This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
CharlesGlasserEsq, you wrote "I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?
" No, that's probably not OK. You included "
Esq" in your username; you wanted us all to know you are a lawyer. You wrote, "I was retained specifically to try and undo the (IMHO obnoxious) approach made by previous people on behalf of the Daily Caller.
" Are you now saying you were retained as "a media adviser and ethicist", and not as an attorney? Remember
Rule 4.3; you are communicating with unrepresented parties here. Are you an attorney representing The Daily Caller or not? –
Leviv
ich
01:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
"If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3"is exactly what I'm getting at.
I posted a report to ANI. [2] I suggest that any concerns about user conduct should be discussed there and this page reserved for improvement of the article. TFD ( talk) 19:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello all. First, thanks again for your patience and help. I wanted to set this section up so that this is as simple and efficient as possible. I am going to set up four sections, breaking the article down as follows: 1) Proposed Lede Edits; 2) Proposed "Controversy" edits; 3) Proposed "Staff" edits; and 4) adding a section called "Significant stories." The article is long, and from what I've reviewed of the talk page's history there's often cross-talk and confusion about what particular item people are examining. Breaking it down this way should make it much simpler and easier to follow. I'm assuming that at the end of each proposed section, someone will step up and voice the editors' consensus and approve/modify/reject the edits. Nobody wants edit wars, I'm sure, and I sincerely hope that I can convince you all to approach this with an open mind, an open heart, an assumption of good faith and a focus on clarity, accuracy and value-neutral writing. Be advised (and I beg your indulgence) that the sections I propose are for substantive examination only. Coding and style will invariably be a mess at first, but we can sort that out. Some of the edits are really simple. Others more complicated. The format is that I'll provide a copy of the section with edits/corrections embedded, and at the end of each section explain my rationale for any changes. I apologize for not being able to provide these proposed edits more quickly: my medical problems are being sorted out but still affect my ability to stay awake for more than a few hours at a time. Again, thanks for your time and effort. Gratefully, CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Created 11/2/19, substantive proposal to come. CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 13:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
( talk), thanks so much for your insight. Given that as you here point out, and as have /info/en/?search=User:Doncram, /info/en/?search=User:The_Four_Deuces and others pointed out elsewhere, this is a critical problem, perhaps the most serious flaw in the entire article. Lacking an authoritative source to state in WP's voice that TDC is "known for" or "widely regarded" as a fake news site I can't for the life of me figure out how you can make that part of the lede. I'm sure it is your view, and that's OK, people will have differeing opinions. But surely this is not the place for opinion. I would ask WP editors to really have a close, honest and introspective look at this segment, and seriously reconsider rewriting it or deleting it with regard to the unambiguous statement that the thrust of TDC is publishing mostly fake stories. That can't be right. Thanks again, Charles CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
SUBSTANTIVE EDITS, CITES AND RATIONAL BELOW---- PROPOSED RETOPPED LEDE Proposed Revision of First two grafs in WP article (expanded to three) ( /info/en/?search=The_Daily_Caller)
The footnotes are included here as a matter of convenience to show factual basis for statements.Given the less-than-user-friendly nature of this screen, I'm including a OneCloud link so anyone can see the below in Word format. https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohwdjs1lDGQ2oQsCA?e=0Unepn
The Daily Caller is a conservative1 news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. Carlson does not have editorial input at The Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller has published several major stories quoted and followed by mainstream media often criticizing or exposing potential wrongdoing by both Democrats and Republicans.2 Daily Caller reporting led to investigations of the Republican National Committee;3 President Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and ties to the Turkish government;4 and exposés about the billionaire Sackler family and their relationship to the American opiate crisis.5 Critics say that The Daily Caller has published numerous incorrect stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos, and that the website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.
RATIONALE: • There’s no question in the overall context, critical tone and tenor of the Article that the phrase “right-wing” is a pejorative characterization. While editors may feel it’s justified, it’s still a personal interpretation, not a “fact.” The only RS’s referring to TDC consistently use the phrase “conservative.” Even one of the key citations in the current Article, namely The Atlantic story about Greer, pointedly uses the word “conservative.”
• Because of his controversial personality, readers should know that Carlson has no editorial role at TDC.
• The original article’s description of TDC begins with a non-stop litany of complaints that while may or may not be well-founded, overwhelmingly paint a picture of a right-wing “nut” publication. Far from “bothsidesism”, readers should know that TDC often turns its sights on many right-wing “sacred cows.” That is validated not by just the appearance of those stories in TDC itself, but that many reasonable, reliable and respectable news organizations have cited and or followed many TDC stories. At the same time, the “controversial” publications should surely be acknowledged -- they have to take their lumps -- but I respectfully suggest doing so in a NPOV manner. “Critics say [XX]” is fair. To simply side with those critics and repeat the “known for false stories” as gospel is not rooted in any factual basis – especially when at the end of the day we’re talking about a value judgment.
• The Greer episode is not definitional to what TDC is and is best moved to the “History” section. It’s worth noting here that the original Article garbles some important facts regarding Greer: he left the Daily Caller three months before The Atlantic exposed him as a racist. Readers should also know without ambiguity that he kept his nefarious writing a secret from TDC. Failing to include that leaves the unfair and false impression that TDC knew and/or approved of such writing. The fact that TDC’s own original material was redistributed by the ACLU and used to help convict the thugs at the “Unite the Right” rally should be included to dispel any such guilt-by-association.
2 https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/14/american-cartel-opioid-blood-money-sackler-family/
3 https://dailycaller.com/2010/03/29/high-flyer-rnc-chairman-steele-suggested-buying-private-jet-with-gop-funds/; https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303410404575152461551782520; http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/29/rnc-investigating-money-spent-at-racy-nightclub/; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/how-will-rnc-strip-club-scandal-hit-donors/346160/; 4 https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/trumps-top-military-adviser-is-lobbying-for-obscure-company-with-ties-to-turkish-government/; https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-turkey-lobbying-231354; https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-turkey-lobbying-231354; 5 https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/17/sackler-family-met-museum; https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/09/american-cartel-billionaire-family-behind-oxycontin-apparently-spends-zilch-rehabbing-addicts/; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/31/john-kapoor-insys-trial-opioids-crisis
CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
You didn’t read WP:TPG did you? I’m not going to help until you do. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Note: this is probably the most complicated section. In some instances, the article is out of date or simply erroneous, in others WP editors opinions are stated as fact without direct RS, and finally in others, the context that clarity demands may involve too much “getting into the weeds.” See “Rationale” section for more detail. Footnotes in brackets are in the original article, additional ones are added here. For convenience, a link to a Word version of the below is at: https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohxNLtdkl-pSNGF_Q?e=mzsdcM
[Climate change denial -2nd graf)]
“In 2017, The Daily Caller published a story erroneously claiming that a "peer-reviewed study" by "two scientists and a veteran statistician" found that recent years have not been the warmest ever.[21][22] The alleged "study" was a PDF file on a WordPress blog, and was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal.[21] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller republished a Daily Mail story which claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manipulated data to make climate change appear worse; at the same time, legitimate news outlets disputed the Daily Mail story. [23] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that a study found no evidence of accelerating temperatures over a 23-year period, which climate scientists described as a misleading story.[26] In 2016, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that climate scientist Michael Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) had asserted that data was unnecessary to measure climate change; Mann described the story as "egregiously false".[27] Mann lost a libel suit in August 2019 suing writers who alleged Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, and featured prominently in a U.N. 2001 climate report was “fraudulent”. The court did not rule on the validity of the “hockey stick” but rather dismissed the case because Mann refused to provide the court with his underlying data claiming that it was protected intellectual property. Mann was ordered to pay the defendants’ legal costs. 1,2 In 2015, The Daily Caller wrote that NOAA "fiddle[d]" with data when the agency published a report concluding that there was no global warming hiatus.[28][29]
RATIONALE:
• The second graf of the “Climate Change Denial” uses the word “falsely” as opposed to “erroneously.” The former implies knowing falsity and a malicious intent, and is an editorialization, whereas “erroneously” is factual, value neutral and undeniable. Moreover, much of the information is out of date: Since publication, Mann lost a libel suit because he refused to supply the B.C. Supreme Court with the underlying the data that is the basis of the infamous “hockey stick graph.” That raises also sorts of questions about Mann’s honesty or credibility, and I would suggest either including this new and relevant context, or better yet, trimming this section to simply show readers that The Daily Caller has indeed published articles from climate-change skeptics.
CITATIONS: 1 “A Climate Change for Lawsuits” ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-climate-change-for-lawsuits-11569279287
2 “Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit” ( https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/)
[Misleading video about NPR]
In 2011, The Daily Caller was the first news outlet to republish a video by conservative provocateur James O'Keefe which purportedly showed an NPR fundraiser deriding Republicans. The video was later proven to have been misleadingly edited.[36] Carlson explained to the Columbia Journalism Review that “The Caller did not produce the video, [but] only reported on it.”3
RATIONALE:
• The “Misleading NPR” section cherry picks and avoids Carlson’s explanation that TDC was not the creator of O’Keefe’s video, but merely the first to report on a newsworthy video. Leaving this out implies a false endorsement and misunderstands the doctrine of “Fair Comment” in which journalists must be able to show a “bogus” story to comment on its impact or meaning.
CITATIONS:
This was omitted from the same source article relied upon by WP (fn 36)
[2016 presidential election]
Suggest delete: “The Daily Caller played a significant role in creating and disseminating stories that had little purchase outside the right-wing media ecosystem but that stoked the belief among core Trump followers that what Clinton did was not merely questionable but criminal and treasonous.”
RATIONALE:
• The “2016 election” section states without factual support that TDC had “a significant role in creating and disseminating stories that had little purchase outside the right-wing media ecosystem.” I see no RS showing metrics of how often TDC was quoted by “the right-wing media ecosystem” or data showing it’s actual influence. This is an editorialization, virtually impossible of being proved true or false.
[Encouragement of violence against protesters]
“The video drew attention in August 2017 eight months later, when a white supremacist plowed his car through a group of counterprotesters at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville.”
RATIONALE:
• The section on “Encouragement of violence against protesters” implies a cause-and-effect. That’s pure speculation. The fairest way to address this is to add that the Charlottesville tragedy occurred eight months after TDC’s video.
[Ties to white supremacists]
Daily Caller deputy editor Scott Greer left the publication in July of 2018, and in August 2018, The Atlantic reported that Greer had secretly written pieces under the pseudonym "Michael McGregor" in the white supremacist publication “Radix Journal” from 2014 to 2015. None of these pieces were published in The Daily Caller, and Greer kept his pseudonym a secret from The Daily Caller. Greer reportedly expressed anti-Christian and antisemitic theories, as well as his relationship with white nationalist Richard Spencer. [55] Neil Patel, The Daily Caller’s publisher subsequently commented on why Greer had not been fired in 2017 and admitted having been deceived by Greer: “We had two choices: Fire a young man because of some photos taken of him at metal shows in college, or take his word. We chose to trust him. Now, if what you allege is accurate, we know that trust was a mistake, we know he lied to us. We won't publish him, anyone in these circles, or anyone who thinks like them. People who associate with these losers have no business writing for our company.” Prior to The Atlantic’s article, The Daily Caller had been criticized for publishing opinion pieces written by people characterized by the SPLC as “extremists” or “white nationalists.”4
RATIONALE:
• I might suggest deleting it altogether as this is addressed in the “History” section The “Ties to white supremacists” section garbles the timeline of Greer’s departure, which occurred before The Atlantic article. It also fails to include that Greer deceived TDC, who did not know Greer was publishing under a pseudonym and fails to include that none of his racist writing appeared in TDC. The article also avoids Patel’s admission that he had been deceived, which is in the very same source article used by WP to make the allegations in the first place.
CITATION:
4 “The Daily Caller has a white nationalist problem” (originally published by SPLC, available at https://www.salon.com/2017/08/21/the-daily-caller-has-a-white-nationalist-problem_partner/)
[Stefan Halper]
Suggest this be moved to new section “Significant Publications” and with updates.
[Allegation of non-profit abuse] Add: Neither The Daily Caller News Foundation nor The Daily Caller, Inc. have been the subject of any investigation or probe by the Internal Revenue Service suggesting inappropriate activity or violations of 501(c)3 regulations.
RATIONALE:
• The “Allegation of non-profit abuse” section fails to tell readers that TDC has not been the subject of IRS investigation, a fundamental failure of fairness and completeness.
[Imran Awan]
Suggest deletion because the Awan story has developed so much further than when originally published and has less to do with The Daily Caller than with Awan.
[Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez]
Add: The photo itself was not a “nude” selfie but showed only a pair of legs in a bathtub, and was not a full-body photograph.
RATIONALE:
• The “Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez” section ought to tell the readers that the photo was not really a “nudie.”
[Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez – repeated subhed]
Suggest deletion because the article repeats the AOC subhed, but speaks to a story about how The Washington Post erroneously attributed a quote from Rep. Ilhan Omar to The Daily Caller, and retracted that allegation.
RATIONALE:
• The repeated subhed of “Fake nude picture” makes no sense. To begin with, it’s about Rep. Ilhan Omar, all it says is that The Washington Post erred in attributing a quote to TDC. Aside from piling on, this tells readers nothing about TDC and should be deleted.
CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
It shows a pair of feet in a bathtub, but a blurred reflection of a nude female torso is also visible[3]. Saying that the Daily Caller has not been the subject of an IRS investigation would be goalpost-moving and special pleading, in addition to being a selective presentation of our reliable sources; the WaPo notes that the IRS could be reluctant to get involved for political reasons, a point we would have to address. I see no reason to delete the Imran Awan material simply for being part of a larger story; the story may be larger, but the role of the Caller is amply documented and worth mentioning. The "Encouragement of violence against protesters" subsection already notes the time gap between January and August 2017 and makes no claim of causation that I can see, only echoing the statement of correlation made by CNN Money. The passage on the 2016 election could doubtless use work, but the sourcing and attribution to the Berkman Klein Center report are adequate for the claims currently made. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
As to the AOC "selfie", I don't understand the reticence to simply add a line that we agree is correct— the current, brief, description of that incident is adequate to my eyes, and further hair-splitting would merely balloon the prose beyond the limits of due weight. The photo was billed as a nude image, the Caller said people were calling it a nude, and we have reported that. Over-elaboration is not clarity.
Readers will not "do the math" and nullify the intention behind the section, namely, to imply a connection that we all know isn't there.I don't know that
a connection ... isn't there. I make no claim one way or the other. The Caller removed a video from their website, an act which was documented in secondary sources to an extent that it warrants a mention, and in order to explain the context as our sources do, we have to say something about the background. The phrasing of that explanation is, of course, up for debate, but I am not sure how reiterating an amount of elapsed time does much to improve it.
The second graf of the “Climate Change Denial” uses the word “falsely” as opposed to “erroneously.” The former implies knowing falsity and a malicious intent, and is an editorialization, whereas “erroneously” is factual, value neutral and undeniable.In my experience, fact-checkers write "falsely" precisely in order to avoid editorialization. Falsely claimed does not imply malicious intent or conscious deception, as lied would, for example. The validity of the hockey stick graph is not contested in mainstream climate science, and has no bearing here. (I note in passing that "Principia Scientific" is not a reliable source, the status of the WSJ opinion section is at best dubious in that regard, the Columbia Journalism Review noted a dearth of reliable reporting on the British Columbia dismissal, and that at least one recent legal battle involving Mann ended with his detractors apologizing.) XOR'easter ( talk) 21:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
XOR'easter regarding the implication of causality, I kind of think you are making my point for me. You say "don't know that a connection ... isn't there. I make no claim one way or the other." I understand there's a point at which one simply has to put the pen down, so to speak, and not beat any specific point to death. But as I said, if it were not to raise an implication of connection, why would the item be in the article in the first place? Aye, there's the rub. CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
Apologies again for the formatting mess. Pasted below are the suggested edits and rationale. You can also see a Word version of the below for your convenience at https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohuLA9U8FDagjwCkA?e=0cgq0Y
PROPOSED EDITS-----
STAFF AND CONTRIBUTORS (Additions/Clarifications) The Daily Caller is a member of the White House rotating press pool1 and has full-time reporters on Capitol Hill credentialed by The Periodical Press Gallery2,3 , which oversees credentialing of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. The Daily Caller is also a member of the Online News Association, the world’s largest digital journalism association.
Opinion contributors to The Daily Caller have included economist Larry Kudlow, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and aide to President Obama Luis Miranda, former US Senate Candidate and Judge Jeanine Pirro, Socialist educator Glenn Sacks, history professor and impeachment advocate Allan J. Lichtman, Ann Coulter, the NRA-ILA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). 4,5,6,7,8
[add third graf] The Daily Caller also owns and operates Check Your Fact, a for-profit subsidiary website wholly owned by The Daily Caller, Inc. The stated mission of Check Your Fact is “to independently fact check statements by influencers, as well as reporting by other news outlets. We also vet the many widely-shared claims that rocket across the internet every day” and says that “our mission is a non-partisan one. We're loyal to neither people nor parties -- only the truth. And while the fact-checking industry continues to grow, there are still countless assertions that go unchecked. We exist to fill in the gaps.” Check Your Fact invites readers to submit queries about news stories.9
RATIONALE: • Adds more precision to credentialing facts.
• The list of opinion contributors (all of these contributions are clearly marked “OPINION” and carry a disclaimer that they do not represent the views of TDC) that appears in the original article may appear to be cherry-picked to show only right-leaning contributors. In fact, TDC frequently runs Op/Eds from a wide range of viewpoints and experiences, including those of former staffers for President Obama, The Democratic National Committee, proponents of impeachment, proponents of socialism, and other persons and entities who are far from “right-wing.”
• Adds missing info about Check Your Fact.
Citations: 1 “Daily Caller joins W.H. Pool” ( https://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0210/Daily_Caller_joins_WH_pool.html)
2 https://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/about/
3 https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/?page_id=9213;
4 "On Christian Political Apostasy as The Source Of America's Greatest Peril" ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/25/on-christian-political-aposta sy-as-the-source-of-americas-greatest-peril/).
5 “The President’s Wall Confession Should Have Been the End of the Shutdown” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/miranda-wall-confession
6 “Conservatives Shouldn’t Ignore Socialism’s Successes” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/06/sacks-socialism-successes)
7 “Mueller Is Done; It’s Time for Congress To Impeach” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/25/lichtman-mueller-impeach)
8 “Costly USDA Proposal Would Spend More Tax Dollars And Help Animal Abusers” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/29/winders-usda-animals)
9 https://checkyourfact.com/about-us
CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 16:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
(section was titled "Revert of Doncram's changes"; i hope this title is accepted as more productive for discussion. There is a content issue to discuss: what should appear in the article. If anyone wants to suggest something negative about me personally, please let's discuss at my or your user Talk page and consider going to wp:ANI if necessary, instead of here. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC))
I have reverted Doncram's insertion of bothsidesism into the article lede. While I think the section in question is not well-written, NPOV does not require us to create a false balance. The claim that "most major news sources ... have published numerous false stories" is entirely unsourced and not likely to be true. We treat The Daily Caller differently than The New York Times because they are different - one has a widespread reputation as an ideological mouthpiece for the right-wing (and specifically now, Trumpism), while the other has a widespread reputation as a mainstream news organization. Different things are different, and we have no requirement to treat them similarly. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
TDC is notable not because it has published more than one false story in its history, it is notable because it has published an unusually and unacceptably large number of such stories.Yes, this. Arguably, though, making the bare statement that the lede currently does conveys that point, because the lede is for summarizing the article and saying what the most significant things about the topic are. I'm not sure the current sentence needs to be changed (and leaving it in place would be the "conservative" thing to do, ha ha). Also, while we're discussing the introduction, I suspect that some language like "The Daily Caller has deliberately courted controversy" would be supportable by RS'es. And, looking over that long list of suggested tags, I don't think any of them are appropriate. Blanket banner-bombing is not a productive course of action, and in no way is this article so bad that the Wikipedia community needs to disavow it. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans and Doncram: Please remember this talk page, not edit summaries, is the right way to communicate. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"If Doncram wants his changes added to the article he or she needs to seek consensus here."which would have been fair enough. While you discussed your issues with the idea behind it above it would probably be helpful to explain explicitly which part of the changes you find troubling or if the whole thing why (perhaps referring to existing or new sources) to help further the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I have to say. I'm a bit confused. I asked where User:Snooganssnoogans ( talk) had a factual basis for saying here that the Daily Caller has "admitted" or "said" that they are "right-wing." So far, nada, zip, zero. I spent the last 2 hours combing the archives and can't find anything even remotely close to that. In fact, one of the other editors found a direct quote from Tucker Carlson dispelling that characterization. Is that just ignored because it doesn't fit a few editors preconceived narrative? What gives? Not being wise in the ways of Wiki, are some editors more "powerful" than others and able to unilaterally override changes? Also, I'm not sure what Roxy, the dog. wooF means by sharing remuneration. I'm assuming in good faith that's just a joke. I'm hoping to be able to upload here this weekend a few suggested changes, reliable citations in support and rationale for some changes. And again, I reiterate that some editors who are rather plainly hostile to the subject seem to have an agenda or interest in not having their previous work changed. Seems to me that fresh eyes are called for to avoid any appearance of bias. Is everyone cool with that? I take no offense at being corrected, but editors digging in their heels seems to fit the public perception that WP is a "club" where some editors hold sway over what is and isn't revised. Surely, that can't be right. Thanks as always, and yours in fairness and truth-seeking, CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 00:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
What are the sources that support "The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos."
? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anywhere in the body of the article where we say that it has published "numerous" false stories. I see about a dozen examples of false stories, two doctored photos and one doctored video. For us to take a set of examples, and draw a conclusion from those examples, would be
WP:SYNTH. So are there sources in the article (or anywhere) that say that TDC has published "numerous" false stories, or "many", or more than other similar publications? Has any source compared its veracity with, say, NYT, or CNN, or HuffPo (like that study that compared the accuracy of Wikipedia to other publications)? I think we need secondary sources stating this proposition directly in order for us to state it in wikivoice in the article. –
Leviv
ich
03:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
a rightwing website that has pushed misinformationin its lede, indicating significance of the point; Oxford's Computational Propaganda Project deemed them "junk news" [7]). The gist of the Berkman Klein Center report was that it wasn't so much that their reporting was entirely false, but rather that truth was mixed up with distortions and extrapolations. (
The second most tweeted story [...] offered a case study in how disinformation is created by weaving bits and pieces of evidence into a fundamentally misleading presentation[8].) XOR'easter ( talk) 04:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
They don't provide any information about their data. The other problem is their use of the term "junk news," since it could cover a range from fakenews such as Pizzagate to selective publication of stories that differs from mainstream media. But that begs the question of whether mainstream media is unbiased in its selection of stories to cover. For example, why did anti-government demonstrations in socialist Venezuela receive more coverage than similar demonstrations in neoliberal Ecuador, Chile, and Haiti? I would want to see something more than inclusion on a list, unless the list (such as the SPLC hate list) was widely used. TFD ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
CharlesGlasserEsq, you wrote "I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?
" No, that's probably not OK. You included "
Esq" in your username; you wanted us all to know you are a lawyer. You wrote, "I was retained specifically to try and undo the (IMHO obnoxious) approach made by previous people on behalf of the Daily Caller.
" Are you now saying you were retained as "a media adviser and ethicist", and not as an attorney? Remember
Rule 4.3; you are communicating with unrepresented parties here. Are you an attorney representing The Daily Caller or not? –
Leviv
ich
01:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
"If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3"is exactly what I'm getting at.
I posted a report to ANI. [2] I suggest that any concerns about user conduct should be discussed there and this page reserved for improvement of the article. TFD ( talk) 19:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello all. First, thanks again for your patience and help. I wanted to set this section up so that this is as simple and efficient as possible. I am going to set up four sections, breaking the article down as follows: 1) Proposed Lede Edits; 2) Proposed "Controversy" edits; 3) Proposed "Staff" edits; and 4) adding a section called "Significant stories." The article is long, and from what I've reviewed of the talk page's history there's often cross-talk and confusion about what particular item people are examining. Breaking it down this way should make it much simpler and easier to follow. I'm assuming that at the end of each proposed section, someone will step up and voice the editors' consensus and approve/modify/reject the edits. Nobody wants edit wars, I'm sure, and I sincerely hope that I can convince you all to approach this with an open mind, an open heart, an assumption of good faith and a focus on clarity, accuracy and value-neutral writing. Be advised (and I beg your indulgence) that the sections I propose are for substantive examination only. Coding and style will invariably be a mess at first, but we can sort that out. Some of the edits are really simple. Others more complicated. The format is that I'll provide a copy of the section with edits/corrections embedded, and at the end of each section explain my rationale for any changes. I apologize for not being able to provide these proposed edits more quickly: my medical problems are being sorted out but still affect my ability to stay awake for more than a few hours at a time. Again, thanks for your time and effort. Gratefully, CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 13:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Created 11/2/19, substantive proposal to come. CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 13:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
( talk), thanks so much for your insight. Given that as you here point out, and as have /info/en/?search=User:Doncram, /info/en/?search=User:The_Four_Deuces and others pointed out elsewhere, this is a critical problem, perhaps the most serious flaw in the entire article. Lacking an authoritative source to state in WP's voice that TDC is "known for" or "widely regarded" as a fake news site I can't for the life of me figure out how you can make that part of the lede. I'm sure it is your view, and that's OK, people will have differeing opinions. But surely this is not the place for opinion. I would ask WP editors to really have a close, honest and introspective look at this segment, and seriously reconsider rewriting it or deleting it with regard to the unambiguous statement that the thrust of TDC is publishing mostly fake stories. That can't be right. Thanks again, Charles CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
SUBSTANTIVE EDITS, CITES AND RATIONAL BELOW---- PROPOSED RETOPPED LEDE Proposed Revision of First two grafs in WP article (expanded to three) ( /info/en/?search=The_Daily_Caller)
The footnotes are included here as a matter of convenience to show factual basis for statements.Given the less-than-user-friendly nature of this screen, I'm including a OneCloud link so anyone can see the below in Word format. https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohwdjs1lDGQ2oQsCA?e=0Unepn
The Daily Caller is a conservative1 news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. Carlson does not have editorial input at The Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller has published several major stories quoted and followed by mainstream media often criticizing or exposing potential wrongdoing by both Democrats and Republicans.2 Daily Caller reporting led to investigations of the Republican National Committee;3 President Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and ties to the Turkish government;4 and exposés about the billionaire Sackler family and their relationship to the American opiate crisis.5 Critics say that The Daily Caller has published numerous incorrect stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos, and that the website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.
RATIONALE: • There’s no question in the overall context, critical tone and tenor of the Article that the phrase “right-wing” is a pejorative characterization. While editors may feel it’s justified, it’s still a personal interpretation, not a “fact.” The only RS’s referring to TDC consistently use the phrase “conservative.” Even one of the key citations in the current Article, namely The Atlantic story about Greer, pointedly uses the word “conservative.”
• Because of his controversial personality, readers should know that Carlson has no editorial role at TDC.
• The original article’s description of TDC begins with a non-stop litany of complaints that while may or may not be well-founded, overwhelmingly paint a picture of a right-wing “nut” publication. Far from “bothsidesism”, readers should know that TDC often turns its sights on many right-wing “sacred cows.” That is validated not by just the appearance of those stories in TDC itself, but that many reasonable, reliable and respectable news organizations have cited and or followed many TDC stories. At the same time, the “controversial” publications should surely be acknowledged -- they have to take their lumps -- but I respectfully suggest doing so in a NPOV manner. “Critics say [XX]” is fair. To simply side with those critics and repeat the “known for false stories” as gospel is not rooted in any factual basis – especially when at the end of the day we’re talking about a value judgment.
• The Greer episode is not definitional to what TDC is and is best moved to the “History” section. It’s worth noting here that the original Article garbles some important facts regarding Greer: he left the Daily Caller three months before The Atlantic exposed him as a racist. Readers should also know without ambiguity that he kept his nefarious writing a secret from TDC. Failing to include that leaves the unfair and false impression that TDC knew and/or approved of such writing. The fact that TDC’s own original material was redistributed by the ACLU and used to help convict the thugs at the “Unite the Right” rally should be included to dispel any such guilt-by-association.
2 https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/14/american-cartel-opioid-blood-money-sackler-family/
3 https://dailycaller.com/2010/03/29/high-flyer-rnc-chairman-steele-suggested-buying-private-jet-with-gop-funds/; https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303410404575152461551782520; http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/29/rnc-investigating-money-spent-at-racy-nightclub/; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/how-will-rnc-strip-club-scandal-hit-donors/346160/; 4 https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/trumps-top-military-adviser-is-lobbying-for-obscure-company-with-ties-to-turkish-government/; https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-turkey-lobbying-231354; https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-turkey-lobbying-231354; 5 https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/17/sackler-family-met-museum; https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/09/american-cartel-billionaire-family-behind-oxycontin-apparently-spends-zilch-rehabbing-addicts/; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/31/john-kapoor-insys-trial-opioids-crisis
CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
You didn’t read WP:TPG did you? I’m not going to help until you do. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Note: this is probably the most complicated section. In some instances, the article is out of date or simply erroneous, in others WP editors opinions are stated as fact without direct RS, and finally in others, the context that clarity demands may involve too much “getting into the weeds.” See “Rationale” section for more detail. Footnotes in brackets are in the original article, additional ones are added here. For convenience, a link to a Word version of the below is at: https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohxNLtdkl-pSNGF_Q?e=mzsdcM
[Climate change denial -2nd graf)]
“In 2017, The Daily Caller published a story erroneously claiming that a "peer-reviewed study" by "two scientists and a veteran statistician" found that recent years have not been the warmest ever.[21][22] The alleged "study" was a PDF file on a WordPress blog, and was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal.[21] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller republished a Daily Mail story which claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manipulated data to make climate change appear worse; at the same time, legitimate news outlets disputed the Daily Mail story. [23] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that a study found no evidence of accelerating temperatures over a 23-year period, which climate scientists described as a misleading story.[26] In 2016, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that climate scientist Michael Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) had asserted that data was unnecessary to measure climate change; Mann described the story as "egregiously false".[27] Mann lost a libel suit in August 2019 suing writers who alleged Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, and featured prominently in a U.N. 2001 climate report was “fraudulent”. The court did not rule on the validity of the “hockey stick” but rather dismissed the case because Mann refused to provide the court with his underlying data claiming that it was protected intellectual property. Mann was ordered to pay the defendants’ legal costs. 1,2 In 2015, The Daily Caller wrote that NOAA "fiddle[d]" with data when the agency published a report concluding that there was no global warming hiatus.[28][29]
RATIONALE:
• The second graf of the “Climate Change Denial” uses the word “falsely” as opposed to “erroneously.” The former implies knowing falsity and a malicious intent, and is an editorialization, whereas “erroneously” is factual, value neutral and undeniable. Moreover, much of the information is out of date: Since publication, Mann lost a libel suit because he refused to supply the B.C. Supreme Court with the underlying the data that is the basis of the infamous “hockey stick graph.” That raises also sorts of questions about Mann’s honesty or credibility, and I would suggest either including this new and relevant context, or better yet, trimming this section to simply show readers that The Daily Caller has indeed published articles from climate-change skeptics.
CITATIONS: 1 “A Climate Change for Lawsuits” ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-climate-change-for-lawsuits-11569279287
2 “Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit” ( https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/)
[Misleading video about NPR]
In 2011, The Daily Caller was the first news outlet to republish a video by conservative provocateur James O'Keefe which purportedly showed an NPR fundraiser deriding Republicans. The video was later proven to have been misleadingly edited.[36] Carlson explained to the Columbia Journalism Review that “The Caller did not produce the video, [but] only reported on it.”3
RATIONALE:
• The “Misleading NPR” section cherry picks and avoids Carlson’s explanation that TDC was not the creator of O’Keefe’s video, but merely the first to report on a newsworthy video. Leaving this out implies a false endorsement and misunderstands the doctrine of “Fair Comment” in which journalists must be able to show a “bogus” story to comment on its impact or meaning.
CITATIONS:
This was omitted from the same source article relied upon by WP (fn 36)
[2016 presidential election]
Suggest delete: “The Daily Caller played a significant role in creating and disseminating stories that had little purchase outside the right-wing media ecosystem but that stoked the belief among core Trump followers that what Clinton did was not merely questionable but criminal and treasonous.”
RATIONALE:
• The “2016 election” section states without factual support that TDC had “a significant role in creating and disseminating stories that had little purchase outside the right-wing media ecosystem.” I see no RS showing metrics of how often TDC was quoted by “the right-wing media ecosystem” or data showing it’s actual influence. This is an editorialization, virtually impossible of being proved true or false.
[Encouragement of violence against protesters]
“The video drew attention in August 2017 eight months later, when a white supremacist plowed his car through a group of counterprotesters at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville.”
RATIONALE:
• The section on “Encouragement of violence against protesters” implies a cause-and-effect. That’s pure speculation. The fairest way to address this is to add that the Charlottesville tragedy occurred eight months after TDC’s video.
[Ties to white supremacists]
Daily Caller deputy editor Scott Greer left the publication in July of 2018, and in August 2018, The Atlantic reported that Greer had secretly written pieces under the pseudonym "Michael McGregor" in the white supremacist publication “Radix Journal” from 2014 to 2015. None of these pieces were published in The Daily Caller, and Greer kept his pseudonym a secret from The Daily Caller. Greer reportedly expressed anti-Christian and antisemitic theories, as well as his relationship with white nationalist Richard Spencer. [55] Neil Patel, The Daily Caller’s publisher subsequently commented on why Greer had not been fired in 2017 and admitted having been deceived by Greer: “We had two choices: Fire a young man because of some photos taken of him at metal shows in college, or take his word. We chose to trust him. Now, if what you allege is accurate, we know that trust was a mistake, we know he lied to us. We won't publish him, anyone in these circles, or anyone who thinks like them. People who associate with these losers have no business writing for our company.” Prior to The Atlantic’s article, The Daily Caller had been criticized for publishing opinion pieces written by people characterized by the SPLC as “extremists” or “white nationalists.”4
RATIONALE:
• I might suggest deleting it altogether as this is addressed in the “History” section The “Ties to white supremacists” section garbles the timeline of Greer’s departure, which occurred before The Atlantic article. It also fails to include that Greer deceived TDC, who did not know Greer was publishing under a pseudonym and fails to include that none of his racist writing appeared in TDC. The article also avoids Patel’s admission that he had been deceived, which is in the very same source article used by WP to make the allegations in the first place.
CITATION:
4 “The Daily Caller has a white nationalist problem” (originally published by SPLC, available at https://www.salon.com/2017/08/21/the-daily-caller-has-a-white-nationalist-problem_partner/)
[Stefan Halper]
Suggest this be moved to new section “Significant Publications” and with updates.
[Allegation of non-profit abuse] Add: Neither The Daily Caller News Foundation nor The Daily Caller, Inc. have been the subject of any investigation or probe by the Internal Revenue Service suggesting inappropriate activity or violations of 501(c)3 regulations.
RATIONALE:
• The “Allegation of non-profit abuse” section fails to tell readers that TDC has not been the subject of IRS investigation, a fundamental failure of fairness and completeness.
[Imran Awan]
Suggest deletion because the Awan story has developed so much further than when originally published and has less to do with The Daily Caller than with Awan.
[Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez]
Add: The photo itself was not a “nude” selfie but showed only a pair of legs in a bathtub, and was not a full-body photograph.
RATIONALE:
• The “Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez” section ought to tell the readers that the photo was not really a “nudie.”
[Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez – repeated subhed]
Suggest deletion because the article repeats the AOC subhed, but speaks to a story about how The Washington Post erroneously attributed a quote from Rep. Ilhan Omar to The Daily Caller, and retracted that allegation.
RATIONALE:
• The repeated subhed of “Fake nude picture” makes no sense. To begin with, it’s about Rep. Ilhan Omar, all it says is that The Washington Post erred in attributing a quote to TDC. Aside from piling on, this tells readers nothing about TDC and should be deleted.
CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
It shows a pair of feet in a bathtub, but a blurred reflection of a nude female torso is also visible[3]. Saying that the Daily Caller has not been the subject of an IRS investigation would be goalpost-moving and special pleading, in addition to being a selective presentation of our reliable sources; the WaPo notes that the IRS could be reluctant to get involved for political reasons, a point we would have to address. I see no reason to delete the Imran Awan material simply for being part of a larger story; the story may be larger, but the role of the Caller is amply documented and worth mentioning. The "Encouragement of violence against protesters" subsection already notes the time gap between January and August 2017 and makes no claim of causation that I can see, only echoing the statement of correlation made by CNN Money. The passage on the 2016 election could doubtless use work, but the sourcing and attribution to the Berkman Klein Center report are adequate for the claims currently made. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
As to the AOC "selfie", I don't understand the reticence to simply add a line that we agree is correct— the current, brief, description of that incident is adequate to my eyes, and further hair-splitting would merely balloon the prose beyond the limits of due weight. The photo was billed as a nude image, the Caller said people were calling it a nude, and we have reported that. Over-elaboration is not clarity.
Readers will not "do the math" and nullify the intention behind the section, namely, to imply a connection that we all know isn't there.I don't know that
a connection ... isn't there. I make no claim one way or the other. The Caller removed a video from their website, an act which was documented in secondary sources to an extent that it warrants a mention, and in order to explain the context as our sources do, we have to say something about the background. The phrasing of that explanation is, of course, up for debate, but I am not sure how reiterating an amount of elapsed time does much to improve it.
The second graf of the “Climate Change Denial” uses the word “falsely” as opposed to “erroneously.” The former implies knowing falsity and a malicious intent, and is an editorialization, whereas “erroneously” is factual, value neutral and undeniable.In my experience, fact-checkers write "falsely" precisely in order to avoid editorialization. Falsely claimed does not imply malicious intent or conscious deception, as lied would, for example. The validity of the hockey stick graph is not contested in mainstream climate science, and has no bearing here. (I note in passing that "Principia Scientific" is not a reliable source, the status of the WSJ opinion section is at best dubious in that regard, the Columbia Journalism Review noted a dearth of reliable reporting on the British Columbia dismissal, and that at least one recent legal battle involving Mann ended with his detractors apologizing.) XOR'easter ( talk) 21:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
XOR'easter regarding the implication of causality, I kind of think you are making my point for me. You say "don't know that a connection ... isn't there. I make no claim one way or the other." I understand there's a point at which one simply has to put the pen down, so to speak, and not beat any specific point to death. But as I said, if it were not to raise an implication of connection, why would the item be in the article in the first place? Aye, there's the rub. CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
Apologies again for the formatting mess. Pasted below are the suggested edits and rationale. You can also see a Word version of the below for your convenience at https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohuLA9U8FDagjwCkA?e=0cgq0Y
PROPOSED EDITS-----
STAFF AND CONTRIBUTORS (Additions/Clarifications) The Daily Caller is a member of the White House rotating press pool1 and has full-time reporters on Capitol Hill credentialed by The Periodical Press Gallery2,3 , which oversees credentialing of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. The Daily Caller is also a member of the Online News Association, the world’s largest digital journalism association.
Opinion contributors to The Daily Caller have included economist Larry Kudlow, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and aide to President Obama Luis Miranda, former US Senate Candidate and Judge Jeanine Pirro, Socialist educator Glenn Sacks, history professor and impeachment advocate Allan J. Lichtman, Ann Coulter, the NRA-ILA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). 4,5,6,7,8
[add third graf] The Daily Caller also owns and operates Check Your Fact, a for-profit subsidiary website wholly owned by The Daily Caller, Inc. The stated mission of Check Your Fact is “to independently fact check statements by influencers, as well as reporting by other news outlets. We also vet the many widely-shared claims that rocket across the internet every day” and says that “our mission is a non-partisan one. We're loyal to neither people nor parties -- only the truth. And while the fact-checking industry continues to grow, there are still countless assertions that go unchecked. We exist to fill in the gaps.” Check Your Fact invites readers to submit queries about news stories.9
RATIONALE: • Adds more precision to credentialing facts.
• The list of opinion contributors (all of these contributions are clearly marked “OPINION” and carry a disclaimer that they do not represent the views of TDC) that appears in the original article may appear to be cherry-picked to show only right-leaning contributors. In fact, TDC frequently runs Op/Eds from a wide range of viewpoints and experiences, including those of former staffers for President Obama, The Democratic National Committee, proponents of impeachment, proponents of socialism, and other persons and entities who are far from “right-wing.”
• Adds missing info about Check Your Fact.
Citations: 1 “Daily Caller joins W.H. Pool” ( https://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0210/Daily_Caller_joins_WH_pool.html)
2 https://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/about/
3 https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/?page_id=9213;
4 "On Christian Political Apostasy as The Source Of America's Greatest Peril" ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/25/on-christian-political-aposta sy-as-the-source-of-americas-greatest-peril/).
5 “The President’s Wall Confession Should Have Been the End of the Shutdown” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/miranda-wall-confession
6 “Conservatives Shouldn’t Ignore Socialism’s Successes” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/06/sacks-socialism-successes)
7 “Mueller Is Done; It’s Time for Congress To Impeach” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/25/lichtman-mueller-impeach)
8 “Costly USDA Proposal Would Spend More Tax Dollars And Help Animal Abusers” ( https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/29/winders-usda-animals)
9 https://checkyourfact.com/about-us
CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 16:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
(section was titled "Revert of Doncram's changes"; i hope this title is accepted as more productive for discussion. There is a content issue to discuss: what should appear in the article. If anyone wants to suggest something negative about me personally, please let's discuss at my or your user Talk page and consider going to wp:ANI if necessary, instead of here. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC))
I have reverted Doncram's insertion of bothsidesism into the article lede. While I think the section in question is not well-written, NPOV does not require us to create a false balance. The claim that "most major news sources ... have published numerous false stories" is entirely unsourced and not likely to be true. We treat The Daily Caller differently than The New York Times because they are different - one has a widespread reputation as an ideological mouthpiece for the right-wing (and specifically now, Trumpism), while the other has a widespread reputation as a mainstream news organization. Different things are different, and we have no requirement to treat them similarly. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
TDC is notable not because it has published more than one false story in its history, it is notable because it has published an unusually and unacceptably large number of such stories.Yes, this. Arguably, though, making the bare statement that the lede currently does conveys that point, because the lede is for summarizing the article and saying what the most significant things about the topic are. I'm not sure the current sentence needs to be changed (and leaving it in place would be the "conservative" thing to do, ha ha). Also, while we're discussing the introduction, I suspect that some language like "The Daily Caller has deliberately courted controversy" would be supportable by RS'es. And, looking over that long list of suggested tags, I don't think any of them are appropriate. Blanket banner-bombing is not a productive course of action, and in no way is this article so bad that the Wikipedia community needs to disavow it. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans and Doncram: Please remember this talk page, not edit summaries, is the right way to communicate. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"If Doncram wants his changes added to the article he or she needs to seek consensus here."which would have been fair enough. While you discussed your issues with the idea behind it above it would probably be helpful to explain explicitly which part of the changes you find troubling or if the whole thing why (perhaps referring to existing or new sources) to help further the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I have to say. I'm a bit confused. I asked where User:Snooganssnoogans ( talk) had a factual basis for saying here that the Daily Caller has "admitted" or "said" that they are "right-wing." So far, nada, zip, zero. I spent the last 2 hours combing the archives and can't find anything even remotely close to that. In fact, one of the other editors found a direct quote from Tucker Carlson dispelling that characterization. Is that just ignored because it doesn't fit a few editors preconceived narrative? What gives? Not being wise in the ways of Wiki, are some editors more "powerful" than others and able to unilaterally override changes? Also, I'm not sure what Roxy, the dog. wooF means by sharing remuneration. I'm assuming in good faith that's just a joke. I'm hoping to be able to upload here this weekend a few suggested changes, reliable citations in support and rationale for some changes. And again, I reiterate that some editors who are rather plainly hostile to the subject seem to have an agenda or interest in not having their previous work changed. Seems to me that fresh eyes are called for to avoid any appearance of bias. Is everyone cool with that? I take no offense at being corrected, but editors digging in their heels seems to fit the public perception that WP is a "club" where some editors hold sway over what is and isn't revised. Surely, that can't be right. Thanks as always, and yours in fairness and truth-seeking, CharlesGlasserEsq ( talk) 00:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq
What are the sources that support "The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos."
? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anywhere in the body of the article where we say that it has published "numerous" false stories. I see about a dozen examples of false stories, two doctored photos and one doctored video. For us to take a set of examples, and draw a conclusion from those examples, would be
WP:SYNTH. So are there sources in the article (or anywhere) that say that TDC has published "numerous" false stories, or "many", or more than other similar publications? Has any source compared its veracity with, say, NYT, or CNN, or HuffPo (like that study that compared the accuracy of Wikipedia to other publications)? I think we need secondary sources stating this proposition directly in order for us to state it in wikivoice in the article. –
Leviv
ich
03:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
a rightwing website that has pushed misinformationin its lede, indicating significance of the point; Oxford's Computational Propaganda Project deemed them "junk news" [7]). The gist of the Berkman Klein Center report was that it wasn't so much that their reporting was entirely false, but rather that truth was mixed up with distortions and extrapolations. (
The second most tweeted story [...] offered a case study in how disinformation is created by weaving bits and pieces of evidence into a fundamentally misleading presentation[8].) XOR'easter ( talk) 04:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
They don't provide any information about their data. The other problem is their use of the term "junk news," since it could cover a range from fakenews such as Pizzagate to selective publication of stories that differs from mainstream media. But that begs the question of whether mainstream media is unbiased in its selection of stories to cover. For example, why did anti-government demonstrations in socialist Venezuela receive more coverage than similar demonstrations in neoliberal Ecuador, Chile, and Haiti? I would want to see something more than inclusion on a list, unless the list (such as the SPLC hate list) was widely used. TFD ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)