe is real. Once again, it does not matter if the bias is real or not, the media discussions exist and it is highly notable. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Goethean, I dont see any problem with the idiom "called out", it means to criticize someone about something they have said or done and challenge them to explain it.[1]. Also you seem to be under impression that the media bias against Sanders is "allegation" but do you have any source that 'challenge' what you call "an allegation"? What reliable sources are saying is that this a real problem not allegations. See for example this report in FAIR.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As I said above there is no citation for the content that Sanders wrote to his donors. No citation. At all. — goethean 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Change "was called out" to "faced backlash". It's an easy fix. The whole thing doesn't need to be deleted. SatanistSin (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable

Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable.

This article cites Mintpress News, a disreputable source no less than twelve times. The use of disreputable sources is a clear indication that a POV is being pushed.

I am going to remove the content cited to Mintpress News. — goethean 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that wikipedia's idea of "reliable source", is basically corporate legacy media. I.E if enough talkingheads on any of these "news sites" say the same thing (I.E copying one another and never citing or checking any source), Wikipedia considers this to be reliable. Worse, these sites are well known to use wikipedia itself as their "source", which ironically is contradicting wikipedia's rule of not using wikipedia itself as a source. In the end though, wikipedia is a clowncar with too many clowns in it.--Thronedrei (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The 'reliable' sources as they are labeled by the new 'anti fake news' campaign that has been pushed by US establishment include every single major media outlet which sold the lie of nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, in addition to incredibly far-off sources like Bellingcat, who, despite being an outlet of Ukrainian ultra right-wing nationalists, is dubbed as 'reliable' - despite it doesn't even provide sources and instead cites unknown 3rd party 'activists'. In contrast MintPress News always has its articles well referenced, with sources ranging from prominent anti-war websites like Counterpunch, Truth Out to prominent intellectuals like Chomsky. — unity100 21:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
What's more interesting is that none of the 'reliable' outlets ever write anything about the instances of actual media manipulation listed in the article even if they are visually captured on video. The only sources who write it are independent platforms like MintPress, or anti-war websites like Counterpunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity100 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
MintPress is not the only source that these things are discussed. It does not really matter if MintPress is considered unreliable if the same information can be corroborated elsewhere—which it can and is. See WP:UNRS. Take the time to actually do the research if you are unconvinced. I did. Extensively. I strongly reccomend you do remove content until the discussions are finished. I will undo them. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If I removed poorly cited material, you will undo my changes? — goethean 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, because your claims of "poorly cited" are inaccurate. Check the sources first. I took a moment to check one of the claims to give you an example of how it is corroborated:
MintPress said, "It also attacked the idea that the Vermont Senator was supported by an army of mass donations from ordinary people. The title, headline, “Bernie Sanders Keeps Saying His Average Donation is $27, but His Own Numbers Contradict That,” calculated that the average donation was actually $27.89. What a contradiction! However, the majority of people do not read past the headline, meaning most of those who saw the well-shared article would have no idea how weak the charge was."
The section links the articles in question. When you look at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/18/bernie-sanders-keeps-saying-his-average-donation-is-27-but-it-really-isnt/, the author of the article admits to the incorrect analysis of the claims he made. The Washington Post is considered the so-called "reliable source" and it perfectly verifies the commentary made by MintPress. I am guessing you are not even reading or looking at the sources or material. You are just making judgments based on your own biases. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Mintpress News is a disreputable source and needs to be removed from the article immediately. — goethean 21:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
So basically that is your opinion, and as such, it should be accepted as fact and implemented. Practically that's what you are saying, without any logic, reference or explanation to support it... Facts are not about feelings or biases Goethean. Unity100 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources consider MintPress News disreputable.goethean 22:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As i mentioned above, what are called 'reliable sources' were the ones who lied about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs for eight straight years. Every major corporate outlet and related expert included. None of those broke ranks about the lie. Therefore those sources themselves have to vouch for their reliability, leave aside being in a position of authority to declare anyone's reliability. Not to mention that the entire 'fact checking' organizations are constituted by private think thanks related to the same establishment which lied about Iraqi WMDs. Here, the 'First Draft News' organization which does fact checking for Google after then-acting leader of US military-industry complex, late John McCain created a lot of ruckus and forced these organizations onto the tech sector: First Draft News. Leaving aside all establishment linked think-thanks, there is a 'Bellingcat', listed as the first founding member. Which happened to be an unknown blogger until a few years ago, who was not even named, who did not have any contact information, and who always replicated ultra-right wing narrative of Ukrainian nationalists by citing unknown 'activists'. After criticism, they slapped a name on the blog, though it is outright questionable whether that name actually is linked to the actual blogger. And as such, this shaky blog is one of the 'fact checkers' which Google relies on to filter its search results... As demonstrated, the very 'reliable sources' must prove their reliability first. And therefore they cannot be shown as an authority to determine anyone else's reliability. With the logic proposed in your link, every single major US corporate outlet would be labeled unreliable, way behind MintPress or other independent outlet's reliability. If you are not applying the same criteria to them, you cannot use that criteria for others. Unity100 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Article should be kept and made part of a series listing such media manipulation

Not only Sanders is not the only candidate targeted as such, but also privately owned major media corporations have dropped any pretense of objectivity in pursuing the interests of their majority shareholders. This constitutes a major threat to democracy, something bigger than what outside state or private actors pose.

Fleshing out this article and using it as a template to list similar manipulations against current candidates and future candidates can help fight against such manipulation. Unity100 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Control of the media by the rich and powerful elites (Mike Bloomberg for one) is of serious concern to the future of our country. Wikipedia must be a fair arbiter of ideas. CTDaugherty (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Don’t Delete, the blackout was first discovered in the Wikileaks documents showing the truth about deceiving a nation and using corrupt powers to sway the primaries. Several emails released show that although the DNC was supposed to remain neutral during the primary contest, officials grew increasingly agitated with Bernie Sanders and his campaign, at some points even floating ideas about ways to undermine his candidacy. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A--" and a "Liar" In May 2016 the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred." Then just one day before the Democratic convention was set to begin, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation, effective at the end of the week. And as expected, Sanders supporters, hundreds of whom are delegates at the convention, are furious about the content of the emails. Further proof of the blackout and it’s origins.

Cite: abc.com--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.29.26 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Taibbi

@Lalichi: Taibbi is an opinion writer and his articles are not reliable for statements of facts. — goethean 23:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Goethean: Taibbi does indeed do opinion pieces, however these are marked as 'POLITICAL COMMENTARY' (see this piece). The article that I have cited was marked as 'POLITICS NEWS' (see here). Lalichi (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone add this? PBS spent 40~ minutes talking about every candidate but Sanders last night

This is new. Apparently last night PBS had a primary update in which they talked about every candidate except Sanders. They didn't even mention his name as if he didn't exist. They even discussed Amy Klobuchar at length. Details below, video of the entire program embedded.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/12/manufacturing-consent-in-action Unity100 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I found several sources for recent polling data at the time of the broadcast, and added this to the December 2019 section of the article. EliteMasterEric (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@EliteMasterEric Hey friend, do not fear, i added under the 'december' section, and i tried to make it as neutral as possible, i hope to find more reliable sources discussing the controversy in the future. It is an important topic that definitely fits under notability in my view. (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Change the title of article?

I don't know if anyone has already proposed this, but what about changing title to Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders? Doesn't the present title sort of beg the question -- if that is the right use of the term -- of whether media coverage has or has not been biased. It is a very interesting topic and worthy of an article, in my opinion. But I think the idea is to present both sides and let the readers decide for themselves. Mballen (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

See deletion discussion.WillC 05:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I propose Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns - Keith D. Tyler 07:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders would be my suggestion. ValarianB (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with KeithTyler, seems to reflect the article content. "Allegations" sounds weasel. Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns--SharabSalam (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not weaselish to highlight the fact that these are largely opinions, even if they are widely-held, and not conclusive evidence of bias. The "Criticism of..." title is overly-long and awkward. ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Indiscriminate restoration of various bad content

The state of this article is shockingly bad. I made various edits to improve the article, including trimming unnecessary padded quotes, put things in direct quotes that were in block quotes for no reason, and make sure that text actually reflected what sources were saying. This was all indiscriminately restored by the editor SharabSalam.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I reverted some of your edits. Let me show you how disruptive your edits are. First of all you removed Common Dreams saying this in the edit summary "remove common dreams, a crackpot site", you do know that your opinion is irrelevant right? I think I have seen you saying this to other editors before.
Secondly you removed relevant quotes saying "trim all these unnecessary block quotes that pad the article (one reason among many why this should not have a standalone article)" OH so thats why you are removing content from the article? is because you think it shouldnt have a standalone article? You are simply disrupting wikipedia to illustrate your point the very definition of WP:POINTY. And again in the next edit you say this " can't make this up. half this Wikipedia article is complaining about not giving equal attention to sanders when he was a minor candidate, but now one pbs newshour segment is trash because it decided to give attention to the minor candidate (written by a guy who claims that elizabeth warren is not a progressive). this is yet another reason why this whole article should be deleted. it's just padded with rubbish op-ed pieces)" like wow you think your opinion about reliable sources is true and others are wrong and also complaining why shouldnt this article be created. Also the quotes you removed after are relevant and needed in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
If you believe Common Dreams is a RS, I suggest you start a RS noticeboard discussion. It's a fringe left site that should not be cited anywhere on this encyclopedia. Also, I completely stand by my trims of all those elaborate redundant block quotes, which appear to have the sole purpose of padding this article to make it look as if the topic has received more attention and focus than it actually has. Also, "Current Affairs", Nathan J Robinson's blog, is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, Why would I start a discussion? It is a notable source and there is no one complaining about it except you? You should start a discussion in RS noticeboard not me. Current Affairs (magazine) is a notable reliable source and it has been praised "by influential figures including Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald." per Wikipedia's article.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Even if you think Common Dreams is nothing but an opinion site and doesn't deliver any news, it is still a source for the *media phenomenon* that is the blacklisting of and bias against Sanders in various other outlets, especially when backed up by clearly Wikipedia:Reliable sources and news outlets like The Hill cited throughout the article. This article is about demonstrating the meta discussion in the media of the media phenomenon, and citing Common Dreams helps to do that when combined with accredited organizations like NPR, Politico, Vox, etc. At most Common Dreams citations should just be labeled as "opinion" ones in the sources section. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's how it works at the RS noticeboard. Common Dreams has been used in this and many other articles. Searches at the RSN archives turn up little discussion of it. You are the one challenging a source used currently in the project, therefore, the burden of proof does not lie with anyone but yourself. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Common Dreams is an advocacy organization and the only real discussion about it at WP:RSN left off with it being unreliable for statements of fact. (Where is its reputation for fact-checking, editorial pedigree, etc.?) At best, it's on par with the Daily Kos on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are better sources available for the type of claims made in CD, and if not, we should reconsider whether the claim is noteworthy.
On another note, really disappointed to see edits to improve the overall quality/sourcing of the article reverted wholesale. Like hell I'm going to spend time improving this article if such basic cleanup is going to go uncontested. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't back down, Czar. The reverts of your edits are utterly indefensible. Don't let people bully you away from the article, so that they can transform it into a brazen campaign platform for their favorite candidate. If this article should exist (which it shouldn't), there's no reason why at the very least, the content in the article shouldn't attempt to reflect NPOV and RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
You reference RS? Every chance I've gotten I have shown how you don't even read that policy and each attempt you make to discredit a source, the policy reaffirms them. Then you run away without even having an argument. What next? Going to use the word pundit wrong again? Basically, you have a bias against this article and nothing shown to you will change that. That is not basing your stance on the policies in any way.--WillC 23:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Although I was and still am in favor of keeping this article, I also object to total revisions of edits such as Czar's. Issues should primarily be addressed by augmenting or trimming the specific sections in question, not by reverting the entire edit – in the same spirit that advocates for the keeping of this article (as an encyclopedic repository for information).
Regarding Common Dreams and other sources whose adherence to RS is questioned: In my opinion, sources such as these should not be blanket-banned from use. Rather, the bias of the site should simply be stated when citing something that their bias could affect (spins, interpretations, etc.). At the very least, citing them for information that can be expressed without undue punditry (e.g. statistics) should be allowed, as it can be distilled of any spin (just as we should strive to do with "more reputable" sources). Ultimately, every news site has a bias and only giving corporate-owned or -aligned a free pass while drawing the line at left-wing media makes for biased sampling. Selvydra (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead: exclusively pro-Sanders POVs, exclusively covers op-eds

The horrible lead to this article, which was just a OR summary of a bunch pro-Sanders op-eds and punditry was just restored.[3] Not only does it have a crazy skew (only pro-Sanders viewpoints are covered), but they are near-exclusively reflective of opinion content, rather than RS content, which is crazy for a lead to do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the second paragraph of the lead (of which there are only two paragraphs), clearly mentions the rebuttal to the idea that there is any bias at all, whereas the previous lead section didn't even mention the "criticism" section of the article. If anything the current lead is *more inclusive* of the camp that says there is no bias. I fail to see how the following violates WP:NPOV. Perhaps point out the specific statement you think does exactly that instead of just leveling vague complaints that aren't very constructive. Here's the paragraph in question (since the first paragraph merely introduces the central thesis of the article):

Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the concentration of media ownership, profit-driven special interests, manufacturing consent and the propaganda model, general media propaganda, conflicts of interests, and agenda-setting theory.[citation needed] The most prominent media organizations being accused of bias have been MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Many of the media organizations have responded to the criticisms in various ways through rebuttals, criticism, and analysis. Various studies have been done in an effort to document statistical data in regard to news coverage of presidential candidates. Legitimacy of the bias has been called into question by some political commentators.

Perhaps also point out which specific sources are entirely op-ed instead of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and also a specific reason as to why you think this is the case, backed up by your own sources stating as such. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So let's reintroduce the blatantly NPOV lead? It's unsourced synthesis and borderline Original Research.
In particular, the following sentence/list contains "facts" that are not supported in the rest of the article:
Accusations of bias often revolve around themes concerning the concentration of media ownership, profit-driven special interests, manufacturing consent and the propaganda model, general media propaganda, conflicts of interests, and agenda-setting theory.
Slywriter (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It might be best to avoid drastically rewriting the lead while the article is on WP:AFD. In any case, I do think that the list of sources that have alleged bias is worth keeping in the lead (the part that goes Alternative media such as Rising with the Hill's Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti (by The Hill), Jacobin, Vox, Common Dreams, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, among others, have published articles, videos, and reports discussing... We could debate who belongs in that list in terms of WP:DUE, or how to frame it, but given that the article is partially about an opinion we ought to clearly state who holds it, ie. "who alleges that there is media bias against Bernie Sanders" is a major part of the article and an obvious thing for the lead to summarize. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

First line of the lead: "Various media outlets have raised concerns" of anti-Sanders bias in the media

Come on, this is indefensible. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2019

Media bias against Bernie SandersCriticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns or Bernie Blackout – several editors have expressed that the current name is POV so I propose this title which I think is neutral. Another option is Media bias controversy about 2020 US Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders SharabSalam (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Another option which was suggested is Bernie Blackout--SharabSalam (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Move to Bernie Blackout. This is about the story of the phenomenon.[4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The current title is unacceptable. "Bernie blackout" is also unacceptable. Furthermore, none of this deserves its own standalone article, and the existence of this article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia (same with the 'Trump derangement syndrome' article or any hypothetical "media bias against my favorite candidate" article that anyone can apparently now create). Whatever well-sourced content is currently in the article could easily be summarized in 3-4 sentences on the main Bernie page and in a few more sentences in his 2016 and 2020 campaign articles. If this article will continue to exist, then the best title would "Controversy over media coverage of Bernie Sanders". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The article wasn't deleted, and that's that. Complaining that the article exists in a move discussion helps no one. Master of Time (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Retrospectively, I realize that I somehow (no idea how) overlooked the last sentence which actually does propose a new title, so you can ignore my previous statement. Master of Time (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The validity of the article or its suitability on WP is not relevant to this discussion which is to rename. Secondly, "Bernie blackout" would be an entirely valid rename considering that is the term actively being used to describe the discourse on the topic. It would be just as valid as Drain the swamp or any other idiom article. - Keith D. Tyler 23:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly Move to Bernie Blackout. However, a "Bernie Blackout" article could potentially portray Sanders supporters in a negative light because of extreme bias, and they might want it deleted ;-) Ylevental (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I am seeing a lot of WP:NOTHERE edits from you. Please familiarize yourself with the title policy and tell me what is wrong with "Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns" instead of this vague title you are proposing.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I proposed this title.  It's not that there's something "wrong" with your suggestion, it's that I feel that "Bernie Blackout" is the common name for the story.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, I meant his comment "could potentially portray Sanders supporters in a negative light because of extreme bias, and they might want it deleted ;-)" this is not a social network. I don't know who he is trying to troll here. He has nominated the page immediately after the discussion was closed!.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, A better way to say it is that this could be the first few sentences of the article: "'Bernie Blackout' is a controversial term coined by supporters of Bernie Sanders who allege that the media is against his campaign. Many of their claims concerning bias are unsubstantiated."
Bernie supporters would want this page deleted, though it is true in my view that his supporters highly exaggerate the bias that is against him. Ylevental (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing evidence that this is a controversial term except on unreliable sources like Brietbart.  The Sanders campaign itself promotes the term, so supporters are unlikely to interfere.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
One, people wanting a page deleted based on title alone is not relevant to what name should be used in an encyclopedia. Two, I've no idea why you would think that considering that term is being used (among others, such as "Bernie blindness") by Sanders supporters to describe the alleged phenomenon. - Keith D. Tyler 23:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also suggest Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders as an option. - Keith D. Tyler 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

KeithTyler, there is no allegations here. These are merely criticism and responses. Calling these criticism points allegations sounds unneutral and false description of what the article is about.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The word "allegation" by definition does not pass judgement as to whether the allegations are true or not. That would be an ideal neutral position. Certainly referring to media bias in the title more accurately represents the crux of the argument than "criticism of media coverage" -- "criticism" merely refers to quality, but doesn't illustrate at all the emphasis on accusation of bias, which is the crux of the criticism. - Keith D. Tyler
  • Rename to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns: Simple, concise, to the point, neutral.--WillC 23:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree Wrestlinglover that it is the most neutral personally, i think that phrases like 'BernieBlackout' should still redirect however. (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • We don't need an entire page for that. Focus on his policies. Bernie supporters see him as 100% perfect, that's why they need to constantly complain about "bias" which reveals him as less than perfect. Ylevental (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns". I don't see how "criticism" is problematic but I fully support a title without the word criticism.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support both the current title and "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" (with or without "Presidential Campaigns" appended). With the latter title, the lede could also be augmented with the juxtaposition of his coverage in mainstream media and left wing media. (Mainstream coverage: lacking, leaning positive overall(?), but with spikes of negativity before important primary dates; left-wing coverage: positive and frequent). Selvydra (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • This is the title I would prefer too, and if possible even separate articles for 2016 and 2020. The dynamic between the two is very different (near zero notability in the beginning in 2016 vs. close to 100% in 2020, almost no other contenders and assumed victor in 2016 vs. 20+ contenders where nobody knows who will end up on top, GOP opponent unknown followed by Trump as an unknown factor in 2016 vs. Trump as a very known factor in 2020, etc. etc.) and having two articles would provide a bit more opportunity to search through older sources and perhaps provide some more perspective. Or a single page with a clear division between the two campaigns, of course. Mithridates (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't move: Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns is just a longwinded way of saying "Media bias against Bernie Sanders". Pointless move. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title Criticism of media coverage of Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns is too long and I suggest to modify the article header from Media bias against Bernie Sanders to Media bias against Bernie Sanders Presidential campaigns. Abishe (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is haphazard and poorly-thought out. It should have been setup like a straw poll where users could A, B, C, D etc... their choices, one of which was my suggestion in an earlier thread, Allegations of media bias against Bernie Sanders, which I would like to see if there is interest for. ValarianB (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What really concerns me about this article, is that there are few formal studies supporting this claim as sources

Up to the "Response to criticisms" section, most of the bias concerns individual events and assertions. By contrast, most of the studies in the "Response to criticisms" section showed that Bernie Sanders actually received fair coverage. Ylevental (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One, the issue is due to the nature of the article. Two, it is due to questioning of sources. Three, the layout of the article is due to the scope. There is so much discussion on whether the article should exist and not enough on in what manner should it exist. What should it cover? How should it be designed? On what topics do not belong? etc. Because the issue behind this topic is media bias, which can take many forms. The DNC leaks play a role in the topic because it helps to build up the belief it is occurring. This article should be more about the topic and not about whether it happens or not.--WillC 03:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
You're weighting the opinion of "studies" too highly. Wikipedia allows a variety of sources, not limited to "formal" academic research. This specific issue is one which does not really require specialized academic knowledge. Avid non-academic consumers of the media or professional journalists/pundits are no less equipped to make a sound judgement on this issue than academics. I mean, just watch the mainstream news (CNN, MSNBC) or read it (NYT, WPost). That's it. Do you need a "study" to prove the sky is blue? No. Likewise you don't need a study to prove that the media is obviously much more biased in favor of establishment, corporate candidates (Buttigieg, Warren, Biden) than populist candidates (Sanders, Yang, Tulsi). I will also add that, on a more opinionated note, that these studies are probably just wrong, and I have carefully analyzed a few of these studies and found them to be severely flawed in their methodology—although, of course, I understand that original research is not allowed, but this just needs to be noted so that editors are not misled into believing that the "response to the criticism" section of this article is anything more than corporate, establishment anti-Bernie propaganda. CompactSpacez (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)