Talk:Insight (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 Feb 2007 - Jan 2008 Archive 2 Feb 2008 |
Contents |
[edit] "in its present state"
I removed this expression from the sentence about Obama's school. As far as I know no one is asserting that the school was different in the past. Redddogg (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- In fact multiple interviewees say things aren't much different. Andyvphil (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- And this quote is relevant, as well as bearing on the question of whether "madrassa" is a word used in Indonesia, as well as how it's understood there:
Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Bandung said he had heard the rumor that Obama went to a radical Islamic school. He showed a picture of Obama with the Scout group.
"The girls wore miniskirts. There's no way miniskirts would be allowed at a madrassa," he said. Another photo of teachers at the school shows both males and females wearing Western-style clothing. The women are also wearing miniskirts.
Bandung said there was nothing to worry about in any case as Indonesian madrassa had been noted for teaching a moderate form of Islam.[1]
More info:
Submitted by Gandydancer (United States), Feb 7, 2008 at 19:28
...a question: Is the word "madrassa"/"madrasah"/etc. used in the Indonesian language(s)? My understanding is that it just means "school" in Arabic, but Insight magazine seemed to think it was equivalent to "seminary" and the article with the longer ABC news video( http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2823943) actually wrote "Madrassas are conservative Islamic schools, many of which teach a virulent hatred of America." So, as an Indonesian, do you use the word, and what would it mean for you? ... [2]
...Submitted by Muhammad (Indonesia), Feb 11, 2008 at 21:04
...The word Madrasah is commonly used here in Indonesia to describe a conventional (not modernized) Schools (elementary, middle to high, mostly located at sub-urban areas) whose curriculum weighs more in Islamic teachings. Later, they are more modernized and secularized. I believe all of these schools are private and ussualy associate themself with the Nadhatul Ulama organization (formed by former President Abdulrahman Wahid's father). On the other hand, at rural areas they are usualy called Pesantren. Their tuitions are low so mostly affordable by low income families. I rerely use these words. ...[3]
Andyvphil (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Andyv, too bad neither Daniel Pipes, nor the anonymous users "Gandydancer" or "Muhammad (Indonesia)", who post reader comments to his discredited stories, are reliable sources. Man, life must suck if one needs to scrape the barrel this far down to support the Insight take on "Madrassa". What a hoot! I'm ROTFLOL at the the way our "Gandydancer" (above) intentiononally and deceptively context-snipped "...actually wrote "Madrassas are conservative...", and then sourced his hack-job to a jan 25 2007 ABC piece!!! Gandydancer pulls an amateur Kuhner!!! Even funnier, check out the story that our funnytroll "Gandydancer" was commenting on.
Good job A, I needed a couple of laughs, and I really do have to thank you for feeding me the material I need for expanding the "echo chamber" and "loaded question" aspects of this article. Pipes' 12/2007 "feeder story" headline is a grade school attempt at asking a loaded question Was Barak Obama a Muslim?, which brings to mind a classic Bugs Bunny phrase "What a maroon" that fits Pipes perfectly here!. Better yet, (I'm 'bout busting a gut here), Pipes the maroon anwers his own question in his very next headline "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam". Thanks again A, and keep it coming, your stuff is classic! WNDL42 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Gandydancer is me, of course. And the identification of Muhammed as Indonesian is by the site, perhaps from the ip address as I am identified as from the "United States" despite not having supplied that information when I posted my question.
- Your comments are incoherent and gratuitously insulting. I asked a straightforward question and was given a straightforward and informative answer by someone who appears to be a real Indonesian, which answer I supplied here to be helpful to Redddog and such other editors as might actually be interested in the question of what "madrassa" means to an Indonesian. The idea that I violated WP:RS is this talk page post is fully as idiotic as the idea that Kuhner could violate WP:OR when writing in Insight.
- In the future I will, however, be able to refer to you as "the troll", immediately identifying the quality and tenor of the editor I am dealing with. That should prove useful. Andyvphil (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Holy shit A, ...YOU are gandydancer? I had no idea...sorry, I was poking fun at gandydancer with no idea it was you. Had you made that clear when you posted the exchange you initiated, then I certainly would not have ridiculed gandydancer in quite the same way as I did. Suggest next time you start out with "Using the name gandydancer, I posted the following question and I got this answer from a user in Indonesia". Now that I know you and gandydancer are the same, please accept my apologies. Still, it was funny... WNDL42 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF:"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. ... Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." The question posed to "Muhammad" by "Gandydancer" is perfectly staightforward and exhibits no particular POV that I can detect. Nor does "Muhammad"'s very informative answer. Your cackling derision was so wildly off the mark and inappropriate to itc cause as to indicate an hysterical state of combativeness. And malice. Rather pathetic malice, when expressed so childishly, but useful when so obvious. Andyvphil (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- AVP, if you will merely read again what you yourself posted here (pseudonymously as "gandydancer") above...
-
-
- Submitted by Gandydancer (United States, aka andyvphil)"...a question: Is the word "madrassa"/"madrasah"/etc. used in the Indonesian language(s)? My understanding is that it just means "school" in Arabic, but Insight magazine seemed to think it was equivalent to "seminary" and the article with the longer ABC news video actually wrote 'Madrassas are conservative Islamic schools, many of which teach a virulent hatred of America.' So, as an Indonesian, do you use the word, and what would it mean for you?"
-
- ...and now review Leading question, you'll see that "gandydancer"'s leading question was designed specifically for the answer that he (you) wanted. The fact that gandydancer snipped the ABC text out of context, and then snipped "Muhammad"'s answer in a similarly deceptive way, well...that is the crux of my criticism of your entirely misleading presentation here. That and the fact that all of this is useless here on Wikipedia per WP:RS. WNDL42 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Your "criticism" doesn't have a detectable "crux". "So, as an Indonesian, do you use the word, and what would it mean for you?" is in no way a leading question. The assertion that it is is idiotic. I explained why I was asking the question, but didn't suggest the answer, and indeed Muhammad's answer is in no way something that I suggested to him. And while its content cannot be inserted directly in a Wikipedia article it is rich in specifics which can be further researched and then cited to the RS found. And what is the information from ABC or Muhammed that I have supposedly concealed by artful "snipping"? Go ahead. You don't have an answer -- change the subject again. Veer off into another silly assertion. You have such a threadbare bag of tricks. It's pathetic. Andyvphil (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Submitted by Muhammad (Indonesia), Feb 11, 2008 at 21:04 --
-
-
-
First, I should thank you for straightening up that my intention is only to submit info about situation in Indonesia. And also for the splendid link. Nice work. --
I think the clip we refer to >>was not from middle eastern 'seminary'<< but >>from the sub continent areas (maybe Kurdistan, Afghanistan or Pakistan)<<. Anyways, as shown from your link, in his book Mr. Obama was saying "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies" so clearly he was admitting openly that he did learn (practised if you will) Islam in some point of his life. So even Mr Obama was confusing his public school as a Muslim school. Mustn't have been the highlights of his life. --
>>In my opinion, it is evident that what mr Obama said was that he was never a Muslim in heart and to me, that means that he never was a believer. And it is his right to do so.<< --
Like many people, I was curious to know whether Sen[D] Obama was ever a Muslim or not. That curiosity brought me to Mr. Pipes's articles and I think I've got me the answer. --
>>The reporters and analists must have their own agendas.<< We haven't seen the last of the crossfire specially when the campaign will come to the next level. --
Btw, i think the core of terrorism is 'hatred' and that can only be defeated by 'love'. But that's another issue.
[edit] Journalistic POV overview removed...please discuss here
The following overview was removed, I think it's essential for journalistic context:
"Journalistic analysis of the Insight story began by examining the first sentence of the report, which asked the loaded question of whether the "American people were ready" for a candidate who was "educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" The second sentence alleged "This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama." No basis was found for Insight's question and allegation, and throughout the ensuing controversy Insight steadfastly refused to present evidence or qualify it's sources."
This is an absolutely 100% spot on overview of the "essence" of every journalistic critique. I can see no good reason for taking it out. let's discuss any issues with the presentation here. WNDL42 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't remove it, since I'm giving you your head to write in as "loaded" a fashion as you desire. Which is what you've done. Andyvphil (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Next topic, why was the extremely notable reference to Fox V.P. John Moody removed? First time in history (afaik) that Fox has apologized for picking up garbage and reporting it, so why is his name and title out? WNDL42 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the paragraph. For one thing it was uncited. For another it was basically repeating what the paragraph before it just said. The article on Obama's campaign and the one on him himself give the basic information on his school days in Indonesia. That is where people who want to find out about him will go. This article should be about Insight. Just the basic facts about the story given one time should be enough, and then of course the opinions of RS's about it. I also put back the link to Insight's story itself. I think that if we don't do that people would feel it is unfair. Redddogg (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion
Hey. I saw that there was a pending request for a third opinion on this page. 3O is meant for articles that only have two active editors, and since there are more than five users active on here, I've removed the request. If you guys need further help, I'd recommend opening an WP:RFC. If there's anything else I can do to help, please message me. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "picked up" vs. "mentioned"
I see that this was just changed and then changed back. Did Fox really "pick up" the story, that is repeat it as if it were true? Or did they just "mention" it? I'm not sure myself. Redddogg (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was the one who changed it to "mentioned." The NYT said that Fox and the others "devoted extensive discussion" to Insight's story, not that they repeated it as if it was true. Borock (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Echo chamber aspect
-
-
-
- "In today’s New York Times, FOX News senior vice president John Moody criticized FOX & Friends hosts for reporting on the now-discredited Obama/madrassah story. “The hosts violated one of our general rules, which is know what you are talking about,” Mr. Moody said. “They reported information from a publication whose accuracy we didn’t know.” Evidently, Sean Hannity didn’t get that message or else he chose to ignore it on his personal website. Hannity.com continues to showcase this false report as truth. While Hannity’s site is not officially connected to FOX News (as far as I can tell), FOXNews.com does promote it with a link and a suggestion that readers visit the page."
-
-
-
-
- Recently I found a report that Fox commentators last week have revived the Obama-madrassah stink-bomb. Seems now that Insight's "double splatter" achieved it's primary goal feeding the wing-nut media with malarky for harming Sen. Clinton, the shit-bomb has backfired by creating record turnout among the opposition and propelling Obama. [As I predicted. :-) Redddogg] Now the "madrassah" smear is being revived to re-smear the (now dangerous) Sen. Obama.
-
-
-
- Classic Sun Myung Moon black propaganda. Use the "echo chamber".
-
-
-
- See here especially "The American Right achieved its political dominance in Washington over the past quarter century with the help of more than $3 billion spent by Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon...according to a 21-year veteran...George Archibald, who describes himself "as the first reporter hired at the Washington Times outside the founding group"...has now joined a long line of disillusioned conservative writers who departed and warned the public..." WNDL42 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Ok...as it seems clear that it's still unclear (even among us editors) that the "echo chamber" effect was in play big time, I'm putting back a portion of the MediaWeek criticism that was earlier stripped -- specifically the "amplified by Fox, etc..." Hope we can agree now why it was necessary in the first place. I still see no reason to censor Grossberger's use of the word "lies" to characterize the report, but I'm hoping to avoid an overly contentious edit for now. WNDL42 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just added this to flesh out the "Echo chamber" aaspect.
-
- Ten days after the Insight story broke, ABC News quoted Norman Ornstein of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute saying "There's now almost a predictable process here. People have learned how to get things covered, even when they shouldn't be covered...You either start with a revelation in the Drudge Report or Insight magazine, then that gets picked up by the New York Post or The Wall Street Journal and Fox News and by the blogs, and before long there's enough noise out there and enough buzz that comes from it that everybody from The New York Times to The Washington Post to the network news broadcasts decide they have to cover it. And it doesn't matter if it's true or not."
- I like it because it adds a conservative voice to the topic. I'm glad I took a few minutes to read the Daniel Pipes nonsense...gave me a reason to check the context of the stuff that was quote farmed from ABC... WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kuhner in first sentence
I don't think it's really a problem but it does seem a little odd that Kuhner's name is just about the first thing stated in the article. I don't think that articles about other publications, or even websites, would have the name of the editor in the first sentence. He is mentioned 4 or 5 times later on in the article, so there is not much chance that the reader would miss his name. Redddogg (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- From what we know, Kuhner is not only the managing editor (reporting directly to Rev. Moon's BOD at Insight), but is the only known source for the anonymous reports "Insight" publishes. It's an arrangement that is unique (as is widely reported) among outfits like Insight. That's why it's notable, IMO
[edit] Stating ownership in the lead
In the specific case of Insight, and in the context of Insight's history, describing the ownership chain is essential from a journalism standpoint. Unification Church ownership is (as demonstrated elsewhere) indeed the single MOST notable thing about Insight. WNDL42 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Insight's influence
Checking out this article again I was amazed to read that Insight's stories about President Clinton had lead directly to his impeachment. When the New York Times tried to do the same thing to Senator McCain they were laughed out of the room. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Steve, the article actually says that the Insight stories "...became enmeshed with the Independent Counsel's investigation of Whitewater scandal and eventually led to the impeachment of the president.", so you are reading the article incorrectly.
- Now, the comments in the article are (a) sourced to an ex-employee of Insight and (b) supported by dozens of other sources (how many do you think are necessary) and (c) worded properly in accordance with reliable sources. Steve you have been reminded by very many users and admins here that your membership in the Unification Church, combined with the long-established WP:Single purpose account nature of your edits means that you have a WP:COI issue. Your COI has been a topic of discussion on Wikipedia for a very long time.
- Please don't continue attempting to mitigate the facts or de-controversialize the media properties of the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, ok? WNDL42 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. They indirectly led to Clinton's impeachment, according to the article that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Madrassa again
RE parag: "Insight's report falsely characterized State Elementary School Menteng 01, an Indonesian public school which Obama attended as a child, as an Islamic "madrassa". Although the Arabic word "madrassa" literally means any kind of school, in post 9/11 United States political contexts it has often been used to refer singularly to Islamic madrassas - especially in the context of anti-Americanism and radical extremism.[18] In the wake of the Insight story, the New York Times has publically apologised for misusing the word "madrassa" in this way.[19]"
I am explaining my changes in the above paragraph. Anti-Americanism and radical extremism are different things, so have used both. The subtle way "madrassa" has been used makes it wrong to simplify the line on it. We must avoid making it look like it is acceptable and in current use! I've included the NYT apology, which was actually in the wake of the story.
Regarding the negative use of madrassa being "primarily" used - the Yale article is not enough to back that word up (it strongly refers to the Obama story and offers too little proof). I've said it "literally means" school, as "refers too" is too weak alongside the other 'meanings' of the word. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Matt, I'm not arguing what you say is true or not true, but the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifyability, not truth, so it does not matter what you or I think. Now, I spent a lot of time finding, reading and citing that source. I cannot find any support whatsoever in the document for either "singularly" or...oops, looks like you just revised it again...looks good to me...debate over...thanks for bringing it to talk. WNDL42 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Singularly" was just meant to highlight the word "Islamic" - it doesn't need it though, and it wasn't the best word. Current version is this:
-
- "Insight's report falsely characterized State Elementary School Menteng 01, an Indonesian public school which Obama attended as a child, as an Islamic "madrassa". Although the Arabic word "madrassa" literally means any kind of school, in post 9/11 United States political contexts it has often been used to define Islamic madrassas - especially in the negative context of anti-Americanism and radical extremism.[18] In the wake of the Insight story, the New York Times has publically apologised for misusing the word "madrassa" in this way.[19]"--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Linking to a locked page
Bad form in my opinion. Can you explain why the link to a "scandals list" is needed? Why put it in place of the Obama 2008 link? I don't understand.
In my opinion the "US journalism scandals" page should have been deleted in the AfD (and surely would have been deleted if anyone knew about it). There is no place for these hotbeds of POV junk on Wikipedia.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Appreciate your opinions. That the page is locked has nothing to do with anything.
- As for your question, here's why. As Insight started this "journalism scandal", and the "scandal" is covered from the journalistic angle at United States journalism scandals, that's why it's linked. The "Obama 2008 election" link is about Obama, not Insight, right? The logic seems clear to me.
- Now, if you insist on also linking to Obama, I don't really care, but I still don't for the life of me understand your issue. WNDL42 (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I personally think the United States journalism scandals should be deleted: 'list articles' like that end up as hotbeds for POV pushers who have often failed to make headway in the main articles, imo. I don't insist on linking to the Obama 2008 article at all - it just seems clearly the better link to me.
-
- As for the page being locked baving "nothing to do with anything" - hmmm! If it was locked in a state that you didn't support would you still be so keen to link to it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Can you answer this before you put the link in again WNDL? And as for your other new "further reading" link - "Black Propaganda" - I'm more than tired of you playing Wikipedia entirely by your own rules. If every article linked in your manner Wikipedia would collapse under the weight of millions of those kind of "related" links! Why won't you listen? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] My recent change to Obama section
I just changed the opening of the Obama/Clinton section. I thought it was better to just say what it was about in the opening sentence rather than repeat what Insight said. Sorry that I pushed save before finishing my edit summary comment. Redddogg (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] David Brock
The source given for the information about Brock does not mention Insight at all. The article about Hill was published in the American Spectator. Why should he have a section in this article? Redddogg (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I will try taking the section out and see what happens. It seems a bit coat-racky to me since Brock's notable stories were not published in Insight. Redddogg (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Section removed
I took out:
[edit] CIA leak scandal
On February 5, 2004, Insight teamed up with News World's sister company United Press International to publish the first anonymously sourced reports from "Federal Law Enforcement officials" of "hard evidence" against Vice President Dick Cheney's staffers John Hannah and Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the guilty parties in "Plamegate". Hannah subsequently testified, and Libby was convicted. Questions about who the "Federal Law Enforcement officials" were, and what "hard evidence" might have existed at the time of the scoop have fueled wide speculation that Libby was chosen as a "fall guy" [1] to take the rap for higher-ups in the Bush Administration, with speculation focused primarily on Cheney.[citation needed] Some journalists and bloggers commented that if a media outlet were needed to set up Libby for the fall, Insight would have been a logical first choice.[2][3]
- ^ Google News Search - Libby "Fall Guy"
- ^ Sale, Richard. "Cheney's Staff Focus of Probe", Insight Magazine and United Press International, News World Communications, 2004-02-05. Retrieved on 2008-02-04. (Straussian)
- ^ Google News Search - Libby Hannah Plame Leak
The only references were to the story itself and to two Google searches. Borock (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
