Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 22 January 2020

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Speedy keep, 8 December 2019, see discussion. No consensus, but begin a rename discussion, 1 December 2019, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Media coverage of Bernie Sanders at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Seeking consensus for new first sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mainstream media can be replaced by Corporate Owned

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

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

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

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

Tl;DR: WP:NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The preceding sentence is inappropriate behaviour.🌿 SashiRolls 21:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Personal attack removed)

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

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

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

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

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

Brock, continued

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

When I have time will add this article:

🌿 SashiRolls 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 14:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

3) The piece directly supports the claim that negative campaigns were led during the 2016 election.🌿 SashiRolls 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 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 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 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 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

1. Alex Seitz-Wald (March 30, 2016). "David Brock group hits Bernie Sanders with ethics complaints". MSNBC. These kinds of complaints often go nowhere, and sometimes are used more to generate news coverage than actual enforcement action.

saying that it had nothing to do with news coverage? 🌿 SashiRolls 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 23:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters

This sentence:

Media Matters, part of the Brock complex, 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).

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. 🌿 SashiRolls 23:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

The repeated restorations of "Brock wrote an anti-Sanders op-ed in 2019" 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 Misplaced Pages 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

1. David Brock (January 3, 2019). "Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks". NBC News. Archived from the original on November 27, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2019.

🌿 SashiRolls 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 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 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.)

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 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 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 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 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the reference as there was nothing fishy about the sourcing.🌿 SashiRolls 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 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 00:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Question about CTR's deleted matter @ the Wayback Machine

Can anybody dig up an archival version of the deleted press release from the CTR site saying it was inspired for its social media campaign by BernieBros? Here's the Daily Beast story: 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 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

1. Ben Collins (April 21, 2016). "Hillary PAC Spends $1 Million to 'Correct' Commenters on Reddit and Facebook". The Daily Beast. Campaign finance lawyers are not that impressed with logic, but they can get away with it because the is deadlocked and does nothing
2. "Barrier Breakers 2016: A Project of Correct The Record". Correct the Record. Archived from the original on April 21, 2016. Lessons learned from online engagement with "Bernie Bros" during the Democratic Primary will be applied to the rest of the primary season and general election–responding quickly and forcefully to negative attacks and false narratives.

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 00:10, 17 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 15:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans do you know if there's a headshot somewhere I'm missing? 🌿 SashiRolls 15:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the lead which summarizes research should be restored

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

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

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

Perhaps something along these lines:

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

- MrX 🖋 12:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about the lead sentence

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

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

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

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

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

I have put the Brock references a (very) cursory search has turned up in the course of rewriting this entry from top to bottom. Several have been deleted from the page entirely. I've put this all back into the "revised version" above. 🌿 SashiRolls 19:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted Ed Schultz interview

This section concerns the following deleted passage:

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

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

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

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

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

• Section WP:IV#Reliability further details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indiscriminate revert of changes

I made numerous changes to the article. These included:

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. Thomas E. Patterson (July 11, 2016), News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences, retrieved January 3, 2020, or the first time at any stage of the campaign, Clinton's press was favorable on balance, though narrowly. Of the news statements with a clear tone, 51 percent were positive and 49 percent were negative. It was also the first time in the campaign that Sanders' press tilted toward the negative. Positive statements about his candidacy were outweighed by the negative ones—46 percent to 54 percent.

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

Speaking of this period, we should also mention the Daily Kos' decision to start kicking Sanders' supporters off the platform in March 2016.. 🌿 SashiRolls 01:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on content. The only comment on content you've made is a bare assertion that the content is "absurd", an assertion with which two publishers and three authors obviously disagree. Otherwise, you've been making accusations. 🌿 SashiRolls 18:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

It's true that 7 Nov 2016 (when I was first learning community culture of not looking into contributors edit histories to see if they were making a mess of other articles) is quite a bit before November 2018. I also noticed that while you were one of 5 contributors on Awilley's disciplinary sanctions/early warning "watchlist" compiled in Oct 2019, I was not. (I won't link to it, because some of the other contributors listed on Awilley's watchlist objected at ArbCom to the maintenance of such lists as "chilling".) Both El C & Awilley received blowback for their blocks, as you probably recall, though I did not officially appeal the latter. The former was lifted within a few hours. This section filled with false accusations and half-truths should be hatted, but won't be, as WP:FOC only applies to some. 🌿 SashiRolls 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neolibs are the worst.

Change it back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps because it is from a newspaper column called "The Monkey Cage"? One wonders who the peers reviewing that "academic" platform might be.

Also, in addition to your recent use of "inane rambling" to describe contributions to this page (cf. WP:NPA), I appreciate you giving us two more modifiers as evidence of your cool attitude: "why on earth" instead of "why" & "godawful". 🌿 SashiRolls 12:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's an analysis by a recognized expert, and should obviously be in the 'academic analysis' section of the article, not the godawful 'timeline' section where are all the random op-eds and other low-quality content is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I am not seeing any personal attacks here, just criticism of content. You aren't helping us build an encyclopedia by making accusations against other editors. Please stop. In regards to TMC, the publication has its roots in academia, and is now published in the Washington Post. Contributions are reviewed by a team of editors, and they "do not publish traditional op-eds or editorials that advocate for political parties, candidates, or public policies." Contributors are experts in the field of political science. The name "The Monkey Cage" comes from a quote by H.L. Mencken: “Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.” Assume good faith, and don't make assumptions about sources (or editors). --WMSR (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Politico's "antisemitic" article against Sanders

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

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

1. Template:Cite article
2. ^ Template:Cite article
3. @AOC (25 May 2019). "Rep. Ocasio-Cortez criticizes Politico article on Sen. Sanders's income" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
4. Template:Cite article
5. Template:Cite article
6. Template:Cite article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erroneous figure in edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see that Objective3000 has now made their third edit to the entry: the first was to remove the inaccurate word "slightly" a couple minutes after MrX filed an ANEW report about the word, following WMSR's similar reversion without having studied the source. The second was to revert WMSR's self-revert on another matter (after WMSR had been called out for clear cut 1RR violations by Bbb23 at ANI), the third was to revert new text again to the mistaken word "slightly" after it was demonstrated by 1+1=2 that the degree adverb was misplaced / wrong. (Also removing the reference for the claim.) One might wonder how Objective3000 suddenly found this page (& ANEW) and why it is of such interest to them suddenly that they want to restore a misleading claim . Difficult to guess. I notice that all of Objective3000's contributions have been reverts and there is still no sign of them on the TP... though they did make a couple comments at ANEW. Most curious, as always. Again 46% of 39% of X is slightly less than 18% of X, where X is the total # of stories in the media outlets studied from 15.03 to 03.05.2016. 51% of 61% of X is a bit more than 31% of X. 18 times 1.73 = 31.🌿 Thinking back to chemistry class: since there are only two significant digits, we really should say 70% more (or significantly more). I'll see if there's something more direct in the article to satisfy the (again) curiously stubborn... SashiRolls 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Better to mislead the reader than to get out a calculator, I guess. (Cf. WP:HERE) From the article about what Patterson calls "the middle period" (15 March-3 May) during which the Republican primary dominated the Democratic in the sources he studied 64:36: The tilt was such that Clinton got barely more coverage than Cruz. Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. He received only two-thirds as much coverage as Clinton Later, he says, concerning the positive or negative quality of that sparse coverage: The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage. That candidate was Clinton Earlier when presenting the same figures I demonstrated the significant difference with above, he says: In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided, with Clinton getting 61 percent of the coverage to Sanders’ 39 percent. Would you consider self-reverting, or do you prefer that the article have an NPOV tag and a failed verification tag because of your desire to talk about "battles"? We've already talked about my role in exposing Sagecandor on this page, that's done. You're welcome. 🌿 SashiRolls 21:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

NPOV & failed verification tags

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

fixed. 🌿 SashiRolls 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Know WP:SELF

Since MrX doesn't want me painting any impressionistic rainbows, I won't suggest that we include WMF data for page views on Bernie Sanders & Hilary Clinton for July 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016. Still... is WMFLabs a secondary source as regards en.wp? ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls 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 20:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's hard for me to understand how anyone would complain that the academic commentary should not be divided into its own section. I did read that section while I could barely skim the other due to LITMTR (or whatever its called, something like lost interest too much to read). Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. As far as I'm aware, nobody is saying that academic commentary should not be divided into its own section. I also agree that an introduction to the 2016 section of the page would be helpful before getting into the details. Unfortunately, putting things together by theme/outlet (Washington Post, Brock, NYT, "media blackout", etc.) is unlikely to gain consensus, so a timeline seemed to me like the best way to organize the info. Again, the main problem with the "academic analyses" part of this article two weeks ago was that it misrepresented the Shorenstein Center study (cf. how the original authors presented the study, & how it was rewritten (3rd paragraph) on December 26th). If there is consensus to move "academic analyses" ahead of "timeline", that's fine. But until now, there has been no discussion about that. 🌿 SashiRolls 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Hopefully I won't say too many more dumb things as I once again get back into the grove here at a Sanders article. Yes, I agree with everything you say here. I'd say academic analyses should be first. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls is against placing the academic analyses section first. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I was thinking that as we continue to work with the article we may be drawing from the Timeline section, both paring it down some and adding more smaller units of information elsewhere. Actually I have not even had time to read the entire thing yet as I am busy with reading related to a few other articles. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate info

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an absurd interpretation of the controversy. Make a greater effort to stay true to the spirit of WP NPOV, WMSR. CNN's Anderson Cooper himself reminded the audience that there is no proof on either side - that this is a he said/she said situation; there is no verification here, only regurgitation of rumors.
In addition, both Shaun King and the Washington Post found sources that failed to endorse the version provided by Warren's campaign.
As for Warren's credibility, it has been questioned for years by Native American activists; the media, too, has been documenting Warren's alleged tendency to fib for years, as seen in the stories below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/join-my-tribe-elizabeth-warren/2018/10/16/3fb0867e-d181-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/even-warrens-cherokee-family-recipes-fakes-copied-french-chef/
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/11/24/warrens-fib-on-sons-private-school-part-of-a-pattern/
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/elizabeth-warrens-troubling-relationship-with-the-truth/
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/the-credibility-gap
Sanders, on the other hand, has a much stronger reputation for respecting the truth, according to polling data. He consistently ranks first among Democratic candidates for honesty and trustworthiness. Rafe87 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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

how's about you indenting here the way that the rest of us do Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Because I'm responding to OP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: Jess McIntosh is that you? Following the debate, McIntosh said the exact same thing as you, "It is verified" and Anderson Cooper right there on the pot said it wasn't verified because it is a "He said, She said" situation. It isn't verified. That is besides the point. It is the clear discussion that CNN violated ethical standards by ignoring Sanders' rebuff of the claim and followed up by asking Warren what she felt when he said it. To the point, even the audience thought that was a loaded question. There are several articles floating around discussing this very problem along with shows that have covered it. My statements don't have to conform to NPOV, the article does.--WillC 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN violated ethical standards Come on. Journalists press for information all the time. CNN felt that they had enough information to corroborate Warren's story despite Sanders's denial. I'm not saying that CNN necessarily made the right move, but I am saying that this isn't a one-sided debate. There are two legitimate points of view here that ought to have equal weight. --WMSR (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, yet you claimed CNN verified something that can't be verified. It can only be alleged. Journalists press for information but this wasn't that. This was the ex Clinton Communications Director on air saying something wasn't a he said she said but was a verified fact to only have the host at said time say she was completely wrong. That's a violation of ethical standards itself. It was also a moderator asking a question as if something was a fact and not alleged. Ethically, that is like asking someone "How do you feel about vaccines causing autism?" after someone said they didn't.--WillC 09:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A Rhetoric of Divisive Partnership

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

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

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

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

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

And that conclusion of her study is on... page 6 7, right? Could we have a link to her en.wp page, please? some other sort of sign that she is an important scholar? Thanks. I haven't found much with google for the moment, but will continue to look, if you'd like. 🌿 SashiRolls 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

It appears she has some previous pubs from Praeger press, now available in ebook form through Amazon and that she regularly works with Lexington Books an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. I'm not sure if that's a top-tier academic publisher or not. Perhaps that will be discussed in the RS/N thread you opened shortly after responding here, apparently without listening to the complaint about the repetitive nature of what was being cited.🌿 SashiRolls 17:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm tending to feel it should be included. As for the "repetative" problem, where's the problem? So-called experts frequently come to very different conclusions. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the verbatim quote: "The Harvard analysis reveals that Sanders was right in his critique and also wrong." This is really a literature survey not independent analysis, but I don't wish to argue. I'd like to see something more related to Kelley's own analysis, as she makes some much more interesting claims in her book: e.g. citing Sanders: We concluded that ... in terms of media coverage you had to run within the Democratic party. source 🌿 SashiRolls 18:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I'd agree that that sentence does not say much of anything. Do you have any other suggestions? I've not really looked into this article much but I spent hundreds of hours on our earlier articles and it was my impression that for whatever reasons the media pretty much ignored Bernie. I remember that after one debate that while Sanders' rallies were drawing more people than any other candidate, CNN commented on say five of the other candidates but not even one word on Sanders. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC) ...Reading your edit, well now that is something new (though I don't agree with it, which is, of course, of no concern for us here ...). Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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 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 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 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):

The current lead:

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

1. ^ John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 99, 104–107. ISBN 978-0-691-17419-8. Archived from the original on November 14, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
2. ^ Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle, archived from the original on November 27, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
3. Thomas E. Patterson (July 11, 2016), News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences, retrieved January 3, 2020, The press did not heavily cover the candidates' policy positions, their personal and leadership characteristics, their private and public histories, background information on election issues, or group commitments for and by the candidates. Such topics accounted for roughly a tenth of the primary coverage.
4. ^ Bitecofer, Rachel (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38, 48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
5. ^ Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump's Rise, Sanders' Emergence, Clinton's Struggle, archived from the original on November 27, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
6. Colleen Elizabeth Kelly (February 19, 2018), A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, pp. 6–7, ISBN 978-1-4985-6458-8
7. ^ Sides, John (2015). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really".
8. ^ "How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data". Nieman Lab. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
9. Nikolas Decosta-Klipa (June 14, 2016). "This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media". Boston Globe. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
10. Thomas E. Patterson (July 11, 2016), News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences, retrieved January 3, 2020, The press did not heavily cover the candidates' policy positions, their personal and leadership characteristics, their private and public histories, background information on election issues, or group commitments for and by the candidates. Such topics accounted for roughly a tenth of the primary coverage.
11. "Bernie Sanders: "I Was Stunned" by Corporate Media Blackout During Democratic Primary". Democracy Now!. November 29, 2016.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 14:10, 18 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

1. Evan Halper (December 12, 2019). "No #Bernieblackout here: Sanders rides a surge of alternative media". Los Angeles Times.
2. Connor Kilpatrick (December 2019). "Krystal Ball Is the Anti–Rachel Maddow Bernie Fans Have Been Waiting For". Jacobin.

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 12:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Gladstone Cartoon on political handicapping

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 23:56, 21 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. Twenty minutes later, the content was restored. 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. Ten minutes later, the content was restored.

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.🌿 SashiRolls 00:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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. 🌿 SashiRolls 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class Media articles
• Low-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class logic articles
• Low-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles