Talk:Terry Gross

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 article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Image:WikiWorld_icon.JPG Terry Gross was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)

Contents

[edit] Early comments

I cannot understand why my additions were truncated so fiercely. Not one of you works on the show. How can you pretend to be experts?

It was partly the tone, which sounded like casual comments for a fan site rather than an encyclopedia, but mostly the fact that much of the material was routine (an interview show that's recorded in advance and edited down is the norm - you might as well put into an article about an author that he/she rewrites their material before publication). - DavidWBrooks 17:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry if you did not like the tone, but I have first hand experience with Terry and the show. The things I wrote are in response to questions I am always asked.

Asked by fans, I would imagine. (Of which, incidentally, I am one.) That may explain the tone. - DavidWBrooks 11:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't blank Talk pages. They are kept as permanent records of debate about articles. - DavidWBrooks 00:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a strange focus here on the O'Reilly and Simmons interviews. That's strange, because Terry Gross is not usually seen as controversial. It would make sense to add some descriptive text which reflects the strength she's shown over the years as an interviewer.


(Yeah, I'm a fan, and I'm willing to overlook her blushing, star-struck interview of Springsteen. I'd have stammered, too.)--RattBoy 01:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a bunch of info, including expanding the bio (mentioning her well-known, abortive teaching "career"), listing her awards and books, lynx to interviews and articles about her, and a section on her interviewing style. I think this gives a far better, more complete description of a professional who is well regarded in her field than the previous emphasis on the interviews with a couple of guests who spent 50 minutes acting like total jerks.--RattBoy 12:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly interview

I added a sentence to section on the Bill O'Reilly interview to refer to the criticism she received from NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin on October 15, 2003. Jkevans 05:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Jkevans


I also think that the amount of space given here to discussing specific controversial interviews is lopsided. (Anyway, you forgot the greatest of all - Nancy Reagan. Protesting that Terry was asking her political questions when she was on a book tour, Terry replied, "I don't interview books. I interview people.") Anyway, the piece feels out of balance to me.--HarryFKaplan 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph about the Lynne Cheney interview. I don't see any reason to include a link to the vitriolically partisan FreeRepublic.com in an encyclopedic article. (Nor would I see any reason to link to DemocraticUnderground.com.)--RattBoy 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the parenthetical statement about Dvorkin, as Terry herself indicates that this is factually incorrect.

I removed the adjective "conservative" describing O'Reilly; it's hard to know if he is or is not. I added "Fox News" in its place; seems to me to be a reasonable compromise and not debatable.


Good choice to remove that conservative label-- O'Reilly is more of an aggressive centrist. He is certainly quite obnoxious at times, but more centrist (on average, with some exceptions) in his politics.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


My guess is that Gross was tough on O'Reilly not because of his politics, but because his style is antithetical to hers. She is the more compassionate (and yet insightful and probing) interviewer whereas O'Reilly is abrasive and aggressive.

I've heard Gross treat numerous conservative guests respectfuly-- but sometimes polite people can get mad at impolite people...

BTW, I actually love both Gross and O'Reilly-- but for different reasons.

And I'm not in the industry either (no rear ends to kiss) ... I'm just a fan.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Gross lesbian?

The fact that her "second most asked question" (after her favorite interview) is whether Gross is lesbian (which of course she isn't) merits placement in the article. I reverted back the removal. Calwatch 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I knee-jerkingly (is that a word?) took it out, assuming it was just a sideways way of implying "wink wink she *says* she's not but we know better ..." then read the interview source you included and put it back, with a little watering down. - DavidWBrooks 12:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
But she says it's her second most asked question in her very own book. That is why I am so insistent about putting it there. I've worked in public radio and it is a surprisingly common question at social events. Calwatch 18:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - that's why I put it back in. Some anon took it out again. - DavidWBrooks 20:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Isn't that funny? I thought she might be gay at one point, and don't know why... But it turns out she is married to a guy. I have since picked up an undertone that she likes (in the male-female sense) some of the men that she interviews (could be my own projection).

24.8.106.182 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Jews

One anon editor added a cat to the article; BKonrad deleted it as unsourced. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I don't know how notable her ethnicity is. However, it's sourced—at least to some degree—in the links contained in the Gene Simmons interview. From Mania Hill:

Terry Gross: Let's start with the makeup. Did you like being covered up on stage, did it make you feel any less vulnerable, or any less like Gene Simmons or your other names -- Gene Klein or Chaim White, which was your birth name?
Gene Simmons: Close, but no guitars. It's Chaim Witz.
Terry Gross: Oh, thanks. Okay.
Gene Simmons: You said it -- well, the name came out through gentile mouth, so it didn't quite have the flavor. It came out bland.
Terry Gross: Well it's ... it's not a gentile mouth.
Gene Simmons: Ooh! Maybe it's a discussion we can have.
Terry Gross: Okay.

--RattBoy 12:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A few points. 1) This is hardly an unambiguous source for Gross's ethnicity; 2) I really don't care all that much--my point in removing the category is that there was no mention of it in the article and as such is not explicitly sourced. I don't think it is appropriate to categorize people when there is no supporting evidence explicitly mentioned in the article. One of the rules for categorization is that it should be obvious, looking at the article, why the article is in a particular category. Special care need to be exercised in this regard for living persons. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As you point out, there are ample reasons to question why her ethnicity should be categorized in this way. However, I am curious: how does one interpret "it's not a gentile mouth," if not as a proclamation of her Jewish ethnicity?--RattBoy 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying it was hardly "unambiguous" was a poor word choice. I think I meant more that it was not very clear -- at least reading the transcript (not sure how it sounds), it took me a few passes to parse out whose mouth they were referring to. older ≠ wiser 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Reputation"

An anon editor changed a sentence in the intro to "she has an exagerated (sic) reputation for researching her guests' entire lives and asking them about lesser known aspects of their early careers." BKonrad reverted the gratuitous "exaggerated" POV, and added a "citation needed" tag to the original. His councern is very well founded. We certainly should be careful about the "reputations" we give the subjects of our articles—good or ill—perhaps especially if they're living persons.

In this case, I referred to a Salon.com profile, which said "In May, Gross taped a live show in San Francisco with sleight-of-hand master and actor Ricky Jay. 'So, you were once arrested by a sheriff for doing your act,' she commented. "'What have you been reading?' Jay gasped. 'Where did you find that out?'"

I believe this citation supports the reputation. However, it doesn't make explicit reference to the exact terminology—and it's only one ref. Is that sufficient as a citation? Or should we seek other refs and/or something more iron-clad?--RattBoy 20:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

" *In one memorable interview, Nancy Reagan ended up yelling at Gross, who had persisted in questioning Reagan about her role as eminence grise in her husband's presidency (notably, her persuading her husband to replace his Chief of Staff, Donald Regan), when Reagan wanted to pitch her recently-published autobiography. Gross was unfailingly polite and never raised her voice, but she kept asking the questions she was interested in and ignored her subject's attempts to change the topic of discussion. Eventually, Nancy Reagan became seriously nonlinear, raised her voice, and shouted incoherently. Gross continued asking her questions, calmly explaining that her agenda was not the same as Nancy's, and that her agenda was the agenda of the interview. The interview ended early. [citation needed]"" that is so biased can someone rewrite it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.91.145 (talk)


I am actually a moderate conservative on many issues, but I still enjoy listening to Terry Gross--

I think she has been exceptionally un-biased (most of the time) which is one reaosn why I enjoy listening to her. There have been a few exceptions to the rule-- her treatment of Bill O'Reilly was unprofessional (like many at NPR she doesn't seem to get O'Reilly, who is actually far more anti-ideological than conservative). I also thought her interview with Dolly Parton was a bit unkind. Nevertheless overall I think Gross is usually very un-biased and decent and the lapses are infinitely more rare than the rule. Not only that--

I would even go so far as to say that Gross is a gem of the airwaves. Her combined works constitute a treasure. I sincerely hope that all of her interviews have been saved, they are that good and will contribute to the historical record of our times.

A Conservative fan in Colorado

71.208.219.6 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. Scarian 00:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I wrote the post above calling her a media gem (even though I am a moderate conservative), and I meant it sincerely. I enjoy her interviews culturally and especially in terms of her interest in the arts-- although I may disagree with her at times politically.

Also, I have noticed that she is not a very ideological Liberal.

She has a very strong pragmatic streak when it comes to politics-- too pragmatic and inquisitive to be an ideologue.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clashes with Guests

I don't know if this belongs under the Criticism section. Only in the part on Mr. O'Reilly is any significant criticism of Ms. Gross mentioned. In any event the formatting seems like it needs cleanup.Evil1987 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: I suppose that Mr. Simmons's comment would be significant criticism. Still, I'm unsure of whether this and the Cheney information belong in a section called Criticism.Evil1987 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning her clash with Gene Simmons and him not granting permission for the interview to be heard online, it appears something has changed. On the 2007-08-30 edition of the Fresh Air podcast focusing on heavy metal the interview with Gene Simmons was included. Anyone have any more info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.115.34 (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal, left wing?; source

This doesn't strike me as a neutral description. Also, I question the reliability of the source, which seems to have a conservative bias. What to do? If the statement were staying, I would reformat the citation, but I don't think it should stay. At most, I would keep "liberal" if a relatively neutral source could be added.--Evil1987 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't belong. It might be appropriate, at times, to describe opinion-mongers in those terms, but Gross is an interviewer. MRC is not an appropriate source for this description. I'll be reverting the edit presently.--HughGRex 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon editor 24.163.194.19 has added this POV (not to mention redundant) description once again, so I re-reverted his/her edit. Looking at his/her (short) editing history, it's laced with poorly-sourced edits which are intended to denigrate the subject of the edits. I urge editors to revert his/her gratuitous edits to this article whenever they're encountered.--HughGRex 11:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

She really isn't very biased in her interviews. See my post in the 'Bias' section above that goes into more detail. (Moderate conservative Gross fan). If you listen to her long enough (months) you can eventually deduce that she is probably Liberal, but she doesn't use her role as interviewer to push her ideas on people. She is far more socratic than didactic.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One book a day

Regarding this factoid, moved here:

She reads at least one book a day.[citation needed]

The Wikipedia entry for Gross was discussed by Ira Glass at the November 2007 National Book Awards [1] (video - about half way through) - as in "flattering some fan on Wikipedia would say so". Anyway, fact tags are not an excuse for unreferenced material, a citation is needed before re-adding, it's been tagged in Since August, more than long enough. The National Book Award speech by Glass certainly seems to suggest there is some question it is true. -- 71.191.131.7 (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsbusters

Since when is Newsbusters a reliable and credible source? They're basically a glorified blog with an unabashedly right POV, and play "fast and loose" with the facts on occasion. Is using them as a source justified? Just askin...72.78.172.44 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not, and so I'm going to re-write the section that uses this source, hopefully in a NPOV way. --Spiff666 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)