Talk:Christopher Ruddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Christopher Ruddy article.
  • Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
  • Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Place new comments after existing ones (but within topic sections).
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.


Contents

[edit] Laudabilis

The marks may be documented, but not encyclopaedic. --Eddi (Talk) 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor of the New York Guardian

I have removed reference to the New York Guardian as non-WP:V. The underlying article from Annonline is factually incorrect.--BradPatrick 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Christopher Ruddy is the editor of the New York Guardian." Ruddy, Christopher. "PBS found truth inconvenient in war documentary", St. Petersburg Times, December 17, 1992, pp. 26A. 
"But Christopher Ruddy of the New York Guardian..." Summers, Harry. "Honors...and dishonors", The Washington Times, August 12, 1993, pp. G3. 
"Christopher Ruddy, editor of the New York Guardian..." Price, Joyce. "TV show `Liberators' challenged as untrue", The Washington Times, February 7, 1993, pp. A5. 
Kotepho 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I did a little research on my own, and it seems that there are quite possibly two papers with a similar title and we have them confused. One, the New York Guardian, may have been a Catholic pro-life publication. The other is the one that our article is about. Therefore the link from this page to Ruddy is likely in error and should be corrected quickly.--Jimbo Wales 19:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Office Action?

Why was an Office Action applied to this article? What made it problematic? Seahen 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NewsMax.com 69.72.44.99 14:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:Newstuff}}

[edit] Notes on proposed text

The Hoover Institution fellowship would have been easier to verify, except that their online list of past Media Fellows only goes back to 1998, one year after Ruddy says he got it. Incidentally, the fellowship appears to involve a one-week visit to Stanford for lectures, seminars, and informal meetings. --Michael Snow 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] restubbed

The article that was up there was pretty biased and contained errors. Rather than keeping that up, I thought it best to totally restubify until the new version is ready.--Jimbo Wales 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there any errors being complained of other than the New York City Tribune? --Michael Snow 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Why does the article say Foster's "death"? It was a suicide according to three independent investigations. (Killing oneself is different than "dying.") And shouldn't there be a mention of the Arkansas Project, which Mellon-Scaife (investor in Ruddy's NewsMax and the owner of Pittsburgh Tribune that Ruddy worked for) helped fund to discredit Clinton? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.131 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] New York City Tribune

"Fortunately, I began to be published by non-mainstream media: the New York City Tribune, whose editor in chief was Robert Morton and Chris Ruddy, editor of the New York Guardian." seems to be the quote that Michael Snow was relying on (see the reference in the article) to say that Ruddy worked for the New York City Tribune. But I believe that Snow was misled by this very awkward sentence.

In fact, Ruddy has never had anything to do with the New York City Tribune at all.--Jimbo Wales 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Well, saves us from trying to have to figure out what the New York City Tribune was to fill in that redlink. --Michael Snow 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age

The SEC filing cited in notes lists him as 37 as of February 22, 2002, making a likely birth year of 1964. I won't add it for now since I dislike the "born circa" thing for living bios. Jokestress 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing factual and valid viewpoints

Snow wrongly removed two links, and has been reverted. I don't intend to engage in an edit war. This note is to record the aggressive exclusion of ideas that compete with false claims by Ruddy concerning an item this article discusses. The example is this edit by Snow.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/fatal96.htm which provides the official reasons for the air crash based on findings by NTSB and international air crash investigators.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/ron-brown/ a well-written article based on a factual discussion of an accidental plane crash with the errors in Ruddy's conflation of Ron Brown's death with his unproven claim of murder.

These two links are unrelated but shed light on the event.

Skywriter 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Brown

The fact of the crash is already stated, the actual reasons for the crash have no connection to what the article discusses about Ruddy's work. Feel free to improve Ron Brown with details like that, although I recommend better sources than random websites. And rotten.com is simply not a reputable source for this article. --Michael Snow 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vincent Foster

This statement regarding the initial investigation, "The first was by the United States Park Police in whose jurisdiction the original investigation fell." is inaccurate.

It has been changed to read: The initial investigation was a joint FBI and United States Park Police investigation with the FBI being the lead investigative agency assuming primary jurisdiction. The Official Report of Foster's death states, "Official federal government records demonstrate that throughout the 16 day U.S. Park Police investigation into the case, FBI participation was significant."

In addition to the sources given in the article the following official records support the corrected statement:

According to the transcript of the August 10, 1993 press conference Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heymann said, "The FBI joined the Park Police in the initial stages of the inquiry into Vince Foster’s death because of his status as a federal official and the assassination statutes…where there is a death of a high government official that’s covered by the assault or the assassination statutes." (Transcript available in Senate Hearings Vol. 103-889. Hearings Related to Madison Guaranty S&L and the Whitewater Development Corporation – Washington, DC Phase [Senate] Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate, 1994, pp 2464-2465 & 2467)

The Presidential and Presidential staff assassination statute 18 U.S.C. 1751 mandated that the FBI had primary jurisdiction investigating Foster’s death. FBI Agent John K. Danna, said, "It was a violation…the potential violation involving a presidential staff member…Title 18, section 1751." (From the Deposition of FBI Agent John K. Danna, June 28, 1995 at Senate Hearings Vol. 104-869 Investigation of Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, administered by the Committee on Banking, housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate, 1995, pp 1487-1488)

Secret Service Agent Dennis S. Martin said on the evening of Foster’s death he was told to meet FBI investigators the following morning to assist getting them into the White House. (From the Deposition of Secret Service Agent Dennis S. Martin, June 22, 1995 at Senate Hearings Vol. 104-869 Investigation of Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, administered by the Committee on Banking, housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate, 1995, p. 585)

FBI Agent Scott Salter stated, "[FBI Agent] John Danna called us in my car and told us to go to the southwest gate of the White House and meet him there and that we were to, that we were going to be working on a death investigation involving Mr. Foster’s death." (From the Deposition of FBI Agent Scott Salter on, June 30, 1995 at Senate Hearings Vol. 104-869 Investigation of Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, administered by the Committee on Banking, housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate, 1995, p. 2087)

Department of Interior Chief of Staff Thomas Collier testified on deposition on June 23, 1995 that "the FBI and the Park police ended up working on this kind of hand in glove." (From the Deposition of Department of Interior Chief of Staff Thomas Collier, June 23, 1995 at Senate Hearings Vol. 104-869 Investigation of Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, administered by the Committee on Banking, housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate, 1995, p. 763)

U.S. Park Police Major Robert Hines stated that the FBI dominated much of the investigation in his July 30, 1994, deposition:

Q. Did there come a time when you determined that [the] Department of Justice was really in charge of this investigation?
A. There came a time when I determined that they were calling a lot of the shots, setting up a lot of protocols…[and that this became evident] on the evening of July 22.

(From the Deposition of Park Police Major Hines, July 30, 1994 at Senate Hearings Vol. 103-889. Hearings Related to Madison Guaranty S&L and the Whitewater Development Corporation – Washington, DC Phase [Senate] Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate, 1994, p 1224) Thomist 01:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't inaccurate. It's talking specifically about the investigation of Foster's death, not the ancillary stuff that turned into Whitewater and the rest. The first investigation was by the USPP; the FBI may have helped a bit, but the notion that they were the lead agency or had primary jurisdiction is off-base. In fact, several of the sources convey the impression that the reason conspiracy theories got any legs at all is because the USPP wasn't well-equipped to handle the investigation and didn't cover all the bases properly. The FBI might have avoided that if they'd been the ones doing it.

What you cite doesn't even indicate that the FBI had primary jurisdiction. The statute mentioned deals with killing of Presidential staff, and the whole point is that this was suicide, not homicide. Jurisdiction was determined by the location. Fort Marcy Park falls to the USPP, and they're the ones that handled the scene. The FBI was subsequently called in in case, but since the conclusion was suicide, the statute didn't apply.

Hines, frankly, should be viewed with great skepticism as trying to shift blame. Moldea points to his misstatements as being the source of a lot of the confusion about the investigation. --Michael Snow 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


I am aware that the popular opinion is that the U.S. Park Police conducted the initial death investigation. This viewpoint primarily comes from published reports in the press and in books by journalists. But the official underlying record does not support this view.

Mr. Moldea alleged that Major Hines misstated facts about how Mr. Foster was shot and the "exit wound" when he spoke to Mr. Irvine and Mr. Goulden (see p. 144, A Washington Tragedy). But Mr. Moldea never said that Major Hines misstated the facts when he was under oath and testified that the FBI was calling the shots early in the investigation.

We should not ignore Robert Bryant, Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Metropolitan Field Office and all of the others who testfied about the FBI role in the death investigation including:

FBI Agent John K. Danna

Secret Service Agent Dennis S. Martin

FBI Agent Scott Salter

Department of Interior Chief of Staff Thomas Collier

Secret Service Agent Paul Imbordino

FBI Agent Salter testified, "[FBI Agent] John Danna called us in my car and told us to go to the southwest gate of the White House and meet him there and that we were to, that we were going to be working on a death investigation involving Mr. Foster’s death." Salter and his partner FBI Agent Dennis Condon arrived at the White House the morning after Foster's death to work on the "death investigation."

Other FBI agents that appear in the official documents as participating in the initial investigation are agents, Charles K. Dorsey and Bradley J. Garrett.

The Table of Contents of reports of FBI interviews by FBI Agent Scott Salter, [Assistant White House Counsel] Stephen Neuwirth, [White House Counsel] Bernard Nussbaum, [Deputy Assistant Counsel to the President] Charles W. Burton, [White House Chief of Staff] Thomas McLarty, [Assistant to the President] David Gergen, James Hamilton, [Deputy Attorney General] Phillip Heymann, Leonard Megby, [Assistant Counsel] Clifford Sloan, [Secret Service Agent] Donald Flynn, [Secret Service Agent] Paul Imbordino, [Deputy Assistant Attorney General] David Margolis, [Deputy Assistant Attorney General] Roger Adams, [Park Police Captain] Charles Hume, [Park Police Detective] Peter Markland, [White House executive secretary] Deborah Gorham, Duncan Sellers, Ray Scott, Susan Purvis, Joseph Purvis, Roger Kammerdeiner, Joseph Phillips, James Young, [Chief of staff to the First Lady] Margaret Williams, [Special assistant to the President] Patsy Thomasson, [Assistant to the President] David Watkins. (source: H.R. 104-849 Investigation of the White house Travel Office Firings and Related Matters, 1996 page 735)

During the course fo the initial investigation, FBI agents interviewed over two dozen people, regarding events leading up to and immediately following Mr. Foster's death, far more that the Park Police interviewed.

These facts may be news to many because these facts have not been publicized in the press, but they are the official facts in the official public record.

If Mr. Foster's death was a homicide the FBI would have had jurisdiction because of the assassination statute. Normal police procedure states that any unattended death is to be treated as a homicide until homicide can be ruled out. The FBI officially closed it's initial investigation on August 5, 1993. Yet at the press conference on Foster's death, held August 10, 1993, Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heymann said he had "received an FBI report this morning..." four days after the FBI and park Police had officially closed the case.

At that press conference Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heyman explained that "[t]he FBI joined the Park Police in the initial stages of the inquiry into Vince Foster's death...[and] the FBI has been assisting in that investigation."

It may be debatable who had the lead, but until it was determined to be a suicide the FBI should have had the lead. At any rate it is clearly established in the official record from the officials in charge that the investigation was a joint FBI and Park Police investigation and not an investigation by the Park Police alone. I do not want to revert the article if you think I have the facts wrong. I hope you will reconsider at least stating that it was a joint FBI / Park Police investigation. Thank you for your interest in this topic. Thomist 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind stating that the FBI assisted. Focusing on interview counts is a bit misleading, though. The USPP was dealing with the forensic aspects, investigating the scene where the body was found, which was critical to the determination of suicide but involves a lot of non-interview work. Most of what you cite doesn't actually say the FBI had the lead, it requires additional assumptions to make it come out that way. Even Hines's quote would indicate that the FBI was only directing behind the scenes, unofficially. --Michael Snow 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on interview counts could be misleading, but it is not if you look at the big picture. It may be more accurate to say the Park Police appeared to be dealing with the forensic aspects. The Park Police admit many of the initial crime scene photographs went missing, they did not attend the autopsy until after it was in progress (violating statndard procedure) and Dr. James Beyer had already removed the official entrance and "exit" wounds. And Major Benjamine J. Holmes, Jr. sent the gun to the BATF for testing six days AFTER the official investigation had closed. The BATF was requested to test a number of things, including if the gun would actually fire.

A key winesses in the case, Patrick Knowlton, one of the first on the scene after Foster's death, called the Park Police (twice) to report what he witnessed and he was not interviewed. Many of the Park Police failed to write reports or even interview their own officers who were at the scene. The lead investigator at the scene, USPP Detective Cheryl Braun testified that the determination that the death was a suicide was made "prior to going up and looking at the body."

Lastly, the FBI was not disinterested in the forensics. A heavily redacted Teletype from the FBI Metropolitan Field Office to the acting director Floyd Clarke, confirmed that the FBI was apprised of the autopsy results on July 21, the same day it was performed. It stated "[P]reliminary results include the finding that a .38 caliber revolver, constructed from two different weapons, was fired into the victim's mouth with no exit wound."

Could we agree to state that the Park Police and FBI conducted a joint death investigation? Thomist 09:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already added a sentence saying that the FBI assisted in the investigation. --Michael Snow 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Snow:

You have done considerable work on this article and I thank you. And thank you for the adding the FBI to the death investigation. Would you like me to add any references from our discussion to support this fact?

The FBI role is especially significant because critics of the official investigation have used Mr. Ruddy's error to fuel speculation that the Clinton's were involved. This is why I had also included a reference to Mr. Ruddy's false report of February 3, 1994, in the article. Mr. Ruddy repeated the error in his book stating, "Thus, the same Clinton administration that was quick to summon the FBI over imaginary irregularities in the travel office had blocked the agency from taking any real role in matters relating to Foster's death." (page 170, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster)

We can set the record straight and also reveal the source of the popular misconception. Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heymann made it clear on August 10, 1993, "The FBI joined the Park Police in the initial stages of the inquiry into Vince Foster’s death because of his status as a federal official and the assassination statutes…where there is a death of a high government official that’s covered by the assault or the assassination statutes." Thomist 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


I like to be accurate. Sometimes it is difficult with so many details. I mistakenly attributed a quote from Deputy Attorney General Philip B. Heymann to FBI Special-Agent-In-Charge Robert Bryant. I have made the corrections above. I also mistakenly misspelled "Heymann" with only one "n." An appropriate quote from the August 10, 1993 press conference by Robert Bryant would have been, "when there is a death of a high government official that's covered by the assault or the assassination statutes...we followed this case from the time we were notified until we were basically of the opinion, along with Chief Langston's staff, that this was a suicide." Thomist 23:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomist, as you have been told at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh and other articles, you must have WP:RS. C56C 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I removed the mention of the Arkansas Project. Based on the Washington Post articles, this moniker refers specifically to the investigative journalism efforts at the American Spectator. Ruddy is not directly connected, nor is the WJC. Scaife had a lot of irons in his fire, not just that one.

Also dropped was the mention of Ann Coulter, which disrupted the flow of that paragraph and was redundant with the information in the following paragraph. We don't need this to be a collection of everything anybody has ever written about Ruddy's book. It could fit in the article about the book, and is already included there. --Michael Snow 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I've removed a middle initial (given as W.) and a birthdate (given as January 28, 1965). The contributor who added these declined to respond when I requested a source for this information, so it will have to come out for now. --Michael Snow 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Various edits in October and November tried to slant the article in a particular direction and have been removed. For the most part, if any sources were cited, they were either misused or mischaracterized (Ruddy's article on Brown did mention three medical examiners, but only two were actually involved in the investigation, only one of those mentioned the possible gunshot, and as Kurtz points out, that one didn't examine the actual body). For example, a collection of cites to random articles Ruddy has written is not that much use. And it's inappropriate editorializing for us to say they show how "influential", "iconoclastic", or "independent" Ruddy/NewsMax are, no matter how cherry-picked the selections. If other reputable sources feel moved to describe Ruddy or NewsMax in these terms, then it would be proper to include that. --Michael Snow 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "tried to slant the article in a particular direction?" Do you mean as in characterising Ruddy as a "determined, if bumbling, former New York Post reporter who has virtually single-handedly spawned a cottage industry of conspiracy buffs dedicated to the proposition that a foul and monstrous cover-up surrounds the circumstances of Foster's death." [1] Is that what you mean? "Ruddy's book--and the entire movement he has helped create--is utterly preposterous." Is this the slanted perspective were trying to avoid? "There is, of course, much more about Ruddy's book that is equally absurd--or simply wrong. Like his fellow conspiracy nuts, Ruddy argues that there was too little blood in Fort Marcy for Foster to have been killed there." Certainly it wouldnt be NPOV to include these. -Ste|vertigo 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the slant of the edits in question was the opposite direction. --Michael Snow 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some more edits now. The changes thus undone included removing a cited source and adding some more highly slanted content (including some attributed to sources that do not support the text being added). --Michael Snow 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the use of an external link as a "reference" for information not confirmed by the Hoover Institution's online list of Media Fellows. Without more information, there's nothing to suggest why we should consider that website an appropriate source for anything, considering the established standards for this article. --Michael Snow 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem. Your attention, please, people.

A while back Mr Ruddy contacted Jimbo complaining about the creeping bias in this article, resulting in a period of WP:OFFICE protection. Mr. Ruddy has now complained again, OTRS ticket 2007101710014636, and most of what he says is reasonable criticism of the way the article is developing. Not all of it, I think, but enough that I've just spent some time incorporating fixes for his most significant concerns. Please do not revert this, and please do your best to ensure that we accurately reflect the fact that, as well as perhaps being somewhat opinionated, Mr. Ruddy is a respected journalist, respected even by his political opponents. We should do him the courtesy of remaining neutral, and ensuring that we do not turn this article into a coatrack on which to hang liberal criticisms, or even downplay the significance of what he has done. Let us also not forget that the Foster case was ten years ago, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well. I'm all for being fair towards what Ruddy has done in recent years and with NewsMax, but your elimination of his conspiracy theory days from the lead section won't pass muster. His work in those days is part of his notability, for good or for bad, just as his NewsMax work is now. Your idea that the lead section should only reflect what's happened recently is silly; should the Jimmy Carter lead section not mention he was once president? Wasted Time R 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Another way of phrasing this is, your lead section does not accurately summarize or reflect the whole article. Wasted Time R 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So let's write a new lead that does summarise the article, but does not give undue weight to a decade-old issue. For a start we could call him a historian and journalist, since that appears to be the case. And we can find some one-para profiles in impartial sources on which to model a properly comprehensive and neutral lead. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)