Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (3rd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SharabSalam (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 28 January 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:29, 28 January 2020 by SharabSalam (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing deletion per NPOV and VERIFIABILITY. Bernie Sanders is the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article seems to have been started as a POVFORK arguing that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is basically a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content may be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed (see the talk page for more on that). WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Strike as this is was neither a correctly classified !vote nor a relevant argument.Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23 (talk · contribs), the same source (WP:TALK) that prohibits striking another's comment (except as provided) also prohibits removing others' comments.Jahaza (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Nah, Bbb23 was right. I deleted my vote. --WMSR (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
What's all the commotion? I watch independent news everyday & the MSM bias against Sanders, is spotted & pointed out. My reason for 'keeping' this article is valid. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, they are talking about this Special:Diff/937894263 WMSR shouldn't vote when he/she is the nominator. I agree, the media bias against Sanders controversy is notable itself. It has even got its own "Bernie blackout".-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see that my 21:31 post was unstuck, btw. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Good catch :) GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment -- as the principal author (now), I should probably avoid voting "snow keep" :) Many people have worked on it. Here is Naked Misplaced Pages's automatic analysis of the page's sourcing & concepts. (The page appears to have broken the css!) ^^ -- SashiRolls 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this is third nomination (but it was a different title), the nomination title must be changed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete most of the content, merge some of the WP:DUE content with (i) Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election (ii) the main Bernie Sanders article, (iii) Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and (iv) Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. The article was created as POVFORK to promote the Sanders supporter POV that the media is biased against Sanders. During every presidential campaign, there are accusations (which are widely reported in RS that this-or-that candidate was unfairly treated by the media). During 2016 alone, candidates such as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich all made similar claims and RS reported on those claims. it's neither feasible nor reasonable to create a separate Misplaced Pages article for every major candidate who claims that the media are against them. Most of the article is a coatrack of accusations in low-quality RS or in op-ed pages. The academic analyses in the article are about media coverage in general during the 2016 election, and cover how the media covered all candidates (not just Sanders), so they do not indicate that this page is any more notable than a similar page for Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Trump, Kasich, Jeb Bush etc. Furthermore, what makes this POVFORK egregious is that academic analyses do not substantiate that the media was biased against Sanders:
  • (1) Sanders received the most positive coverage of any candidate in the 2016 election whereas his main Democratic opponent (Clinton) received the most negative coverage. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.
  • (2) While Sanders received less media coverage than Clinton, his coverage was "strongly correlated" with his standing in the polls, and candidates who poll lower get less media coverage. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.
  • (3) Per peer-reviewed research, Sanders' media coverage exceeded his standing in the polls during 2015, and the media exaggerated how close the Democratic race was from March 2016 onwards. Sources: A) John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107. B) Bitecofer, Rachel (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38, 48. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
(1) is false. Sanders had fewer positive stories written about him than Clinton or Trump at all times during the campaign, according to both Brandwatch & Media Tense (the sources for Sides & Shorenstein)
(2) is meaningless. Correlated how? Is this correlation relevant in the Democratic race? If so, how? Was Clinton's coverage strongly correlated with her standing in the polls, or did it fluctuate with the various media moments?
(3) Bitecofer is not a good reference for this claim, which again does not tell the whole media/DNC/super-delegate story. She cites Brock's Blue Nation Review in her research (and not to make fun of it) that's your Kelley ref). Also Media Tense's data as studied at Harvard by Mr. Patterson directly and resoundingly contradict both quantitatively and qualitatively the idea that the press outlets studied were primarily interested in pushing Sanders in the Democratic race from March 2016.
-- SashiRolls 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Shorenstein Center report for 2015: "Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic." Shorenstein Center report for 2016: "Sanders’ coverage during the opening stage of the primaries was the most positive of any candidate... Sanders’ coverage during the Super Tuesday period, as was true of earlier stages, was the most favorable of any candidate... The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage." John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press: "Sanders’s appeal... depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." + "In 2015, Sanders benefited from increas- ing news coverage that was more positive than Clinton received... This increasing and increasingly positive coverage helped give Sanders a national profile... The tone of news coverage continued to favor Sanders for the rest of the primary." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh for the love of marshmallows would you knock it off. The point is part II. Everyone who works on this page knows that. "Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided" (source) Read the 1st source in the entry and get back with me on the Shorenstein Center. I suppose a byproduct of deletion is that the talk page would be deleted. I get it. But that's not a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. And quit comparing meaningless decontextualized percentages when you should be comparing numbers of stories for comparisons of superiority.-- SashiRolls 23:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Please give a textual example of this speculative information. That's easy to say... let's see some text...-- SashiRolls 22:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In February 2019, Shane Ryan (Paste Magazine) reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch, the Washington Post had published four opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan described the common themes in these columns as a "manufactured narrative" that Sanders' time had—as one of the columnists put it—"come and gone". - speculation into why WaPo wrote articles
  • Entire politico section relies on Pro-Sanders quotes to support a speculative anti-Semitism claim
  • Katie Halper used to speculate on motives of NYT writer
  • Shakir, Sanders' Campaign Manager used as a source against CNN
  • Sanders own musings about WaPo used to indicate WaPo bias
  • WaPo vs Rolling Stone to create perception that WaPo maliciously declares his statement false
  • The use of In These Times to use quantity of coverage as a metric to prove media doesn't cover Sanders. Perhaps he just didn't say anything new or notable
  • 2 Journalist quotes to validate media has a centrist bias
  • The entire CNN debate section which ends with an Anti Semitism claim to bolster it's impact.
  • All references above are the 2020 section of the article. 2016 can be summed up as "Nobody likes that Trump sucked the air out of the room"
Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the above comment. To illustrate how notable this controversy of media coverage of Bernie Sanders search "Bernie blackout". I have been in deletion discussions many times, never that I saw content disputes being a valid reason for deletion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep entry as is with no deletion of content not agreed upon between the editors in its Talk Page. How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden. In addition, many RS's have covered the subject; why should Misplaced Pages abstain from it when this website should be but a mirror of how reliable sources approach a given subject? Deleting this entry is true WP:COATRACK. Rafe87 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that reliable sources haven't really covered the subject. They have published opinions about it. The article is not about reactions to media coverage of Sanders, yet that's all that seems to be present. There is very little verifiable factual information about the subject. Furthermore, saying that Sanders is becoming a frontrunner is not only WP:CRTSTALBALL, but largely irrelevant. Biden does not have a comparable page. I also don't understand how deleting the article is true WP:COATRACK, since an article can't be a coat rack if it doesn't exist. --WMSR (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure what CRYSTALBALL are you talking about. The content is discussed in the media extensively. The media coverage of Bernie has been widely called "Bernie Blackout" and sources are discussing this. Content disputes are not reasons for deletions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I am talking about How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden (emphasis mine). Nowhere did I say that content disputes were reasons for deletion, but the actual reasons that I gave in the nomination are. Media sources discussing a topic is much different than sources reporting on it. There are very few, if any, sources in this article with concrete facts; as it stands now, most of the article is quoted or summarized opinions of pundits. There are not enough reliable sources with verifiable facts pertaining to the subject to prove notability. I understand that it's tempting to give in to confirmation bias, but at the end of the day, a thousand op-eds alleging mistreatment of Sanders by the media does not an article make. --WMSR (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Starting another AFD for an article that just had one ending the month before is a waste of time. There are ample references in the article about this. Reliable sources give significant coverage to the media coverage of him. Dream Focus 02:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the third nomination. After this get closed there will be no more nominations.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The second nomination was closed for procedural reasons by the proposer with no comments or votes. --WMSR (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep and generalize We're observing a philosophical clash between two divergent journalistic philosophies. One side wants to uphold an ideal of journalists as scrupulously impartial judges of political ideas, as a fourth branch of government. The other side often observes many or most media outlets as rags, as dirty bird sheets in serious thrall to some wealthy owner's perverse political axe to grind or to their big advertisers' money. Paul Klinkman (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I just want to link this story from the WaPo that says how the DNC leaks exposed the anti-Sanders democrats who worked to smear him and his campaign . I believe this is relevant especially for those who deny that there is a conspiracy. Open in chrome incognito if you want to pass the paywall.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Categories: