This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Center Square article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Watchdog.org has become one of the most important journalism organizations in the country. Even before the economy turned sour, newspapers began suffering financial hardship, forcing many to shut their doors and those remaining open have drastically cut staff to stay afloat. Reporters covering state capitals and local government are rarely seen and investigative journalism has become almost non-existent. Watchdog.org and their state-based news groups have filled this void.
In November 2009, they uncovered federal stimulus funds being allocated to non-existing congressional districts. Every newspaper and news program in America reported the Watchdog.org findings. Their work has been recognized by everyone from the New York Times, Associated Press and Fox News. Google News now recognizes their work and recently they have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
Recent edits were made on this page to the tune of "An article says that Donor's Trust is primarily funded by the Koch brothers. The Franklin Center is funded by Donor's Trust. Therefore, the Franklin Center is primarily funded by Charles and David Koch." This is WP:SYNTH--combining separate statements to advance a particular claim. Where is the proof that the Franklin Center is primarily funded by Charles and/or David Koch, besides the conjecture that Kochs fund Donors Trust, and Donors Trust funds Franklin, therefore Koch=Franklin? Safehaven86 ( talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I propose that Illinois Watchdog be merged into Watchdog.org. It doesn't appear to me that Illinois Watchdog has free-standing notability. It seems to be a service or product of Watchdog.org, and I believe it would be more appropriate to have a section titled "Illinois Watchdog" on the Watchdog.org page, than for Illinois Watchdog to continue to have its own page. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I was raised to hesitate before reverting a colleague, to not revert unless necessary, and to try and fix before reverting. You three have revert a dozen some edits, several hours of a fellow editor's contributions, including additions of significant, neutral content, multiple reliable source references, and formatting. You are very clearly reverting an editor, not edits. You are asserting ownership, not improving our encyclopedia. Hugh ( talk) 22:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Apparently according to some the subject of this article is completely free of controversy. Hugh ( talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
In June editors proposed the merging of this page with Franklin, I suggest we do so now. Discussion? Capitalismojo ( talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. No quick merge. Obviously the subject of this article has sufficient reliable sources and notability. Your recently demonstrated willingness to proceed with a an undiscussed page blanking and redirect, absent any merge or preservation of content and sources, leads me to question the sincerity of your merge proposal. Hugh ( talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit strikes me as a bit odd. The article in question was published in 2012. I don't doubt that the article was accurate at the time. However, based on looking at the Watchdog website today (and based on looking at our Wikipedia article here, which includes the group's stated mission) it's clear that the group does have a stated mission that includes promoting conservatism. It says right here that the group has a mission to "promote individual liberty and free markets." AKA conservatism. Why would we include outdated information that's clearly inaccurate? Our article is currently contradicting itself by including the group's stated mission to promote conservative ideas, then by saying that the group does not state that it wishes to promote conservative ideas. That makes no sense. Safehaven86 ( talk) 17:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
"a mission to "promote individual liberty and free markets." AKA conservatism." No, that's just as much a liberal agenda, and thus those words do not clearly identify them as "conservative". If they are conservative, and they clearly are, they should not hide it behind nice sounding soundbytes, but should declare it openly. Are they ashamed of something? -- {{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
03:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Watchdog.org has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please move a reference one sentence later. The Reid Wilson, Washington Post ref is used once in the article but is one sentence too soon. It supports the "4 times more likely" sentence. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that the page is currently locked down due to slow and not so slow motion edit warring, I think the various editors involved on this page would be well-served to discuss and agree upon new edits here. I'll start with my suggestions.
1) "In August 2012, the vice president of journalism of the Franklin Center said 'We try to set the agenda. That’s what a good newspaper does and what a good website does' and 'We have a point of view. Big deal.'" What value is this quote from a representative of the organization adding? The article clearly establishes that Watchdog.org is a conservative website. I'm not sure that repeating the website's agenda in different ways is adding any value to the article. We have their mission statement in the article, why do we need a quote from a staffer as well?
2) "The Watchdog websites' reporting reflects the Franklin Center's focus on government waste and public employee unions." If included, this should be attributed to the Columbia Journalism Review. It would also make more sense directly after the group's stated mission statement, as it is a continuation/description of that mission from a third-party source.
3) "In 2013, the vice president of journalism of the Franklin Center said that the reporting of the Franklin Center's news outlets was not influenced by the Franklin Center's ties to other conservative organizations." Why is the group itself an acceptable source on whether the group is influenced by others? Of course the group says it's not influenced by others. What kind of group would say about itself "yeah, we are unduly influenced by other groups." See WP:SPS. If you want to make this kind of claim about a group, their own thoughts on the matter aren't an acceptable source.
4) "Watchdog.org accepts contributions from nonprofessional journalists." The source material for this is here: "Most of the sites are staffed by a single reporter, though they use contributions from non-professional journalists and have a citizen journalism platform called Watchdog Wire." The other source for that information is a story by the Franklin Center's former president. I don't see anything in that WP:SPS piece that says anything about "accepting contributions from nonprofessional journalists." Our current sentence is not accurately reflecting the source material. When you look at the source material, you see that it is explaining the staffing model for these websites (mostly staffed by one reporter, though they also use contributions from non-professional journalists and have a citizen journalism platform). The point of the source is not to say "aha! These people accept contributions from nonprofessional journalists!" It's to say that most of the sites have one full-time staffer, although they also accept contributions from others and host a citizen journalism website. Why the focus on the nonprofessional journalist contributions and no mention of the citizen journalism site, which has just as much coverage in the cited source? That's selection bias leading to neutrality issues.
5) "The Illinois affiliate was denied state capitol press credentials due to the lack of transparency regarding its funding." The first source fails verification. It makes no mention of an Illinois Watchdog affiliate. It is an article about the Franklin Center which states "The lack of transparency caused its Illinois site to be denied a spot in the state capitol press bureau." However, it doesn't mention Watchdog. This article says it was a Franklin Center website called Illinois Statehouse News that was denied credentials. It says nothing of Illinois Watchdog, which according to our article, is the Watchdog.org affiliate in Illinois. It looks like we're dealing with two different websites here. Our second source confirms this. It doesn't mention Watchdog, and does mention Illinois Statehouse News. Ditto the third source. None of these sources adequately verify the information in our article, and it in fact seems our article is currently factually inaccurate. No sources say anything about Illinois Statehouse News being a Watchdog website, and in fact according to our article, Watchdog does have an Illinois website, Illinois Watchdog, and it doesn't appear that the latter has ever been denied press credentials.
6) "In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the Watchdog website made no mention of Watchdog’s conservative perspective." This has already been covered above, but this is an odd thing to include. As we state in our article, the Watchdog mission clearly states a focus on conservatism: "promote individual liberty and free markets." The CJR info is out of date and not notable since based on our more recent sourcing, it's clearly obsolete. See item #1 above--obviously this group isn't a shrinking violet about their views.
7) "The Watchdog.org website says the Watchdog organization is 'committed to creating non-partisan journalism.'" Truncated from that description is "...in a distinctive voice deeply skeptical of the entire political process." Later saying "The Columbia Journalism Review said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan 'seems only nominally true'" sounds like an editor trying to make a point, and like possible WP:SYNTHESIS. Again, the CJR article is long and thorough, there has to be a good reason for pulling out particular sentences from it to focus on.
8) Way too much emphasis on the Pew Research study. This is an article about Watchdog.org. Why are we hearing about the specifics of an entire, broad-raging study, or about the American Independent News Network? We're beating a dead horse here with describing the group as conservative, and including things like this "Watchdog articles were about four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal." Of course they are! This is not interesting or surprising. OMG, a website that says it is conservative actually is conservative and posts conservative stories. There seems to be an effort by editors here to focus in on this, as if documenting all of this conservatism is leading to some sort of "gotcha." But sorry, the cat's out of the bag...I mean, how dare this website do what its mission statement says it will do! There's no need to document in detail that it, in fact, does just that. It's not notable. If a group says it is conservative and posts liberal stories, now that would be interesting and notable and unexpected--but the fact that the group is what it says it is seems like a non-story.
9) The phantom districts section contains a lot of Watchdog-published stories, which raises questions about whether the information is notable enough for inclusion. There also needn't be WP:SCAREQUOTES here: "apparently 'phantom' districts."
All of that, and I still haven't addressed all of the issues with the recent spate of edits to this page. To avoid edit warring, I'd highly advise that editors engage here to find agreement before making changes to the article itself. Safehaven86 ( talk) 02:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
"spate" Classy. Thank you for your patience with this incursion into your curatorial arena. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
1. The quote you mention is not redundant to the mission statement. It is related to the mission statement but it does not say the same thing as the mission statement. It says much more than the mission statement. But this is obvious, so I have no idea why you would try to argue they say the same thing. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Good suggestions, thanks. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. As an experienced editor, you well understand that self-published statements may be used if they are about the subject itself, and this is conformant in in-text attribution, so I have no idea why you would bring this up. Delete the mission statements from all your articles and come back here and try this again. I will definitely be bookmarking your comments on self-published sources here. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. The article by the president of Franklin is a solicitation to citizen journalists, and is a supplemental reference in support of the other reference for that content, which is a reliable, independent, third-party, secondary source. But as an experienced editor you understand there are two refs, so I have no idea why you would bring it up. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC) The distinction between professional journalists and citizen journalists is significant. I am sure you will support informing our readers that this news organization uses both. Hugh ( talk) 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Two references for an item of content, one a reliable, independent, third-party, secondary source, the other a primary source, is a common pattern in Wikipedia citation; are you seeing it for the first time here? Hugh ( talk) 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Illinois Statehouse News is Illinois Watchdog. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
6. I'm sorry you think it odd. Please reference policy and guideline in your objections. The content is reliably sourced to multiple well-formatted references, neutral, and verifiable. Of course our project is not restricted to documenting only the current state of things. Sigh. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Juxtaposition is not synthesis WP:NOTSYNTH. Obviously the CJR is responding to the claim on the Watchdog website. Of course we can mention both what the Watchdog site says and what CJR says AND we can mention them right next to each other. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Pew is a dream source. Pew is the kind of source we wish every article had. What a boon to our project that Pew conducted not one but two recent studies of nonprofit journalism. Of course the Pew studies are noteworthy and used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS as documented by multiple well-formatted references. What a blessing that a highly respected, neutral, competent research organization should write reports including analysis of the transparency, topics, partisanship, and ideology of the very subject we are writing about. I know you think mission statements are the last word in articles about conservative organizations, but I'm sorry they are not WP:MISSION. Of course saying "News source x is conservative" is not saying the same thing as "News source x is 4x more likely to take a conservative as liberal position." How wonderful that a reliable, neutral, third party assessed this for us, and attempted to quantify an estimate of the situation! Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Of course the "phantom" districts story is noteworthy, it is the single most noteworthy story by any of the Watchdog sites, ever. The 'phantom' districts paragraph is, after, all, a paragraph about a story the subjects of this article broke, so, yes, it is sourced in part to those stories. All the content in the phantom districts paragraph has reliable, independent, third-party, secondary sourcing, plus supplemental sourcing to relevant primary documents: the Watchdog stories. Which you of course noticed and which you as an experienced editor understand, so I have no idea why you felt compelled to misrepresent the sourcing. "Scare quotes" are in the source, not mine. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Given all the recent edits, 70 by HughD alone before the article was locked, I would suggest rolling back to the last stable version of the article then adding content back in once consensus has been reached instead of starting with the article as locked. Springee ( talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Watchdog.org has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph, please move up the 4th sentence "The Watchdog websites' reporting reflects ...public employee unions." (and its ref), to after the first sentence. Please prefix with in-text attribution, "According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Watchdog websites' reporting..." Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Watchdog.org has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Extra "the." In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, please change "The Watchdog site in the New Mexico..." to "The Watchdog site in New Mexico..." Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 14:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In 2011, the Pew Research Center found that 15% of Watchdog articles were exposes, that is, targeted a politician, program, or government agency, and that 11% targeted a Democratic politician, Democratic program, or Democratic-controlled government agency while 2% targeted Republicans. The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan "seems only nominally true."
Among Watchdog.org sites, most stories studied (85%) did not target any individual or organization for wrong-doing. But 15% were exposes. And most of those targeted a Democrat, a Democratic program, a Democratic-led state or the federal government (11% of all stories studied). A smaller amount, 2% of all stories studied, targeted Republicans.
The sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize. (Though the Franklin Center's website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.)
The Pew Research Center is exactly the kind of highly respected, neutral, third-party source our project wishes would weigh in on all media outlets covered by our project. That Pew has an ongoing project to survey and analyze the nonprofit news sector is a huge boon to the neutrality of our project in this area. The disputed content is a Pew result highly relevant to the subject of this article. Of course our project's pillar of neutrality requires that our project's article on this subject should include for our readers a neutral, unbiased, relevant, verifiable, well-referenced, quantified assessment of the partisanship of the subject of this article. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we include anything from this article in the Watchdog.org article? For example, "But there is a key clue to the Koch brothers’ vision of the media— the Kochs’ leading media investment to date, an ambitious right-leaning investigative outlet called the Franklin Center and its watchdog.org network, which defines itself as neither partisan nor political." It seems like it's pretty notable if the Franklin Center/Watchdog.org is the Koch's leading media investment. Safehaven86 ( talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. [1] [2]
nfj20110718
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 Talk 06:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)In 2012, Justin Peters of the Columbia Journalism Review wrote: "The [Watchdot.com] sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize. (Though the Franklin Center’s website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.)"
The third paragraph in the Background section is not really representative. The original story, [8] disclosed that Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was contacted and they blamed data-entry errors for the errant districts. The real story is that the stimulus created only 30,000 jobs at a cost of $225,000 each. Scarantino played up the nonexistent districts angle (in his local section), but did link back to the original Bill McMorris article. [9] If the AP would have just read the entire thread, they could have saved themselves a lot of work. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 Talk 04:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
In 2009, the Watchdog site in New Mexico analyzed data published by the administration of President Barack Obama regarding the expenditures authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Journalist Bill McMorris found that the stimulus had created only 30,000 jobs at a cost of $225,000 each. Watchdog.org reported that millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds were allocated to projects in congressional districts that did not exist; for example, to the twenty-second congressional district in New Mexico, although New Mexico has just three congressional districts. McMorris reported that the government said the "phantom congressional districts" were a result of data entry errors.
-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 Talk 09:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)There are problems with the stimulus data being reported, problems that call into question how accurate the job count is. But the "phantom congressional districts" are being used as a phantom issue to suggest that stimulus money has been misspent.
Older submission
|
---|
In 2009, Watchdog New Mexico analyzed data published by
Recovery.gov regarding the stimulus expenditures authorized by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On November 15, Jim Scarantino reported that the cost per each stimulus job had reached nearly $314,000 in New Mexico.
[1] On November 16, Scarantino reported that millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds were allocated to projects in congressional districts that did not exist; for example, to the twenty-second congressional district in New Mexico, although New Mexico has just three congressional districts.
[2] On November 17, Scarantino did a follow-up story,
[3] referencing Watchdog National reporter
Bill McMorris' reporting, who examined the data and found that funds were distributed to 440 non-existent Congressional districts. McMorris also found that nationally, just under 30,000 jobs had been "created or saved," at a cost of just under $225,000 each.
[4] Both November 17, articles noted that Ed Pound, Director of Communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency board had gone on record with Michael Noyes of the Monatana Watchdog on November 16, and Pound stated that the stimulus recipients made these data entry errors and confirmed the $84 million dollar budget for the Recovery.org website.
[5]
Writing for the Washington Monthly, [7] Laura McGann, infers that ABC News scooped the story in their November 16, "Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist", without attribution to the Watchdog. [8] Apparently, not realizing that ABC News and the Watchdog, posted identical quotes from Director Ed Pound, she goes on to make a fact-checking case against the Watchdog, using the reporting of Associated Press writer, Matt Apuzzo who wrote: "The facts: Scarantino's original report was correct, and his analysis was the latest discovery of problems in the massive database of stimulus spending." Appuzo discounted the growing "phantom congressional district" story by tracking down one errant zip-code and one faulty Congressional district. Apuzzo's closing paragraph reads, "Scarantino said Wednesday that his initial blog post was just trying to show problems in the data." [9] Better ending? In a virtually identical CBS News article, attributed to the AP but not specifically Apuzzo, the report closes with, "There are problems with the stimulus data being reported, problems that call into question how accurate the job count is. But the 'phantom congressional districts' are being used as a phantom issue to suggest that stimulus money has been misspent." [10] |
V.2 Submitted for review and POV check: Background Section, Paragraph 3
|
---|
==Phantom Congressional (stimulus) Districts==
In 2009, Watchdog New Mexico analyzed data published in the $84 million website, Recovery.gov, [5] regarding the stimulus expenditures authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A series of articles were published on the stimulus topic, initially examining the number of jobs created and the cost per-job, but the conversation turned to the revelation that $6.4 billion in grants had been awarded in 440 non-existent Congressional Districts: [3] [4]
|
This is a prose article, not a list article WP:PROSE. Please write prose or consider a list subarticle WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for your chronology. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 01:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Disputed content in the Outside analysis section:
The 2011 Pew study found that Watchdog articles were about four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal. The 2011 Pew study found that 15% of Watchdog articles were exposes, that is, targeted a politician, program, or government agency, and that 11% targeted a Democratic politician, Democratic program, or Democratic-controlled government agency while 2% targeted Republicans. In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan "seems only nominally true."
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1....Among Watchdog.org sites, most stories studied (85%) did not target any individual or organization for wrong-doing. But 15% were exposes. And most of those targeted a Democrat, a Democratic program, a Democratic-led state or the federal government (11% of all stories studied). A smaller amount, 2% of all stories studied, targeted Republicans.
Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.
Though the Franklin Center's website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.
Disputed content in the Outside analysis section in bold:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchdog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. The 2011 study found that Watchdog articles were nearly four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal.
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.
Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.
Hugh ( talk) 18:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Stories with clear partisan themes were most prevalent in the two families of sites.
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1. (At the same time, 49% reflected a mix of views, or reflected ideas that had no particular ideological theme.)
The overall numbers at the American Independent News Network sites were similar, nearly 4-to-1 liberal to conservative: 37% of the stories carried a pro-liberal theme, either attacking conservative figures, praising liberal ones, or espousing a liberal idea on an issue; 11% heavily reflected conservative ideas; 53% were mixed or non-partisan.
A third opinion has been requested. However, Safehaven86 is correct. It appears that, while this controversy is primarily between 009o9 and HughD, two other editors have commented. As a result, I am removing the third opinion request. Any editor may request moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or may file a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Marquardtika. Yes, this article could use an update, but not about any connection to a group with a similar name. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 02:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content, shown in bold, be added to the "outside analysis/independent evaluation" section/paragraph:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchdog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. The 2011 Pew study found that Watchdog articles supported a conservative theme nearly four times more often than liberal.
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.
Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.
Hugh ( talk) 15:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The first of the two sources is already in use in the section; the second source, The Washington Post is added by this proposal.
Hugh ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a brief statement. Please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection below for threaded comments; please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to adjust your position here as discussion progresses. Please maintain civility; discussion participants are respectfully reminded this article is under discretionary sanctions. Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as this article is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you.
This doesn't seem to be relevant to the RfC. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Not relevant to the actual RFC. Please discuss the content here not the editors. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Circular passive arguing about whether or not this is neutral is going nowhere. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Is the subject of this article devoid of criticism or controversy? Is this article neutral with respect to reliable sources? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 01:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully remind this page is under discretionary sanctions, and best behavior is expected, including avoiding edit warring. As stated in the article hat, please do not revert the POV article hat until this issue is resolved. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 04:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
FYI: There are two conservative navigation templates. A horizontal navbox footer Template:Conservatism footer and a side bar, Template:Conservatism sidebar, there is also a category, "Category:Conservative American magazines"; however, I'm not sure that Watchdog.org could be considered a magazine. Franklin Center and Donor's Trust are listed in "Category:Conservatism in the United States", Watchdog.org currently is not. 009o9 ( talk) 02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking around, I also found another sidebar, Template:Conservatism US. I'm really not sure about the appropriateness of the sidebars (politics is not my thing) and if they should be in addition to the infobox etc. 009o9 ( talk) 03:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) There is also a footer version of the US template, probably the most appropriate. Template:Conservatism US footer 009o9 ( talk) 03:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a group sending e-mails that encourage action based on data or reports they found that is called Watchdog.net. Is it simply a mailing address for Watchdog.org, or a wholly different entity? I found one blog post from 2008 saying that Watchdog.net gathered free public data and let people with the know-how use the data for their own activism or interests, suggesting that Watchdog.bet was new or relatively new that year. The blogger was interested in the data, and said no more than that. Is there a source to say if they are the same? I have not logged in to Watchdog.net, which seems the only way to see substantive information at that web site. Curious. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I rewrote the section about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act based on the third-party reliable sources (per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:INDY), removed some WP:SYNTH from sources that did not mention Watchdog.org or Franklin, and also removed the longstanding neutrality template. Llll5032 ( talk) 16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Center Square article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Watchdog.org has become one of the most important journalism organizations in the country. Even before the economy turned sour, newspapers began suffering financial hardship, forcing many to shut their doors and those remaining open have drastically cut staff to stay afloat. Reporters covering state capitals and local government are rarely seen and investigative journalism has become almost non-existent. Watchdog.org and their state-based news groups have filled this void.
In November 2009, they uncovered federal stimulus funds being allocated to non-existing congressional districts. Every newspaper and news program in America reported the Watchdog.org findings. Their work has been recognized by everyone from the New York Times, Associated Press and Fox News. Google News now recognizes their work and recently they have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
Recent edits were made on this page to the tune of "An article says that Donor's Trust is primarily funded by the Koch brothers. The Franklin Center is funded by Donor's Trust. Therefore, the Franklin Center is primarily funded by Charles and David Koch." This is WP:SYNTH--combining separate statements to advance a particular claim. Where is the proof that the Franklin Center is primarily funded by Charles and/or David Koch, besides the conjecture that Kochs fund Donors Trust, and Donors Trust funds Franklin, therefore Koch=Franklin? Safehaven86 ( talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I propose that Illinois Watchdog be merged into Watchdog.org. It doesn't appear to me that Illinois Watchdog has free-standing notability. It seems to be a service or product of Watchdog.org, and I believe it would be more appropriate to have a section titled "Illinois Watchdog" on the Watchdog.org page, than for Illinois Watchdog to continue to have its own page. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I was raised to hesitate before reverting a colleague, to not revert unless necessary, and to try and fix before reverting. You three have revert a dozen some edits, several hours of a fellow editor's contributions, including additions of significant, neutral content, multiple reliable source references, and formatting. You are very clearly reverting an editor, not edits. You are asserting ownership, not improving our encyclopedia. Hugh ( talk) 22:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Apparently according to some the subject of this article is completely free of controversy. Hugh ( talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
In June editors proposed the merging of this page with Franklin, I suggest we do so now. Discussion? Capitalismojo ( talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. No quick merge. Obviously the subject of this article has sufficient reliable sources and notability. Your recently demonstrated willingness to proceed with a an undiscussed page blanking and redirect, absent any merge or preservation of content and sources, leads me to question the sincerity of your merge proposal. Hugh ( talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This edit strikes me as a bit odd. The article in question was published in 2012. I don't doubt that the article was accurate at the time. However, based on looking at the Watchdog website today (and based on looking at our Wikipedia article here, which includes the group's stated mission) it's clear that the group does have a stated mission that includes promoting conservatism. It says right here that the group has a mission to "promote individual liberty and free markets." AKA conservatism. Why would we include outdated information that's clearly inaccurate? Our article is currently contradicting itself by including the group's stated mission to promote conservative ideas, then by saying that the group does not state that it wishes to promote conservative ideas. That makes no sense. Safehaven86 ( talk) 17:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
"a mission to "promote individual liberty and free markets." AKA conservatism." No, that's just as much a liberal agenda, and thus those words do not clearly identify them as "conservative". If they are conservative, and they clearly are, they should not hide it behind nice sounding soundbytes, but should declare it openly. Are they ashamed of something? -- {{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
03:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Watchdog.org has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please move a reference one sentence later. The Reid Wilson, Washington Post ref is used once in the article but is one sentence too soon. It supports the "4 times more likely" sentence. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that the page is currently locked down due to slow and not so slow motion edit warring, I think the various editors involved on this page would be well-served to discuss and agree upon new edits here. I'll start with my suggestions.
1) "In August 2012, the vice president of journalism of the Franklin Center said 'We try to set the agenda. That’s what a good newspaper does and what a good website does' and 'We have a point of view. Big deal.'" What value is this quote from a representative of the organization adding? The article clearly establishes that Watchdog.org is a conservative website. I'm not sure that repeating the website's agenda in different ways is adding any value to the article. We have their mission statement in the article, why do we need a quote from a staffer as well?
2) "The Watchdog websites' reporting reflects the Franklin Center's focus on government waste and public employee unions." If included, this should be attributed to the Columbia Journalism Review. It would also make more sense directly after the group's stated mission statement, as it is a continuation/description of that mission from a third-party source.
3) "In 2013, the vice president of journalism of the Franklin Center said that the reporting of the Franklin Center's news outlets was not influenced by the Franklin Center's ties to other conservative organizations." Why is the group itself an acceptable source on whether the group is influenced by others? Of course the group says it's not influenced by others. What kind of group would say about itself "yeah, we are unduly influenced by other groups." See WP:SPS. If you want to make this kind of claim about a group, their own thoughts on the matter aren't an acceptable source.
4) "Watchdog.org accepts contributions from nonprofessional journalists." The source material for this is here: "Most of the sites are staffed by a single reporter, though they use contributions from non-professional journalists and have a citizen journalism platform called Watchdog Wire." The other source for that information is a story by the Franklin Center's former president. I don't see anything in that WP:SPS piece that says anything about "accepting contributions from nonprofessional journalists." Our current sentence is not accurately reflecting the source material. When you look at the source material, you see that it is explaining the staffing model for these websites (mostly staffed by one reporter, though they also use contributions from non-professional journalists and have a citizen journalism platform). The point of the source is not to say "aha! These people accept contributions from nonprofessional journalists!" It's to say that most of the sites have one full-time staffer, although they also accept contributions from others and host a citizen journalism website. Why the focus on the nonprofessional journalist contributions and no mention of the citizen journalism site, which has just as much coverage in the cited source? That's selection bias leading to neutrality issues.
5) "The Illinois affiliate was denied state capitol press credentials due to the lack of transparency regarding its funding." The first source fails verification. It makes no mention of an Illinois Watchdog affiliate. It is an article about the Franklin Center which states "The lack of transparency caused its Illinois site to be denied a spot in the state capitol press bureau." However, it doesn't mention Watchdog. This article says it was a Franklin Center website called Illinois Statehouse News that was denied credentials. It says nothing of Illinois Watchdog, which according to our article, is the Watchdog.org affiliate in Illinois. It looks like we're dealing with two different websites here. Our second source confirms this. It doesn't mention Watchdog, and does mention Illinois Statehouse News. Ditto the third source. None of these sources adequately verify the information in our article, and it in fact seems our article is currently factually inaccurate. No sources say anything about Illinois Statehouse News being a Watchdog website, and in fact according to our article, Watchdog does have an Illinois website, Illinois Watchdog, and it doesn't appear that the latter has ever been denied press credentials.
6) "In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the Watchdog website made no mention of Watchdog’s conservative perspective." This has already been covered above, but this is an odd thing to include. As we state in our article, the Watchdog mission clearly states a focus on conservatism: "promote individual liberty and free markets." The CJR info is out of date and not notable since based on our more recent sourcing, it's clearly obsolete. See item #1 above--obviously this group isn't a shrinking violet about their views.
7) "The Watchdog.org website says the Watchdog organization is 'committed to creating non-partisan journalism.'" Truncated from that description is "...in a distinctive voice deeply skeptical of the entire political process." Later saying "The Columbia Journalism Review said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan 'seems only nominally true'" sounds like an editor trying to make a point, and like possible WP:SYNTHESIS. Again, the CJR article is long and thorough, there has to be a good reason for pulling out particular sentences from it to focus on.
8) Way too much emphasis on the Pew Research study. This is an article about Watchdog.org. Why are we hearing about the specifics of an entire, broad-raging study, or about the American Independent News Network? We're beating a dead horse here with describing the group as conservative, and including things like this "Watchdog articles were about four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal." Of course they are! This is not interesting or surprising. OMG, a website that says it is conservative actually is conservative and posts conservative stories. There seems to be an effort by editors here to focus in on this, as if documenting all of this conservatism is leading to some sort of "gotcha." But sorry, the cat's out of the bag...I mean, how dare this website do what its mission statement says it will do! There's no need to document in detail that it, in fact, does just that. It's not notable. If a group says it is conservative and posts liberal stories, now that would be interesting and notable and unexpected--but the fact that the group is what it says it is seems like a non-story.
9) The phantom districts section contains a lot of Watchdog-published stories, which raises questions about whether the information is notable enough for inclusion. There also needn't be WP:SCAREQUOTES here: "apparently 'phantom' districts."
All of that, and I still haven't addressed all of the issues with the recent spate of edits to this page. To avoid edit warring, I'd highly advise that editors engage here to find agreement before making changes to the article itself. Safehaven86 ( talk) 02:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
"spate" Classy. Thank you for your patience with this incursion into your curatorial arena. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
1. The quote you mention is not redundant to the mission statement. It is related to the mission statement but it does not say the same thing as the mission statement. It says much more than the mission statement. But this is obvious, so I have no idea why you would try to argue they say the same thing. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Good suggestions, thanks. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
3. As an experienced editor, you well understand that self-published statements may be used if they are about the subject itself, and this is conformant in in-text attribution, so I have no idea why you would bring this up. Delete the mission statements from all your articles and come back here and try this again. I will definitely be bookmarking your comments on self-published sources here. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
4. The article by the president of Franklin is a solicitation to citizen journalists, and is a supplemental reference in support of the other reference for that content, which is a reliable, independent, third-party, secondary source. But as an experienced editor you understand there are two refs, so I have no idea why you would bring it up. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC) The distinction between professional journalists and citizen journalists is significant. I am sure you will support informing our readers that this news organization uses both. Hugh ( talk) 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Two references for an item of content, one a reliable, independent, third-party, secondary source, the other a primary source, is a common pattern in Wikipedia citation; are you seeing it for the first time here? Hugh ( talk) 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Illinois Statehouse News is Illinois Watchdog. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
6. I'm sorry you think it odd. Please reference policy and guideline in your objections. The content is reliably sourced to multiple well-formatted references, neutral, and verifiable. Of course our project is not restricted to documenting only the current state of things. Sigh. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Juxtaposition is not synthesis WP:NOTSYNTH. Obviously the CJR is responding to the claim on the Watchdog website. Of course we can mention both what the Watchdog site says and what CJR says AND we can mention them right next to each other. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Pew is a dream source. Pew is the kind of source we wish every article had. What a boon to our project that Pew conducted not one but two recent studies of nonprofit journalism. Of course the Pew studies are noteworthy and used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS as documented by multiple well-formatted references. What a blessing that a highly respected, neutral, competent research organization should write reports including analysis of the transparency, topics, partisanship, and ideology of the very subject we are writing about. I know you think mission statements are the last word in articles about conservative organizations, but I'm sorry they are not WP:MISSION. Of course saying "News source x is conservative" is not saying the same thing as "News source x is 4x more likely to take a conservative as liberal position." How wonderful that a reliable, neutral, third party assessed this for us, and attempted to quantify an estimate of the situation! Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Of course the "phantom" districts story is noteworthy, it is the single most noteworthy story by any of the Watchdog sites, ever. The 'phantom' districts paragraph is, after, all, a paragraph about a story the subjects of this article broke, so, yes, it is sourced in part to those stories. All the content in the phantom districts paragraph has reliable, independent, third-party, secondary sourcing, plus supplemental sourcing to relevant primary documents: the Watchdog stories. Which you of course noticed and which you as an experienced editor understand, so I have no idea why you felt compelled to misrepresent the sourcing. "Scare quotes" are in the source, not mine. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Given all the recent edits, 70 by HughD alone before the article was locked, I would suggest rolling back to the last stable version of the article then adding content back in once consensus has been reached instead of starting with the article as locked. Springee ( talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Watchdog.org has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph, please move up the 4th sentence "The Watchdog websites' reporting reflects ...public employee unions." (and its ref), to after the first sentence. Please prefix with in-text attribution, "According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Watchdog websites' reporting..." Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Watchdog.org has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Extra "the." In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, please change "The Watchdog site in the New Mexico..." to "The Watchdog site in New Mexico..." Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 14:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In 2011, the Pew Research Center found that 15% of Watchdog articles were exposes, that is, targeted a politician, program, or government agency, and that 11% targeted a Democratic politician, Democratic program, or Democratic-controlled government agency while 2% targeted Republicans. The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan "seems only nominally true."
Among Watchdog.org sites, most stories studied (85%) did not target any individual or organization for wrong-doing. But 15% were exposes. And most of those targeted a Democrat, a Democratic program, a Democratic-led state or the federal government (11% of all stories studied). A smaller amount, 2% of all stories studied, targeted Republicans.
The sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize. (Though the Franklin Center's website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.)
The Pew Research Center is exactly the kind of highly respected, neutral, third-party source our project wishes would weigh in on all media outlets covered by our project. That Pew has an ongoing project to survey and analyze the nonprofit news sector is a huge boon to the neutrality of our project in this area. The disputed content is a Pew result highly relevant to the subject of this article. Of course our project's pillar of neutrality requires that our project's article on this subject should include for our readers a neutral, unbiased, relevant, verifiable, well-referenced, quantified assessment of the partisanship of the subject of this article. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we include anything from this article in the Watchdog.org article? For example, "But there is a key clue to the Koch brothers’ vision of the media— the Kochs’ leading media investment to date, an ambitious right-leaning investigative outlet called the Franklin Center and its watchdog.org network, which defines itself as neither partisan nor political." It seems like it's pretty notable if the Franklin Center/Watchdog.org is the Koch's leading media investment. Safehaven86 ( talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. [1] [2]
nfj20110718
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 Talk 06:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)In 2012, Justin Peters of the Columbia Journalism Review wrote: "The [Watchdot.com] sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize. (Though the Franklin Center’s website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.)"
The third paragraph in the Background section is not really representative. The original story, [8] disclosed that Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was contacted and they blamed data-entry errors for the errant districts. The real story is that the stimulus created only 30,000 jobs at a cost of $225,000 each. Scarantino played up the nonexistent districts angle (in his local section), but did link back to the original Bill McMorris article. [9] If the AP would have just read the entire thread, they could have saved themselves a lot of work. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 Talk 04:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
In 2009, the Watchdog site in New Mexico analyzed data published by the administration of President Barack Obama regarding the expenditures authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Journalist Bill McMorris found that the stimulus had created only 30,000 jobs at a cost of $225,000 each. Watchdog.org reported that millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds were allocated to projects in congressional districts that did not exist; for example, to the twenty-second congressional district in New Mexico, although New Mexico has just three congressional districts. McMorris reported that the government said the "phantom congressional districts" were a result of data entry errors.
-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9 Talk 09:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)There are problems with the stimulus data being reported, problems that call into question how accurate the job count is. But the "phantom congressional districts" are being used as a phantom issue to suggest that stimulus money has been misspent.
Older submission
|
---|
In 2009, Watchdog New Mexico analyzed data published by
Recovery.gov regarding the stimulus expenditures authorized by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On November 15, Jim Scarantino reported that the cost per each stimulus job had reached nearly $314,000 in New Mexico.
[1] On November 16, Scarantino reported that millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds were allocated to projects in congressional districts that did not exist; for example, to the twenty-second congressional district in New Mexico, although New Mexico has just three congressional districts.
[2] On November 17, Scarantino did a follow-up story,
[3] referencing Watchdog National reporter
Bill McMorris' reporting, who examined the data and found that funds were distributed to 440 non-existent Congressional districts. McMorris also found that nationally, just under 30,000 jobs had been "created or saved," at a cost of just under $225,000 each.
[4] Both November 17, articles noted that Ed Pound, Director of Communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency board had gone on record with Michael Noyes of the Monatana Watchdog on November 16, and Pound stated that the stimulus recipients made these data entry errors and confirmed the $84 million dollar budget for the Recovery.org website.
[5]
Writing for the Washington Monthly, [7] Laura McGann, infers that ABC News scooped the story in their November 16, "Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist", without attribution to the Watchdog. [8] Apparently, not realizing that ABC News and the Watchdog, posted identical quotes from Director Ed Pound, she goes on to make a fact-checking case against the Watchdog, using the reporting of Associated Press writer, Matt Apuzzo who wrote: "The facts: Scarantino's original report was correct, and his analysis was the latest discovery of problems in the massive database of stimulus spending." Appuzo discounted the growing "phantom congressional district" story by tracking down one errant zip-code and one faulty Congressional district. Apuzzo's closing paragraph reads, "Scarantino said Wednesday that his initial blog post was just trying to show problems in the data." [9] Better ending? In a virtually identical CBS News article, attributed to the AP but not specifically Apuzzo, the report closes with, "There are problems with the stimulus data being reported, problems that call into question how accurate the job count is. But the 'phantom congressional districts' are being used as a phantom issue to suggest that stimulus money has been misspent." [10] |
V.2 Submitted for review and POV check: Background Section, Paragraph 3
|
---|
==Phantom Congressional (stimulus) Districts==
In 2009, Watchdog New Mexico analyzed data published in the $84 million website, Recovery.gov, [5] regarding the stimulus expenditures authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A series of articles were published on the stimulus topic, initially examining the number of jobs created and the cost per-job, but the conversation turned to the revelation that $6.4 billion in grants had been awarded in 440 non-existent Congressional Districts: [3] [4]
|
This is a prose article, not a list article WP:PROSE. Please write prose or consider a list subarticle WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for your chronology. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 01:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Disputed content in the Outside analysis section:
The 2011 Pew study found that Watchdog articles were about four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal. The 2011 Pew study found that 15% of Watchdog articles were exposes, that is, targeted a politician, program, or government agency, and that 11% targeted a Democratic politician, Democratic program, or Democratic-controlled government agency while 2% targeted Republicans. In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan "seems only nominally true."
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1....Among Watchdog.org sites, most stories studied (85%) did not target any individual or organization for wrong-doing. But 15% were exposes. And most of those targeted a Democrat, a Democratic program, a Democratic-led state or the federal government (11% of all stories studied). A smaller amount, 2% of all stories studied, targeted Republicans.
Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.
Though the Franklin Center's website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.
Disputed content in the Outside analysis section in bold:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchdog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. The 2011 study found that Watchdog articles were nearly four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal.
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.
Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.
Hugh ( talk) 18:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Stories with clear partisan themes were most prevalent in the two families of sites.
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1. (At the same time, 49% reflected a mix of views, or reflected ideas that had no particular ideological theme.)
The overall numbers at the American Independent News Network sites were similar, nearly 4-to-1 liberal to conservative: 37% of the stories carried a pro-liberal theme, either attacking conservative figures, praising liberal ones, or espousing a liberal idea on an issue; 11% heavily reflected conservative ideas; 53% were mixed or non-partisan.
A third opinion has been requested. However, Safehaven86 is correct. It appears that, while this controversy is primarily between 009o9 and HughD, two other editors have commented. As a result, I am removing the third opinion request. Any editor may request moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or may file a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Marquardtika. Yes, this article could use an update, but not about any connection to a group with a similar name. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 02:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following content, shown in bold, be added to the "outside analysis/independent evaluation" section/paragraph:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchdog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. The 2011 Pew study found that Watchdog articles supported a conservative theme nearly four times more often than liberal.
At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.
Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.
Hugh ( talk) 15:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The first of the two sources is already in use in the section; the second source, The Washington Post is added by this proposal.
Hugh ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a brief statement. Please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection below for threaded comments; please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to adjust your position here as discussion progresses. Please maintain civility; discussion participants are respectfully reminded this article is under discretionary sanctions. Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as this article is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you.
This doesn't seem to be relevant to the RfC. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Not relevant to the actual RFC. Please discuss the content here not the editors. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Circular passive arguing about whether or not this is neutral is going nowhere. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Is the subject of this article devoid of criticism or controversy? Is this article neutral with respect to reliable sources? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 01:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully remind this page is under discretionary sanctions, and best behavior is expected, including avoiding edit warring. As stated in the article hat, please do not revert the POV article hat until this issue is resolved. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 04:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |
FYI: There are two conservative navigation templates. A horizontal navbox footer Template:Conservatism footer and a side bar, Template:Conservatism sidebar, there is also a category, "Category:Conservative American magazines"; however, I'm not sure that Watchdog.org could be considered a magazine. Franklin Center and Donor's Trust are listed in "Category:Conservatism in the United States", Watchdog.org currently is not. 009o9 ( talk) 02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking around, I also found another sidebar, Template:Conservatism US. I'm really not sure about the appropriateness of the sidebars (politics is not my thing) and if they should be in addition to the infobox etc. 009o9 ( talk) 03:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) There is also a footer version of the US template, probably the most appropriate. Template:Conservatism US footer 009o9 ( talk) 03:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a group sending e-mails that encourage action based on data or reports they found that is called Watchdog.net. Is it simply a mailing address for Watchdog.org, or a wholly different entity? I found one blog post from 2008 saying that Watchdog.net gathered free public data and let people with the know-how use the data for their own activism or interests, suggesting that Watchdog.bet was new or relatively new that year. The blogger was interested in the data, and said no more than that. Is there a source to say if they are the same? I have not logged in to Watchdog.net, which seems the only way to see substantive information at that web site. Curious. - - Prairieplant ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I rewrote the section about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act based on the third-party reliable sources (per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:INDY), removed some WP:SYNTH from sources that did not mention Watchdog.org or Franklin, and also removed the longstanding neutrality template. Llll5032 ( talk) 16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)