Talk:List of United States journalism scandals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of United States journalism scandals article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Reason for this simplified List

This is a simplified list version of the United States journalism scandals "list". It has been through two AfD's (article for deletion) in the past month, and a suggestion by the two most involved admins (Fram who judged the AfD, and FT2 who originally created the list) has been to rename to "List of United States journalism scandals", and make a simpler list (the last AfD is here). Others contributers to the AfD have questioned the title and format too.

This new list is the result of me being bold. I was for the deletion, and even on this simpler list I can foresee size, inclusion and scandal-title problems... however, I belive it is better than the very un-Wikipedia fork-list "semi-article" that currently still exists. Some scandals have recently been culled by Borock - I've used the page as it stood.

I have only created a list and given a shot at a simple Introduction - I have made no links.

RE linking - I would recommend either creating proper articles for all the "scandals" listed here, or linking to the sections on the relevant pages - if they don't have either of those, what are they doing here? I would personally keep any external refs on those other pages. Wikipedia is hard enough to manage as it is, with certain subjects - one of the main problems is forking imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's struck me while trying to wiki-link these single-line scandals, that the "worthy" scandals which were primarily (and sometimes solely) developed on the 'longer' scandal List, have simply deprived the more suitable places for them of the information. Wikipedia really has to be about strong main articles. The idea that the wordier scandal List is the only place we can show the "journalism angle" surely constitutes "original research". If a proper article, or sub-article, can't contain the text, then surely that particular text shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia 'mainspace' isn't about philosophising, nor is it an outlet for any kind of sociologically-based "ism". We must remember these policies WP:No Original Research, WP:Wikipedia is not a News report, and WP:Let the facts speak for themselves. If we keep to strong main articles, and to simple lists, we can also avoid content forking, which in my opinion is a WP nightmare.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

This is the merger proposal discussion. The template I used directed to this Talk page.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of a simpler list. Do you plan to have a sentence on each incident to let people know what it was about? Or are you just going to link to other articles? Borock (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me that none of those "excellent article!" fools on the AfD bothered to Watch (let alone read) the actual page they voted to keep: it was all a 2-second idealistic "refer the problems to Talk and everything will be OK" attitude. I don't think anyone read the arguments either - where is the "community"? - I couldn't see it then (I saw the direct opposite of single-man-hostility with complete silence, in fact) and I can't see it now. What do the "keep"ers expect with such a motley collection of topics? You've done the most work lately, by culling it - and you voted to 'delete'!
I feel wiki-links are better than single lines - it is just impossible to be concise and weighted with certain controversial issues (which is partly why the "Insight" section got so long - not that it's particularly good).
I'm prepared to put a straight 'redirect' to here from the other list. The question is: do we do the redirect before developing this - which might encourage some other people to help? Then again, so few are watching that list anyway (and a number of those who are the POV-fork-pushing types) - so redirecting early might hinder our progress. Perhaps it is wiser to at least start developing this new List first? If we create new articles where they should have really been ones, I suppose we will be doing Wikipedia a favour. We could look for relevant Wikipedia articles to link to also (ie Fox for a Fox scandal). I don't favour putting web links in at all - lets keep this inter-Wikipedia - and if we can't find relevance here, lets just delete the "scandals" (as you have already started doing). I don't have the time at all, but I'll give it a go - what about you? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

We are working on the article, paring down the list for notability. This article has survived two AfD nominations. Oppose this "merge" as a veiled attempt to evade consensus here, and oppose the POV fork at the newly created "List of United States journalism scandals. Count me as one of the "fools" you have identified. WNDL42 (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I support a simpler list that includes only items that meet the definition of [[Scandal}}. WNDL42 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The "We" you refer to (who are supposedly "working on the article") was almost entirely USER:Borock above, who voted to 'delete'!!!! Currently there is no "we" other than me and him. The first AfD was only attended by a few (mostly contributing) people - do you really argue that was fair?
The "fools" I referred to above, by the way, are the people who joined the AfD for all of 2-seconds - merely to say its an "excellent article!", and "the 'community'(?) should work on it in Talk!" None of them appear to have actually Watched the supposed-"article" (let alone read it, or the AfD they so-quickly visited!). The truth is that none of them want to actually work on it, because its an unrelated bunch of often-difficult "scandals"!
As for this merge "avoiding consensus" - I am merely following the two admins advice on the AfD result (as I explained above). --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get the unusual idea that AfDs are "unfair" when the larger community votes on the notability and appropriateness of the article and it's topic? It's a pretty novel idea, maybe you should discuss your ideas about AfDs at the Articles For Deletion talk page? WNDL42 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I said the first AfD was unfair - and that is clearly why someone tried it again only 2 weeks later! I didn't say all AfD's are unfiar!! Nobody knew about the first AfD - as hardly anyone knew about the list! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Performing merge

Now the List of United States journalism scandals is, I believe, fully wikilinked and acceptable (and a genuine improvement too), I am performing the merge now, which is acceptable according to Help:Merging and moving pages (where it says we can "be bold"). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table format?

It's struck me that a table format might work? Something along the lines of:

| Date | Principal perpetrator(s) | Principal outlet(s) | Subject |

This could look like:

| 1930's | Walter Duranty | The New York Times | Pulitzer Prize |

It could be argued that the 'Subjects' in this example could extend to deception, Stalin and Ukraine, but I would disagree - we would have to keep it simple, and even leave a blank (or stretch a cell if possible) when needed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest completing the title-linking process first - any tabling would be much easier afterwards. We would also get a better picture of whether one long table would work or not.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single-line format

The best single-line format I've found so far is:

  • JOURNALIST (or variant) NAME in the (or variant) OUTLET — "SCANDAL TITLE" (if there is one) : SCANDAL

(all text after the '—' as one long Wiki-link - to either the main article, or to the most relevant section-anchor)

examples:

--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Duranty

One scandal in - and already I'm stuck! In 2003 the Pulitzer prize people didn't see enough evidence to revoke the prize. Certainly Duranty exaggerated reports on Stalin's Russia (supposedly to get to interview him - which he did). But what exactly is the scandal here? Is it that he was pro-Stalinist (apparently he wasn't), that he was deceptive (certainly he was), that he won the Pulitzer (maybe he deserved to), or still has the Pulitzer (but they recently chose not to take it away)? His WP biog doesn't mention the word "scandal", but is certainly critical. I'm not 100% for removing it BUT - the scandal would be more clear to me if the Pulitzer people chose to remove his title. Many socialists were pro-Stalinist early on (Orwell etc) - that in itself isn’t certainly isn't "scandalous" (and apparently he wasn't a Stalinist anyway). I suggest this should be dropped as it's too ambiguous. Maybe we should have a "NO AMBIGUITY" rule for this list? Technically, scandals can have ambiguity I know, but is it wise in here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed title to: Walter Duranty at the The New York Times - Pulitzer Prize-winning "Soviet articles" reviewed. Gives a bit more information, but I'm still not sure this is a suitable "scandal". --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Annenberg, Philadelphia Inquirer (1966)

This looks like either a POV-fork, or a section that should be part of the main biog. This here-called "scandal" is not mentioned in the biog regarding notoriety (ie any wider scandal) regarding his loaded reporting of Shapp's mental history (even if it lost him an election)! Nothing about it currently exists in the biog's Talk - so I'm going to move the "scandal" element in it on the longer list page over to the biog, and see what happens. I'll leave the parags duplicated not to rock the boat- it could indicate how easily we can do this, leaving just scandal titles here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What? A POV fork? Utter nonsense and drivel. Every journalism school student learns this as one of the first "ethics" lessons taught. Where do you come up with these wild assertions? And being that you have never lived in the US, how can you possibly form such loud (yet uninformed) opinions, so often expressed on United States journalism scandals?
(1) Here is a selection of the twenty or so BOOKS published on or including the scandal.
(2) Here are the scholarly publications covering Annenberg/Shapp.
(3) Here is more evidence of Annenberg's notability from Google Scholar
(4) and a FORTY YEAR news timeline of the scandal, here
(5) And all the rest.
You gotta be kidding me with this garbage. Seriously, Matt...what's your deal? WNDL42 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I said this above - "I'm going to move the "scandal" element in it on the longer list page over to the biog, and see what happens" - and I did it! What's the problem?

Can't you just disagree and simply say why, WNDL? Do you disagree with the additions I made to the Annenberg article? They actually 'support' the scandle view! I included the heading "Shapp Denies Mental Institution Stay" - Annenberg's loaded-question Inquirer report" and much detail underneath it! (my edits on on the right here) I bet you are using my contributions as notability-evidence for this diatribe against me!! You need to be more careful.
Why wasn't the wider scandal element already there in the article if it's a staple in American teaching? I have told you many times why I find your "Google reports" unconvincing - so I consider it incitement the way you still throw them at me like I'm an idiot. If you fill this page with your personal diatribes against me I'm going to be straight on to you with a FULL report and request for help - no-one has been more offensive to me than you have on Wikipedia. I just can't stand your approach - you have made me consider leaving various articles time and time again. And that's twice now you have called my 'non-US' base into question. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Oregonian's coverage of the Packwood scandal

Interestingly, the Bob Packwood article doesn't currently refer to The Oregonian newspaper at all (only the paper that eventually ran with the story, The Washington Post - which doesn't mention Packwood either). This makes me wonder how connected Packwood and the Oregonian are as a recognised "scandal"? The Oregonian article doesn't currently 'highlight' this event as particularly scandalous either - it does cover it though.

Please note - I'm only reporting these findings - I'm not displaying any bias. As with Walter Annenberg above (before I revised it), it is conceiveable that the main Wikipedia articles are just not properly reporting the scandals.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Brock, American Spectator (1986 - 1997)

I've changed the title "David Brock, American Spectator (1986 - 1997)" to "David Brock and the American Spectator - Anita Hill, Troopergate and the The Republican Noise Machine". The date-range was wide, and it clearly covers a few "scandals". It struck me that his book might cover them quite well (although the Wikipedia page on it isn't currently very big).

There could be an argument for listing each "scandal" seperately perhaps?

If there is any extra information given on the detailed List, someone might like to merge it into the David Brock page (surely the main page here). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gallagher

I have changed the single title to: Michael Gallagher at The Cincinnati Enquirer - tapping Chiquita Brands International

I noticed this on the The Cincinnati Enquirer discussion page (wondered why it wasn't in the article!):

"The controversies section that I removed needs to be carefully vetted before reinsertion. It accused living persons of things which, if true, would be crimes. I am primarily concerned about the claim that "reporters" for the Enquirer "hacked into" a phone system, when only one of them was charged with it (but is even that true?, without sources I dunno).--Jimbo Wales 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)"

The removed section is in this diff. No chance of the damaging detail being repeated on a simple List! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Tailwind, CNN NewsStand

New title: "Valley of Death" - CNN NewsStand - Retracted chemical weapon report on Operation Tailwind

Is the "scandal" here the initial story, the CNN retraction, or the fact that CNN got it wrong? (surely not on purpose?)

More and more I wonder if "scandal" really is the right word for this list! This list is surely a crazy, motley, tip of a possible iceberg of highly-evocative and sometimes-controversial "incidents"!

[edit] Christopher Newton - Associated Press

Nothing else is currently mentioned on Wikipedia about this. He needs a biog and/or The Associated Press needs a decent sub-section. I've left it in, as a similar controversy is already on the AP page, and I can't imagine it refusing this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copied it into the AP article, under the other "controversy". --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gropegate", The Los Angeles Times

I've gone with the biased reporting being the scandal. The LA-Times page has nothing on it - so I Wiki-linked the section in the Schwarzenegger article for "Gropegate", for now.

The text needs to be moved to the LA-Times (or re-written there) - someone on that Talk page has even asked for something on it. Why wasn't it put there rather than on a scandals page? Or at least as well as on a scandals page! I can't find any objections there - it's a fairly basic article with a small Talk. I don't see how these can be "major scandals" if the source of the scandals don't find them important enough to acknowledge! This story made the UK news - but it was part of the Schwarzenegger spectacle - the reporting of it wasn't reported as a scandal (not that I remember, anyway) - I assume it was a proper LA-Times scandal throughout America, and not just a spectacle or controversy.

If we change the title's "scandals" to "controversies" how could we tame it, though? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed title to: Gropegate" - The Los Angeles Times - biased reporting of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis.
I've copied the story into the LA-Times page, and Wiki-linked it as "Gropegate" here. I notice the related Gray Davis and Jill Stewart articles mention nothing of it either! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Bragg, The New York Times

Is this strictly a scandal? It's interesting certainly - and may have a place. It's not surprising the NYT article has nothing I suppose, but maybe the stringer (journalism) article should - if the "scandal" (which he served a two-week suspension for) really was far-reaching and important (ie made news execs over the US tighten their policies).

Called it: Rick Bragg in the The New York Times - taking credit for work given to interns and stringers --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CNN coverage of Iraq and Eason Jordan

I have removed this as a non-scandal, as Iraq was suffering punative sanctions (and was acting as expected) and I can't immediately see a "scandal" here in CNNs reporting - was it untypical? This is the original text:

Eason Jordan, news chief for CNN, admitted in the New York Times April 2003 that the network had been aware of dictator Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses since 1990. But the network did not cover said atrocities so it could maintain access to Hussein and keep CNN's bureau in Baghdad open. Jordan also defended the decision by saying that reporting on Hussein's crimes would have jeopardized CNN journalists and Iraqis working for them.
Critics pointed out that the information on Hussein's crimes against humanity held back by CNN was a critical part of the national debate over going to war to oust Hussein from power.

This line is ambiguous and uncited: Critics pointed out that the information on Hussein's crimes against humanity held back by CNN was a critical part of the national debate over going to war to oust Hussein from power.

The last reference is a weblog. The second reference is dead (and I can't find), and the first reference is a CNN report. This is Jordans NY-Times article: The News We Kept To Ourselves --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Easton Jordan" and "scandal" 'Googles' to 650 (real total) - though many are weblogs (was this story 'weblog-driven' as I've read it was?) and many are not connecting the two words unfavourably. This at least needs research to find the right title, imo (providing it is a suitable scandal). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Forlong, Sky News

Is this rather sad story really a scandal?

The HMS Splendid did fire Cruise missiles during the Iraq War. Furlong basically pretended stock footage was a real-life filmed launch, then committed suicide after resigning over his "lapse of judgement". It seems Furlong's relatively minor fabrication became a story because - ironically - the BBC was on the submarine actually filming their own report - ironically showing how big red buttons aren't used any more - it's now done with a mouse click! More embarrassing than really "scandalous", surely?

I've kept it in - but how many stories could we include like this one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Boston Globe's fake "GI Rape" photographs

I've Wikilinked to the Boston Globe's History section (where the criticism is): The Boston Globe's fake "GI Rape" photographs. Nothing is there yet, so I'll attempt to add a line on it - no idea if it will stick! Again - an incompetent and embarrassing thing for the newspaper to do - but does it have the weight of an actual scandal? Looking at Google, I can't find a weighty presence (major reports etc). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ABC News election memo

I can't see how this constitutes a scandal. In his memo, Halperin even includes the line "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that." Ironically, it is when bits are taken out in isolation, that the memo looks particularly bad.

I've removed it - it's an example of something, for sure (though it's hard to define as real bias) - but is surely not a "scandal". Unsurprisingly, there is nothing on it on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eason Jordan, CNN (again)

Long text:

CNN news chief Eason Jordan resigned in February 2005 following a controversy over comments he made January 27 at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, accusing U.S. troops of targeting journalists. His comments were reported by blogger Rony Abovitz, who attended the forum, as well as U.S. Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who publicly requested Jordan to offer proof of the accusations. A videotape of the private conference was never released, and CNN never asked for one. However, Jordan had made similar accusations in 2004 at a News XChange conference in Portugal.

Jordan's resignation further established bloggers, whose pressure helped force New York Times editor Howell Raines to resign and CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather to step down, as a powerful check on mainstream journalism. Unlike the Jayson Blair and Memogate scandals, which the mainstream press relentlessly covered, the Jordan affair was widely ignored by the mainstream media until Jordan's resignation forced them to report it.

I'm removing as a non-scandal. Attacking Jordan looks like it could be a POV pro-war position. I can't see it widely referred to as a scandal - and the scandal element has to be particularly well-proven proven in war-time, where truth is the 'first casualty' (from all angles). More evidence of this seen as a scandal is needed. The issue of it being mainly a right-wing "blogger" campaign has resurfaced.

Also - why is Jordan in twice anyway (both personally and with CNN)? Wikipedia looks like part of a 'campaign' here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone put this back in, and he did resign so I won't revert it. Still have reservations though - not many seem to call this a scandal as such. And the US did bomb Al Jazeera very early on! It's difficult during a war to make these accusations about journalists - whether they resign or not. The comments were not made to the public either.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hassan Fattah, New York Times' Abu Ghraib photos

Removed: this story was clearly just an error. The NY-Times clearly believed Ali Shalal Qaissi was the 'Abu Ghraib prison picture' man, but then found out he wasn't and apologised. Are these kind of mistakes actual "scandals"? (embarrassing though an incorrect front-page story may be!) Nobody lost their jobs by the looks of it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey fishing

Great job on the article guys. I considered removing the 2001 "monkey fishing" incident. It seems more like a joke than a scandal to me. I don't think anyone was hurt, and thankfully no monkeys were either. I won't remove it though if someone really thinks it was a scandal. Borock (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I left it in per your comments (I've archived that Talk page, by the way - see above) - I agree the "scandal" is more about what he got away with! Perhaps someone will delete it when this list gets longer.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)