Talk:Norah O'Donnell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Something needs to be added about her right-of-center bias in her reports. For instance, her interview of "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan was very biased for President Bush but seemed to smear the left-wing position. - concerned conservative
Who would write a criticism about someone unless they had a problem with what that person was saying or doing? I love Norah, but you don't see me posting in her bio about how wonderful I think she is. Criticisms (and praises) are for blogs not bios. Just the facts ma'am! (Sgt. Joseph Friday LAPD)
- I agree, when I first came across this article, it had a small Bio section with a HUGE Criticism section. Editing and removing it didn't work...and so...in an effort to be fair, I figured that what constitutes one person's "Criticisms" must therefore constitute another person's "Praise". So I took the entire Criticism section, reworded it and labeled it as Praise to reflect the opposing view. So in all fairness...the entry can't have one without the other. Remove em both...fine...but not one without the other. And I agree "Just the facts"...but unfortunetly, many Wiki editors seem to believe that their opinions/criticisms are facts. They will just respond back "It is a fact that Norah is biased towards the White House" *sigh* Jeravicious 01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently much of Wikipedia is edited and written by people on the "Left" who for some reason believe that adding their own "opinions" and "criticisms" of people, journalists, events which don't line up with their own agendas is to be considered "Fact" and therefore is worth being detailed here......Interesting. Can you just imagine having an Encyclopedia Britannica full of "opinions"??? What is my proof of this?? Why, you only need to read the articles about FOX News, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, etc, etc...and yet for some reason...there is little to no criticism of MSNBC, Jon Stewart, Democrats, Al-Jazeera, etc.
Here is what is going to happen....The Leftys will add criticism and opinions where they see fit, and the Rightys will do the same. Then it will be left up to the "editors" to delete where they see fit....I'm gonna guess they're Leftys also. And in the end....Wikipedia will get the same criticisms as all other biased outlets.
I doubt that most of you even realized how biased you really are....NEWS FLASH: Your opinions and critiques are NOT Factual nor are they News.
Bravo!!!....Bravo!!!.....
Piece of advice...leave in the Facts and leave out for biased criticisms. Help us all out.
I wonder when this media whore is going to get her own page on mediamatters? 68.110.199.122 22:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
yeah. I got the latest controversial remark documented.
- Nice work on that. 68.110.199.122 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This external links sections seems to violate NPOV. Suggest adding some opposing viewpoints. Also in the biographical section it might be worth mentioning that her father is a retired 1-star general.
why were the criticisms deleted? they were fair critcisms. she called people who are opposed to the iraq war "extremists" when she hosted hardball. I don't understand why that was deleted. [Previous unsigned comment by anonymous IP 65.40.140.37]
- The criticisms were in a section called "Controversy". There is nothing controvertial about a guest host or panelist expressing a personal opinion on a political talk show, even opinions that a majority of people might disagree with. I think the criticism section is far too long relative to the rest of the article. The article might appropriately quote her making comments supportive of the president to demonstrate her political leanings, but the extensive critiques of these statements don't belong in this article. Readers should decide for themselves if her opinions are "controversial". --דוד ♣ D Monack 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so how about we say something like "Some people on the left believe that O'Donnell is biased towards the White House or at the very least misinformed when she gives her opinion on various political issues. They cite instances where O'Donnell made generalizations and opinions which were supportive of the President but were not necessarily supported by the facts." Sounds good to me.
I think this paragraph: "Some people on the left believe that O'Donnell is biased towards the White House or at the very least misinformed when she gives her opinion on various political issues. They cite instances where O'Donnell made generalizations and opinions which were supportive of the President but were not necessarily supported by the facts."
Ought to be revised, as the poster seems to be mixing up Norah's style of playing 'devil's advocate' with her supporting the White House. I've seen her reporting on a regular basis for several years, and, it seems to me that in acutallity, she's leans pretty heaviliy to the left and should be careful about letting her opinion leak out. FWIW
I was not certain if I need to annotate my comments or not or if poster information is automagically inserted. Apologies.
Contents |
[edit] Criticism removed
Why is criticism of O'Donnell removed? It seems legitimate that criticism of a news anchor who should be unbiased is documented when she isn't. Someone seems to think that Wikipedia is run by Fox News (We Report, We Decide). If you have a concern that this criticism is unfounded, let's disccus it here, but I think that legitimate criticism of the behavior of a woman who is supposedly an unbiased journalist is legitimate content. Please respect the will of Wikipedia users if you have such strong feelings about the illegitimacy of criticism of a news anchor. Also, I guess that means that any criticism of FAUX news is unwarranted because it is so unbiased. Ha ha, that is a funny joke, funny funny funny. -Wikitoddia 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of Cindy Sheehan interview link
Someone referred to the link I added, Crooks & Liars, as a left-wing smear site. This is not true. C&L posts audio, video, and some commentary of politicians themselves. It doesn't edit the footage. If anyone is smearing on Crooks and Liars, it is the politicians who don't realize how callous they sound. In addition, Wikipedia (quite reasonably) requires verifiable claims. This video link is verifiable evidence of the section I wrote about the manner in which O'Donnell interviewed Sheehan. Just because someone doesn't like it being presented doesn't negate it as evidence of disdain. ~----
[edit] Ok I Changed the section and think everyone should be happy
I took out a lot of the "evidence" and just documented the controversy itself rather than the substance. Wiki is not the place to debate O'donnell's so-called bias, but just to document that a debate does exist, to give broad sketches of it, and provide people with the proper links to find out for themselves. Wikitod...the concern here is that many people are tough in interviews and when people don't like it, on the left or the right, everyone screams bias. Arguably, by that logic, we could include a charge of bias section in every single reporter's wiki entry. I'm not saying we shouldn't include such sections, but they shouldn't take up the whole entry or else every news wiki entry will become a back and forth left wing/right wing blog. I think my changes (which people can tweak) are appropriate and give a broad idea of the debate out there, which is arguably worth documenting, since we are discussing it, although in my personal oppinion, I don't think this section should be included at all. I think this represents a compromise. 70.30.160.154 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I think the hostility which she Norah O'Donnell shows toward Cindy Sheehan is different from most journalists' points of view. Sheehan is not a threatening person or certainly shouldn't seem that way and for O'Donnell to be so abrupt with her seems to me evidence of extreme bias. If a journalist working for a big conglomerate is so hostile to a relatively powerless woman, it reflects poorly on her and seems to me noteworthy. Do you think O'Donnell would be so rude to a Senator or to Bill Gates? And Cindy Sheehan lost a son in Iraq, and yet she's still as composed as ever under O'Donnell's cynical, dismissive, (and short-sighted) interviewing. And your note that some say Sheehan invited such treatment? So if a guest on any interview show is disrespectful, it's warranted for the host to be disrespectful to them? So two wrongs DO make a right. Ahhhh. C'mon, that's a really spurious claim. Not only that, but that's a new argument to me. I don't think there's much room for a compromise here. To me, bias in an MSNBC anchor is news. I appreciate your attempt but I think it falls well short. -Wikitoddia 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cindy Sheehan has become a public figure with a political agenda by choice. It's the media's job to scrutinize what she says. It is O'Donnell's job to be "cynical". O'Donnell gives politicians, including U.S. senators, the same treatment. I don't know if she has ever interviewed Bill Gates but I believe he'd get the same treatment. Having a dead son, as tragic as that is, doesn't make you immune from criticism if you make yourself a public figure. Sheehan is appearing on TV because of her outspoken views and influence, not because of her son's death. O'Donnell would be negligent as a journalist if she didn't challenge her. If her stance is substantially different from other journalists' (I don't think it is), then that'd be noteworthy and would reflect poorly on the profession of journalism, not on O'Donnell. --dm (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikitodd, you're being very political. Accusations of bias are facts, and that's what my revision gives - the fact that the accusation exists. Your revision seems to try to prove that there is bias. We all know as human beings all newscasters might let their biases slip into their news. But proving such bias is better left to groups like "media matters." "Proof of bias" is the point of view problem. Many people would argue that the nature of the show is confrontational and that O'Donnell's playing devil's advocate as she should. I said, "those on the right" would claim that Sheehan invited such an aggressive interview. Would you even dispute that right wingers would argue that? I've seen such posts on the net. Aren't those as valid as DU posts? If we're going to have a section about what blog posters think, then we can add both sides. Secondly, your claim that Sheehan is not threatening or innocuous as you said before is a point of view. Just because she has a nice demenour, doesn't mean that her ideas aren't objectionable to some. My revision states the controversy and the accusations from both sides without needing to go into the evidence. If we go into evidence, should I be allowed to provide evidence of O'Donnell being fair at other times, or harsh to someone on the right, in order to prove an anti-right bias? You see what I'm saying? Wiki will become a blog if we all that. I'm making the changes back. They document the controversy sufficiently. If you want, add a link to the interview so people can see for themselves. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia, not a place to vent. Speaking honestly, the version you support is horribly written and very POV. It purports to document the controvery, then argues againt O'Donnell and for Sheehan. That's not your job! In essence, what your version does it to state as fact that O'Donnell is biased. That's not a fact! That's a point of view. For example, your line "reciting statements and claims which seemed illogical and unrepresentative of the beliefs of Americans." - is way off when it comes to wiki standards. By the way, todd, is your contention that interviewers have to be respectful and not question anyone? Isn't that what got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. So what your saying is that two wrongs do make a right. I.e. because the MSM has been easy on the right, it should be easy on the left?? It seems that's precisely what you're saying. Some people see Sheehan as nothing more that a sweet mother who lost a son; some see her as someone with radical views using her son in order to vocalize those views. It's our job to document that rift in point of view...not to say that one is right.70.30.160.154 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stop It
Stop putting criticisms anywhere in here. Criticisms are just opinions trying to be passed off as fact. Just state facts and let the reader conclude if that person is or isn't, "whatever".
Example:
Hitler: Criticism:
Hitler was seen by his loyal generals as being too slow in ordering the "Final Solution".
See how retarded that is! Now stop it. Here endeth the lesson!
