Talk:United States journalism scandals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 23, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 11, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] CBS News and the "Killian Documents" (2004)

Prior entry was long, messy, lacking cites, and heavily POV'd. It's still long, but a bit more, I trust, accurate and better cited & ref'd -BC aka Callmebc 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't substitute another heavily POV'd version and call it a "summary". If you feel that the current version is too long, please suggest changes here. -BC aka Callmebc 12:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the topic is with the main articles on the subject. Discuss over there instead of expanding this article's summary with your POV explanations. (SEWilco 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
This discussion should be in regards to improving the "United States journalism scandals" wiki only. And I had links to the other related wikis, but "Jmcnamera" removed them in his revert. He also made a mess of the article as well. I'm afraid your response is unreponsive and since Jmcnamera's edit made a mess I reverted back to cleaner, more accurate and better ref's version. Editors here should try to abide by at least the spirit of Wikipedia policies if nothing else. -BC aka Callmebc 15:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on the topic is with the main articles on the subject. Discuss over there instead of expanding this article's summary with your POV explanations. (SEWilco 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

The main article was really neglected -- I put back the more accurate version. If you wish to shorten it, please do so by not violating NPOV and removing refs, if you don't mind... -BC aka Callmebc 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep asking for people to use the talk page but you don't say what is wrong with the long-standing summary. It is non-POV and keeps to the basics of the issue and links to the larger article. You keep inserting your opinion and POV. We all know you pov already from your personal website that you keep mentioning. Jmcnamera 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I ref everything and put in context, and try in general to improve the article according to Wikipedia guidelines; you distort, push nonsensical right wing POV's, and make the article misleading and confusing. See the difference? -BC aka Callmebc 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Thomas controversy

Now that the New Republic has finally given up on defending the claims they printed of Scott Thomas Beauschamp, it really should be placed on the page. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insight and the "madrassah" smear

Very little talk here for such an active page.

This page is about journalism scandals (that is, abuses of the media by journalists and the people they work for (Annenberg, Sun Myung Moon, and the impacts on victims). Editors, please let's remember that the journalism angle comes first. This page is about the journalism scandals, the perpetrators and (to the extent that reliable sources have characterized them) the motivations of the perpetrators. The people against whom the scandals are directed are victims, and their stories are subtextual only. This article should in every concievable way fail to act as a WP:COATRACK for the attacker's charges. If the "victims" are living persons, then their POV's and statements in their defense come immediately after the journalistic angle. The "muck" that was "raked" should be described as journalists see it. The "muck" itself has no place here, except in the absolute minimum dose necessary for context.

Finally, as Wikipedians our goal is to create an encyclopedic treatment. I would suggest that (for the purposes of our presentation of current scandals in journalism), that we look to historical treatments of Annenberg's smear of Shapp as an example of how history "remembers" these events in an encyclopedic context. WNDL42 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got around to undoing your unsourced POV crap about how Kuhner lied about his sources in order to push a Moonie agenda. But I will. Andyvphil (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does the article say such a thing? The entire section is made up of reliable source quotes, so what POV are you referring to? It's a journalistic failure, pure and simple.
  • the political agenda of Insights owners (the Moon Unification Church) are well known since 1982, and
  • Kuhner has said explicitly that he reports directly to the board of NWC, and
  • the entire BOD of NWC are moonies and NWC is owned lock stock and barrel by Sun Myung Moon...
So what's the beef with POV - it's all fact and it's all notable -- no trace of POV. Apart from your politics POV, what's your beef? WNDL42 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Start with WP:SYN, which you are violating by going beyond the sources, none of which more than note that NWC is ultimately owned by the Moonies and none of which spiral off into characterizing it as a "$3 billion propaganda organ". And do we really need to go again into your misdescribing the adoption of the Clinton position that Kuhner lied, by the humorist Grossberger (sample quote:"Didja hear? Obama went to one of them mattress schools where the Muslimofascists turn kids into terrorists!"[1]), in what MediaWeek explicitly lists as an opinion piece as "described by MediaWeek as a 'rare double splatter'" smear? Andyvphil (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There are over 900 explicit references here to ["Sun Myung Moon"] + ["propaganda organ"], and I've presented them to you several times on other moon-media pages, so why are you disputing again here? For the "$3 billion propaganda organ" story see here, for just one example, and for the thirty-two year news archive timeline, see here.
Add WP:GOOGLE to WP:SYN as something you need badly to read and comprehend. I repeat, none of the reporting on the Insight/madrassa story alleges that there was any evidence of input from the Moonies into Kuhner's decision to run the story. Your speculation has no basis in the sources. Andyvphil (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil, fallacious logic (requiring proof of a negative) and false assertions, even when accompanied by endless repetition in the hope of wearing out the opposition does not make your case, even when you prop it up with ad hominem attacks. I have made no such "speculation" of "input from the Moonies into Kuhner's decision", and that is a Straw Man discrediting attack that adds injury to insult. Two personal attacks in three sentences above. Keep to civility please. WNDL42 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The above phrasing about muckraking implies the writer is not familiar with the positive journalistic meaning of the Muckraker. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct you are, the more modern uses of the term do not accurately characterize the historical meaning of the term (positive usage). WNDL42 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem explicitly mentioning (in a brief manner) that Insight is an arm of the Moonies. It provides context and informs readers as to the potential motivations of their attack job on Obama. Andyvphil, I'm sorry, but you can't whitewash journalism scandals that you don't like because they happen to make a right-wing "media" source look like the nutjob tabloid that it really is. FCYTravis (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're talking about the following:

On January 17, 2007 Insight Magazine, whose owner News World Communications is described by Columbia Journalism Review as "the media arm of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church"[2][3] and characterized by critics as "The GOP's $3 billion propaganda organ", published an anonymously written and unsourced article on presidential candidate Barack Obama, which was described in a MediaWeek opinion column as a "rare double splatter", by critics as a "right-wing smear"[4] and by the New York Times as "The first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race".

FCYTravis, is this your idea of a "brief manner"? Can you find any RS for this subject which introduces Insight in this fashion? And, btw, what do you imagine "unsourced" means? (In the real world, that is. As Wikipedia jargon it means a sentence with a "fact" tag.CAT:AAWUS) Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FYCTravis, thanks for your edits, which improved the content from an NPOV perspective. I have changed the section heading back to "smear" however, because that's what it was, and I honestly can't find a single reliable source to characterize it otherwise. I have also removed "Obama" because it is widely acknowledged that the "madrassa" loaded question was designed at the time to provide the emotive force underlying the attack on the primary target, Sen. Clinton. Obama was portrayed as a "victim" of (then frontrunner) Sen. Clinton's "camp", as the "question" was attributed to the latter. This is also the predominant analysis of reliable sources. WNDL42 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Look at the rest of the page's subject headings - none of them contain loaded words like "smear." They use words like "fake" and "false." We can get the point across to readers that the article was wrong and a smear job, without slapping them in the face with it. "Smear" sounds sensationalistic and unbecoming. I'm going to attempt another rewrite. FCYTravis (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you have me on board as long as it does not single out Obama as the only victim. WNDL42 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried another angle, based on the "Abu ghraib" example, naming the journalist involved and characterizing the content of the smear without naming it's victims -- attempt to keep to the nature of the "scandal" and keep focus off the targets...workable? WNDL42 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, edit warring to promote your POV for how the article should look does not help establish consensus. Please discuss further major revisions here. WNDL42 (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Echo chamber aspects?

This story did not only involve Insight, but is a classic example of Moon's propaganda machinery feeding the "echo chamber" (Fox, etc). Historically, the speed and nature of propagation and "echoing" was unprecedented. Seems I added this previously but it was removed. Comments on reintroducing? WNDL42 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some useful sources here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insight scandal

As a Unification Church member I have been holding off on doing too much editing on the Insight story. However, I am amused to see that WP considers Insight, which doesn't even print a magazine anymore being only a website, as being more important than the New York Times. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, "WP" doesn't "consider" one more important than the other, WP is a community of editors working within a set of policies and guidelines. Certainly if you think there is a United States journalism scandals missing here, you should add it. Suggest you review scandal for some idea as to the kind of things that belong here, and those that don't. One thing to bear in mind is that since Insight magazine is one of the Unification Church's "media arms", your POV (once again) that there is somehow too much importance being placed on Moon media scandals, propaganda and smears should be taken in the context of your Unification Church conflict of interest WNDL42 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree with WP that Insight is more important in today's media world than the NYT. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, "Mr. Kuhner said he insisted on editorial independence, reporting only to the board of New World Communications", known here affectionately as the Columbia Journalism Review describes them -- "the media arm of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church". WNDL42 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel, I support your two recent changes per my talk page. WNDL42 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AP photo

We need a source that describes that particular incident as a journalism scandal. FCYTravis (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning of non-scandals

Per the AfD discussion...seems like a lot of these cannot be considered "notable" nor were they widely reported as a scandals. I've started to pare back the obvious ones, seems there's more to go, and of course if there is disagreement, please discuss here. Thanks... WNDL42 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you've demonstrated such extemely poor judgement you are going to have to justify your deletion of other editors' work in detail before it is allowed to proceed. Andyvphil (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The need for this pruning was discussed and agreed at the AfD discussion. Please see discussion there and if you can demonstrate that the entries removed (here, at talk) were widely notable scandals, then we can restore any that are consensus approved for restoration. WNDL42 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of the ones WNDL42 deleted were extremely well publicized as scandals when they came out. The Insight magazine problem WNDL42 edits so frequently was minor and short in comparison. 70.13.183.189 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Please provide examples of any you think were comparable to Insight. Be specific, please.
Also, User:70.13.183.189, in my opinion....your comment here, your edit history, your edit summaries and the context in which your account was created all give the strong appearance that your account is being used as a Sock Puppet. Please consider creating an account and logging in to avoid falling under suspicion. WNDL42 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It should work the other way, each item should be discussed before removal. --70.13.183.189 (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It HAS already been discussed at the AfD. I am reporting you as a suspected sock puppet of Andyvphil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I welcome a checkuser of this wild assertion. And I suggest you restrain yourself from a 3RR violation. You have been warned. Andyvphil (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wndl42, I read the afd and it did not assign anyone the mission to remove content here but that it should be considered. The talk page is the place for that. Also, your Insight magazine edits make it very POV. It belongs here as a scandal but your writing is not encyclopedic. --70.13.183.189 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Log in and create a user name if you want to discuss this further, I'm not interested in debating this with a user who appears to have joined Wikipedia solely for this argument. Whatever good faith I assumed is gone, as you are attempting to POV the Kuhner smear under cover of restoring non-notable junk with your undiscussed reverts. For the Insight discussion, see above (previous section). WNDL42 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on appropriate treatment of Insight's "Obama attended a madrassa" debacle

The preexisting text is as follows:

[edit] Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Insight false "madrassa" report (2007)

On January 17, 2007 Insight Magazine, whose owner News World Communications is described by Columbia Journalism Review as "the media arm of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church"[1][2] and characterized by critics as "The GOP's $3 billion propaganda organ", published an anonymously written and unsourced article on presidential candidate Barack Obama, which was described in a MediaWeek opinion column as a "rare double splatter", by critics as a "right-wing smear"[3] and by the New York Times as "The first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race".

The first sentence of the Insight report asked the loaded question "Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?". Sentence two attributed Insight's "question" to unidentified and vaguely described "members" of frontrunner Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s "camp".[4]

When the Insight story was investigated by journalists, the claims turned out to be false.[5] Fox News acknowledged that the story violated Fox's "basic rule of knowing what you are talking about." John Moody, vice president for news at Fox, also included this in his daily editorial note on January 23: "For the record: seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC. The urgent queue is our way of communicating information that is air-worthy. Please adhere to this."[6].

The story was debunked when CNN sent a reporter to Indonesia who visited Obama's elementary school, State Elementary School Menteng 01‎, and found that it was a public school with students of all faiths, not a Muslim school as Insight had reported. Both candidates immediately denounced the story, and a spokesperson for Sen. Clinton described it as "an obvious right-wing hit job on both candidates".[7]

In a January 27, 2007 post mortem review of the evidence of widespread lack of journalistic integrity among Insight and other political websites, the Columbia Journalism Review used the Insight example as "A lesson in how easy it is — even for publications with no history of credibility — to start a scandal." Referencing several other Insight stories that had been similarly discredited, CJR analyst Paul McLeary concluded:

"So the main question is, after all this, why should we take seriously anything that this online rag has to say? Every news organization gets things wrong, but Insight seems to have developed a business model out of concocting fables."..."Despite this, we’re still talking about the story, because as David Brock so ably showed during his time at Insight in the 1990s, it doesn’t take a respected news organization to run a big-time smear campaign — all it takes is for the rest of the media to repeat the story, while neglecting to follow it up with their own reporting."[8]

[edit] end

I have tried to replace the above with a slightly edited version of the story as found recently at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Media coverage of Obama's religious background:

[edit] Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Insight false "madrassa" report (2007)

See also: Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#Media coverage of Obama's religious background

On January 17, 2007, the day after US Senator Barak Obama announced his cadidacy for the Presidency, the Internet magazine Insight (which is indirectly owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church)[9] published an article claiming that Clinton campaign staff had discovered that Obama had attended a Muslim seminary as a child in Indonesia and were planning to use that information against him during the upcoming primary election campaign.[10][11][12] Insight's anonymously sourced allegations (described as an attack on both Clinton and Obama by the Clinton campaign, an allegation repeated by others)[13] were brought to national attention when reported on by Fox News and elsewhere,[14][15] which "set off the echo chamber" according to one columnist.[16]

The Clinton and Obama campaigns quickly denounced the story.[17] Investigations by CNN, ABC and others showed that Obama had not, as Insight had written, attended an Islamic seminary. Instead, for his first three years abroad Obama attended St. Francis Assisi Catholic School, and in his last year transferred to State Elementary School Menteng Besuki‎, an Indonesian public school for children of all faiths in the majority Muslim nation.[18] [19] [20] A series of Chicago Tribune reports found that "[w]hen Obama attended 4th grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion.[21] The series also stated: "In fact, Obama's religious upbringing in Indonesia depended more on the conventions of the schools he attended than on any decision by him, his mother or his stepfather. When he was at a Catholic school for three years, he prayed as a Catholic. When he was at a public school for a year, he learned about Islam." [22]

The false allegations received wide media coverage. A few of the very many examples include CBS News,[23], the Washington Post, and the nationally syndicated radio talk show The Savage Nation.[24]

A January 27, 2007 article in the Columbia Journalism Review described the affair as a "lesson in how easy it is — even for publications with no history of credibility — to start a scandal."

[edit] end

I believe the former version fails to make necessary distinctions about the scandal (e.g., "the claims turned out to be false" -- The claim that Kuhner attributed to the Clinton campaign was false, but the claim that someone close to the Clinton campaign made that claim is still in dispute), makes claims in Wikipedia's voice that are inappropriate (the statement that the story was "unsourced" is a weaseling way of saying in Wikipedia's voice that Kuhner lied about having a source) and generally gives undue weight to the view of one editor that Kuhner set out to smear both Clinton and Obama at the behest of the Unification Church, an idea advanced by none of the sources beyond the occasional mention that Insight is indirectly owned by the Moonies. I'm sure I will have more to say as this RfC proceeds, but I think a side-by-side comparisom should be enough to generate appropriate comments. Andyvphil (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The pre-existing discussion, in which a consensus was reached is here. Please do not edit war to override consensus. WNDL42 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil, the "version" that you cite from "Barak Obama presidential campaign" is purely irrelevant here, THIS article is about journalism scandals. It is not a coat rack for telling Insight's version of the "story/smear". WNDL42 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I know your position. Thank you for stating it. The purpose of this RfC is to examine your claims and mine. We will see. Andyvphil (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

User JZG, I just reverted your undiscussed deletion of the entire section on this topic. Please discuss your issues here. WNDL42 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

JZG, your edit summary on your second delete was "(Saw talk, not mentioned. This should be for things widely identified as media scandals, else it should and will be deleted.)"
Not mentioned? more than half this talk page is about this scandal.
Yes, this page should be for things widely identified as media scandals. Please:
(a) review the Google News archives here and here and the news timeline here, with more than 500 nationally published stories based on or connected to the story.
(b) note that this scandal prompted the Vice Preident of Fox News (John Moody) to issue a public apology -- a first ever for Fox News. Columbia Journalism Review used it as a case study, and CNN sent a reporter to indonesia to check it out.
I think it passes the test.WNDL42 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Important change required during page protection

Editprotected

RE "Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Insight false "madrassa" report (2007)"

The above section does not mention the fact that "madrassa" just means "school" in Arabic. It could be seen by many that omitting this information, Wikipedia is actually spreading the arguable-slur of the original article (and elsewhere in the US) of "madrassa" being an Islamic school... that is also related to Islamic extremism. Basically: madrassa=school. Islamic madrassa=a Muslim school. Extreme Islamic madrassa=an extreme Muslim school!

I suggest the following addition to make the distinction:

  • After the existing line: "Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" – please add the lines: The madrassa was also described in the article as a "Muslim seminary" (religious school). Madrassa’s literal meaning is any “school”, of any faith.

On a personal note, I find these type of pages embarrassing for Wikipedia. They too-easily become forks for extremists, who can't get their POV on the proper pages, so look for ones (and often create ones) that disagreeing editors don't immediately know about. If I'd known about this and the AfD, I'd have voted to delete it (as many would do, I'm sure).

PS. “Madrassa” is an Arabic word. It might be suggested that in Indonesian, the name for a Muslim seminary (or Islamic madrassa) is actually Pesantren. This is irrelevant really, as “Pesantren” was simply not used.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not used by Insight or the English-language news coverage, I guess you mean. In actual Indonesian usage the word is "Madrasah" and is understood to mean non-"modernized" private schools which in the countryside are called Pesantren. Indonesians do not understand it to be a synonym for Mentang and we should not insert that misleading error. Noting what it means in Arabic turns out to be off-topic and unnecessary. Bottom line: it means in Indonesian pretty much what we understand it to mean in American after subtracting any implication that the religion in question is radical, a distinction Insight made. Insight said that they had been told that Obama had attended a possibly non-radical madrassa for the entirety of his four years in Indonesia, and not the two schools Insight mentions that Obama said he attended. Turns out that Obama had written the truth and Insight's source had it wrong, and the scandal is that Insight accepted the word of its source without adequate reason to do so. Try, try to get this right. I'm tired of having to undo failures to make necessary distinctions. But I won't stop now. Andyvphil (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You have not yet given any proof for this new Indonesian usage stuff? Madrassa is an Arabic word meaning "school". Why can't we exaplain what madrassa actually means? It looks like you have bamboozled the admin here and got your own way.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of convincing me; if anyone disagrees with a requested change while an article is protected, the change can't be made. That's the policy, that's the wording on the edit request template. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - can any one say (simply please) why this simple clarification cannot be made? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt...what change do you want? Note that the article does link through to the "negative connotations", and I for one am ALL for making it absolutely clear as to how Insight leveraged the loaded language aspects of 'madrassah' in order do the smear. Can you say (explicitly) what change you want and maybe (I suspect) we'll agree? Let's not waste Kafziel's time unless we've discussed here first. BTW, I thought you made good edit over at Insight on this topic, so I'm really confused as to what we disagree about. As long as the story is kept in the journalistic context and does not function to "echo" the charges (against either candidate, I am happy. WNDL42 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I just want the one-line addition I suggested above.
We disagreed fundamentally over Original Research. I'm a straight down the line facts man - if we don't use the same rule book, more changes get made, and more time gets wasted. I'm aware of what you call the "echo chamber effect" - I came into the Obama debate over an AfD, with objections regarding weight (and suspicions of how it benefits some). Mentioning terms like "Echo chamber effect" in articles is to go the other way, though! You often take your eye off whether "madrassa" is properly explained, which is no good to me, because the pervasive distrust of Islam the misuse of the word shows is fundamental to the story (and there are a billion Mulsims out there - the vast majority religiously peaceful). I've got frustrated because like so many here, I don't personally have the time to revise and explore things the way you like to in the article itself - and I don't have the inclination either. All we have to do is properly explain the word! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt, please do not accuse me of "Original research" again. I have shown you repeatedly that the "ECHO CHAMBER" is NOT original research, and have sourced it well and fully over and over and over again, here and here and here and HERE and HERE. You now have thousands of sources for you on that "Echo chamber" you keep saying is "original research". WNDL42 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I was the one who located and introduced the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization reference http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9324 , and I am 100% supportive of any edit that helps to clarify how the Insight smear attempted to play on irrational fears and left many americans "scared stupid" of smear target (a) as a "closet islamofacist", and THEN (b) tried to hang that ridiculous filth on "members of the campaign" of target (b). There is a special place in posterity for the perpetrators and forthose who do the "dirty work".

YCSG said:

Since the 9/11 attacks, a US priority has been to eliminate global terror. The US has spent and accrued billions in debt, invading Afghanistan and Iraq and enhancing security procedures in travel and everyday routine. A study of newspaper coverage of Pakistan, following the 9/11 attacks, suggests that journalists, either willingly or unwittingly, contributed to overall public confusion regarding global terrorism. Susan Moeller, director of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda and author of the study “The ‘Good’ Muslims: US Newspaper Coverage of Pakistan” points to some trends of bias in reports. For example, journalists often use words such as militant, extremist and terrorist interchangeably, discounting distinctions in motives, politics or history. Rather than inform, newspapers stoke fear among readers. Moeller urges newspapers and readers to reflect on the many economic and political motivations behind official Washington admonitions that huge expenditures can protect against a fragmented and elusive threat. – YaleGlobal

Meanwhile...a better kind of special place for the heroic:

Ken Grubbs was director of the conservative National Journalism Center until he wrote a piece criticizing Washington Times founder the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Now he's out of a job...his July 2 piece for the Wall Street Journal triggered his downfall...Picking up on a Capitol Hill appearance by Moon, who proclaimed himself the Messiah and was crowned by one congressman, Grubbs wrote that the incident "has got to be freshly embarrassing to the many fine journalists who work at the Times."

Conservative journalists with the integrity of Ken Grubbs are being fired for even mentioning Moon. Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, where we don't sweep creeps like Moon under the carpet. WNDL42 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

N Not done, as evidently the requested change is not uncontroversial. Andyvphil, if I've misread the intent of the above comment, please clarify here. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The current version is a POV atrocity which will not be substantially disimproved by irrelevant information that that "madrassa means school in Arabic". I've pointed out that it does not mean merely "school" in either Indonesian or English, but the result has been as expected that nether WNDL or ML has taken this in. I intend to be, as you suggested, "bold", and replace this turd in its entirety when the edit protection comes off, so I don't care how it's decorated. Andyvphil (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you cared about Muslim people (and many times you have shown the opposite) you would agree that the proper Arabic meaning of the word "madrassa" - and the English meaning when not misused by US media - is of primary importance! The NYTimes apologised for misusing it in the wake of this story – I doubt many in the media have used it incorrectly since!!? The negative meaning (or "English meaning" as you tellingly choose to call it) simply needs to be counter-balanced with a strict definition.
As for your "Indonesian meaning" - why should I "take it in" simply on your word? You have never given a link to any evidence! And why would an obscure Indonesian usage (which is non-Arabic) negate the standard Arabic usage anyway? Any extra Indonesian meaning (assuming it exists) is clearly not relevant to the direction of the Insight story. I believe you are casting a smokescreen to obscure clarity here, and I believe you are more than happy with the (now surely dated) negative use of the word "madrassa" standing uncontested, as you find madrassas fundamentally negative places anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The relevance of the "obscure Indonesian usage" is that it debunks WNDL42's speculation that Insight must have imported an Arabic word not used in Indonesian languages simply to smear Obama with its radical connotations. It appears that Kuhner was wrong to believe the story that Obama had attended a religious school, but not wrong to call such schools madrassas, and not wrong to think that a school called a madrassa in Indonesia would have a religiously-oriented curriculum. My source for this, as well as my first inkling that the word Pesantren existed, is this letter [2]. It is not suitable for use in mainspace as citation in support of a fact, but I believe "Muhammad", and it is foolish to write as if you don't have this information. In particular the linking of the word "madrassa" directly to the "negative connotations" subsection of Madrasah, twice, rather than just to the article is not supported by any source except WNDL42's POV. Andyvphil (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Debunks? Imported? Please, whatever is going on between you and WNL42 is between the two of you. I'm not following all the Moonie stuff, btw, and never have - I simply don't want anyone to control the use of the word "madrassa" here.
The 'DanielPipes' second-hand citation is certainly not suitable for me. How can a (supposed) "commonly-" or "more in-" 'a religious mould' Indonesian-usage of madrassa be relevant? (especially when you call the normal Arabic/correct English meaning “irrelevant”!!) And talk about a pretty wobbly definition by this "Muhammad" guy anyway! Insight's audience is clearly an American, not an Indonesian one, so please, let’s get the appropriate 'balancing' definition in. Colloquial Indonesian usage would debunk nothing - as nothing can be proven either way. You certainly cannot prove Insight meant a select 'Indonesian usage' (supposing one existed)! Reading the article again, this is clearly clutching at straws.
Certainly no one is suggesting that madrassa was the wrong word in itself. All schools across the Muslim world are most commonly known as madrassas - the argument is about definition - ie what kind of school? And would that school be 'radical'? No one can prove Insight (magazine) meant anything either benign or negative (though the tone of the Lead is pretty clear to me!) - so why can't we simply offer the clearly-benign 'root', correct, international, and normal definition of the word? And let’s trust the reader to decide on Insight’s motives. I don’t mind if you include "Pesantren" if you want (similarly to how I kept in your new pesantren change by fitting it around the normal “madrassa” meaning here). You can even add the line “The word madrassa has been used for xxxx in non-Arabic Indonesia” if you can find good citations. It’s more than is needed, but I wouldn’t contest. Just please keep in the Arabic/correct English meaning that I’m forever having to re-include!
I agree that the straight Wikilink of “madrassa” must go to the full article, and not the “negative connotation” sub-heading. I'm not a fan at all of Wikilinking for meaning - the relevant, appropriate and correct meaning simply has to be defined on the page. Just please don't say it is "irrelevant" to supply the normal Arabic/correct-English meaning - yet relevant to involve the misused 'meaning' (as it became part of the wider story whether you like it or not) and your so-called Indonesian 'meaning'. After the Insight story (and the subsequent NYTimes apology) I very much doubt the single word "madrassa" has been misused to mean Islamic or extremist by anyone in the media since. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to mentioning that "madrassa" means merely school in Arabic, but we are talking about putative events in Indonesia. Muhammad's meaning seems pretty clear to me: only the rural schools of the pesantren type are actually called "pesantren", whereas the urban ones are called instead "madrasahs". Now, Insight's exact words were "Sources close to the background check... said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia... the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim... the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism [but] the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case..." The curriculum of pesantren is described in the Wikipedia article as "Students in pesantren have almost 20 hours activities starting from early morning prayer starting at 4 am to midnight where they ended the evening with a study group in the dormitory. During the day, students attend formal school (which is mandatory until secondary school by 2005) like any other students outside of pesantren, and in late afternoon and evening they have to attend religious ritual followed by religious studies and group studies to complete their homework." So, Kuhner's source was wrong to say Obame attended a madrassa, but did not misuse the word by likening it to a seminary. That is, my understanding is that no Indonesian would refer to a modern institution like Mentang Besuki as a "madrasah" even if an Arab speaking in Arabic would be correct to do so. Andyvphil (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt, the reason I have Wikiref'd to "negative connotations" is that (according to reliable sources) the Insight smear was clearly attempting to "use" that "politically invented" meaning of the word to smear Obama. This is supported by ALL the sources. The invocation of loaded language by Insight is at the heart of the smear (see the very first sentence of the Insight report). I am 100% in favor of supporting you here -- adding to the article something that further illustrates the motives behind the smear, and those motives are (again) widely reported by reliable sources.
The reason that the Sun Myung Moon connection is critical is that here in the US we have experienced over thirty years of racist and/or political propaganda and "smears" from Rev. Moon's media News World Communications, The Washington Times, Insight magazine and United Press International. The "Insight" smear is only the latest example and by now you know that Insight is owned by Moon and is part of the moonie-neocon global propaganda machinery. If you will take a moment to review the history of this as we see it in the US, you will understand that we (you and I) are on the same "side" in this even though we are on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean. I support you in adding an additional sentence or wording to further clarify that "madrassah" means "school", but only as long as it does not hide or camoflage the fact that Insight chose the word and applied it specifically because it suited the purpose of generating a negative emotional response based on the "negative connotations" -- to make the smear work. Matt, that is the "journalism angle" here, OK? WNDL42 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, give it a rest. Your racial agenda is clear and your continued edit warring at other related sites is merely adding to your resume...for example your POV agenda here: The church is more Afrocentric and politically active than most black congregations and Obama has distanced himself from the political views of its dominant figure, recently retired pastor Jeremiah Wright (rv revision 195546385 by Bellwether BC. NPOV is policy,and we cannot violate NPOV by intentionally failing to mention highly notable facts for POV purposes.Please contribute your views at Talk.), and here, and here and ... WNDL42 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USER:Matt Lewis undiscussed reverts (this is not true - but what can you do?)

Matt, please review this entire section (above), respond to comments made, and please do not revert again without discussion. Also, please review the relevant sources supporting the section heading you are attempting to change found here. Thanks (in advance) for your cooperation. WNDL42 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained countless times how Wikipedia has to be more careful with the word "madrassa" than other people have been 'on google'. Stop asking me to explain myself again and again and again and again and again and again (thanks in advance for your cooperation indeed!). You are fooling no one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
RE your constant use of Google: The REAL result for you above search "insight kuhner madrassah OR madrassa -wikipedia" (I've included -Wikipeida) is 157 (not 798 - you must go to the end). This is partly why I don't like Google used like this (as I've explained to you). It's also full of blogs and mirrors. You know perfectly well I am protecting the word "madrassa" itself - and how others have misused it is not an argument to me - properly covering/defining the word is my intention (and it's NOT a "POV"). Why are you stressing me so much by making me explain this EVERY time you change me, obliging me to constantly find new ways of getting it back in? It's like chinese torture, and you are not hiding it from anyone by using excessive politeness, or adding vague comments like "more nonsense". I put "Islamic madrassa" into the title in line with Redddogs edits after the protection was lifted. I am going to try "Muslim seminary" now (the 'Clinton source' words). You know that I have not accepted the misuse of "madrassa" standing alone in any of these related articles we have been contributing to (and me longer than yourself, for the record).
Matt, I have also made some changes to the entry at Loaded language, these changes will (hopefully) provide some context for the discussion we will (hopefully) have here. WNDL42 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You didn't discuss that in the Talk page there - you just plonked it in! How long will it stay? This is no way to do things, and it is really wearing. I want to use Wikipedias guidelines, not your own. I've explained to you at length why I don't believe in using Wikilinks (especially these kind) to explain important meaning. We only need to recount the facts! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
More nonsense and distraction. (a) there is no contention at loaded language, and if you care to review WP:CCC, you will understand the difference between my edit there and your revert here. WNDL42 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"More nonsense and distraction." Why would I do that? To what purpose? When have I done it before? You plonked (and moved) the madrassa misuse into "Loaded language" and you also purpose-created the "Media echo chamber" article. As I have said, I do not agree with this Wikilinking use of Wikipeida for IMPORTANT meaning. As I keep saying, I want the correct definition ON THE PAGE for this word. The main reason being that misusing of the word is part of this story! Even the NYTimes apologised over it here. You can't keep ignoring my point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to call my first edit to this article a "revert"! Revert to what? I put the "madrassa" definition in (as I always have on this subject), and removed some of the biased 'tone' - as although I don't normally agree with Andyvphil, I have to agree on the issue of your un-WP-like bias (eg. linking to the "negative connotation" of "madrassa" and using leading words.) I always see your bias left up there around this whole subject anyway, so how can my edit be a "revert"? I've given plenty of time to your arguments explaining your reasons to be judgemental, and you know I have no taste for them at all. The Moonie issue I am not looking at all - just the fairness (both ways) surrounding the word "madrassa". Simply speaking: the fairer the whole article is, the stronger my "madrassa" point is.

I have every right to Be bold. Normally on Wikipedia I do patiently use Talk first, but you know I feel your arguments are 'leftfield', un-WP, and can change track too - which I find unfair. Why don't you ust tell me what is wrong about what I have done - and start the talk yourself?

I don't believe anyone is fully-aware of Wikipeida policy at all times. Some policies and guidelines are not easy to come across (or find again), an I personally refresh myself on them all the time. Can I refer you to these 3 again?

The second one is very important to me, as I firmly believe that people can make up their own minds when they are properly presented all the facts. Why push people in directions if you firmly believe in the facts? It's just a question of trust, I feel. On Wikipedia, we must have it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have (again) failed to address a single point I made above, and the accusations you make of "bias" are a clear case of the "pot" calling the "kettle" black. Every editor has a POV. Except for your repeated and fallacious citations of policy violations, you have not attempted to justify your POV with any (not even one) reliable source.
Now, I have attempted to incorporate what I can discern as your concerns. Please click and examine this edit and keep your comments to the edit and not the editor. WNDL42 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What is my bias? I clearly just want a fair article! What "single points" have I not addressed?? I always read and address everything you write! It's just so much exaggerated waffle WNDL. You have actually 'bullied' me pretty much since we first spoke. You take heavy offence at everything I say that you don't like, and have even reported me for telling you that have wasted my time. I find that a bullying method of getting your own way, and am entitled to my opinion, given the stess of all this. We now have an article with "madrassa" in the heading without ANY (non-linked) exact definition given for the difficult word - again - and thanks to you. Don't you ever think you should compromise with someone else for once? It is outrageous that you are still taking it out given all my arguments. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review the logical fallacy at Ad hominem, then review WP:NPA (the WP policy that is based on ad hominem) and if you care to then discuss this edit, keeping your comments to the edit and not the editor, then we can discuss the article, per WP:TALK. I will not respond to further ad hominem attacks like this one here. I will respond to them elsewhere, if you continue. WNDL42 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at your latest edit and this is my response: The word "Islamic" is NOT "loaded"!!! You have clearly never taken the time to understand that! I cannot repeat this like I'm saying it for the first time – I’m only human and its really wearing me down - you would stretch anyones patience here. I'm wondering if you genuinely believe the word "Islamic" in itself is a slur? What is "loaded" is the insinuation that Islamic equals extremist!! BUT WE CANNOT PROVE THIS WAS INTENDED BY INSIGHT!! We cannot prove it!! You constantly forcing it in does not make it a proven truth! Someone else really has to come in and look at this. I feel pretty defeated here. If the new edit you have made in your "this edit" link above is what Wikipedia is about, I don't want anything with this place. I surely can't be on my own about this?
Your "Ad hominem" jab is pretty hard for me to take - it is clearly what you are yourself doing, and consequently is below the belt. I have given you so many thousands of words of explanation to you now, and you have consistently ignored me. I can even prove you don't properly read me, by your actual responses - especially early on (when I even ended up taking everything to do with you off my watchlist - and I've never done that with anyone other than you). And stop threatening me again too - if you plan to make an action, then just act. But don't expect me to respond too much – it’s wisest for me to leave you to dig your own hole like when you opened that hugely exaggerated and OTT "Wikiquette alert" on me. Is that really worth all the wasted time? It does constitute a personal atack on me too - which you can't seem to see.
I wrote the "like this one" comment you link to above (the one you reported me over) as you were cynically humouring me with your approach, and pretending to listen to and address my concerns, and it became apparent you were clearly wasting my time - and simply building in stages an new-direction single-man "consensus" - which you then protected like a dog! And it was after we had a 'settling' period in the article (ie what looked like a consensus). Reading the link you give above, it looks to me as it I gave a reasonable assessment as things stood (bar maybe the actual 'pro-Clinton' aspect, which seemed logical given one of your arguments protecting her from being mentioned in reference to the Insight story - and which you never actually denied either, come to think of it). I’d just had enough, WNDL – so I used strong terms. You went on to claim my attempts to get the article back were "3RR" and against consensus (which was entirely your own)! I was actually just fuming at the time, really fuming - and it was just down to the way you go about things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you don't have the patience to remain civil, that's not anybody's problem but yours. If you don't have the time to read the sources, for example the Yale University study here, so that you can understand the US perspective that is in play here at United States journalism scandals, than that also is your own problem. WNDL42 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You know I have read that. I am totally tired with you now - your reverts on me now are against myself, redddog (who added to my change - he did not change it) and andyvphil I would guess too. STOP IT NOW. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(a) If you don't have the patience or energy to remain civil, that's your problem, and (b) your assessment above is (again) nonsense, increasingly accompanied by what sounds like ranting and raving -- it's incoherent. Please post diffs if you want to make such allegations. WNDL42 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You got blocked over this, not me. Just stop these personalised headings on me - or I'll report you - and I've never said that to anyone before. I have discussed this issue countless times (especially over all these different articles)- it is outragous you are demanding I re-discuss for each simple edit! You rarely read me - but you certainly revert. You yourself don't discuss first every time you edit - and you consistently refer to each of your edits as if they are a new "consensus"!!: it's one rule for you, and a different one for everyone else. I have spend hours explaining things to you: hours. It just takes you 2 seconds to pretend that I haven't. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article, category or list?

This appears to be a collection of independent articles that really have no business being strung together. Suggest the sensible thing to do is create one article for each "scandal". If it meets WP:N the individual scandal article survives. Convert this to a simple WP:LIST. Be hard-boiled about it. No refs in the list, just wikilinks to the individual articles and a one- or two-line capsule summary. See List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft and the related WP:ADL for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree - a list is the maximum that is acceptible here.
Believe it or not, somebody here keeps using this as a "Further reading" link on a main-story article, simply because it is locked in a state that suits him! These type of articles only end up as 'POV forks', and make the initial subjects so difficult to follow properly, as they seem to come from nowhere (however "old" they are). Can you help, Lead? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Matt, you are failing to assume good faith, please explain yourself. WNDL42 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We've discussed this, and I've asked you unanswered questions elsewhere - it's not a faith issue. AGF is an essential assumption we must all make until proof shows us otherwise. We also need to 'default' to AGF for every comment we read (and then apply reason, and any proof we might have to lose the faith). But we are not meant to keep "assuming good faith" no-matter what! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about creating a pure list as a new article, especially as this is up for deletion (thinking it might help!). But it strikes me that there will always be problems even with a simple list. Part of the issue with the Insight section has been over the title itself! I think this article is best completely deleted - as any list of "scandals" is impossible to maintain. The problems encountered with Insight is potentially just a tip of the iceberg. How would a single Talk page cope? It'll only take the article to get well-known, I fear. Commercial aircraft accidents are one thing, of course - but is Wikipedia really the place for lists like this? Too many subjective issues and potential problems can arise - I personally don't think Wikipedia is the place at all. Like Leadsongdog says, what really connects all these scandals? The list is too wide and arbitrary. If there is any story here without a presence elsewhere (which I seriously doubt) then separate articles can easily be made - providing of course the stories deserve them.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I think this is a perfectly reasonable article, and disagree with breaking it into a slew of separate articles or with removing most of the referenced information and making it into a bare list. Edison (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article has been put up for Deletion (AfD) on 11th March.

Just a note to anyone who hasn't noticed this article is currently up for deletion again (not long leftnow before a judgement is made, I think). All those interested can comment here (and call 'delete', 'keep' etc if they wish).

[edit] Specific items discussion

Refactored (headings indented) for ease in tracking the discussion WNDL42 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Couric

I took out this section:

"Katie Couric's Notebook," CBSNews.com (2007)
One of "Katie Couric's Notebook" columns on the CBS News website, a piece about the declining use of libraries, was found to have closely resembled an article by Wall Street Journal author Jeffrey Zaslow, "Of the Places You'll Go, Is the Library Still One of Them?", leading to accusations of plagiarism.[1] It was revealed that Couric, the current anchor of the CBS Evening News, does not generally write these columns, although they often include first-person recounting of supposed events. On April 12, 2007, CBS admitted that "much of the material in the Notebook came from Zaslow, and we should have acknowledged that at the top of the piece";[1] the unidentified producer who provided the material had been fired. The article has since been removed.[1]

In the first place this was not really journalism -- it was an essay posted on a website. Also the source cited doesn't didn't say it was a scandal -- just an embarassment. Borock (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Detrich

I took out as a non-scandal:

Allan Detrich, The Blade (2007)
Photographer and 1998 Pulitzer Prize finalist Allan Detrich resigned his post as staff photographer for the Toledo Blade on April 7th, 2007, following an admission that a submission he had made, covering the Bluffton University baseball team praying for five of their teammates who had died in a road accident, had been digitally altered. A pair of legs belonging to a fellow photographer had been "cloned" out of the image, something Detrich never denied but insisted was submitted in error from his personal image collection. The Photoshop manipulation was first discovered when photographers from rival papers realized some near-identical shots taken the same scene from a very similar angle all contained the legs. The controversy was first reported on April 7th by the NPPA's News Photographer magazine.[25]
The Blade were quick to withdraw all of Detrich's recent work from their image archives, amounting to 947 photographs, 79 of which were discovered to have been visibly altered, including the addition of major, context-changing elements. Twenty-seven altered photographs were reported to have been published by the newspaper since January 2007.[26] The New York branch of the Associated Press also took the precaution of removing all of Detrich's work from their archives, pending further investigation. The photographer was quoted as saying, "I realize now, that this might be the end to my newspaper career, I am so sorry this incident happened plain and simple."
The Blade published an apology to its readership on April 15th.[27]

The sources cited did not use the word "scandal." No one was hurt and no false information was given to the public. This is just one guy who broke the rules, rules which no non-journalist has heard of or cares about (pretty much). (I also tagged Allan Detrich as non-notable. Borock (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Ryan

I took out:

Tim Ryan, Honolulu Star-Bulletin (2006)
Tim Ryan was a 21-year veteran writer with the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The entertainment columnist was fired on January 14, 2006, for plagiarizing a number of stories during his time at the Star-Bulletin. In a statement on the paper's official website, editor Frank Bridgewater said, "The stories contained phrases or sentences that appeared elsewhere before being included, un-attributed, in stories that ran in the Star-Bulletin. The stories did not include inaccurate information or any fabrications." (full statement) Similarities between Ryan's December 22 review of the History Channel documentary "Secrets of the Black Box: Aloha Flight 243" were first noted on the Wikipedia Signpost [3]. Although Bridgewater did not reference Wikipedia in his official statement, the article itself was corrected by the Star-Bulletin on December 24. The correction read: "A portion of a review of the television show "Secrets of the Black Box: Aloha Flight 243" was taken verbatim from the Web site reference.com. The material was originally published in the online encyclopedia wikipedia.com [sic]. The article, on Page D6 Thursday, failed to attribute the information to either source." [4] A Wikipedia editor brought a complaint to the paper, eventually leading to Ryan's dismissal.

This did not seem to be "widely reported as a scandal." Again, just one person losing his job for breaking the rules. Borock (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Bradley

I took out:

Paul Bradley, Richmond Times-Dispatch (2006)
The Richmond Times-Dispatch fired 51-year-old writer Paul Bradley, on May 26 after he fabricated material in a story on President George W. Bush's immigration speech. He made up a quote from a director at a center for day laborers, stole a description of people waiting for work from a Washington Post article, and gave the story a dateline making it appear as if he visited the area.
The director of the center quoted in Bradley's story May 17 alerted his editors, who have promised to look into Bradley's other stories. Bradley apologized but said that "the punishment far exceeds the crime." Fabrication at most newspapers is a first-time firing offense.

One more person being fired for breaking the rules. No secondary sources are given (a WP rule), so it looks like this was not widely reported as a scandal. Borock (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Chien

I took out:

Philip Chien, Wired News (2006)
Wired News pulled three news articles by freelance writer Philip Chien in August 2006 after it could not verify the authenticity of a source he used in them, namely Robert Ash, an aeronautical engineering professor at Old Dominion University. Ash had never spoken to Chien on any matter. Chien also admitted to fabricating e-mail accounts in an attempt to mislead editors.

This also does not seem like a notable scandal. One person was fired and the only outlet to report it was the company he worked for. Borock (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Mitchell

I took out:

Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher (2006)
Editor & Publisher editor Greg Mitchell admitted in a May 2003 column following the Jayson Blair scandal at The New York Times that he fabricated sources for a story he wrote as a young reporter for the then Niagara Falls Gazette.
Mitchell penned columns critical of bloggers accusing the media of staging and faking photographs and news stories during the Israel-Hezbollah War (see 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies) while admitting his own.

This does not seem to have been widely reported as a scandal. Borock (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Griego Erwin

I removed:

Diana Griego Erwin, Sacramento Bee (2005)
Sacramento Bee columnist Diana Griego Erwin resigned in May 2005 shortly after her editors confronted her about several people in her columns whose existence could not be verified. An internal investigation concluded a month later could not find 30 people in 27 of her 171 columns since January 2004, and a random search of columns dating back to 1995 found 10 more phantom sources. Reporters developed a test for Erwin's columns, and certified it by checking names in 36 random pieces by three other columnists, all of which checked out.
The Bee's final report said that many of Erwin's columns "fit a template: essays, often with a surprising O. Henry twist, about a singular person who faces a challenge and surmounts it." Bee reporters could not track down people in Erwin's stories whose vocations are state licensed, such as teachers and barbers. This was similar to the Patricia Smith investigation by the Boston Globe.
Other Bee writers fired for ethics violations included television critic Bob Wisehart for plagiarism, and sports writer Jim Van Vliet for writing up a game he watched on television as if he had attended.

Again, one person fired. Only reported by her employeer. Not a notable scandal. Besides which, the section was padded with references to other incidents. Borock (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Egyptian

I removed:

The Daily Egyptian's fake orphan (2005)
For two years The Daily Egyptian, the newspaper of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, had run articles by a young girl named Kodee Kennings, whose father, Sgt. Dan Kennings, was serving in the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq. When Dan Kennings was reported killed in action, the Chicago Tribune discovered that the Egyptian had fallen for an elaborate hoax by a student who convinced actors playing the family that they were filming a documentary. Jaimie Reynolds, the woman who perpetrated the hoax, claimed that former editor Michael Brenner was involved, which he denied.

I don't think an incident in a college newspaper should count as a notable United States journalism scandal. Also the link in the reference is now dead. Borock (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nada Behziz

I removed:

Nada Behziz, The Bakersfield Californian (2005)
Nada Behziz, a 25-year-old reporter in her first year as The Bakersfield Californian's health writer, was fired in October 2005 when editors discovered that her article about teenage smoking plagiarized a quotation from a 1995 San Francisco Examiner story. An internal investigation turned up 29 pieces containing unattributed borrowings from other papers nationwide, along with seven stories featuring local doctors that could not be found on the state medical board or other databases. [5] [6] In one case, the University of California at Los Angeles denied the existence of a man Behziz described as a professor at the school. After Behziz's dismissal, her previous employer, The Daily Republic of Fairfield, California, did its own probe and found that at least two of her pieces contained plagiarized material.
The Californian also discovered that she did not graduate from San Francisco State University as Behziz stated on her resume. [7] She also listed two college internships – one of which ended because of absenteeism and a discrepency in an article – as full-time staff positions.

Again, one person fired, in her first year as a reporter. Not a notable scandal. Borock (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Greene

I removed:

Bob Greene, Chicago Tribune (2002)
Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene, who was considered one of the paper's stars, was forced to resign in September 2002 after he admitted that he had an extramarital affair 14 years earlier with a high school student who visited Greene for a school project. Greene subsequently used the visit as a subject for one of his columns. Greene often used his columns and books to crusade on behalf of children, most notably the Baby Richard case.

As it says, Greene resigned because of something he did outside of his job. This is not really a journalism scandal. It had nothing to do with the quality of his writing published in the Tribune. He is a good writer, BTW. I've read a couple of his books. Borock (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Dunphy

I removed:

Stephen Dunphy, Seattle Times (2004)
Stephen Dunphy was a 37-year veteran journalist and business reporter for the Seattle Times. A reader in 2004 told editors that seven paragraphs in a 1997 story by Dunphy on airport expansion in Asia were plagiarized almost word for word from a 1996 special section of the Journal of Commerce. [8]
The newspaper investigated because Dunphy had plagiarized several anecdotes from a book in 2000 without attribution, a transgression which Dunphy himself brought to his editors' attention. He resigned after the newspaper's investigative team found three more questionable stories.

Again, one person fired. Not a widely reported notable scandal. Borock (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Forman, Slate (2001)

I left this one in since it was reported on by some newspapers. What I found "scandalous" about it was not that a reporter for an online publication like Slate would write a fake story but that ordinary Americans, as well as the editor of Slate, are so ignorant of: 1. A basic understanding of how nature works (Haven't they seen programs about monkeys on Nature and National Geographic TV?) and 2. Ordinary common sense, to read more than the first couple of paragraphs of the "Monkey Fishing" story and not see that it couldn't be anything but a fake. Borock (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Tailwind, CNN NewsStand (1998)

I took this out -- a mistake, especially when immediately retracted, is not a "scandal", it's an example of "doing the right thing"...WNDL42 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC) - On the June 7 edition of NewsStand, CNN reported that the US used nerve gas in Laos to kill American defectors during the Vietnam War. It retracted this statement on July 2. - * CNN: CNN retracts Tailwind coverage

[edit] Moving to List of United States journalism scandals

According to the admin User:Fram (who judged the AfD):

"I believe the posts by FT2 sum it up nicely".

According to the admin User:FT2:

"Conditional keep (probably as list) - I created this article as part of the cleanup of the main "journalistic scandals" article, which at that time was a list of scandals rather than an article on journalistic scandalism per se. The cleanup and continuation was left in the hands of those who had asked for the help. I see in fact little or nothing was done; even the main article still contains the untouched place-holders where sourced encyclopedic content was needed. This article might be better in a different format - for example refactored into a list with brief notes (and links if any), or in some other format. List of United States journalism scandals is probably viable. A sprawling mess of an article is not. I would have to say "subject matter encyclopedic but needs a concerted cleanup and perhaps a move to list format"

I was for very much for the deletion. I think even a new simpler list will have inclusion and scandal-title problems. It's all too subjective and sprawling. However, I'm "being bold" and am making the page now. I decided not to Talk first, as I don't consider this a fair article-list and I've had little truck talking in here. I am entitled to be bold, and many have suggested a rename in the AfD: this is clearly the only viable one. As I predicted, there is no great discussion anyway. So I'm going by judge Fram's recommendation. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done it. Not sure how the 'moving' bit works - I just used FT2's template above to create the basic new list... I'll wait for someone to comment on what I've done.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The templates directed to the "destination" page's Talk: (this is not an 'evasion') discuss merge here! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not gonna work...WNDL42 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

The merger proposal placed here looks like an attempt to evade the recent AfD discussion by replacing this article with "List of United States journalism scandals", newly created by User:Matt Lewis. WNDL42 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am evading nothing! Why place this comment here and on the other Talk page too? The recommendations are to discuss it in one place. The "mergeto" page is the recommented one - I simply followed the template. The link to it (which is easy to find) is HERE. The move itself was recommended!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about creating a separate (new) article now called "List of United States journalism scandals", making it according to ideas which have all been rejected on talk and at the AfD's, and then proposing a merger. That's what I mean by "an attempt to evade the recent AfD discussion" I'm NOT talking about the samewise attempt to move the discussion to the talk page of the article you created, but that's a little disingenuous too, now that you mention it. WNDL42 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "making it according to ideas which have all been rejected on talk and at the AfD's" - you have no examples to give for that!
  • I am following the clear recommendations given at the AfD conclusion (see above, and on the new list) - somebody simply had to make the start! Many who commented on the AfD in passing, have simply not bothered Watching this list.
  • The merge template conducted the Talk on the "mergeto" page (as I made clear to all who read) - stop calling me deceitful.
  • I am doing a LOT of work on improving this across Wikipedia (see the other Talk page), and it's for the benefit of Wikipedia - not myself. Wikipedia needs strong articles, not fork-lists - I've been strengthening articles as I've been wikilinking the other simplified list. Some of these "scandals" haven't even been mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia!!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:56, 20 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)

No consensus for this merge, get an RfC if you disagree. WNDL42 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Who else disagrees? It's all you. This is per the AfD. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review WP:CON. WNDL42 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As usual then, consensus=you. I won't let any emotive wild comments or accusations simply pass this time around - I want to be clear about that. Make sure you are accurate and can back yourself up.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The List of United States journalism scandals is a poor substitute for this article. Any merge should be to redirect that one to this one. 208.33.152.16 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Kind of you to join for the day to say this. I notice you have edited the other List: perhaps you could use Talk there and explain why both your Eason Jordan inclusions (taken from here) are actual "scandals" - and not simply commonplace journalistic practice in these international cases! Why are no other news channels and newspapers calling it scandalous? A) Because they do the same! PS. The US army targeted Al Jazeera - everyone knows that. It's not "scandalous" to criticise countries at war!! (not in my country anyway, thank god).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
They are two completely distinct issues and one is really CNN not Eason Jordan except that he was the one who admitted it. The scandals are not that they criticised but in one case that CNN knew of horrible human rights abuses in Iraq and did not report them. The other is an unsubstantiated and inflammatory claim which got him fired. 208.33.152.16 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Saddam Hussain was a well known tyrant - but there was no balance in US reporting at the time. Unfortunately US media went over the top on Hussain to justify the war (he wasn't Hitler - women had more rights that under the Taliban for example, Al Quieda were banned from Iraq - now they are an epidemic in there - thanks to America you idiots) - Saddam was a classic 'small man' who was obsessed on his own bizarre immortality (who was supported by the USA all through the 1980's). So much drama and lies saturated the USA media that I applaud CNN for showing some balance (and they did consistently criticise Hussain anyway (as we all did at the time) - it was just a foolish statement for Jordan to make - ie. he brought on his own downfall!). How was this a "scandal" other than to over-enthusiastic right-wing 'bloggers'? Can you give me one example?--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)