Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders/Archive 5

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

1RR Reminder
, please revert your most recent edit, as it violates the 1RR restriction on this page. --WMSR (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you explain why this statement of fact is not sufficiently corroborated by a Rolling Stone columnist when the same source is used for several other parts of the article? If you have an issue with all of them, that is the purpose of the AfD.
 * , can you suggest a wording for the AM Joy segment that avoids whatever problems you were hinting at earlier today? The fact that you can pull this on MSNBC and not be fired hasn't generated the 1,000 articles I might've hoped for. But it clearly generated a notable backlash that fits in nicely with the paragraph that already covers the Warren-Sanders dispute. Connor Behan (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't. That source (and also Common Dreams) really shouldn't be anywhere in the article. I will say that the facts presented are WP:UNDUE, as the purpose of this article is not to list and dissect every time Sanders received negative coverage. Including content from op-eds, even if attributed, is problematic, because they are more likely to point out negative coverage as opposed to neutral or positive coverage. --WMSR (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you "can't [sic]" explain why my source is not sufficient, then it should go back. Grammar aside, I am clearly not trying to add every piece of negative coverage. But I am trying to add this one because (1) Sanders took the rare step of demanding an apology regarding it, (2) it's sourced to an author already used in this article, (3) it fits the topic of a paragraph we already have and (4) any reasonable person can see that it's blatantly dishonest... the kind of stuff you find on RT. Your claim that we shouldn't use WP:BIASED sources is not the usual standard. For many contentious topics, the most reliable sources are also biased. We satisfy neutrality by using a wide range of them that represent all non-WP:FRINGE points of view. Connor Behan (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't was in response to your question (can you explain why this statement of fact is not sufficiently corroborated by a Rolling Stone columnist when the same source is used for several other parts of the article?). As I stated in my answer, the reason I can't justify its inclusion there is because I can't justify it anywhere in this article. It is true that WP:BIASED states, Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject, but this is only true when multiple points of view are expressed in an article. That is not the case here. You said yourself that We satisfy neutrality by using a wide range of them that represent all non-WP:FRINGE points of view, yet every partisan source cited in this article is advocating the same POV. --WMSR (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the point of view defending the media is barely represented here outside the academic sources. Sources that could help change this are a Washington Post article which calls Bernie's critique bogus and a Guardian article which asks if it's Trumpian. Are there other sources along these lines that have been pushed out? The disputes that appear most active right now focus on a Clinton Super PAC which has little to do with the topic of media bias or lack thereof. Connor Behan (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I admire your desire to compromise, but the answer to the issue of putting too much weight on opinion from one side is not to add more opinion from the other side. That would create an argument to moderation, which we should absolutely avoid. We should be relying on facts, not opinions, in this article. --WMSR (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about facts that are most heavily discussed in opinionated sources. And in this case, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE do require us to balance one side with the other. Tired proseline like "X said Sanders was right, Y said Sanders was wrong" would not help the article but there are a lot of things that would.
 * Joy Reid interviewing a guest who claimed she could "read" Sanders" is a fact.
 * Sanders being asked about wealth inequality at least five times in 2016 and then ignoring or forgetting about this is a fact.
 * Sanders referring to a political journalist as a "gossip columnist" early in his career is a fact.
 * Sanders still using Amazon platforms despite his criticism of Bezos and his holdings is a fact.
 * There's also some statement about him pranking CBS and AP which I had trouble parsing. If the AfD results in "keep" again, I think this is the best direction for this article to take. From the history I've seen, there have been relatively few attempts to improve the neutrality of this article through additions rather than deletions. Connor Behan (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All of your points are true, but very little of that has to do with media coverage of Sanders. The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media, nor is it about his criticisms of Amazon. Turning the article into a WP:COATRACK won't really help either. If the Reid incident wasn't notable enough to be covered anywhere besides opinionated sources, I would argue that it's not notable enough to be covered here either. --WMSR (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You say, "The article isn't about Sanders's responses to questions posed by members of the media, nor is it about his views of the media..." So you are saying that the article should not cover his responces?  Why is that?  Gandydancer (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Because this article should not be a WP:COATRACK. It is, at least nominally, about how the media covers Sanders. Nothing more. A sentence about his responses may be appropriate if his response to specific media coverage was notable, but that should not be the focus of the article. The example above does not satisfy that criterion. --WMSR (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an essay and not a very good one at that. There is no good reason to not include Sanders' replies to what has been written about him if it has a RS.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That essay is widely cited on this project, and itself cites policy. Regardless, WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP, also apply here. --WMSR (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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


 * Reply -- You're welcome to comment anyway, but it's not really a vote. ~Awilley (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't care too much: It tends to keep pages shorter, but is as open to abuse as all rules (as a general rule, it makes tag-team inclusion difficult, but facilitates tag-team deletion). 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The 24hr BRD rule was suggested for the article, not the talk page. --WMSR (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For it to be valid it is supposed to be included in the TP header. The mass revert Snoog effected was a revert of a lede change that has stood ever since with two or three modifications (one responding to his one legitimate (and quickly fixed) concern about "political handicapping").  Reverting any change to the lede allowing the title to be in the first line would have been possible with this BRD.  Rewriting (substantially to respond to specific complaints) is a legitimate reaction to a reversion on a 24h BRD page.   🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 22:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? --WMSR (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Template:American politics AE. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 23:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest renaming this thread to be more clear then? --WMSR (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


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

Please answer SashiRolls question. It's completely legitimate.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

,, etc. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This was not a media action. It was a DNC action. She was also a contributor to CNN and was terminated when this was discovered. She now is a Fox contributor. This is not relevant to media coverage of Sanders. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misclick, I did not mean to revert your comment, I meant to reply. I wonder why you think that it would be "nothingburgerish" for CNN to be employing an operative who was sent debate questions which she only released to the Clinton campaign?  This should be added to a section on DNC control over media debates and townhalls, IMO. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * She did not "only" release debate questions. She was a panelist, as she is now on Fox. She did not do this at the behest of CNN. She did it in her role at the DNC. And shame on her. But, CNN fired her when they found out. To suggest CNN purposely employed someone to release debate questions is devoid of evidence. O3000 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strawman alert: I did not say CNN purposely employed someone to release debate (sic) questions.  I said that CNN employed a DNC operative (who apparently was sent questions by Roland Martin ).  Again, structural bias... --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, actually you did. I wonder why you think that it is normal that CNN is employing an operative who was sent debate questions which she only released to the Clinton campaign? But you edited it out while I was responding. As for "structural bias", that belongs elsewhere as any such bias was in the DNC, not the media. There is no evidence that CNN played any role in this entire affair. O3000 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


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


 * As I alluded to in my Delete vote, a great deal of discussion of the Bernie Blackout, remember that is what this article was supposed to be about, entails the bubble of corporatists these journalists are surrounded by at places like CNN and anywhere in Washington DC. The opinions of these theoretically well meaning journalists are easily swayed by the barrage of people with an agenda.  It is an unconscious reflex from that environment to assume, Bernie can't win so lets move on to who else will replace him.  And that is what is conveyed in their coverage.  The perpetrators behind this message might have malisciious intent, Brazille included in that, but front line journalists, possibly even the management who hired Brazille, might not even be aware of the inherent bias of their decisions and words. Trackinfo (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sashi, I made my point. I see no reason to continue discussion with you since you are now falsely claiming I'm being "tendentious". Not unlike your recent accusation that I was tag-teaming you and you reverted my defense to the accusation. You need to learn to discuss instead of lashing out when you can't find a good response. O3000 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:FOC -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You really need to read FOC instead of continually violating it and then using it against others. Have a good debate. O3000 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been an extremely difficult article to get to know and since reading what Trackinfo says here and at the delete article I am gradually beginning to understand why. As best as I can understand Objective seems to be correct here about Brazille,  though I so often feel like I'm sitting in on the impeachment debate, which I've had going on in the background (and is making me feel sick...).  Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, I'm glad I could bring some clarity for you, others have thanked me too. This subject, from the Democratic side, is part of a big picture problem that pre-shadowed the corruption of Trump.  Operatives favorable to the results do not want the stain of their complicity included in history.  Many progressives believe Bernie would have won, an article Articles for deletion/Bernie would have won about it was deleted by this crowd.  The Bernie blackout . . . media bias reflected in the "before" version of this article, the admitted DNC corruption to fix debate scheduling and content (Brazille), actual election tampering and the systematic, pro-establishment corruption of Superdelegates robbed voters of a populist candidate and instead forced in an un-popular candidate that was almost as corrupt and un-popular as the Republican's candidate.  It caused Voter apathy which essentially is what elected Trump in the first place.  Whether any of you agree with or are willing to admit to understanding this, millions of people have this opinion.  They feel robbed by the DNC establishment in 2016 and expect an encore, already in progress in 2020.  Wikipedia's failure to cover this subject fairly, the seizure of this article, deletion of others, propaganda insertion into others.  And if these operatives are not able to delete the articles, they are inserting slime to discredit the subjects and the new media figures who have been and are reporting these stories.  They are all related.  Its a big problem for wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As O3000 said, this has nothing to do with media coverage of Sanders and, as such, should not be included here. If it is not there already, perhaps it would fit better in 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums or Donna Brazile. --WMSR (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Donna Brazile incident is outside of the scope of this article. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Should this page be in the category "criticism of journalism"?-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a coach complaining about the referees or press. And please stop interspersing your comments about editors with demands that others FOC. O3000 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because this is a primary partisan source, which is exactly what this article does not need more of. And good on you for filing a report in the proper place. This is not the proper place to complain about other users' conduct, as you have repeatedly pointed out here. --WMSR (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still not learning. Stop talking about other editors.  As it is you have ownership issues with this article as evidenced on this talk page and your need to respond to every comment in the RfD.  And no comment from Sanders' Campaign should be used.  It's simple, they are a biased source.  Slywriter (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for teaching me that your point of view is that the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page should not contain any actual media coverage of Bernie Sanders' campaign. I feel so much wiser now! Nobody has answered the question about whether the "Category: Criticism of Journalism" should be included. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 13:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you make one edit without being snide? No, it doesn't belong. It's someone whining about the press not giving them enough coverage. Just like a coach whining that the refs aren't fair. O3000 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You said that already. Could you tell me explain why the category "Criticism of journalism" was removed, please?  Do you agree with that removal? I see that both Reliable Sources (the source cited above) and Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner are in that category. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 13:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's like playing the ref in the hope that they will rule in your favor next time. Like a football player that fakes a serious foul. An extremely common tactic. It doesn't mean anything coming from the supposed aggrieved as everyone does it. As for other entries, that's WP:OTHERCONTENT. I don't have an opinion on whether they belong. O3000 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I weaned myself from watching or participating in competitive sports years ago, Obj. I do not think competitive games are the way that we should be modeling our thinking on the writing of this encyclopedic entry. What we have above is a CNN program, whose stated goal is to analyze US media, asking Faiz Shakir what the media should be asking him but is not.  His answer, replaced here, is admittedly a bit of mise-en-abyme:  ask not about the Trumpeter's tweets, but about those tasked with enforcing the rules. It is fascinating how that "criticism of journalism" category page is riddled with folks from Comedy Central.   If I could put on my slavophile "we don't need no stinking articles" mask for just a moment I would tell: it's also all about US.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 14:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The content does not belong because it is primarily sourced, it is the non-noteworthy opinion of the subject's proxy, and it lacks independent analysis. Obviously this content is WP:UNDUE absent sufficient third party coverage. - MrX 🖋 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a secondary source (@ = 1:45) already in the "sources cited" section of the en.wp entry providing independent analysis, suggesting that that opinion expressed was not quite as non-noteworthy as you state. Unless Grim / The Intercept work for Sanders, which I've not seen alleged yet.  Reminder:  obviously means "in my opinion". --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @ = 1:45, he claims that big pharma is basically controlling coverage and one example of a drug ad is given as evidence. O3000 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Reminder: basically means "which I am going to summarize as follows:". It is a sentence adverb so it can be placed anywhere in the sentence.


 * That said, I stupidly tried to verify the claim, which is what led me to the original video in the first place, but of course there's no ads posted after video segments. One does feel there's a bit of cutting and splicing going on in that video... with that much, I agree. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 19:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Debate
I cleaned up content from the 2020 section about the January debate, as the last paragraph was just repeated assertions that CNN was being unfair. That point is still made, without rebuttal, but reverted my edit. My edit was in good faith and, at very least, moved that paragraph closer to compliance with WP:NPOV. My edit should be restored. --WMSR (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Paragraph is an awesome use of sources to create POV especially the use of a RS to claim relevance that Bernie supporters made a hashtag go "viral".  Look forward to every "viral" hashtag getting it's own Wikipedia immortality.  Slywriter (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that WMSR's changes were an improvement. That paragraph is unduly long. Both the "2016 primary campaign" and "2020 primary campaign" are written as blow-by-blow accounts of every minor and major event and controversy, and give far to much weight to coverage from the time. The goal should be a broad overview of events from secondary sources written after the fact. This is somewhat unavoidable in the 2020 section since it is a currently ongoing event, but Gandydancer's revert made the article worse. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. The wording "he said she said controversy" was changed to "Sanders allegedly told Warren" and then more than half of the section was removed and called a "clean up".  Considering that this entire article is supposed to be about the media's treatment of Sanders, I see no reason to make everything as brief as possible.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything that I removed had already been stated in the paragraph. There is no reason to list every single pundit and columnist who took issue with Phillip's question. I also defined the nature controversy, which the article now fails to do. --WMSR (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


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


 * I think I thanked WMSR for the changes. Even though the result was at least as POV as the original text (probably more), I do think this should be much shorter, unless/until more in-depth analyses are published.  I would probably chose the three best refs (Taibbi, Poynter, ...) that talk about the CNN manufactured controversy. (I didn't understand what grounds there were for deleting the Poynter Institute reference, however.  Perhaps WMSR will explain why they chose to delete that particular reference.) 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 18:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said before, there is no need to bludgeon the reader with different sources all saying the same thing. --WMSR (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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


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


 * I agree that the he-said she-said aspect is well-sourced to Taibbi citing CNN itself admitting that's what it was. It should not be deleted. I also think the Poynter ref should be kept (without the lambasting language). The Intercept article provides further analysis of a few other rhetorical tricks.  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is not a review of literature. The source needs to back up whatever is in the article. --WMSR (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comparing commentary by award-winning journalists, working for respected news sources, to Saturday morning cartoons? You're not serious.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate summary of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck
The editor SashiRolls has edit-warred this inaccurate summary of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck into the lead:


 * One book length study of the general election said that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the pre-primaries in 2015 was more or less consistent with his polling performance.

It's a study of the 2016 election, not just the general election. The book says that Sanders's media coverage exceeded his polling in 2015 (not that it was more or less consistent), but that it was strongly correlated over the course of the campaign. It's beyond me why an editor who does not have access to the book is edit-warring inaccurate descriptions of the book into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read and reread significant parts of the book and this is not entirely accurate. While looking for the original data source (Crimson Hexagon / Brandwatch) to read about their methodology straight from the source (no luck), I learned that Brandwatch has contracts with various governments and even managed to get kicked off of FB (though they were reinstated a month later).  Strange how there are no links to a published version of that study online.  It was absolutely massive and entirely automated.  As I said on the Bernie Sanders page, your "close correlation" (0.69) is pretty meaningless without saying whether Clinton's and Trump's were correlated to polls or not. (He does say Trump's was more closely correlated, for info.)--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My issue with this is that the lead is not for introducing novel content. The lead should summarize what is already in the article. Also "book length study" sounds awkward. - MrX 🖋 00:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, when that is done the Vox article about it should be added back to make clear that it was a social media analysis which determined the sample of "most retweeted" outlets. (As I've long maintained, this page needs to talk about social media and alternative media to properly cover the subject it sets out to treat.) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it should use RS, not "social media and alternative media". O3000 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BAIT . This type of deliberate misquoting is baiting behaviour. Obviously nobody is talking about sourcing the article to twitter.  What is interesting is that ultimately, the Princelyton study is based on a Twitter analysis of the most retweeted articles. :) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw your accusation of WP:BAIT ("Disruptive, agenda-driven, or disturbed editors"). Try, just once, to respond in a collaborative manner O3000 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm... I hadn't read the article recently (but am well aware of the concept and its general meaning). See also, "strawman" on this page. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥21:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This type of deliberate misquoting is baiting behavior. I did no such thing. Redact this. And stop editing my edits. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get involved in this, but this is a blatant aspersion, goes directly against the principle of AGF, and could probably be used as evidence in an ANI case against you. If I were you, I would try to focus on the content of the article rather than attacking editors that you disagree with. Jdcomix (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC) This user has never contributed to the entry and has only shown up here once after voting to strong delete the article and harassing me on my talk page. The essay on baiting behaviour says that those who bait "may mix in inaccurate information or misquote you to compel you to respond. They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon".  Both have happened repeatedly on this page.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Every editor is welcome to contribute to the talk page. --WMSR (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As amusing as this thread is, seems to come back to the same thing, one veteran editor thinks they own the article and it's talk page. That all edits must go through them. That all comments are subject to their review. That they have some right to call out editors and no one has a right to call out their actions. It's called WP:OWN and it's tiring.  This article gets 500 views a day. Barely worth the time and energy others are putting in to try and keep it neutral. Slywriter (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. You don't own the article, 2. One warning on your talk page does not harassment make. Jdcomix (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Different day, same deflection. Rules apply to all. You don't decide who it does and doesn't apply to. Again see WP:OWN Slywriter (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * While I suppose it is possible that the F.O in F.O.C stands for "fraternal order", I wouldn't bet on it, as that would not be very inclusive. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FOC? Really? You begin to lose credibility on that issue when nearly every single comment you have made on this talk page has been about other editors. --WMSR (talk) 00:31, 7 February 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 t ·  c 14:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


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


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


 * 3) The piece directly supports the claim that negative campaigns were led during the 2016 election.🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 15:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In one place, Brock wrote criticisms of Sanders. In another, Brock apologized for criticizing Sanders. That is it. That is the only relevance this article has to the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


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


 * I hesitate because, as Lessig said, they are stolen emails. I suppose a better pull quote from the article would be something more humble, like:  Throughout the campaign, good government groups also criticized Brock’s Correct the Record for trampling federal restrictions on campaign spending by asserting its right to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign. or During the Democratic primary, Brock declared that “black lives don’t matter to Bernie Sanders” and called on the septuagenarian Sanders to release his medical records in order to cast aspersions on his health.  This article also doesn't mention the three filings with the FEC mentioned by Wald-Seitz. Brock led a media campaign, MrX, Snoog; nobody serious really sees it any other way.  Media coverage is affected by media campaigns.  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 15:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The mere existence of Brock is not media bias against Sanders. The last line of your comment is the bizarre original research that you're trying to edit-war into the lead and other parts of the article: "a pro-Clinton advocacy group existed (sourced). That group caused media bias against Sanders (unsourced nonsense)." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


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


 * Huh? You hesitate to what? You hesitate to approach the subject more generally and from a more scholarly perspective becuase they are stolen emails??? Please help unconfuse me. - MrX 🖋 15:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked, Should we include the Podesta-Tanden correspondence? You said no. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 15:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, why do I get the feeling you two are following me around? Granted I pinged you at RSN MrX after you followed my recent contribs to Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. And I don't know why Snoog is getting involved over there. ^^ (1 2) 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 15:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's try to stick to discussing content only here. - MrX 🖋 16:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Brock's 3 FEC complaints
OK. Why did you delete

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


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


 * There is no mention of media bias against Sanders in that article. You seem to be suggesting that "sometimes are used more to generate news coverage than actual enforcement action." means that American Democracy Legal Fund was trying to drum up negative press about Sanders in 2016. If so, you need sources that say that unequivocally, not "sometimes are used". - MrX 🖋 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * lol. If you follow the links in the first paragraph of the article to the three complaints (conveniently marked complaint, another, and the third)... you will see that the AFDL deleted all three. It must not have gone that well, huh? :) Also, this is a page about media coverage, it says so right at the top of the page.  Let go of that old title ("media bias").  It is history (because the vast majority of people surveyed found that it was a bad title for an entry, and that further developments should strive to cover "media coverage".  It will remain history until there is another move proposal. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 23:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


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


 * You really shouldn't repeat claims that have been shown to be false. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True, false, favorite, underdog. This is exactly the problem with all these articles. Why is wikipedia recording anything other than a lawsuit was filed? The misuse of people's opinions presented as facts remains a staggering problem.  Tulsi can be judged when it's over. Same for the Media and Bernie.  Any attempt at 2020 is doomed to failure and violating NPOV. And balancing various POV is NOT NPOV. We are here to record the facts of humanity Slywriter (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * For 2016, les jeux sont faits. And Brock's filings in 2016 should be mentioned, lest we lose sight of the point of this section of the TP. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Consensus has not changed. This article is about media coverage, not litigation. --WMSR (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...except that they haven't, and this isn't about me. That I missed a detail does not change the fact that undue weight was/is given to the Time article. This page is not for discussion about the Gabbard article; if you take issue with my edits there, raise them on the appropriate page. --WMSR (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters
This sentence:
 * Media Matters, part of the Brock complex, 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 t ·  c 23:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This problematic material is still in article, in a slightly different form. - MrX 🖋 14:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Brock blames Sanders for Clinton's loss in NBC News, 3 Jan 2019
The repeated restorations of "Brock wrote an anti-Sanders op-ed in 2019" is a violation of WP:BRD and possibly the other editing restrictions on this article. Again, this op-ed has nothing to do with the topic: that someone wrote an anti-Sanders op-ed is not media bias against Sanders and it fails WP:DUE. The obsession with David Brock (which includes insinuations across multiple years that Wikipedia editors are working for Brock) and the attempts to turn this article into an article about him via edit-warring and over the objections of multiple editors needs to stop. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For those wondering what is/was actually written in mainspace: In January 2019, prior to his campaign announcement, David Brock criticized Sanders in NBC News for having given Trump talking points. 


 * 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is a new subject I've added an appropriate section title based on the first line of the essay you don't think is relevant. Your habit of casting of aspersions without evidence, as in the comment directly above, is, of course, a   major policy violation.  You have no evidence of what you claim. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 08:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The material needs to removed as WP:UNDUE. The heavy handed restoration of the material against the objections of at least two editors, and the apparent obsession with Brock, is very concerning. - MrX 🖋 16:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to Correct the Record, I have only ever made one edit (in Sept. 2016) to Mr. Brock's en.wp BLP or TP (in order to add a hatnote still present in the article today). 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 21:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snoogans and MrX. I also see no policy violations in Snoogans's comment. This is starting to get out of hand. The scope of this article is journalistic media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Lots of people have opinions that they express online or in advertising/social media or through PACs. None of that belongs in this article. WMSR (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, you have a consensus of three like-minded individuals. Do what you wish. Obviously I disagree concerning Brock's obsession with Sanders, but if you want to say that you think in good conscience that a political operative like David Brock having such free access to NBC News in order to say he "blames Hillary Clinton's defeat" on Bernie Sanders is not noteworthy,  it is difficult to argue with you given the current situation at NBC News...  (I do think it's funny he used the same word ("poisonous") that was used in the Jan 2017 to describe his methods.)
 * Regardless, the claims made by Snoog above are not policy compliant: feel free to reread WP:ASPERSIONS concerning evidence-less claims. And saying an editor is "obsessed" is just a little poisonous, too. But I'm used to MrX and Snoog's methods.  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 18:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanders's campaign manager is regularly on CNN. That is not evidence of a CNN bias in favor of Sanders, it's just CNN interviewing a primary source. If Sanders's CM worked for CNN, that would be a major problem, but that isn't the case. In terms of Brock having "free access" to NBC, nobody got more free media coverage during the 2016 election than the current president, who regularly took advantage of this coverage to attack Hillary Clinton. Yet there is no page on "Media coverage of Hillary Clinton" because it isn't notable; "the media" weren't the ones constantly portraying Clinton negatively, it was Trump and his campaign surrogates, which was exacerbated by the media's disproportionate coverage of—not bias toward—Trump. And all of that information either falls within the purview of her 2016 campaign page or the election page. For that reason, I'm still not convinced this page meets notability guidelines, but I especially don't see a single talking head as having as much influence or notability as you have repeatedly claimed he does. This article does not exist to make an argument, it exists to present notable and well-sourced facts. --WMSR (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  I've always seen then Weaver & now Shakir identified in those interviews as Sanders' campaign manager (usually both visually and orally, before he starts and often while he is speaking).  NBC News does not explicitly identify Brock as being associated with Clinton at all in this article.  (Granted, Brock himself does (towards the end), but NBC News does not, prefering to say: David Brock is the author of five political books, including Killing the Messenger (Hachette, 2015) and Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (Crown, March 2002). He founded Media Matters for America in 2004 and then American Bridge 21st Century in 2011. source )
 * 2) According to Patterson, Clinton received extensive negative media coverage except during the period March 15th-May 3rd. So, contrary to what you assert, she did, in fact, get a lot of what used to be called "bad press".
 * 3) I remain agnostic as to where all this stuff should end up.  As I suggested in the move discussion, Media coverage of Democratic presidential primaries (2000-2020) would be a good place to put coverage of Democratic presidential primaries. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But once again, you're now moving into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. And I didn't assert that coverage of Clinton wasn't negative, rather that it wasn't biased. Regardless, I remain unconvinced that any of this is notable enough for its own article; the lede plus sources could be moved to a section in the Sanders article and we could call it a day. Sanders's claims of bias would make much more sense there, where he is the subject, than here, where the subject is the media's coverage of him. --WMSR (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


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

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

quote: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&type=revision&diff=935476899&oldid=935475978 I'm challenging this content. The book has no such chapter. Something is fishy here...]

psst MrX: look!

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


 * I have restored the reference as there was nothing fishy about the sourcing.🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , There was no discussion here, let alone consensus to restore that content. Frankly, I did not even notice that you had posted here since you did not start this thread at the bottom of the page. I understand that you have your own opinions and beliefs regarding the content of this article, but please leave that behind when editing this page. I am also asking you to revert your re-addition of the content you mentioned here per WP:BRD. I am getting worn out responding to your constant additions of POV content, and I imagine other editors are as well. Please try to look at this issue objectively. Best, WMSR (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, go ahead and revert the content if you wish. I think it should stand, it is well sourced and due description of issues surrounding media coverage.  (There's more WP:V stuff in Weaver for those who want to dig.)  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot revert it because of 1RR. And the fact that you're digging for more information that fits your POV speaks volumes. --WMSR (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


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


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

Question about CTR's deleted matter @ the Wayback Machine
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 t ·  c 21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm lost. What are you arguing here? --WMSR (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * This was deleted about a week ago now without any comment being added to the discussion which has been open for nearly a month. I wonder how that happened.  Here's another article from the LA Times that consults quite a few media experts (people with advanced degrees in communications) on the question.  There's also quite a bit about the interaction with Sanders' supporters in the (social) media. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This article is not about Brock or Clinton, and "media coverage" does not include individuals on social media. --WMSR (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I would have thought that two articles and a press release mentioned in the press, all of which referring to Sanders and his supporters, would have been part of the "media coverage" of Bernie Sanders.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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


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

Poisonous Politics
Edit summary: this has nothing to do with media bias against Sanders. one editor has repeatedly edit-warred this into the article over the objections of other editors. diff

Fact-check: False.

The live search showing it has never been deleted before at WikiBlame.

The material has been in the article since I added it on January 5th, 2020. Nobody had ever reverted it, until the diff above. MrX challenged it as WP:SYNTH in the location where it was originally located, so I moved it (MrX may have too, I'm not sure, I'd have to check), but it has never been outright reverted.

I will restore the reference to the article for the claims that it verifies. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's virtually the same irrelevant David Brock content that you've repeatedly edit-warred into the article: On 31 Dec, SR adds content. Reverted on 4 Jan. Restored 10 hrs later (with the edit summary “discuss on TP”) Reverted by a second editor on 6 Jan. Restored two hours later.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You and that other editor were not edit-warring? Hm... this page was under a bare 1RR, which I scrupulously respected (or someone would've b& me, as you know).  It's not at all the same content.  One is an article by Borosage written in Jan. 2017 when Brock was courting investors / apologizing to Bernie.  What you link to is Brock's January 2019 letter to NBCNews in which he borrows the word "poisonous" from Borosage to describe Sanders potential supporters should Sanders announce his intention to run in the coming days.  So, no, it's not virtually the same content about David Brock (Borosage, 2017 versus Brock, 2019), except insofar as it contains the same word, this time used by Brock hisself. Here are the diffs again that prove this beyond any reasonable doubt:


 * You removed weaponize information (live search) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I originally added the reference at 17:17 5 January 2020, MrX tagged the initial wikitext accompanying it as synth so I fixed that and moved it at 00:14 6 January 2020 to where it sat unmolested until 15:43 4 February 2020.  No edit-warring.  False is false. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Some recent articles on the primaries have been discussing media bias against Sanders
—Rafe87 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The media keep falling in love — with anybody but Bernie Sanders (Washington Post)
 * MSNBC's Chuck Todd uses 'journalistic sleights of hand' to insult Trump, Sanders voters, critics say (Fox News)
 * MSNBC's Chuck Todd under fire for reciting quote comparing Sanders supporters to Nazis (Salon)
 * CNN Has It In for Bernie (The Nation)
 * Media Stupidity Is Uniting Left and Right (Rolling Stone)
 * and this is a new one from yesterday --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Scrub Wisconsin? Scrub New York?
This revert is not encyclopedic, though I do not object to removing the humor ("agree with each other"). In fact, rereading more closely, they really don't say much the same thing at all (as was originally suggested when I got to the prose, as I recall). This revert was not encyclopedic because it removes the context explicitly included in both articles: Wisconsin and New York. Feel free to see the footnotes for reference to Wisconsin and click on the links to verify that both talk (one at length) about New York (specifically the New York Daily News interview -- scrubbed Juan Gonzalez's comments about the same thing from the en.wp entry a few days ago with an edit summary that is worthy of careful study.

.

The amusing formulation ("agreed with each other") should not be restored, the two primaries mentioned should be. I think I'll add that Klein agreed with Grim and Gonazalez's assessment of the coverage of the NY Daily News interviews. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I was pinged. I don't really have an opinion about the content in dispute beyond not understanding how a revert can be unencyclopedic. My edit from a few days ago was a substantial improvement and the edit summary perfectly explains why. - MrX 🖋 23:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You were pinged because I spoke about you removing reliably sourced material with no good reason. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My reasons were good & plenty. Democracy Now! is a partisan source. Citing it twice is twice as bad. The New York Daily News "is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism." - MrX 🖋 00:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Daily News has won multiple Pulitzers, most recently in 2017.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why are all 3 of these sources talking about a great swell of journalistic accounts of their interview with Sanders? Insofar as it was so widely discussed as a "bungling", we should include the first ref from DN, Grim & Klein who all agree on the fact that this assessment was inaccurate (with Grim pointing out Daily News' factual errors in their questions, for example).--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·      🍥 00:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the Grim reference if someone else wants to write up the Wisconsin - New York period Snoog & MrX want deleted. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wisconsin primary and the upcoming NY primary are not particularly pertinent to the point they're making about media bias, which is that the media exaggerated how close the race was at a time when Sanders was becoming increasingly unlikely to actually win the race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not what the sources say. Reread Klein.  Yes, he starts the section on bias for Sanders with a paragraph saying that positive stories on him did very well on social media and so there was a temptation to write them, because that was what people liked reading.  He does not say that the press after Wisconsin was positive, he says the headlines sometimes were but that the articles were not (in the 3 paragraphs on Wisconsin of 28 full paragraphs in the article). It continues with a paragraph saying that the press were biased to believe that Sanders, unlike Clinton, was likely being honest.
 * Much more substantially,  he then turns to the Washington Post, Atlantic, Clinton narrative on the NY Daily News interview, which he agrees was a false representation of the transcript.  He spends 8 paragraphs on this subject.  To represent his views fairly one would not focus on 3 paragraphs (that are more nuanced than your text) and completely ignore the vast majority of the article, which talks about other matters.
 * One example which echoes with Patterson's criticism of the press ignoring Sanders in the early part of the campaign: "because Sanders had never shown much ability to mobilize supporters during his time in Congress, the press missed how good he would be at it when he began running for president, and so didn't take his challenge seriously enough at the outset."
 * I'll fix the misrepresentation when I have time unless someone else does it before I have time. Finally, if you wish to show "good faith" you are welcome to apologize for the demonstrably false accusation directed at me in your edit summary about "The Poisonous Politics of David Brock".  Show us (again) how you roll, Snoog!  It's easy to write false statements, it takes no time at all.  Digging up the truth takes time, and I'm afraid I'll be late for work now, if I don't hurry... --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 06:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a great deal of conjecture and opinion and opinions of opinions here. We'er not here to "dig up the truth." O3000 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Obj. There is very much a truth about what an article is about primarily, and whether someone has been edit warring.  Here the "digging" I'm referring to is reading the article and seeing what it says (and proving with wikiblame that Snoog was not telling the truth).  Feel free to try it, rather than making comments vacated of any substance... :) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the contradiction in attacking editors and then accusing them of making attacks? O3000 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not the one who has been lied about repeatedly on this page, Obj. Drop the stick. Comment only on comment content from now on, please, as those above you have all done.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 20:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it irony to remove someone's comment telling you not to make personal attacks as a personal attack while making a personal attack?  G M G  talk  20:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that any editor has lied about any other editor here. --WMSR (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Snoogans was right: no accusations of misconduct by him have been proven. You changed the content slightly when you re-added it. I'm also not sure why you're bringing that up in a totally unrelated discussion with a different editor. That said, if you are really as concerned as you claim to be about personal attacks, I strongly suggest removing the end of your post above. O3000 shouldn't have said what he did, but your behavior here is admittedly making civility quite difficult. Responding to editors acting in good faith with sarcasm, as you did above, is unacceptable. --WMSR (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see the first attack was the accusation against Sashi for "edit warring" in certain content. But really everybody here should get the personal issues off of this page and into AN/I, presuming there are any real issues.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting back to the content, opinions are notable when they come from notable people in notable publications. Juan Gonzalez is a two time winner of the George Polk Award who writes for the award-winning NY Daily News. His testimony is significant and I'm restoring it.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The text you wrote inaccurately characterized him as areporter. Furthermore, his testimony was plucked out of a TV show transcript. Additionally, the text was confusingly written: the gist of what Gonzalez is saying is that he personally disagrees that Sanders performed poorly in an interview and that the Clinton campaign is at fault for the media criticizing his debate performance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll work on this this weekend if it hasn't been restored by then. Gonzalez is a member of the editorial board, and as stated in the transcript, was reporting on the opinions of his fellow editorial board members. Unfortunately the little time I had yesterday for en.wp was consumed with defense against false witness being borne against me and with the misrepresentation of a Vox article discussing the NYDN interview in 8 paragraphs. One does wonder why this entry is so important to the "no there there" folks. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't even use editorials -- much less someone discussing not-in-print opinions of editorial board members. And you are sarcastically attacking other editors yet again. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"We don't even use editorials" What you mean is you don't use editorials. I didn't elect you to speak for me. Editorials are media, television is media, and attributed opinions are different from Wiki-voice.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Saturday morning cartoons are media. Black Sabbath albums are media. The Onion is media. What exactly is meant by the word in this article? And what do you mean by "print is dead" in your edit summary? O3000 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're comparing commentary by award-winning journalists, working for respected news sources, to Saturday morning cartoons? You're not serious.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. Firstly, I was directly responding to your statement about what media is. Secondly, you are referring to a transcript of a TV interview on DemocracyNow containing hearsay about opinions editorial board members of the NY Daily News expressed in private. Lastly, I don’t see what this has to do with this article. Looks like it’s just an attack against the NYDN editorial board and Hillary Clinton, perhaps deserved, perhaps not. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're comparing commentary by award-winning journalists, working for respected news sources, to Saturday morning cartoons? You're not serious.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. Firstly, I was directly responding to your statement about what media is. Secondly, you are referring to a transcript of a TV interview on DemocracyNow containing hearsay about opinions editorial board members of the NY Daily News expressed in private. Lastly, I don’t see what this has to do with this article. Looks like it’s just an attack against the NYDN editorial board and Hillary Clinton, perhaps deserved, perhaps not. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speaking of hearsay, before you click, how many Google results do you think the Google query "site:washingtonpost.com" "according to sources familiar with" will retrieve? (Keep in mind this is just the WaPo itself, not those citing it...) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is an issue with the reliability of The Washington Post, that belongs here, not on this page. --WMSR (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

New proposal on Wisconsin / New York
I have listened to the criticism made by Snoogans and have changed the word "reported" to "said". I have also given a more faithful representation of one of the two biases that Klein identifies but had not been mentioned at all in the summary of his piece. (NB: I didn't feel the need to mention the other as he simply quoted Yglesias, but I have no objections if someone wants to say he quoted his fellow Vox columnist or to add that he said journalists generally liked Sanders and found him more "authentic" or worthy of "trust" than Clinton or Cruz)  Listening to MrX I removed one DN! ref, and added HuffPost & the Vox article. I was unable to discern any content contributions from any of those who have been recently dominating the talk page discussion (after voting delete in the AfD). -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "proposal"? You just added a pile of opinion with no consensus. And you just added more nasty comments here. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've had time to read the 3 articles in 11 minutes. Here's an excerpt from Grim for you: This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong..  Facts matter, obj. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, why does the WaPo call Chris Cillizza a reporter (This New York Daily News interview was pretty close to a disaster for Bernie Sanders) when this is obviously an op-ed on the "fix is in" blog? :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Content- Klein article is cherry picked to highlight one negative quote out of an article that paints the media as pro bernie or half and half but certainly not anti. Grim article is one man's opinion that the editorial board shouldn't hold a presidential candidate to the same standards as a president.
 * And delete still remains the best way of maybe seeing a coherent article emerge or at least stopping Wikipedia from hosting biased content. And calling for Deletion doesn't remove my right to defend NPOV and stop overzealous editors from editwarring and badgering an article to the way they want it :)
 * Slywriter (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is obviously impossible to contribute to this entry as it has been taken over by Snoogans, MrX, WSMR, O3000 & Slywriter. Cf.  WP:OWN  Material has been actively distorted:  the single subject to which Klein devotes the most space (8 paragraphs) in his Vox article is the April 4th New York Daily News interview and the mainstream press reaction to it.  Like Grim in the Huffington Post (also deleted by WSMR as a "dubious" source) Klein says: the reason the interview was treated as such a disaster for Sanders is that many in the media already believed what the interview purported to show about Sanders — that he's a single-issue candidate who doesn't even know his single issue all that well.) I did not quote this, as he is just paraphrasing Grim; however, the false claim of cherry-picking made by Slywriter above is not borne out by a volumetric analysis of the Klein article.
 * Below is the text that has been deleted by WSMR:


 * -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Further information on the furor raised by Clinton surrogates: Here is Bloomberg (named for a billionaire running to prevent Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2020), The Atlantic citing two of the error-containing questions Grim identified, WaPo 1 (Capeheart), WaPo2 (Cillizza), Slate (cites Clinton surrogates on Twitter), CNN (cites Clinton)
 * NB: the date of the interview has been updated in the text above (April 1), April 4th was the transcript publication date. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are now claiming that this article: has been taken over by Snoogans, MrX, WSMR, O3000 & Slywriter. Cf. WP:OWN. This is an amazing statement. You are claiming that since five editors disagree with your actions here, they (not you) have taken ownership. Think about that. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Given my small number of edits and particularly reverts, it's a baseless statement. So I'll just embrace the Wikipedia way and encourage others to disregard statements by a biased Non-RS. Nor will I bother with the npa filter, better for everyone to judge facts accordingly. Slywriter (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, you know the process is BRD right? Any comment on content or can I restore this since nobody has discussed the content after 60 hours, not even the one who deleted the 3 corroborating sources and the contextual information about Wisconsin & New York? -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This entire section is a discussion. Editors giving up on the conversation does not give anyone license to restore changes lacking consensus. --WMSR (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Logging that I'm opposed to the re-introduction of this content. The sourcing is still very thin and the material does not reflect an concise overview of media coverage of Bernie Sanders. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see a discussion starting here. On the topic of thin sourcing, it would have been possible to cite 10 if that's your cup of tea but I chose three. CNN (obviously reliable), Slate (by a journalist considered trustworthy on other articles) and Democracy Now (avowedly left wing but this is outweighed by the fact that Juan Gonzalez was an editor of NYDN and is therefore highly relevant). Your second comment about the material itself does not make sense. The reason we have a dedicated article for this is precisely so that we don't have to limit ourselves to an overview. An overview goes in the lead but the body should go into specific incidents that are germane to the article. This incident involves members of the media writing about how other members of the media reacted negatively to a Bernie Sanders interview conducted by members of the media &mdash; pretty much the definition of "media coverage of Bernie Sanders". Connor Behan (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Back and forth
I am removing this back and forth from the fifth paragraph of the '2020 primary campaign' section. It makes Wikipedia look like it's a host for a petty argumens. If anyone objects, I would be happy to explain further.

- MrX 🖋 13:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes made
I made several changes to the article and wanted to lay out my reasoning here:
 * Several uncontroversial copyedits.
 * Removed text sourced only to potentially unreliable sources.
 * Removed text sourced to opinionated sources which made exceptional claims without corroboration
 * Removed a sentence regarding the page of the NYT which featured Sanders's campaign announcement. This is irrelevant. Clinton's was on page 10.
 * Removed a citation of the Guardian, since the Guardian's piece in turn cites the Las Vegas Review, which is cited here.
 * Deleted a Brock quote that didn't really help make the point.
 * Deleted excessive quoting from Sides
 * Removed text directly contradicted by citations
 * Restored background insofar as it was sourced and, well, provided background. --WMSR (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with most all of these changes. The MSNBC graphics controversy perhaps should remain in some form, although I think we should only use The Intercept as a source sparingly. The same goes for FAIR which is cited five times. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX's "manufactured outrage"
User:MrX is now in the business of deciding, on his own, when a controversy discussed in reliable sources is simply "manufactured controversy" and is therefore not worth mentioning in this entry. What authority does he have to decide this on his own? The consensus not only in this entry but in the encyclopedia in general, has always been that the content of its pages should reflect what reliable sources say. It is not his role to decide which controversies mentioned in reliable sources are worthy of recognition here and which are merely "manufactured outrage". As a WMSR, he also thinks that the use of The Intercept and the Nation - not coincidentally one of the few media outlets not hostile to Sanders - should be restricted as sources, although both are considered "generally reliable" by Wikipedia.

None of this is based on Wikipedia policies; this is nothing but POV-pushing. —Rafe87 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 *  Please self-revert. You violated both editing restrictions on this page. On the substance of your comment above, I edited according to our policies. I don't claim to have any authority, but I do have the right to edit the article, including removing material that is WP:UNDUE, poorly sourced, or contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia article. - MrX 🖋 14:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already self-reverted merely on account of the editing-restriction policy. My objection to your edits are the same: you're cherry-picking which reliable sources are reliable enough for you, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and choosing to shrug off controversies amply discussed in reliable sources as mere "manufactured outrage", in what is an ad hominem attack either against said media sources or editors here. — Rafe87 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You did a partial revert. Please revert these ones also which violate 1RR.
 * I'm not "cherry picking" any sources. I made a judgement about each sources based on the underlying content, relevance, each source's reputation on Wikipedia, and the extent to which they are routinely cited by high quality sources. My edits occurred over the course of an hour and 22 minutes. I researched sources and previous talk page discussions, and left descriptive edit summaries. You, on the other hand, blithely reverted all of my edits in the course of four minutes. You didn't even use an edit summary!
 * If anyone can articulate a reason why any specific edit I made is bad, I will be happy to respond in kind. - MrX 🖋 14:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * in what is an ad hominem attack either against said media sources. This entire article reads like argumenta ad hominem against the media. O3000 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this comment, . 2804:7F7:DC80:7F30:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's talk about sources
While not deprecated, several sources which are heavily cited in this article are either potentially unreliable or require attribution and clarification about the nature of the source (per WP:RSP): While some of these sources are generally reliable, I would argue that the controversial nature of this article means that the use of these sources should be drastically reduced, if not eliminated, except when used to cite uncontroversial statements of fact. --WMSR (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FAIR: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support exceptional claims regarding living persons. Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions.
 * Democracy Now!: There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
 * The Intercept: Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.
 * The Nation: Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
 * Jacobin: Not assessed by RSN, but the lede on its WP page is Jacobin is a democratic socialist quarterly magazine based in New York offering American leftist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.
 * BuzzFeed News: In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.
 * Media Matters for America: There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.
 * The Daily Beast: Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.
 * Rolling Stone: Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. Some editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be attributed.


 * None of these sources are used to make exceptional BLP claims and all of the material attributed to them is attributed in wiki-text unless I am mistaken. WMSR should provide any counterexamples below.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 09:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if all content cited to them is attributed, it remains an issue that most of the content in this article relies on them. Any acknowledgement of sources being biased is largely absent from the article. And this article is chock full of exceptional claims; if mainstream sources are not reporting these claims, then they are by definition exceptional. If mainstream sources are reporting the claims, those should be cited instead. --WMSR (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The heavy reliance on attribution in any other article on Wikipedia would be a sign of a bad article. It is a misguided interpretation of Wikipedia policies to use attribution as the backbone of an article. I realize the claim is MSM isn't covering it but for every other article in AP, the lack of main stream coverage is an absolute reason to NOT include 'facts', even attributed ones Slywriter (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 5 of the 9 you list are considered generally reliable at RS/N but have been attributed anyway. The recent question about the New York Daily News interview is an excellent example.  Originally it was sourced to DN! then when I added Huffpost & Vox (RS without caveat at RS/N) it was reverted wholesale without comment: the goalposts shifted backward, just as—excitingly—a bunch of fog was poured into the page via MrX / Snoog / WMSR / O3000's AE case, so I'm not sure whether kicking a field goal is still feasible or not. I suppose I'll be rushed off the field now.  Over and out :) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to say here? This has nothing at all to do with AE. --WMSR (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I really love how constantly you use WP:WEASEL to tear down sources you don't like. As if it mattered. So, should WP never use MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Newsweek, The Nation, National Review, all because the ever-anonymous SOME PEOPLE say they are biased? How absurd. SOME PEOPLE, incidentally, say WP is biased. So, WP should cease to exist. SMH - Keith D. Tyler &para; 06:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, WP should not cease to exist. But, we never use WP as a source. O3000 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Somewhere along the way WP lost its way when it comes to politically charged articles. Fact is many sources that are generally reliable for facts get tagged as unreliable because editors don't like the source rather than question the substance. That's not the case here.  Editors are challenging whether the facts are distorted by the source to create a narrative that doesn't exist. And by extension, create a Wikipedia article that supports said narrativeSlywriter (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

—Rafe87 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * According to his own links, these two sources have been ruled reliable on Wikipedia. —Rafe87 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources I listed are all noted on WP:RSP as either potentially unreliable or biased sources, which is why I listed them. Unless I missed something, other sources cited in this article are not listed as such. If you want to discuss the points I made with regard to the content of the article, please go ahead. If you're here to attack me, this discussion won't go anywhere and we'll end up back at ANI. I would really rather not do that. --WMSR (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what the links say - they say they've been ruled as generally reliable. Stop misrepresenting wikipedia policy for once. — Rafe87 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the WMSR, and have made very similar arguments previously. FAIR is cited five times, which is approaching excess. I don't think we should use MMA at all. The Intercept should be limited to maybe 1 or 2 cites. Rolling Stone is generally a good (albeit liberal) publication, but Matt Taibbi does not write objectively about the subject in my opinion. Democracy Now is cited twice, which I'm OK with. More than that would be excessive. The other sources should be used sparingly. Best practice would be to favor scholarly sources and mainstream sources that cover the subject objectively, with minimal opinion. - MrX 🖋 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Vice and more report on media bias after NH primary
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxegbq/analysis-bernie-sanders-wins-new-hampshire-primary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.gq.com/story/mainstream-media-vs-bernie-sanders

And a piece in WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-media-keep-falling-in-love--with-anybody-but-bernie-sanders/2020/02/12/0f55cc12-4d9c-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add content to the article, but note that the articles you linked are opinion pieces. Any NPOV source needs to be attributed, and even then, that's problematic in an article like this. --WMSR (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but isn't everything in an article like this going to be based on opinion, other than some kind of statistical analysis?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Vice is not good source, and I think we should avoid in-the-moment opinion columns, otherwise it's going to be an excruciating primary season. - MrX 🖋 13:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be a good idea to include this information about the New Hampshire primary.  We don't need to discuss every primary; this is a good example of what opinion pieces have been reporting for a long time.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I would like to hear opinions from some other editors. - MrX 🖋 12:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The last thing this article needs is more material from opinion pieces and primary sources. We should wait to see what kind analysis is published in secondary sources instead of jumping on every news story as it comes out. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Last deletion discussion
This is an obvious WP:POVFORK. It appears this article primarily serves to promote the notion that Bernie Sanders has been treated unfairly. It only maintains a facade of neutrality by giving short-shrift to opposing views. This is not a topic with significant enough mainstream attention to warrant a spinoff.

I can already hear some responses that I've seen from the delete discussions: "Well, that's the point! The mainstream media is unfair to Bernie!" Wikipedia goes by mainstream sources. Whoever closed the last discussion with "no consensus" obviously did not give any evaluation to the relative strength of the arguments for keep versus not. This article is just a compendium of quotes from commentators with little lasting relevance and reference to opinion pieces criticizing the media and praising Bernie Sanders as a politician. Here's a wonderful comment from the last delete discussion: Third Way Dems are upset over Sanders' populist message, but this isn't the way to go about disagreeing with it. The reviewers of these discussions have done a horrible job of disregarding editors who are obviously and openly POV pushing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will instead be proposing a deletion review of the discussion. Even a cursory review of the quality of arguments for Keep gives the impression that the no consensus result was highly questionable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like that you haven't made even a slight look at the arguments in that discussion. The arguments were all based on the notability of the subject. Your argument here is the one that should not be counted because it's nothing but "I just don't like it" argument.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suppose you believe I haven't reviewed the arguments because I came to a different conclusion than you did. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, indeed. Your vote, it is a notable, controversial issue that is widely covered in reliable sources. Definitely should have its own article. Content disputes and I just dont like it are not reasons for deletions. Is the type of conclusory, self-supporting argument that should carry no weight. An assertion about notability requires reference to sources except in the most obvious of cases' it is not affirmed by editors' opinions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is an interaction from the deletion discussion page that shows me you clearly do not understand the distinction between op-eds and objective news articles when it comes to WP:DUE, along with similar accusations of bias or "content disagrements" that you've made against me here.

I suggest you adhere to WP:AGF more closely and learn to develop your arguments rather than making ad hominems against other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided sources to back my arguments there, and there are sources above, you can also search in Google "Bernie blackout" and you will find sources. This is a notable controversy that is been widely discussed by reliable source. Go ahead and propose a deletion review.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , when did I make an ad hominems argument? you have literally mocked all the keep votes saying "I can already hear some responses that I've seen from the delete discussions: "Well, that's the point! The mainstream media is unfair to Bernie!".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing, news reporting is only the first draft of history. Fortunately we are able to use analysis as well. And mainstream media also report their coverage. For example, the New York Times ombudsman said that her paper gave less coverage to Sanders' campaign because they concluded that he was not running to win the nomination but to make a point. There's also the socialism angle. TFD (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

New Vanity Fair article: "Fox Has Been 'More Fair': Why Bernie’s Team Has Had It With MSNBC"
A piece published today by Vanity Fair seems relevant for this article: Enjoy! &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kludt, Tom. 2020. "Fox Has Been 'More Fair': Why Bernie’s Team Has Had It With MSNBC", Vanity Fair. February 18, 2020.
 * More on MSNBC's coverage:
 * czar 01:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * czar 01:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * czar 01:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

More on Politico's anti-semitic attack on Sanders
Some editors here are trying to downplay criticism of Politico's anti-semitic attack on Sanders by ascribing the criticism to progressive sources only; however, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency also published an article on the subject clearly taking issue with Politico and describing the text as anti-semitic, and as far as I know that publication doesn't have a noticeably progressive reputation. I've been reverted after removing this false description (shocker!), I can't do that again today, so let's arrive at a consensus here. — Rafe87 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

, you need to substantiate your revert, in detail. And forget about the typo — that can be easily fixed. El_C 17:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jacobin is a "democratic socialist" magazine. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes calling Politico's article antisemitic is irrelevant if there are legit secondary sources which describe it as such. There was no source for the sentence about a video mocking Sanders's appearance. --WMSR (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the piece has an addendum which reads: This story has been updated to remove additional references to Bernie Sanders’ physical appearance. El_C 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mocking" and "references to" are different. If a secondary source reports that there was mocking, that would potentially warrant inclusion. --WMSR (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "...a line in the article that mocked Sanders's physical appearance.". — Rafe87 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to the most of this edit, restored by . There is nothing in the ThinkProgress article about an article being "emended to remove attacks on Sanders' physical appearance". The article says "This story has been updated to remove additional references to Bernie Sanders’ physical appearance." We don't allow WP:OR.
 * I'm strongly opposed to including AOC's reaction, which adds less than nothing to the understanding of the subject of this article. - MrX 🖋 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post described the line that was removed as "mocking" Sanders's appearance: "...a line in the article that mocked Sanders's physical appearance.". That's not Original Research. — Rafe87 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's not original research., the mere fact that you "strongly oppose" adding AOC comment is not an argument. I suggest you read WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. AOC's reaction is notable enough to be in the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote from the Post article is a paraphrase from Sanders's chief of staff, AOC is not an authority in the field of antisemitism, and I still take issue with considering content put out by PACs to be part of "the media". --WMSR (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's obviously untrue. It's the Washington Post's own voice that describes the line as mocking Sanders: "Rabin-Havt called Tanden to complain about a line in the article that mocked Sanders’s physical appearance." That the line mocked Sanders's appearance is presented in the article as an objective fact, and not merely an opinion ascribed to a Sanders surrogate. If the latter was what the WaPo was aiming at, the writer would have written, "alleged mocked", or "he says mocked", etc. — Rafe87 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mocking" is not "attacking". The cited Washington post article doesn't say that the ThinkProgress article was emended because of an attack or mocking. That's pure WP:SYNTH (Which, by the way, is original research). Not allowed. - MrX 🖋 18:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mocking" is not "attacking", in this context it is attacking and we should avoid verbatim.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The ThinkProgress article has a note appended saying the line was removed. ThinkProgress is a good enough source for lines that were removed from articles syndicated in the ThinkProgress article.
 * As for the idea that "mocking" and "attacking" don't overlap semantically, that's a ridiculous argument that merits no comment. I'm just going to post here the first definition that thefreedictionary.com offers for "mock" (verb):
 * To treat with ridicule or contempt; deride.
 * First one of you says that there's no source sayting that ThinkProgress emended their article to remove attacks on Sanders's physical appearance. When it is pointed out that the an editor note was appended to the article itself, observing that a line was removed that referenced Bernie's appearance, you say we need a secondary source. When a secondary source is presented saying that a line in the ThinkProgress article was removed for mocking Sanders, then you say that a Sanders surrogate was being paraphrased, a total distortion of that article. And when it is pointed out that the Washington Post author was speaking in their own voice when they said that ThinkProgress mocked Sanders, then you say mocking is not the same as attacking.
 * — Rafe87 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to go through and find each personal attack to replace with rpa, go ahead. But it is seriously inappropriate to restore them, as you have done. --WMSR (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what are you talking about? Where is the personal attack? I dont see any personal attack in that comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what are you talking about? Where is the personal attack? I dont see any personal attack in that comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, the text that was removed from the thinkprogress article was:
 * O3000 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

include items via Some More News?
X1\ (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * published Feb 11, 2020


 * Propoganada is not media. Slywriter (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See additional "jokes" at published Feb 24, 2020 Late Night with Seth Meyers.  X1\ (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant, neutral point of view, reliably sourced material demonstrating reliable source recognition of media bias
Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=942405881&oldid=942404812 And here is the reason for deletion: "This material has problems. The sourcing is not great, and some of the material is not verifiable in the source." The sources are cited, and the material is directly based on the cited sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the text that I removed
 * The phrase "The Nation declared" is editorializing. None of the sources say the Nation "declared" anything. The phrase "An article in Salon pointed out that the mainstream media had slighted Sanders by... misreporting polling data," seems to an interpretation of what the source actually wrote, which is
 * The words "Seems to" and "reportedly" are equivocations that are not captured in your text.
 * "Salon pointed out" is also editorializing. The correct phrasing would be "according to Salon" or "in an article in Salon". - MrX 🖋 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And so, rather than rewording my edit, everything, including the cited reliable sources which point out media bias, need to be completely deleted from the article? That seems irrational. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And so, rather than rewording my edit, everything, including the cited reliable sources which point out media bias, need to be completely deleted from the article? That seems irrational. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of quote from Patterson's Shorenstein Center paper
A study done by the Harvard/Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, authored by Thomas Patterson, is cited in the section Academic Analyses. I added a direct quote from the cited article stating that Bernie Sanders received two-thirds of the primary news coverage of Hillary Clinton, but it was deleted for being 'meaningless' and misleading. Here is the diff of the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&oldid=prev&diff=942395442 What do other editors think? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of thoughts. A direct quote is not necessary. It would be easy to simply paraphrase it without loosing any meaning or violating copyright. Second, I'm not sure it's important because it only spans approximately six weeks. If we are going to select this particular statistic out of a primary source, then I think we should have the backing of at least one secondary source that takes notice of this information. - MrX 🖋 14:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These kinds of deletions make Wikipedia look really bad. But I guess people are used to that by now. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How so? - MrX 🖋 15:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it cites a statistic as a stand alone fact and ignores any and all context. Hillary Clinton had a major story about emails and FBI investigation that lead to additional coverage of her, while Bernie said his usual spiel day in, day out. To pretend none of that happened and just lay the stat in the article is misleading the reader. Slywriter (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the whole paragraph from the article. No mention of Hillary Clinton's email scandal affecting her media coverage: "Sanders in particular struggled to get the media’s attention. Over the course of the primary season, Sanders received only two-thirds of the coverage afforded Clinton. Sanders’ coverage trailed Clinton’s in every week of the primary season. Relative to Trump, Sanders was truly a poor cousin. He received less than half of the coverage afforded Trump. Sanders received even slightly less coverage than Cruz, despite the fact that Cruz quit the race and dropped off the media’s radar screen five weeks before the final contests. For her part, Clinton got slightly less than three-fourths of the press attention given to Trump. Nevertheless, she was, except for Trump, the most heavily covered candidate during the primary period." https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, when the article discusses topics of media coverage, there is no mention of the Clinton email scandal: "Coverage Topics. Election news during the primary period was dominated by the competitive game—the struggle of the candidates to come out on top. Overwhelmingly, election coverage was devoted to the question of winning and losing. Poll results, election returns, delegate counts, electoral projections, fundraising success, and the like, along with the candidates’ tactical and strategic maneuvering, accounted for more than half of the reporting (see Figure 3). Second in terms of amount of coverage was the election process itself. Much of the reporting focused on topics such as the election timetable, upcoming debates, the candidates’ appearance schedules, and the rules of the nominating process. Such topics accounted for roughly a third of the campaign coverage during the primary period.


 * Substantive concerns were last in terms of the coverage allocation. 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.


 * There was no appreciable variation between the Republican and Democratic coverage. In each case, the competitive game was the primary focus and in nearly equal amounts, while substantive concerns got the least amount of attention, again in nearly equal amounts." https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/ Ghostofnemo (talk)