Talk:Sharyl Attkisson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New addition

An IP is adding information to this article which is not fully supported by the claimed source (the source doesn't speak of "propaganda" or Wikipedia at all, for instance.) The IP has also removed info sourced to Forbes.com, which seems like a reliable source. The rotating IP needs to get consensus for their change instead of edit warring. Yobol (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

“The Red Pen of Doom” and “Yobol” expressing their opinion that Forbes.com, Seth Mnoonkin (or others agendists advancing the pharmaceutical propaganda) "seems like a reliable source" doesn’t magically make the sources reliable. And it’s certainly not good enough to justify posting contentious, libelous material on a Wikipedia bio page. It’s not surprising that, to “The Red Pen of Doom” and “Yobol,” those who agree with their agendas “seem like a good source.” Neither has any business editing their personal viewpoints and agendas into a bio page as they have repeatedly done here.

As for the idea that Forbes.com must be considered reliable because the organization presumably uses a “fact-checking” process: Forbes acknowledges that Salzberg, the opinion blogger, is not fact-checked and doesn’t even work on Forbes’ staff:

"From: @forbes.com Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:07 PM Subject: FW:

… Mr. Salzberg is an outside blogger for Forbes and not a staff writer. As such, none of his content is reviewed by Forbes prior to publication on our platform."

The cite should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.248.59 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Vaccines

The stand-alone sentence, "In July 2012, Attkisson's reporting on vaccines was characterized as spreading "anti-vaccine misinformation" and "anti-science" by Steven Salzberg," is entirely inappropriate for a biography of a living person and violates the neutral point of view policy, specifically undue weight:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

This claim about Sharyl Attkisson's focus on vaccines comes from a linked article that connects her with an outbreak of whooping cough with absolutely no credulity. The only credit we seem to take into account for including this reference is that the author is a reliable source. Unfortunately, his material isn't and has no solid ground after reading the piece. Even more damaging to the credibility of the source is it's own [www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/ source].

This is a recent, isolated criticism by a minority, turned into a single sentence on Wikipedia without context or care for Neutral Point of View. I open this conversation for why it should be included, but I note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the issue that I have with the line is based solely on policy and has nothing to do with the global conversation about vaccination political camps. The burden of evidence is on those who wish inclusion for contentious material in BLPs. Keegan (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is NOT a blanket for removing any content critical of a living person's actions/misactions/errors. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the specific way in which this violates WP:UNDUE; the position that Attkisson appears to be promoting (vaccines are dangerous/may cause autism) is clearly the minority (actually fringe minority) opinion in the medical community. That her reporting promotes such a view is also not a minority, as it has been thus described by others such as Seth Mnookin [sethmnookin.com/2011/03/31/more-embarrassing-anti-vaccine-reporting-from-cbs-newss-sharyl-attkisson/ here] , Media Matters [mediamatters.org/research/2012/02/07/cbs-to-receive-award-from-fringe-group-at-cpac/185339 here], and Paul Offit in [books.google.com/books?id=t_poH5CczDUC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=attkisson+offit&source=bl&ots=VIegugBDLq&sig=8xSPbIoK7J_hh94P9jlxwdSIvfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ytMjUO2oGcfNqAGM2YE4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attkisson%20offit&f=false his book] and appears to be the mainstream opinion (to the extent there exists one). Do you have a reliable source that says her vaccine reporting isn't anti-vaccine or praises it, from outside the anti-vaccine movement?

Also, you seem to have declared this source as unreliable based merely on the fact that you disagree with the assessment of the author and how he arrived to it, Salzman. This would seem to fly in the face of how we determine the reliability of sources here on Wikipedia. While I agree that we cannot connect Attkisson directly to the cases of whooping cough, neither the source nor our mention here in this Wikipedia article does so, so using that as an argument against this source seems to be a non sequitur. The consensus on WP:BLPN appearss to be that it is a reliable source, however, so I'm not sure we even have to go over this ground again. So far, I see no convincing argument that this material shouldn't be placed back in. I also agree with the comment above regarding the use of WP:BLP. Yobol (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"While I agree that we cannot connect Attkisson directly to the cases of whooping cough, neither the source nor our mention here in this Wikipedia article does so, so using that as an argument against this source seems to be a non sequitur." Right, that column had absolutely no evidence of connection of Attkisson's news reports to any detrimental effect, nor does it, aside from accusations, make her a supporter of the anti-vaccination crowd. It's just innuendo. What you have found here is the one source on the web that you could include that qualifies as a RS and taken it out of context to label someone on Wikipedia with a single sentence. This is highly inappropriate and a highly irresponsible way to treat a biography, and again is fundamentally not neutral. At all. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it out of context? The author specifically describes her position as anti-science and anti-vaccine, "The media has been complicit in spreading some of anti-vaccine misinformation. Sometimes it comes straight from the media itself, such as the credulous, anti-science, anti-vax CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson." No context removed. The commentary regarding Attkisson was regarding her reporting as part of the media promoting anti-vaccination. Neither the source, nor does the proposed text, tie Attkisson to the Whooping cough or any "detrimental effect", so again, this is a non sequitur as no one is arguing that position. Please stay on topic and stop arguing against straw man arguments. Yobol (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On topic? This is far off topic to my exact point. You, Yobol, wish to inject a theory that you agree with that The Media® is anti-vaccination. Can I go into a different article and write a sentence about "The liberal media thinks that..." or "Media wants you to believe..." No, I cannot. Your editing this article has a very visible POV, and it is clear that your position is in no way to support a neutral biography of Sharyl Attkisson, but to make sure that and idea that you support is placed into the article. That is more conflict of interest than if she edited the article herself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for us drop one sentence into biographies because it relates to our promotion of a particular self POV. It is your position that is a red herring, because it gets people to focus on a single issue rather than the overall tone, comprehension, and accuracy in presenting a biography. Keegan (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keegan can you come back to the specific content article content that you originally claimed was UNDUE becuase it was from only one source. We now have multiple sources supporting the analysis of Attkissons coverage of the issue and so at this point it is seeming that it is UNDUE to NOT include those criticisms in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also suggest Keegan should follow our behavioral guidelines by commenting on the content, not the contributor as well. If Keegan feels I have a true conflict of interest, they can certainly take this up on WP:COIN, but I would prefer to stay on content in resolving this dispute. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A sentence or two seems proportionate for a minority position, and RedPen correctly notes that BLP specifically allows minority opinions from reliable sources. On the other hand, is it too tiny a minority (isolated criticism) or too trivial an issue at all (overall significance) for the article topic? I dispute Keegan's assertion that we should base our decision on the underlying sources the cited ref uses--we now have an expert that appears to endorse the position himself by re-reporting it, highlighting it as an example of his own position, without criticism or substantial counter-evidence for that source. It's the reliability of the source we cite (the usual expert-opinion or other WP:RS requirements as usual) that matters. If our medical expert wants to write in support of nonsense or fringe rather than mainstream (note, I am not making judgement about the case at hand) or base his position on a bunch of poor sources, well then that makes the nonsense or fringe more notable and worthy of inclusion because now an expert apparently agrees with it. That's exactly how secondary sourcing works: because we are not experts, rely on those who are to help highlight what is significant or a notable example of...whatever. What's left to decide I think is whether this particular reliable source really is endorsing the position that Attkisson is a notable example of this position on vaccines--nobody seems to dispute that Salzberg is generally qualified to statements that carry weight per RS or that the media portrayal of vaccines and inter-related social issues are notable. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One sentence + one source + recent news = Undue weight. I am not reading any argument here relative to why it should be included in her biography in such a manner. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

are you suggesting that we remove all other content from this article that has only one source as it would also then be UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

i dont think there is even evidence that the criticism of her reporting on vaccines is a minority position. the criticism seems pretty well be the prevailing scientific view of such coverage, although I dont know that the criticism has been widely applied specifically to her. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that her occasionally reporting on vaccines gives her a position whatsoever, or how it merits inclusion in her Wikipedia biography aside from the fact that a few editors just seem to really, really want it in the article about her without explanation for motive for the overall good of her biography but as yet another platform to talk about the vaccine issues. Unsuitable for Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

[sethmnookin.com/2011/03/31/more-embarrassing-anti-vaccine-reporting-from-cbs-newss-sharyl-attkisson/ Here] is Seth Mnookin specifically commenting on her general pattern of reporting on this topic. He appears to be well-regarded for his coverage of the public-health aspects of vaccination, so his writing about it would be a WP:RS expert-opinion. Now it's not just one voice holding her up as an example, and it's not just one story of hers in this area (or one study she just happened to be the one to cover) that drew attention. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) [books.google.com/books?id=t_poH5CczDUC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=attkisson+offit&source=bl&ots=VIegugBDLq&sig=8xSPbIoK7J_hh94P9jlxwdSIvfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ytMjUO2oGcfNqAGM2YE4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attkisson%20offit%20blog&f=false her anti-vaccine blog gives her an anti-vaccine position]. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The mention in the source is very trivial and passing; I rather think we'll have to cut it. Unless someone can come up with some firmer or more in depth dicussion of her vaccine views. --02:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than the conjecture of biased and/or conflicted editors, there is no evidence that Attkisson has any anti-vaccine views at all. The term "anti-vaccine" is an agreed-upon propagandist phrase which the vaccine industry and its surrogates apply to anyone who examines vaccine safety, in an attempt to halt independent investigation of vaccine safety scientific questions. It's as inflammatory and misleading of a label as calling someone who is "pro-choice" -- "pro-murder." Merely reporting on vaccine safety issues -- even if the pharmaceutical industry and its surrogates don't like it -- is no more "anti-vaccine" than reporting on Firestone tire safety issues is "anti-tire," or reporting on Congressional corruption is "anti-Congress," or reporting on a dangerous drug is "anti-medicine," or reporting on a charity scandal is "anti-charity." In fact, one could easily make the argument that reporting which results in discussions regarding make vaccines safer is in fact pro vaccine, not anti vaccine. Extreme caution should be used in allowing propagandists or anyone else to perpetuate a potentially false, libellous label regarding a living person who has, in fact, not expressed a position or viewpoint. Simply because many propagandists/bloggers can be found making the same false claims does not make them true (especially when they all come from those on one side in the debate, and do not include the equally vehement opposing views from others in the debate who believe the same reporting is responsible, fair and conducive to a safe vaccination program). At least one of the sources (Dr. Offit) who is mentioned above by those who wish to have a one-sided opinion blog cited in an out-of-context fashion on the bio has been successfully sued for libel regarding his vaccine-related statements at least once in the past, and has already been the subject of a high profile correction regarding false statements he specifically made about Attkisson in the past. Referring to him and others connected to the vaccine industry as though they are "experts" who should be highly regarded, while many opinions to the contrary are disregarded, is unfair. Those who wish to falsely label this reporter as "anti-vaccine" recklessly ignore or disregard quotes from Attkisson's stories such as:

“Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective, and that they have not found a link to any deaths. They also say illnesses reported after vaccinations may not have been caused by the shot, and that Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with 'half the average' reported serious adverse events.”

“Vaccines have saved countless lives, nearly eradicating horrible, deadly and disfiguring diseases that once threatened many Americans.”

“In 1994, the government's Immunization Advisory Committee recommended routine vaccination against hepatitis B virus. It was a widely welcomed strategy to fight a serious and sometimes deadly disease. The CDC currently recommends vaccination for 'all infants, beginning at birth,' people under age 19, and at-risk adults.”

Those who wish to characterize the reporter or reporting as taking a personal position are simply factually incorrect.

As to the writer above who said nobody has disputed that Salzberg is generally qualified to make his statements: consider it disputed, now. Salzberg is called a "computer scientist" in one article, does not know Attkisson personally, mischaracterizes her reporting as stated above, fails to disclose his (and his institution's) own industry financial ties and relationships, and -- most notably -- blames Attkisson in an article on a topic (whooping cough) on which she has never published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.29 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Those who wish to characterize the reporter or reporting as taking a personal position are simply factually incorrect." Important point to consider. Keegan (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That one has some bits of correct information does not mean that there are not significant parts / an overall slant that are better and more appropriately characterized as "spreading misinformation". -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The personal opinion of any individual Wikipedia editor about the "correctness" of Salzberg is not really relevant to this discussion. Certainly if Attkisson has been praised by medical or scientific authorities (not associated with the anti-vaccine movement) we can include those here as well if they are also published in reliable sources. Rather than arguing about the subject of the BLP, we need editors to provide sources. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You cannot shift the burden of proof. It is not up to anyone to provide sources contrary to yours, the proof is on you to provide encyclopedic significance in a neutral tone that does not affect the reader of the article's perception of the subject. Your stance here denies the subject, which is contrary to care in a biography of a living person. Your arguments are fine by wikilawyering policy about reliable sources, but they completely ignore the concept of a biography. Sharyl Attkisson's reporting in her profession as a journalist does not reflect her personal opinion, and we're characterizing that it does and, even worse, providing no context. You do not have high quality sources, you have not gotten it right.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Wikipedia:Biography of living persons

Now, how is this single sentence doing that again? Keegan (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that nowhere in the one sentence about Salzman's characterization does it describe her personal opinion, just her "reporting". Quoting parts of BLP policy that do not apply in the current instance, and mischaracterizing the content in discussion, would seem to not be a very convincing argument. Yobol (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, two other relevant cites were provided but deleted by the biased editors so there is not a genuine search for truth, facts and balance here. For example, the biased editors deleted mention that Attkisson had won an independent international award that included her vaccine reporting. The biased editors also removed the context and legitimate source (Orange County Register) that proved Attkisson had been a target of false statements in the past of bad actors in the pro-vaccine-injury movement. In any event, you continue to place yourself in the position of falsely labelling people (or accepting propagandists' label) as "anti-vaccine" while, at the same time, not seeming concerned that the cited source (Salzberg) is anti-vaccine-safety or pro-vaccine injury (to use an equivalent version of their false "anti-vaccine" label). Therefore, you give undue weight to one side of the argument as if it's neutral, then claim that any sources on the other side must meet your (conflicted editor's & their surrogates) own definition of being "not part of the anti-vaccine movement." The Salzberg crowd falsely associates anyone who examines vaccine safety issues as "anti-vaccine." Therefore, they are "associated," not in true fact but by the pro-vaccine-injury crowd. Wiki should not allow this charged moniker of "anti-vaccine" to be applied lightly, and should be mindful that it has been widely used in a well orchestrated and financed propaganda campaign. In the end, you apply your bias in setting the bar at an impossible level for a fair bio. Further, even adding opposing cites doesn't solve other serious problems such as: entering the whole discussion clearly violates biographical neutrality, is part of an longstanding, ongoing attempt to vandalize and unfairly color a bio, is contentious and potentially libelous and should be immediately removed, and gives undue weight to a small segment of the reporter's reporting. Indeed, a tremendous amount of material and research would need to be added on many other topics on the bio to put the vaccine issue (which the biased editors wish to insert) into proper perspective. Wiki is not a soapbox and, in this case, special interests are trying to turn it into one. This should not be allowed.

As a comparison: if President Obama is "pro-choice," but certain scientists and policy analysts were to write about him and label him "pro-murder," or "pro-death," would that label and a discussion of it be allowed on his bio? Not the proper place. And not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.248.59 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing a conspiracy by editors or by the reliable sources is unlikely to be helpful to convincing others of your case. The only new source you are citing is the OC Register retraction, which would only be reliable as a source that the OC register retracted one article, years after the original was published. It would probably not be a suitable source for this article, and would not be a reliable source that says anything positive about Attkisson's vaccine reporting. Certainly if it is not anti-vaccine or within the mainstream of medicine, you can find a WP:RS that says so. We have several sources that says it is anti-vaccine. Yobol (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep avoiding mention of the international independent award Attkisson received in part for vaccine reporting-- which you removed from the bio? Further, you haven't cited any sources regarding "anti-vaccine" except for the pro-vaccine-injury movement which includes Salzberg, the discredited Offit, and others cited above. They are the equivalent (on the other side) to the sources you reject because you apparently have a bias for your own reasons, and don't wish to cite anybody except on one side of the issue. You also fail to address your violation of Wiki policies on neutrality, undue weight and the special care that should be given to contentious material on bios. You ignore anyone who offers opposing viewpoints and declare viewpoints invalid. Let others be the judge of whether the OC Register cite is relevant. Why do you keep deleting it from the bio and even the talk page? That sort of censorship is very revealing, malicious and damaging. Apparently, a fair bio is not what is desired here: a skewed, colored, inaccurate piece of propoganda is what is apparently sought by the editors who have repeatedly revealed their biases with their inappropriate edits.

If you have an independent reliable source noting that Attkisson won an independent award for her reports on vaccines, please bring them forth so that we can add it to the article. That is precisely the type of source I have been asking for. Yobol (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the editor is talking about what's being blogged about [www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/cbss-sharyl-attkisson-honored-by-accuracy-in-media/2012/02/07/gIQAvIMAxQ_blog.html here]--Attkisson received an award at the Conservative Political Action Conference from "Accuracy In Media", which "left-leaning" Media Matters for America describes as “a right-wing group with a long history of promoting anti-gay views and conspiracy theories." I could only find blogs, press releases and other non-WP:RS covering this, no straight news coverage that we could use to add this to the article. Zad68 03:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Zad, nice of you to try to help out The Red Pen of Doom and Yobol in their illogical arguments to keep violations of Wikipedia policy on the page. However, you (accidentally?) confirmed the validity of the argument on the other side. You said there was 'no straight news coverage' to add to the article, only "blogs, press releases and other non WP:RS." Blogs (i.e. unreliable sources by your own argument) are what's at issue in the cites that should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Orange County Register Correction

Let's have a discussion: please read the following correction issued by the Orange County Register regarding false statements made in the past about Attkisson and vaccine coverage (as in the case here where it is claimed the Salzberg cite is defamatory, false and slanderous to Attkisson) and discuss whether it is relevant to the discussion at hand:

An OC Register article dated Aug. 4, 2008 entitled “Dr. Paul Offit Responds” contained several disparaging statements that Dr. Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia made about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report. Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit’s statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report “How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?” July 25, 2008. Unsubstantiated statements include: Offit’s claim that Attkisson “lied”; and Offit’s claim that CBS News sent a “mean spirited and vituperative” email “over the signature of Sharyl Attkisson” stating “You’re clearly hiding something.” In fact, the OC Register has no evidence to support those claims. Further, Offit told the OC Register that he provided CBS News “the details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck.” However, documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose his financial relationships with Merck, including a $1.5 million Hilleman chair he sits in that is co-sponsored by Merck. According to the CBS News’ documentation recently reviewed by the OC Register, the network requested (but Offit did not disclose) the entire profile of his professional financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including: The amount of compensation he’d received from which companies in speaking fees; and pharmaceutical consulting relationships and fees. The CBS News documentation indicates Offit also did not disclose his share of past and future royalties for the Merck vaccine he co-invented. To the extent that unsubstantiated and/or false claims appeared in the OC Register and have been repeated by other organizations and individuals, the OC Register wishes to express this clarification for their reference and for the record. www.ocregister.com/articles/correction-296910-dated-entitled.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.247.54 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The OC Register publishes a "correction" 3 years after the original report, citing only the fact that CBS News did not provide the OC Register with confirmation about accusations made against a CBS News employee? Putting aside the fact that one would actually not expect CBS News to release information indicting their own investigative journalists, this would only be relevant in this article had we specifically discussed Offit's supposedly unsubstantiated arguments, which we do not. Yobol (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also ask the IP, who is hopping across multiple IPs so I will not warn them on their talk page as they may not see it, that they need to read our policy on not making legal threats, which using words such as "slanderous" and "defamatory". I would suggest the IP redact any such commentary. Yobol (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

two cites in question appear to violate almost every BLP policy we have

Granted I am new to this talk, but the two cites in question appear to violate almost every BLP policy we have. I cannot see the value or justification for its inclusion, and have not seen any arguments here that override BLP policy which speaks clearly on reliable and unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.61.228 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Give this talk page a read, reasons for why the cites do not violate BLP are given. Zad68 03:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

long rant quoting BLP policies and general issues collapsed for readability

Simply repeatedly stating that the cites don't violate policy doesn't mean they don't violate policy. Wiki policy couldn't be clearer on these points: the cites violate policy. Wikipedia policy states: “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source.” “Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects…” Neither cite in question meets Wikipedia’s definition of a “reliable source.” Wikipedia policy on “reliable sources” states: “Never use self-published sources…as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.‘Self-published blogs’ in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.” Cite #21 is an opinion group blog of self-published commentaries, so is unreliable on its face. Cite #22 (published on Forbes.com) was written by an outside blogger whose work "was not subject to the newspaper’s full editorial control," and in fact was not even reviewed by any editorial authority prior to publication, as required under Wikipedia policy to be considered a reliable source. (If the editor wishes to claim otherwise, the burden under Wikipedia policy is on him to prove the cite meets the Wikipedia policy on editorial control, not "suppose" or "assume" or "claim" or "wish" that it does.) Further, the Wikipedia article violated policy because it endorses a particular point of view by excluding opposing views, and quotes from a participant engaged in a heated dispute. The cites also violate Wikipedia policy on disproportionate space and undue weight which state: “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints… Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.” “An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.” “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” The cites present unreliably-sourced, negative viewpoints on the subject’s vaccine-related reporting. Further, even if the negative viewpoints were balanced with positive viewpoints, the entire subject is given disproportionate space because it represents only a small proportion of the reporter’s body of work. To be proportionate, both positive and negative cites from reliable sources would have to be included (when they exist) on not only vaccine reporting, but also the many other topics in the reporter’s 30-year body of work in proportion to their size and significance. However, the purpose of a BLP page is not to critique of the person’s life’s work, so in fact none of it at all belongs on the page. Additionally, the cites violate Wikipedia policy on neutrality which states: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint… Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. Even if the sources were reliable, which they are not, the article still lacks “a fair representation of all significant viewpoints published” and lacks “proportionate representation of all positions.” In fact, it is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia Administrator/editor to determine the “prominence” of viewpoints on this subject and/or make a fair determination of how widely-held each viewpoint is. Wikipedia further states that, when claiming a viewpoint should be represented because it is the “majority” viewpoint (in this case that the reporter is “anti-vaccine): “If a viewpoint is in the majority then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.” However, there are no commonly accepted reference texts supporting the position stated in the unreliable cites. The Wikipedia Administrators/Editors’ repeated reinsertion of the disputed material also violates other Wikipedia policies such as: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to … neutrality… Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to Neutral point of view Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid…the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment…The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be balanced and fair to their subjects at all times. Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; … that relies on self-published sources… Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. "On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs … being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people..." No matter how many policies Yobol, the Red Pen of Doom and their cohorts choose to maliciously and libelously violate, they have shown they will simply do as they do throughout Wikipedia and violate policies as they please to accomplish their special interest agendas. As long as ordinary people become aware as to what's happening (and more people seem to be keenly awar), that's important. For example, "secondary sources" are required by these editors no matter how reliable the first source, when it's something the editors don't wish to publish. However, first sources are accepted even if they violate policy as "unreliable," if the agenda authors believe it advances their special interest. Yobol has contradicted himself repeatedly in his editing of this page and others on this point. Wiki and its agenda editors look silly and sully the reputation of those who may be trying to do honest editing. Author Philip Roth was told by Wiki editors that he was not an expert on his own work, and that he was mistaken about who he believed inspired his book. The Wiki editors claimed to know better what was in his own mind than did he. www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html Not only should the unreliable sources be removed, the conflicted editors and their partners should be banned from editing this page with their agenda. There is other inaccurate info on the page they keep changing back as well, even though the disputed materials aren't footnoted at all in some cases. For example, the reporter's on camera career did not begin at CNN in 1990. Somebody just made that up and entered it and for some reason the editors keep the entirely unsourced information. Also, the reporter did not anchor Healthweek and Up to the Minute simultaneously. The editors even reverted the page to keep a grammatical error that had been fixed. Very strange editing indeed. www.naturalnews.com/037161_Paul_Offit_vaccines_conflicts_of_interest.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Reliable Cites Should Be Added to Comply with Fairness/Balance/Undue Weight/Neutrality and Unreliable Cites Should Be Removed Unlike the unreliable sourcing added by the Wikipedia agenda editors, there is reliable sourcing on the subject's vaccine safety reporting (which is blatantly excluded from the biography.) For example, the subject's vaccine reporting is included as a recommended resource in the prestigious, independent Investigative Reporters and Editors. www.ire.org/resource-center/stories/21204/ www.ire.org/resource-center/stories/?q=bio%20war The New England Journal of Medicine has cited the subject's reporting on vaccine and autism as an article source. The author: a neuroscientist Dr. Jon Poling whose daughter, the government agreed, had become autistic as a result of vaccinations that played a role in triggering an undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc086269 The Wikipedia editors wish to suppress such information and will likely attempt to argue away material from this published peer reviewed medical journal, even as they recklessly publish unedited blogs that violate Wikipedia policy. For balance: many online writers and authorities positively discuss, cite or validate the subject's vaccine coverage www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-to-study-vaccines-and_b_837360.html Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of National Institutes of Health, US News and World Report contributor, member of the Institute of Medicine, head of the school of public health and school of medicine at Ohio State, internist, cardiologist, and published on the topic of vaccines: www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4090144-500803.html Also the following sources are among thousands that cite the subject's vaccine safety and medical reporting: www.law.uh.edu/Healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC)%20Vaccine.pdf tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=739445 heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/juraba50&div=18&id=&page= books.google.com/books? id=BwyXIWV6_NwC&pg=PA2003&lpg=PA2003&dq=attkisson,+HRSA&source=bl&ots=VRSuRm7IGS&sig=uX9nmH6IhhncCeTX4HY2oJu1sAw&sa=X&ei=RgUzULGxEsT56QHf04GoCw&ved=0CBoQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=attkisson%2C%20HRSA&f=false www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2010/09/19/10560 www.mvrd.org/NewsArchives.cfm?from=1/1/2003&to=6/30/2003 Peter H. Meyers, George Washington University - Law School2011 Administrative Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 4, p. 785, 2011 GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-20 GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2012-20 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2018430&scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6168171661536807019&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en Gayle DeLong, Department of Economics and Finance, Baruch College, New York, New York, USA www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Conflicts%20of%20Interest%20in%20Vaccine%20Safety%20Research,%20Gayle%20DeLong.pdf www.ethiopianreview.com/health/208778 Editorial The Federal Circuit Bar Journal litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=20+Fed.+Cir.+B.J.+633&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=3aa8004d26bfb2e20dc31b301accfd41 www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/09-23-2011_Letter_Jerry-Brown.pdf Letter Stephanie Cave, M.D. who testified as an expert before the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives www.healing-arts.org/children/mercury_in_vaccines_autism_research/thimerosalinvaccinationslink.htm Russell L. Blaylock, retired neurosurgeon and author. He is a former clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and is currently a visiting professor. the2012scenario.com/accountability/big-pharma-and-pandemics/swine-flu-one-of-the-most-massive-cover-ups-in-american-history/ www.law.uh.edu/Healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC)%20Vaccine.pdf www.measlesintiative.org/135-new-worries-about-gardasil-safety.html www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/A%20Critique%20Of%20The%20Promotional%20Campaign%20For%20Gardasil,%20Judy%20Wilyman.pdf www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=1900 books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BwyXIWV6_NwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=attkisson,+vaccines&ots=VRSuSkbADV&sig=B0fzCgHTdvjozp2_yMJyFK2IeJk#v=onepage&q=attkisson%2C%20vaccines&f=false napervillebbt.com/blog/the-dangerous-procedure-doctors-swear-by-but-arent-liable-for.htm www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx If the editors wish to consider unedited blogs "reliable" cites to suit their own agenda, then they nonetheless must still include unedited blogs on the other side of the issue regarding the subject's reporting which include but are not limited to: www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2010/04/10/10366 1796kotok.com/pdfs/manWakefield.pdf www.drfeder.com/index.php?page=articles&action=viewArticle&articleID=297 afrafrontpagenews.blogspot.com/2011/05/two-dangerous-experts-you-should-never.html www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Drug/doctors_denying_vaccine_risks_0503110734.html m.newsbusters.org/blogs/kristen-fyfe/2008/07/09/evening-news-uniquely-reports-serious-concerns-about-gardasil childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/silent-mnookin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Current Violations in Wiki Policy on Undue Weight/Balance/Fairness/Neutrality Must Be Corrected by Adding Reliable Cites on Other Topics Since the reporting that Yobol, the Red Pen of Doom and their partners wish to criticize by using unreliable sources represents a small slice of the subject's 30 year body of work, context must be added that includes reliable sourcing on her thousands of other stories including, but not limited to: Republican Freshmen Hobhob with Lobbyists Columbia Journalism Review www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/a_blurry_snapshot_of_influence_peddling.php?page=all Swine Flu Overexaggerated (many, many cites can be found) Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia Tale: New York Times www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html "...Incredible as it seems, the professionals around Mrs. Clinton — though surely knowing her story was false — thought she could tough it out. They ignored the likelihood that a television network would broadcast the inevitable press pool video of a first lady’s foreign trip — as the CBS Evening News did on Monday night — and that this smoking gun would then become an unstoppable assault weapon once harnessed to the Web. The Drudge Report’s link to the YouTube iteration of the CBS News piece transformed it into a cultural phenomenon reaching far beyond a third-place network news program’s nightly audience. It had more YouTube views than the inflammatory Wright sermons, more than even the promotional video of Britney Spears making her latest “comeback” on a TV sitcom. It was as this digital avalanche crashed down that Mrs. Clinton, backed into a corner, started offering the alibi of “sleep deprivation” and then tried to reignite the racial fires around Mr. Wright. Green Energy Tax Dollar Scandals: www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/01/18/feds-should-stop-betting-tax-funds-on-solyndras www.science20.com/cool-links/11_more_solyndras_department_energy_venture_capitalism_under_fire-86118 www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/11/scandal-no-one-is-talking-about/ sfluxe.com/2012/01/13/cbs-exposes-the-new-solyndras-will-abc-and-cbs-follow-suit-news-busters/ www.nationalreview.com/articles/293634/dr-science-vs-market-nash-keune Feed the Children Scandal newsok.com/feed-the-childrens-actions-in-haiti-criticized/article/3440993 www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12009756 www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12009756 www.haiti-news-network.com/messages.php/20795 www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100220_11_A11_Avolun717839 www.newarkpostonline.com/articles/2010/02/20/news/doc4b800a63beb2d964815661.txt www.ksbitv.com/news/84806482.html americabreakingnews.com/2010/02/feed-the-children-charity-under-fire-cbs-news/ Aid to Haiti Questions www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/22/Haiti-Stop-sending-us-food-healthcare/UPI-10671271975845/ repeatingislands.com/2010/04/22/haiti-wants-food-aid-to-stop/ haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/why-dont-they-spend-the-money www.cepr.net/index.php/relief-and-reconstruction-watch/ www.haitixchange.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/4940/ Pharmaceutical conflicts of interest Columbia Journalism Review: our most prestigious journal in journalism tp://cjr.org/issues/2005/4/lieberman.asp "Virtually all the news stories about the poll failed to identify the National Sleep Foundation's ties to the drug industry. According to Gelula himself, nearly $1 million of his $3.6 million budget comes from makers of sleeping pills, including Sepracor, which gave the foundation a $300,000 grant to produce a series of "Sleep Medicine Alerts" - brochures designed to educate doctors about insomnia. Sepracor, along with other companies that make competing products, is also a $250,000 platinum sponsor of National Sleep Awareness Week. The foundation's own Web site reveals that the group is funded by drug companies, physicians, patients, medical centers, and makers of sleep aids, most of which have an interest in new drugs and treatments. But with the exception of CBS Evening News, the press did not disclose the financial link between the foundation and the companies that would benefit from the poll's results. "The media are victims of the same problem as doctors and patients," says Dr. Jerry Avorn, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School. "Too often they get industry-sponsored sources of information that look like they are from unbiased, scientifically driven public-interest groups when in fact they are thickly veiled marketing activities."" Congressional corruption and waste: One hour on C-SPAN www.c-spanvideo.org/program/284745-1 Gunwalker reporting cited or complimented: edition.cnn.com/2011/10/13/opinion/navarrette-fast-furious/ communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/oct/5/fast-furious-cbs-sharyl-attkisson-brian-terry/ www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-fast-and-furious-holder-obama-contempt-cbs-press-20111009,0,2279643.story?track=rss www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/secret-recordings-raise-questions-in-atf-scandal/2011/09/19/gIQAalhefK_video.html oversight.house.gov/release/issa-statement-on-cbs-winning-edward-r-murrow-award-for-investigative-reporting-on-operation-fast-and-furious/ dailycaller.com/2011/12/07/new-documents-tie-fast-and-furious-to-gun-control-agenda/ www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/gunwalker_goes_primetime.html content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/gop-lawmakers-coverup-attempted-in-death-of-border-patrol-agent/1 One hour given on C-SPAN www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkx2cmzEjRk USA Today content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/gop-lawmakers-coverup-attempted-in-death-of-border-patrol-agent/1#.UDPW9tldBPk www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-04-arizona-gun-runner_N.htm New York Post www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/furious_mess_has_justice_in_full_WYXAPQoFlBaBVer5Q47oiO Press Democrat www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110411/WIRE/110409470/1042?Title=NAVARRETTE-Too-fast-too-furious-too-reckless London Daily Mail www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363293/U-S-Justice-Department-ordered-ATF-allow-guns-cross-border-Mexico-used-kill-American-agents.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Face the Nation: www.cbsnews.com/2100-3460_162-20121072.html Canadian Press: www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hgYW5V7O7r2tpuIyCamKp-pNs10Q?docId=6131962 Weekly Standard: www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-news-silencing-fast-and-furious-reporter-due-white-house-press Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/what-is-fast-and-furious/2012/06/21/gJQAHW7nsV_video.html lauded by member of Congress: www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/issa-commends-cbs-for-scooping-him-125974.html Toyota NHTSA Conflicts of Interest New York Times thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/updates-on-toyota-hearings-in-congress/ TV Newser TV Newser:Secy. Ray LaHood Didn't Watch CBS Report, But Wishes He Had By Chris Ariens on Feb 24, 2010 03:31 PM ABC News may have lead the way on Toyota coverage, but CBS News got a shout out during today's testimony on Capitol Hill. During Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood's testimony, Rep. Dennis Kucinich asked, "CBS had an exclusive where they were able to gained some internal documents that showed that Toyota redesigned software in 2005 in response to complaints that cars were accelerating unexpectedly. Are you familiar with those documents?" LaHood: No sir. I am not. Kucinich: Are you interested in that kind of a report? LaHood: Yes sir. Barron’s Financial blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2010/02/25/cbs-toyota-negotiated-to-limit-investigations/ Congressional hearing Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:18 AM Subject: Another hearing room mention of Sharyl's piece Yet another mention of Sharyl's NHTSA piece at a congressional hearing March 2, 2010. At 11:12, Senator Dorgan cited the CBS News Attkisson reporting while questioning Secretary LaHood, saying "CBS did an investigation and "CBS and others have raised questions…." Attkisson Copenhagen Congressional travel Politico www.politico.com/playbook/0110/playbook923.html Daily Caller dctrawler.dailycaller.com/2010/01/26/copenhagen-didnt-accomplish-anything-but-at-least-it-was-hideously-expensive/ Charleston Daily Mail: blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/8200 Heritage Foundation: blog.heritage.org/2010/01/26/update-how-much-did-obama%E2%80%99s-copenhagen-failure-cost-you/ USA Today content.usatoday.com/communities/hotelcheckin/post/2010/01/congress-copenhagen-climate-summit/1 AARP loses membership Associated Press: AARP loses members over health care stance (AP) – 1 hour ago WASHINGTON — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday. The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue. AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Barack Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won't support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits. "We take stands on issues that are contentious, it's part of what we do," Nannis said. "And because we have so many members we'll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership." The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period. He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership. The membership loss figure was first reported Monday by CBS News. Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Stimlus Waste New York Times ________________________________________ August 12, 2009 Inspector General Questions Value of Some Airport Stimulus Projects By MICHAEL COOPER A $14.7 million stimulus project to replace an airport on a remote island in Alaska was one of several airport stimulus projects that were questioned in an advisory issued last weekby the inspector general of the Transportation Department. The airport averages only 42 flights a month. The advisory found that the Federal Aviation Administration had awarded $38.5 million to low-priority airport projects of questionable economic merit, and that it had awarded $15 million more to four airports whose operators had been cited in the past for trouble managing federal grants. The aviation agency selected the projects as part of a $1.1 billion stimulus program for improving airports around the nation. Two of the airports the inspector general cited were in Alaska. The $14.7 million project calls for replacing the airport in Ouzinkie, a village of around 170 people, mostly of Russian Aleut ancestry, located on an island about 12 miles north of Kodiak. The second calls for spending $13.9 million to replace the airport in Akiachak, a remote Yup’ik Eskimo village in western Alaska with a population of around 660. The advisory said they were among several low-priority airport projects that were selected in part because the F.A.A. wanted to “ensure widespread geographic distribution of funds,” even though that was not a requirement of the stimulus law, the advisory found. The agency has a system to assign priority rankings to airport projects. Usually projects must score at least 41 out of 100 to qualify for airport improvement funds. But the administration set a higher goal for its stimulus money, prioritizing projects that scored 62 or higher. The two Alaskan airport projects each scored only 40, the inspector general found. The Department of Transportation defended the choice of projects, saying that the Alaskan airports qualified for the money under safety provisions of the law and that both villages would be extremely isolated without safe air travel. “These projects provide airstrips that meet minimum safety standards for the citizens of these Alaskan towns,” Deputy Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari wrote in a response to the department’s inspector general, Calvin L. Scovel III. The inspector general’s report came a month after ProPublica and CBS Newsreported that more than $100 million of the airport improvement money was being spent on airports with fewer than one flight an hour. The inspector general — who also questioned awards to four airports in Delaware, Missouri, Ohio and Washington that did not provide commercial passenger service and had limited flight operations — recommended that the aviation administration should either show that the projects had economic merit or consider withdrawing the grants. The inspector general plans to conduct a full audit of the program. LA TIMES LOS ANGELES TIMES—4/9/08 GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT HAS A WHOLE NEW MEANING IN THE FREE-FOR-ALL YOUTUBE ERA. BY DAVID SARNO A shot of a dark bedroom. Soothing music. A little girl and boy slumber easily. It's 3 a.m. when, yes . . . . . . the phone rings. Think you know who's going to be answering that call? Don't be so sure. "Ghostbusters," says Annie Potts. That's one of the many alternate endings to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's original late-night phone call commercial that you can find on YouTube. Other interpretations have the call being answered by Bill Clinton (he's expecting a call from the pizza delivery guy), "Sesame Street's" Martian Yip Yip puppets and Alfred, Batman's butler. You can see the other candidates' red-phone mash-ups online too. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign did its own riff on the red-phone ad ("In a dangerous world, it's judgment that matters"). And last week, Sen. John McCain gave the genre a go, same ringing phone, but "this time, it's an economic crisis." Instead of explaining what your sleeping children have to do with the economy, the McCain ad semi-dementedly concludes: "It's 3 a.m.: Time for a president who's ready." It's the hottest election in recent memory, and the first of the YouTube era, so no wonder political video is whizzing around faster than you can tape your cat mouthing "superdelegate." Bedroom producers, the campaigns themselves and everyone in between is using online video to make a point, a profit, both, or neither. Though videos like Jack Nicholson's popular pro-Hillary video, "Jack and Hill," made with help from Rob Reiner, can score big on YouTube, you don't need to be a celeb or a "Saturday Night Live" writer to get noticed. Ben Relles put himself on the map when he and two partners brought the world "Obama Girl," the candidate's sultry, singing follower who rings in millions of page views every time she bobs onto the computer screen. (Her first video, "I've Got a Crush on Obama," was nominated Tuesday for a Webby Award.) Relles' fledgling BarelyPolitical.com was bought by the Web TV company Next New Networks last October and now has four full-time employees. Steve Grove, YouTube's head of news and politics, said videos in that category had seen a "lurch forward" in popularity in the last year, and the last month has been no exception. A March 24 CBS News segment showing that Clinton had misremembered the details of her 1996 trip to Bosnia became YouTube's most-viewed video that week, no small feat considering the site gets hundreds of thousands of new uploads every day. The week before that, those Fox News videos of Obama's fiery longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, accounted for five of the top 12 political videos on the site, and the Obama speech that controversy engendered has been watched on YouTube more than 4 million times, the most ever for a video from a presidential campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.3 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello IP editor

Since you seem to be using multiple IPs, I will address you here:

I am the wikipedia administrator who protected this page. This was necessary as you don't seem to be following our editing guidelines, but it looks like you have an agenda here.

It seems that you or someone close to you might be the subject of this article and are displeased with some of the contents. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. Remember that is for factual accuracy issues.

Reading through the chaff above, it seems you are displeased of the quality of the sources used to support some negative information. Your arguments here have been pretty much ineffective and you have not achieved consensus. One avenue you could pursue that might be more effective is to get some experts on reliable sources to look at the issue. You can find them on the reliable sources noticeboard.

Just a word of advice. Try to make your point constructively and concisely. On a wiki, posting "walls" of text like that above, is counterproductive and will almost always fall into WP:TLDR.

Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Todd, funny you should mention agenda. My only agenda is accuracy. Since accuracy is out of the question on Wikipedia, at least in my case, I am at least interested in exposing the agenda editors who attempt to discredit me and violate your policies in doing so. Believe me, I understand that nothing I do can stop these wild policy violations perpetrated by Yobol, the Red Pen of Doom and others. Even me providing all the factual info (which they refuse to consider) is considered a "rant" and deleted. This is pretty funny and ironic. Factual cites and information are "rants," but unreliable libelous sources that violate multiple Wiki policies are to remain on the bio. The "rant" was long because it's a small factual sample of the positive body of my work. Which proves the point that the vaccine cite Yobol and the Red Pen of Doom are so frantic to include is unduly weighted, among other things. I could care less about me following Wiki policies in my attempt to make my page factual, since you folks don't seem to follow them. The main thing I'm focused on now is collecting the stories-- mine is truly minor compared to most-- of the ridiculousness going on in the Wiki "community." Philip Roth. The PR scandal. There's so much to learn about. All I speak to seem to agree it will be a terrific story to write. For what it's worth, the third-party Forbes blogger unreliable source corrected his blog that's cited on Wikipedia. It no longer calls my reporting "anti-science." Makes the Wiki sentence that now misquotes the cite even more ridiculous. But I'm sure nobody in Wikiland really cares. Truth and accuracy and fairness are difficult to come by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeyplant (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"MY AGENDA HAS BEEN EXPOSED!!!! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's all getting to you, Red Pen. Or Dr. Offit. Or Todd. Or whoever you really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.247.77 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you'll disclose your conflict of interest in any story you write. Meanwhile I'll bring this back to ANI to get further scrutiny since you seem to refuse to follow the tried and true methods I've described above, rather go on about how bad this place is and how you're the victim and threaten to expose us in some article.

Note that I haven't edited this article or voiced any opinion on the quality or lack thereof of sources cited. As an administrator, I am staying neutral, above the fray. However the threats of legal action have an unambiguous outcome, which I have acted upon. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Streisand effect is actually a nice thing to consider. Do you really want a national audience to know you or your associates have been going to your bio to do stuff like this?: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharyl_Attkisson&diff=508336782&oldid=508216359] [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharyl_Attkisson&diff=507034716&oldid=507033893] [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharyl_Attkisson&diff=507035311&oldid=507035100]. That just makes you look petty and self-obsessed. A professor of medicine said your reporting spreads negative misinformation about vaccines. Whether you agree with it or not, or think he has some agenda, it is not libelous to note that said person has raised this criticism and rambling about how the pharmaceutical companies are out to get you by reverting the above just seems like paranoia as most of the editors saw those edits as vandalism for damn good reasons. Philip Roth blamed Wikipedia for repeating the false claims of others and you are ostensibly attacking Wikipedia for being slightly inaccurate on minor things that no one cares about you fixing when you are really just pissed that Wikipedia is mentioning criticism from a notable academic in Forbes about your reporting on a scientific matter. Rarely does Wikipedia have independent authority. If it says something false or inaccurate it is usually because other sources, often news sources, have already gotten it wrong and I know of at least one occasion where work on Wikipedia has actually exposed a major error that was repeated for decades by seemingly reliable academics and news organizations on a matter far more important than whether a random journalist is biased or not or whether a book was inspired by this person or that person. Rather than seeking vengeance and generally acting in a manner that brings shame and disrepute upon your chosen profession, why don't you try working with people here in a civil and constructive manner?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1 you sound anything BUT neutral. The Devil’s Advocate, your silly “Streisand” threats are pointless. In fact, it would be terrific for the national audience to know what’s going on with Wikipedia. And the more unreliable, crazy cites you add to the bio, the more your agenda is revealed. Even you must realize that the skewing of a page or bio only has a chance of working when it’s subtle and disguised. The more one-sided, unfair, unreliable things you add, the more Wikipedia readers will be alerted that they can’t rely on what’s being said at all. So go ahead, Streisand away! A reminder, though, that any malicious action to perpetuate libel, especially after so much explicit notice has been provided, will be duly noted. Threats such as “Streisand” may normally work in Wiki’s wacky world to suppress those who wish to expose special interests and agenda editing, but it doesn’t work here. That must be aggravating to you! The Red Pen of Doom: if you are indeed a troubled youth, as Wiki insider suggest you are, you may want to consider how deeply you may be getting into something that could turn out to be beyond you and a negative in your life rather than a positive thing for you. Life's too short to waste it by finding trouble you don't need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.247.115 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to retract your ongoing claims of libel or this IP will also be blocked from editing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are indeed the subject of this article, the geolocation of your IP to CBS would seem to suggest that may be the case, then you really are going to make yourself look bad by drawing attention to this and that is nothing more than a friendly reminder to back away. Do you really think that none of your competitors would be happy to know about your conduct here and that going after all of Wikipedia is not going to cause someone here to inform them of it? There is plenty of material noting critical acclaim and awards, and just one little bit of negative criticism. Labeling medical professionals as "crazy" sources and going after every editor who thinks such noteworthy criticism should be included by claiming he or she is part of some grand conspiracy of the pharmaceutical industry only makes it look like Offit's claims in the OC Register about "a 'mean spirited and vituperative' email 'over the signature of Sharyl Attkisson' stating 'You’re clearly hiding something'" were not really inaccurate at all. If you are the journalist Sharyl Attkisson then it seems that type of inappropriate behavior is completely normal for you. What's "aggravating" to me is that we apparently have a journalist who is trying to whitewash criticism of her reporting from experts in the field. My opinion on the actual issue has no bearing on that as it is a matter of principle that I believe a journalist should know better.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"If you are the journalist Sharyl Attkisson then it seems that type of inappropriate behavior is completely normal for you." That is a completely out of line, highly biased statement. Your actions on this talk page more than prove that you have no business being on a site that claims an unbiased view. Delete your account immediately, please.

General notice to the IP

Your access may be dynamic connection from various CBS IP points and so you may not have recieved the notice that you have been blocked from editing on several of the IPs for violation of the No legal threats rule. Because you have been blocked and have not made the formal retractions and refrained from the continued use of language of legal threats, you should refrain from ALL EDITING. Any edits made before the resolution of the legal threats is "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose " (namely continued editing while under the sanction of a block) and is in itself a blockable offence. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Forbes

Forbes has edited its column to remove the statements "anti-vaccine"[www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/07/23/anti-vaccine-movement-causes-the-worst-whooping-cough-epidemic-in-70-years]. Forbes would also like to note via email that the editorials by Mr. Salzberg are not reviewed by an editor or fact-checked before posting to their website, they are purely opinion pieces. I can provided this by OTRS if need be. I hope this quells the matter. Keegan (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, while they have removed 'anti-vaccine' as a label for her directly, it now clarifies even further that he thinks she spreads anti-vaccine misinformation. So shes not a zealot, shes just incompetant? Also opinion piece by an expert in the field published by forbes does not completely rule it out as a source just because Forbes dont exercise editorial control. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly clarifies it as no more than a glorified blog. You can fly the flag of the Forbes name for veracity, but as I said they're willing to acquiesce that they publish his content without any sort of fact checking or research. We hold higher standards than that here on Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to experts in the field WP standards are not that high except in cases of BLP. Since the forbes blog has removed any characterization of her personally as 'anti science', the BLP issue is gone, Salzburg's comments now focus solely on the info she is reporting, which he is expertly qualified to describe as 'misinformation' and 'discredited' due to his status. Although if you want to take it to RSN feel free and we can argue it out there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And yes, any personal communications you have MUST be confirmed through the OTRS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Gee, you'd think I would have never thought of that. Here's one of five tickets from her. Any other demands, for things you can't see, sir? Keegan (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation in noting common criticism of a journalist's reporting from academics in the relevant field. Opinion pieces or not, Gorski and Salzberg are both experts in medicine so their opinions on a journalist's reports regarding a medical matter have quite a bit of weight.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. When I had a BLP issue with her being characterized as "anti-vaccine", I was informed by this little controlling clique here that there was no issue, the edit was fine because it was supported by the reknown Forbes. Now that the op-ed has been altered and revealed that it is just a glorified blog, suddenly there was an issue but that's gone now and now the source is fine for an entirely different reason. Truthiness and wikiality prevail rather than common sense. I like it. I have no idea why y'all are so hell-bent on keeping this in the article no matter the form. Keegan (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am part of nobody's clique, but simply think articles should be neutral and that with certain bios, such as those on journalists, we have an even more compelling duty to make sure a balanced view is presented of the subject. Journalists are expected to provide the people with accurate and balanced information so that they can then make informed decisions for themselves. Should a journalist be criticized by experts for not providing people with information that is balanced and accurate then I certainly think such criticism should be noted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually only picked this up after the change in the Salsburg piece. Had they *not* removed the accusation she was anti-science, I would have supported its removal on BLP grounds. As the BLP issue no longer exists (in my opinion) you need to discredit Salsburg as a reputable source for comment on what qualifies as 'vaccine misinformation'. That would be better off at RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP. Find better sources. Not blogs, and not blogs which change their story. Volunteer Marek  21:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately the source is the author and we should consider the profession of the author. Salzberg is a professor of medicine at John Hopkins who actually specializes in viral infections. Gorski is a surgical oncologist who also holds numerous positions with medical institutes. The former undoubtedly would be knowledgeable on the issue of vaccines and Gorski also likely has some understanding of the matter given that a lot of research is done regarding vaccines and viruses in connection with cancer. There is no reason to claim that sourced criticism of her reporting is a BLP issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Question - Is there an OTRS ticket from 'Forbes' saying they exercise no editorial control? Or is there a ticket from Attkisson saying Forbes exercises no editorial control? I cant quite work out from your wording above what you mean Keegan. From your first comments I assumed the former, but from the 'Here's one of five otrs tickets from her' it seems to imply the latter? If thats the case, Attkisson has no standing to say what Forbes does or doesnt do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the policy specifically states self-published blogs are not supposed to be used "as sources of material about a living person" and I take that as meaning that the material has to be making a claim about the living person, especially claims made in the editorial voice. Otherwise it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense as it would suggest any material noting critical commentary on a living person's work in their bio has to use stronger sourcing than what we would expect from an article on the work itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm awaiting permission from Forbes to send the email to OTRS for that specific matter. Keegan (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

...and permission received. The email is now threaded into the above OTRS ticket. With permission, it states, from Forbes Editorial Counsel, "...that Mr. Salzberg is an outside blogger for Forbes and not a staff writer. As such, none of his content is reviewed by Forbes prior to publication on our platform." Keegan (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Never thought it mattered if they had full editorial control or not. It is material noting his position on her claims, and he is more than qualified to comment on that. The quote in question says she spreads bad information about vaccines and he would obviously be in a position to know if her claims were faulty or not. Even then the material in dispute simply noted that he had made this criticism of her reporting and did not treat it as though it were fact. Inherently it is a claim about her work, not Attkisson herself. Perhaps we could rewrite it to say "Attkisson has filed numerous reports regarding an alleged link between autism and vaccines, though medical expert Steven Salzberg has criticized these reports as giving exposure to discredited claims." That way it is perfectly clear that we are noting criticism of her reports and not Attkisson herself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It does matter, because it means the publication was not fact-checked or reviewed. This makes it an unreliable source, because it is just a blog post and this illustration shows that. You'll see in the start of the vaccine section that I started above that the defense of the source was because it was posted on the Forbes website, thus it must be a reliable source because of the inherent reliance of Forbes as a qualified publisher of fact-checked, reviewed information. This tell is that Mr. Salzberg's blog was not checked before publication, so it's just as relevant as his personal blog (if he has one) would be. That's not reliable, that's original research. I like your line of thinking to neutrally balance such a claim, the prose is good, but it would still have to cite this source with is original research. Keegan (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not citing it as original research, that's unrelated. Keegan (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

LOLWUT!? It is not original research by any measure. We would be saying he said this about her reports based off a blog post he made on Forbes, not saying that he is right and it wouldn't be about Attkisson herself. There is no need for fact-checking on this point because presumably they did check to make sure he was, in fact, Steven Salzberg and presumably he knows his own opinion on her reports, as well as knowing a thing or two about viruses and vaccines given that viral infections are in his field of expertise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is true, which is why I stated that I like your line of thinking. However, the entire subject should be fleshed out if that is the case, with explanations and actual reliable sources in such a section supporting claims for and against. If this is left as one sentence, in an article as you described as generally being in a positive light, then it provides undue weight. This is my original problem.

I completely understand the point that you have been making, and I do appreciate your contributions for this discussion. It truly is a devil's advocate for me. Sharyl Attkisson is a journalist, she should expect her coverage to be documented, and she should expect Wikipedians, casual contributors, and anonymous users to work with her article. I believe she understands that.

I also believe that a biography must be neutral in tone, style, and presentation. I know that our policies agree with my belief. I realize that the IP posts that are walls of text in this conversation have been mostly disregarded because of tone, style, and presentation, and we've had our usual discourse distracted because of this. This should not discount the arguments the IPs present, because they are right about us getting it right. It's harmful to paint someone in a critical light with one sentence in an article. Keegan (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP posts have been disregarded not because of the style, but because of the content. Which has been repeatedly explained to the IP. Dont assume people are not capable of reading past the raving. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not understanding your objections at all. How is it undue weight to add a single sentence of criticism to an overwhelmingly positive article? Attkisson's vaccine reporting is clearly a significant aspect of her bio that needs to be mentioned. I am not against noting supportive commentary on such reporting, but criticism should definitely be noted as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

Per the note above, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page."

I've raised the protection to full and removed the contentious material. This should be settled here on the talk page and/or ANI (currently being discussed) .

Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't "poorly sourced" unless you consider the opinion of a professor of medicine who specializes in viral infections to be a "poor source" on reporting about vaccines when it clearly isn't.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. If that's the case, then you'll have a bunch of folks agreeing with you here shortly, consensus will be reached and and an {{editprotected}} notice will be posted and acted upon. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well there already were a bunch of folks agreeing with some minor dissent ;) do they have to all line up and agree again? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

All four of you? Now we have three users saying it should be removed, doesn't seem minor at all. Look, the OC Register, Dr. Offit, and forbes.com have all publish retractions or altered post-publication their characterization of Ms. Attkisson. Give up the ghost, it's an old story. Keegan (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the conduct we have seen from Attkisson or her associates, I am not surprised that retractions abound. Most would rather retract or alter a story rather than face a frivolous libel lawsuit. However, the Forbes source still rather plainly includes Salzberg's criticism:

"The media has been complicit in spreading some of the anti-vaccine misinformation. Sometimes it comes straight from the media itself, such as the CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has repeatedly and persistently reported on the purported link between vaccines and autism long after such a link was widely discredited."

Does she deny that she has repeatedly and persistently reported on this alleged link? Would she deny that scientists widely view the claim about vaccines causing autism as discredited? Is she seriously questioning whether a professor of medicine who has done considerable work on genome sequencing for viral infections, including in major cases such as the anthrax scare early in the 2000's, would know what he was talking about? People often take accusations of bias as personal attacks, but it really isn't the case and not what WP:BLP is intended to keep out of articles. As to the OC Register's retraction, part of it included claims about Attkisson that really wouldn't surprise me given what we have seen here and we can pretty easily prove this hostile and paranoid behavior on-wiki emanates from someone at CBS.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

4? I count 6. And ultimately yes. Discounting Toddst1 acting in his capacity as an administrator, you have Yobol, Red Pen, TDA, Dmacks, Zad & Myself on one side, yourself and the various CBS IP's (Likely to be the subject on the other). Consensus is not something you will always be on the right side of. If you think its a BLP issue, take it to the BLP noticeboard and we can argue it there, if you think Salzburg is not a credible source on vaccines, take it to RSN. Where would you like to go argue this out? Since this talk page is pretty firmly on the side of its inclusion in one form or another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting that even when there are published retractions, The Devil's Advocate nonetheless chooses to live in an alternate reality where the retractions are false, not the retracted material. It’s unclear how he’s determined that this unconventional method advances the truth. And then he maliciously advances the retracted accusations and adds new personal attacks: “petty” “paranoid” “hostile.” He is obviously not neutral. In short, he relies on unreliable sources/opinion blogs-- so long as they advance his agenda-- but disregards factual, published material from reliable sources.

A reminder that an editor cannot simply suspend, violate or overrule WP:BLPSPS by somehow deeming himself qualified to determine that the unreliable sources are, in fact, experts on a particular topic and therefore supersede clearcut policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.139.237 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

BLPSPS doesnt apply, the comment on Attkisson being anti-science has been removed. If you want to discredit Salzburg as a reliable source on vaccines take it to RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Which I now see you cant as you are blocked for sock/block-evasion. That should teach me not to AGF about IP editors Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop arguing against a strawman

Those against the vaccine-related material are arguing against a strawman. It is not being proposed that the article say something like, "Attkisson's reporting on vaccines promoted pseudoscientific theories." It is being proposed that the article say, "Attkisson's reporting on vaccines has been criticized by medical experts such as David Gorski and Steven Salzberg as promoting pseudoscientific theories about an alleged link between autism and vaccines." All the criticism brought forth so far about "poor sourcing" is irrelevant and does not weaken the arguments for including the content actually being proposed. Regarding the content actually being proposed, sourcing those comments to direct quotes from Gorski's and Salzberg's own blogs is excellent sourcing for the opinions of those two individuals. Those who keep repeating the "poor sourcing" argument need to stop.

The real question is whether it is WP:UNDUE to mention these opinions regarding Attkisson's reporting in this article. Yobol brought sources for this over a month ago:

That her reporting promotes such a view is also not a minority, as it has been thus described by others such as Seth Mnookin [sethmnookin.com/2011/03/31/more-embarrassing-anti-vaccine-reporting-from-cbs-newss-sharyl-attkisson/ here] , Media Matters [mediamatters.org/research/2012/02/07/cbs-to-receive-award-from-fringe-group-at-cpac/185339 here], and Paul Offit in [books.google.com/books?id=t_poH5CczDUC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=attkisson+offit&source=bl&ots=VIegugBDLq&sig=8xSPbIoK7J_hh94P9jlxwdSIvfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ytMjUO2oGcfNqAGM2YE4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attkisson%20offit&f=false his book]

I have not yet seen a convincing counter-argument that such sources make the one sentence being proposed run counter to WP:UNDUE, and so as far as I can tell, there are good Wikipedia policy-based reasons for including this one sentence and insufficient support brought to the contrary. Would any of those arguing against the inclusion of this sentence like to address this? If not, there's no reason not to include the sentence. Zad68 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been multiple requests for evidence that the mainstream scientific view of her coverage of vaccines is something other than has been sourced and included in the article, and I have not seen any such evidence presented.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

town

Edit-protected edit request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's been 4 days, I don't see that any Wikipedia policy-based counterarguments are being brought against the inclusion of the content under discussion. I intend to restore it tomorrow afternoon, please speak now if there are any Wikipedia policy-based objections. Zad68 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this article is locked until 13 November, and there is no lock icon. Well, as the troublesome IPs have been blocked, the ANI thread has been closed, this discussion has been open for 4 days, and there have been no counterarguments brought, I'd like to see the criticism content restored.

Please restore the following content to the article at the end of the 2010s section, just above "==Personal life==":

Attkisson's reporting on [[vaccine]]s has been criticized by medical experts such as [[David Gorski]] and [[Steven Salzberg]] as promoting pseudoscientific theories about an alleged link between [[autism and vaccines]].<ref>[www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html CBS news: Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review]</ref><ref>[www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/ ScienceBasedMedicine.org: Sharyl Attkisson]</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Salzberg|first=Steven|title=Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes The Worst Whooping Cough Epidemic In 70 Years|url=www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/07/23/anti-vaccine-movement-causes-the-worst-whooping-cough-epidemic-in-70-years/|accessdate=26 July 2012|newspaper=Forbes.com|date=July 23, 2012}}</ref>

Zad68 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been 2 days, no action or responses? Zad68 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that even under SPS, the two people quoted are certainly experts whose opionions and judgements about whether the reporting by Attkisson on vaccines is providing accurate or inaccurate information are appropriate to include. Lacking any evidence that their opinions are not representative of the medical communities views, I support the inclusion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. It is the very youngest infants that suffer pertussis the worst. Pertussis is one of the diseases that the mother “'used to “” pass on their antibodies to their children – which protected their children during this critical time. One would have introduce something like the small pox isolation protocol until Pertussis was eliminated throughout the world -because adults can get Pertussis as well! Inoculating just a 'rich' populations, results in only creating a cohort of neonates without any placental-conferred -immunity. Teenagers and adults, would therefore also have to have frequent boosters, because the current vaccines do not provide life-long immunity. The authorities quoted above, are grossly-over-simplifying the issue. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popular news-blog. So no, this inclusion would not be encyclopedic. --Aspro (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And do you have reliable sources that support your analysis? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Red, whether or not Aspro does, it's irrelevant... Zad68 18:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Aspro, you have brought no Wikpedia policy-based counter-argument for the reasons given for the inclusion of the content being proposed. Whether or not you agree with them, Salzberg and Gorski are notable experts who published their opinions regarding Attkisson's reporting, and nothing you have written counters that. We do not write articles from the point of view of giving medical advice, as you seem to be suggesting, see WP:MEDICAL. Zad68 18:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Aspro, you have brought no Wikpedia policy-based counter-argument Did I mention anything-at- all about policy? What it was trying to focus you two (and maybe others) upon, was the meaning of 'encyclopedic.' Read undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01. A few minutes of googling quickly shows (which is something you could have done) is that those two authors also happen to COI's – just like Attkisson! And Likewise, So, Therefore, & Et Cetera,..... that statement: “Salzberg and Gorski are notable experts “ are Argument from authority... so read again about how science actuality is done and the rest of that website. There are still a lot of unknowns out there, and if it was as simple as employing you two to sort it all out, then probably you would have been offered the job already. Let's keep Wikipedia on the level please – OK!--Aspro (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly for you, at wikipedia, policy DOES matter, quite a bit. And argument/content from authorities is what POLICY says we follow. WP:V; WP:RS; WP:SPS; WP:UNDUE; WP:OR; WP:FRINGE. We present in the article what the authorities say on the subject matter in the propotion the views are held by authorities.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We are not arguing from authority. We are not bringing any arguments of our own against Attkisson's reporting. We are not engaging in the vaccine debate. What we are saying is that the article should reflect the reality that Attkisson's reporting has been criticized by some experts. Zad68 19:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If Aspro has reliable sources indicating that Gorski and Salzberg's opinions about Attkisson's vaccine reporting are not significantly representative of the medical community, then yes it is relevant. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK we are on the same page here. Aspro him/herself appears to be arguing against Gorski & Salzberg. Zad68 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sources supporting the particular Pertussis commentary/analysis above would not be relevant unless they also specifically commented upon Salzberg and Gorski's opinions about media coverage of vaccines or specifically supported Attkisson's coverage.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no comment one way or the other about the content of this article, but I'm strongly opposed to using this talkpage as a platform to spread misinformation about immunity, as Aspro is doing. I'm not sure where Aspro acquired his ideas about immunity, but they are incorrect, as should be obvious with a few moments of critical thought:

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the introduction of pertussis vaccination, there were an average of ~200,000 pertussis cases and ~4,000 deaths annually, with the deaths occurring primarily in neonates and infants ([www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5517a1.htm]). So obviously "placental immunity" wasn't especially effective in protecting infants from this disease. Aspro's second point is also incorrect, in that he mistakenly assumes that "natural" pertussis infection confers lifelong immunity. In fact, both "naturally acquired" pertussis and vaccination produce only temporary immunity which fades over time (e.g. [journals.lww.com/pidj/Fulltext/2005/05001/Duration_of_Immunity_Against_Pertussis_After.11.aspx]). None of this has anything to do with Sharyl Attkisson or the edit request, of course. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How is this misinformation? During the 1930s and 1940s the levels of clinical care and poverty was not what it is to day. Pertussis and other diseases like Scarlet fever certainly did kill young children in those days. If you do (what I have bothered to do) and read the CDC historical data they are for townships of 5k or more – the very places where they found poverty and squalor was at its worst... Pertussis was often the 'last straw' for a child born into poverty and squalor. On the second point, MastCell has scored a minor point on the duration of protection. However, when Pertussis was Endemic (epidemiology), an individuals immunity (after contracting a mild infection -thanks "placental immunity") reinforced their immunity. In this day and age of jet travel, only total elimination of Pertussis will prevent neonates from contracting this disease in the absents of reinforcement in the older population and placental immunity. The present inoculation protocol in wealthy countries does not in-any-way offer this promise. The above poster may understand their confusion better if s/he reads Confirmation bias and the Contradiction in logic. And as you say... this to do with a scientist’s biography but where have I posted any misinformation?--Aspro (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but please take this conversation somewhere else. Please read WP:TPNO, the Talk page of an article is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion about a subject. You may continue this conversation on your own Talk pages. Zad68 20:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Zad68 Read between the lines. Someone’s 'hot button' has been hit here (maybe one of two of your own too ) You said “Talk page of an article is for discussing improvements to the article” and yes, this what we are trying to do! So stop any-thoughts of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering by quoting Wikipedia:TPNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable . I did not attempt to edit this anything on this page until some consensus was reached but now it locked. And now you seem to be putting your fingers in your ears and going blah, blah, blah – I don't want to here anything of this here – take it elsewhere. Journalists are just that. They report. Is this inclusion going to keep Wikipedia real!?--Aspro (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It bothers me when people spread ignorant misinformation that has the potential to mislead people into making bad decisions about their health and the health of their children. So yeah, you found one of my "hot buttons" - congratulations. But Zad68 is right that this isn't the place. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

...nothing to do with the edit request, of course, except probably to delay its implementation, due to it looking like there's "still active discussion" when there's not.  :) I'd like to direct your attention to this really insightful list of Wikipedia aphorisms, compiled by a very useful editor: WP:CGTW Item #1 seems fitting here. The only problem with the list is that it's missing the following bit of advice: "No matter how much you nod your head in agreement with these observations and promise yourself, 'Well, I won't let myself fall victim to that,' you will always find yourself doing so." Zad68 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done The opposition above had more to do with the concept, and not the content, so I've added the requested paragraph to the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I support the addition of such a sentence to the article. The opinions of known experts of medicine are indeed notable and reliable and should be included in an article where they are criticizing the reporting of a journalist. I don't see it as a BLP problem at all, as we are merely stating the academics' opinions on the subject and not adding in more information than is necessary. This is the proper way to deal with criticism of BLPs. I would say that trying to remove all criticism is a BLP problem in the opposite direction. Silverseren^C 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 4 December 2012

Please partially revert my edit [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharyl_Attkisson&diff=526177400&oldid=526171489] regarding the birth date by adding the complete source however, the info box can only contain the year, as that is what is verified in this source.

References

Thank you User:Only in death for doing the research to provide the source information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC) In addition, this settles the recent dispute, and so protection can probably be lifted.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue, I explained process to Cour on my talkpage as well as going into detail on why pages that have previously been protected can get protected again quickly, so dont think it needs further protection. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected. Hopefully the problems will not continue. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Legoktm (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

please restore my edit to the sharyl attkisson article. here is the full legitimate reliable source: Gill, Kay Who, a Directory of Prominent People (2006) p. 31. the page is protected now for some reason so i cannot edit it, thank you very much. Coubelle (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reporting during Bush administration?

I added "citation needed" to the following sentence in the 2000s section of the article, but the bigger problem is that the clause "During the George W. Bush administration she exposed funding problems" simply makes no sense. What sort of funding problems for what? Perhaps this should be deleted if no one knows what it was intended to mean.

During the George W. Bush administration she exposed funding problems and in 2008 discovered that Hillary Clinton's claim that she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia was unfounded.[14]

Barryparr (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Pavlich ref cited in that that sentence pretty clearly explains it: "During the Bush administration, Attkisson won an Emmy for her reporting on shady Republican fundraising." DMacks (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the article has been corrected. But that cite from Townhall appears to have shaved the facts to fit its narrative that Attkisson isn't partisan. [sharylattkisson.com/other-investigations Attkisson's own web page, which lists her Emmy awards], doesn't cite an Emmy for reporting on Republican fundraising during the Bush administration, and there's no proof that one exists. The Clinton investigation should be supported with a different citation, and not a Townhall story has been proven to be (at best) poorly sourced. Can we link to CBS's original story? www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-video-contradicts-clintons-story/

Barryparr (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Revisions re resignation and alleged computer hacking

I substantially revised the treatment of the most recent years of her career.

• Cohesiveness. The previous version talked about the hacking allegations, then her resignation, then back to hacking. Breaking it up that way is confusing. I put all the hacking stuff together. This is easier for the reader to follow than is a strict chronological order.
• Reasons for departure. The previous version gave an uncited statement about why she "reportedly" resigned, and the substance was only her side of the story. I cited Politico and summarized what its sources said, pro and con, about the incident.
• Hacking video. The same NPOV approach must be followed as to the video. Arzel decried "severely biased sources" but had no problem with reporting Attkisson's side of the story. Is she unbiased as to her own allegations? Of course not. The solution is to present both sides fairly, labeling them as opinions, and let the reader decide. If Attkisson or one of her defenders wants to assert that, for example, that episode of Dancing with the Stars aired several months earlier on Kenyan TV, and a friend taped it for her, we can report that assertion, too.
• Sources. I added some sources, notably the long article by the conservative writer Kyle Smith in the conservative newspaper New York Post, giving more substance about the book. I also conformed other citations to the citation template. JamesMLane t c 08:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed one of the lines, cited to Crooks and Liars, because the criticism of an incorrect date was disputed and later amended by the original author ([crooksandliars.com/2014/11/not-busted-still-bogus-attkissons-story]). -- Veggies (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

James, I did not remove the Vox source which presents a viewpoint opposite to Attkisson, so don't say that both sides are not present as a result of my actions. You included a clear BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"However, media watchdog group Media Matters reported that security experts have suggested the video appears to show only that the delete key or the backspace key on her keyboard was stuck" implies Media Matters are a nonpartisan media watchdog group, when their staff and funding is entirely pro-Obama administration, so they are not an objective source of information on things such as the hacking of Ms Attkisson's computer. Do we give Newsbusters that kind of authority without commenting that they are a conservative organization? I haven't noticed that we do.

Do we delete that entirely, or inform our readers of Media Matters`s prior vocal criticism of Ms Attkisson (even the title of their review of Attkisson's book contained the word "pathetic", indicating a pronounced lack of objectivity toward her), or include other commentators who think her concerns were well-founded?

I'd be happy either way, but happier with an outright deletion of a statement made by an organization on record as being very antagonistic toward Ms Attkisson, which raises both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues unless we bring in still another commentator who lends credence to Ms Attkisson's statements. The truth is, Media Matters exists to discredit commentary critical of the favorite party of their funding sources. Do we give them a soapbox here? loupgarous (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre claims

Attkisson had been frustrated over what she perceived to be the network's liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting, as well as issues she had with the network’s corporate partners

Does anyone realize how strange this sounds? First of all, CBS is considered one of the more conservative media sources. I would like to see evidence in the literature of a "liberal bias" at CBS. I suspect it doesn't exist. Second, CBS doesn't engage in investigative reporting of any note, so her concern with its "lack of dedication" is somewhat misplaced and frankly weird. How can you be concerned with something that doesn't exist? Finally, what exactly is the issue with the corporate partner? The article doesn't say, and I find that much more interesting than any of the other hogwash. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the entire sentence. Politico reported, however, that according to sources within CBS there had been tensions leading to "months of hard-fought negotiations"--that Attkisson had been frustrated over what she perceived to be the network's liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting, as well as issues she had with the network’s corporate partners, while some within the network saw her reporting as agenda-driven and doubted her impartiality. And the sentence is supported by the adjacent citation. That's as far as Wikipedia need go. There's no burden of proof of liberal biases and investigative stories because it's not original research to Wikipedia—Politico is the source making the statement. -- Veggies (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of a burden of proof, it's a matter of extraordinary-ness and incredulity. If a subject claims, for example, that Fox News has a "liberal bias", we would be left scratching our heads. Fox News is not known for liberal bias, so some kind of explanation is required for the reader. In the same way, CBS is not known for its liberal bias, so the reader is left scratching their collective heads. It seems to me that the term "liberal bias" is being used in place of "CBS refused to take Attkisson's position on criticizing the president/democrats/whatever". In that case, instead of appealing to a nebulous "liberal bias" that simply doesn't exist at CBS, we should be specifying the exact nature of Attkisson's complaint. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, specificity is always welcome—so long as it's properly cited—but, personally, I wouldn't consider the same organization that aired the "fake but accurate" Bush documents to be immune to accusations of bias. -- Veggies (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny, but I don't see any "liberal bias" in the Killian documents controversy. I see a news organization attempting to report a story, only to get shafted in what appears to be a reverse-propaganda operation that tried to squelch the information in the story. Further, CBS issued an apology and made organizational changes. Has Fox News ever apologized or fired anyone for their unprecedented, massive number of errors, inaccuracies, and outright lies that brought the nation into multiple wars? No, instead of apologizing for their errors, Fox went to court and argued "under the First Amendment, they have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves".[www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/] Sorry, but I think there's a big difference between Fox and the rest of reality. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I see a news organization attempting to report a story, only to get shafted in what appears to be a reverse-propaganda operation that tried to squelch the information in the story. I'm glad I didn't write that. If that's how you summarize the whole affair, I question your desire to address "incredulity." But we were writing about Attkisson's views on her job at CBS, not about whether Fox News is bias-free. Let's leave the straw-men aside, yes? -- Veggies (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, it is a bizarre claim, and Wikipedia would not assert the truth of such a claim without having excellent sourcing -- and even then it would almost certainly be disputed, so it's hard to imagine what state of the evidence would justify our supporting Attkisson's position and ignoring the dispute. It's not a shape-of-the-Earth-opinions-differ situation.

That's not relevant here, though. We have a source (Politico) that's not completely free of bias but that is at least not self-publication. It's regrettable that Politico has only anonymous sources for its report but that's the nature of situations like this one. Veggies, you write, "There's no burden of proof of liberal biases and investigative stories because it's not original research to Wikipedia—Politico is the source making the statement." If that means that a Politico article accusing CBS of bias would justify us in stating that CBS is biased, then I disagree. Here, however, on the basis of the Politico piece we're justified in stating, as fact, that Attkisson "perceived" a liberal bias. All that Wikipedia is asserting is this: A reporter wanted to do more stories critical of the incumbent President, the network told her that the subjects she was so keen on had already been covered enough and didn't merit as much air time as she wanted, and in response she refused to take the network executives' judgment at face value but instead accused them of bias. That's not an extraordinary claim. I'm sure plenty of people who wanted more coverage of Bush's sixteen words and so on thought that editors had a conservative bias. JamesMLane t c 17:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is if Politico says CBS is biased, we can say that Politico (or a writer at Politico) says CBS is biased. We don't need to prove bias, we just need to prove that Politico said so and phrase the sentence emphasizing that. -- Veggies (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Blanket accusations aren't helpful. We need to know exactly what this bias entails and the substance of the accusation. Attkisson claims "liberal bias". What exactly is the nature of this bias? According to sources, Attkisson was unable to get her stories approved because she was promoting an agenda, leading to questions about her own bias. Wemple covered some of this in the Post.[www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/10/28/former-cbs-news-reporter-sharyl-attkisson-alleges-network-suppressed-stories-on-corporate-partners/] Please notice, when you drill down into the heart of the story, the accusations of "liberal bias" all but disappear. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this rant have anything to do with the article? The article reflects why Attkisson left, that's all we need to care about. Your theories about whether CBS is conservative or liberal are irrelevant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of "liberal bias" is a favorite fringe conspiracy theory of the American right (along with anti-science climate change denial), but repeating it without qualification throughout Wikipedia is a problem. In other words, what is the substance of Attkisson's claim? What exactly is the "liberal bias" she perceives? This is what we should focus on specifically, rather than repeating ambiguous fringe memes. As for CBS, the majority of reliable sources indicate that it leans to the right and is considered conservative. The notion that it is a source of "liberal bias" is a conspiracy theory started by Fox News pundits in the early 2000s (beginning possibly with Hannity in 2003). The premise of this idea is that anything to the left of Fox News is "liberal", when in reality, they are actually classified as moderate conservatives. This is a tactical strategy to eliminate centrist and moderate voices from public discourse and push them to the extreme right. We should not be using Wikipedia to repeat these fringe conservative memes without qualification. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with the article. Her claim is her claim, it's not a fringe theory, and there's not much else to be said on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it her claim or is it a talking point? CPAC gave Sharyl Attkisson the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media award in 2012. CPAC has a long history of promoting right wing conspiracy theories based on what they claim is "liberal bias" in the media. Rather than this being "her claim", it seems she is reading from a script. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, with nothing to support it and no citations that would ever have a chance of making an article regarding Attkisson. This is completely off-topic, I support closing this per WP:NOTFORUM at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I've discussed my opinion at all here. CPAC has a long history of promoting right-wing conspiracy theories based on accusations of "liberal bias". That's the opinion of reliable sources on the subject, not me. Far from being off-topic, I maintain that we should not represent fringe conspiracy theories of "liberal bias", but rather specify exactly why Attkisson believes she resigned. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion about CPAC, about the liberal media, about CBS's lean, about Fox. None of those are relevant to Attkisson's claims about why she left. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, these are not my opinions, but the opinions of reliable sources about CPAC, the conservative, corporate-owned media which leans decisively to the right, not the left, and about CBS's conservative, right-leaning coverage. Attkisson's conspiracy theory about "liberal bias" might be acceptable to the Fox News audience, but it doesn't cut it in an encyclopedia article. Why did Attkisson retire? "Liberal bias" is not an acceptable answer for thinking people. Facts are funny things to be sure, but this article lacks them. Please don't make up for a lack of facts by inserting ambiguous, meaningless pejoratives as an excuse. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Note I have already hatted this off-topic discussion once. Arzel (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Note, this discussion is entirely on topic and should not be hatted. Wikipedia should not be used to promote the CPAC "liberal bias" conspiracy theory talking point. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, what are you talking about? You started this section talking about it was bizarre for her to be frustrated by what she saw as liberal bias to now going off on a CPAC conspiracy. It has nothing to do with this article. Arzel (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have adequately explained in depth what I'm talking about. The notion of "liberal bias" is a CPAC talking point promoted by Attkisson. Her accusation against CBS is unfounded and deserves specificity due to its controversial nature. Of course, if you look at the actual stories and try to find evidence of "liberal bias" you won't find a thing. That should tell you that there's a problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, I agree with you that this discussion is not off-topic, because you're raising an issue about what the article should say. You and I also agree that the article should not say that CBS News has a liberal bias. What you don't seem to focus on is that the article doesn't say that. It refers to what Attkisson "perceived to be the network's liberal bias" (emphasis added). Wikipedia reports facts about opinions, when notable, even if there is reason to believe that the opinions are mistaken. In Attkisson's bio, it's notable that she propounds this opinion. Whether the opinion is also a CPAC talking point is probably worth including in the CPAC article but not here. It's also not necessary that the Attkisson bio go off on a tangent of recounting all the arguments on all sides on the subject of the biases of the corporate media. JamesMLane t c 11:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is that there isn't only one way to write the article. Just because some sources use the term "liberal bias" or frame it in that way, doesn't mean we have to or that it is the best way to describe the reason she resigned. One good reason to avoid using it is because the term "liberal bias" is pejorative, ambiguous and close to meaningless as it doesn't tell the reader anything about why she resigned. We should avoid using terms that lack information and focus solely on explaining with specific concepts that educate and enlighten the reader. Why did Attkisson resign? "Liberal bias". That's not an acceptable answer, and I will disagree with anyone who argues that it is. I'm seeing a propensity of content-less descriptions composed of thought-terminating cliches instead of the language being used to provide real information. This isn't Fox News, where you can get away with saying "they are coming for our guns" as an answer to climate change. No, when you evaluate the sources and look hard for the answers, you actually find them, and this article should report those answers. Looking at those sources, it appears Attkisson retired because she couldn't get CBS to run her stories, stories which CBS and others said were pushing an agenda. So far from her retiring because of bias from CBS, it seems that the real problem was bias from her own reporting. Thankfully, Attkisson is true to her ethics, and has aligned herself with News Corp., an organization that has never been accused of having any kind of bias whatsoever, and they will be publishing her new book today. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• That someone claims some club has a "liberal bias" is worthy of note in our article if the person making the claim is the subject and the club her employer. One may well scratch their head, but hey, she said it, according to a reliable source, and that's really all there is to it. That Fox may or may not have spread lies, that her employer may be almost as far from "liberal" as Fox, etc., none of that's really relevant. Let's move on, shall we. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Viriditas, you're doing WP:SYNTH. It doesn't matter whether we mere wikipedia editors "realize" a single thing about CBS's media bias or lack thereof. We let reliable, preferably secondary sources do any analysis of that nature which we may wish to include in an encyclopedia article. The fact is, Sharyl Atkisson is the second long-time (over 20 years with CBS) journalist to allege in a book that CBS does have organizational political bias. Her statements are persuasive, while Bernard Goldberg's aren't quite so persuasive. If we wish to rebut their statements, we have to provide rebuttals which are not attacks on the people making these claims WP:BLP, but which go to the fact in question.

There's considerable evidence and analysis published by apolitical scholars such as Virginia Tech's Jim A. Kuypers that framing stories - a recognized way of introducing an agenda into reporting of politically-charged stories - is rampant in television news and other journalism today. It's not just CBS News, but CBS News can be shown to have done it many times over its corporate history, and it's been sued over it more than once (as in their documentary The Uncounted Dead, which alleged that General Westmoreland, commander of US troops in Vietnam, undercounted US casualties to bolster troop morale. CBS wound up apologizing to Gen. Westmoreland in an out-of-court settlement). So, if you have proof that the contention "CBS News exhibits liberal bias" is "bizarre" that doesn't come from Media Matters (established by a huge grant by George Soros and maintained by other reliable Democratic Party donors) or other partisan sources, by all means, bring it here where we can see it. loupgarous (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hacking

The hacking scandal might be the most media-covered part of this BLP and has been mentioned in multiple sources, without any other mention of her newsworthyness. I think that the hacking scandal should be its own section. Haymaker (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no good evidence of any "hacking". There is some evidence this is another manufactured controversy. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want, its still the most media-covered part of this BLP. Haymaker (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Media Matters article, I see they're quoting Politico.com. Can't we go to Politico.com`s article that Media Matters is quoting? It'd be a sounder reference, would it not? One that few people would go into immediate thought shutdown (as I briefly did) over the cited source, which (in Media Matters' case) is intensely partisan against Sharyl Attkisson per se. loupgarous (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Politico is NPOV; I know Media Matters isn't. And "another manufactured controversy" (as per @Viriditas) comes straight from the DNP playbook. Quis separabit? 20:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Politico.com isn't monolithic. It has conservative, liberal and hard-to-figure-out-where-they-stand columnists. Most importantly, their funding sources are ostensibly cleaner than Media Matters' are. If their quotes are as Media Matters represented them, then yes, I'd trust them. But I'm definitely checking to compare the Media Matters copy with politico's. Just because. loupgarous (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hokay. [www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/10/sharyl-attkisson-releases-video-of-apparent-computer-hack-197961 Politico's story "Sharyl Attkisson releases video of apparent computer hack"] quotes Vox! Now we're seeing what the genius of CIA propagandistic press manipulation Frank Wisner called "the Mighty Wurlitzer" - you release information in press outlets friendly to you, which get picked up by trusted news outlets, who lend you their forum so you can send your message out.

In this case, we have "In a recent post for Vox, TImothy B. Lee demonstrated how Attkisson's so-called "evidence" isn't necessarily anything more than the "routine technical glitches that everyone suffers." If her case relied solely on that phone video, it'd be a case of everyone being able to make a prima facie judgment for themselves.

But the so-called journalist here tips his hat by using that wonderful modifier "so-called" to editorialize on Politico's straight news dime, and his readers aren't always going to be bright enough to realize (a) Attkisson's case for having been hacked is probably more substantive than that video, (b) the other points she raises aren't so easily refuted unless, like "so-called journalist" Dylan Byers, you're willing to believe what you read in Vox uncritically, and (c) who is Timothy B. Lee and what are his credentials in computer security?

So far, this particular Politico article fails the smell test big-time. Note to "so-called" journalists - don't tip your hand by using pejoratives like "so-called" in straight news pieces. loupgarous (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

[www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/11/sharyl-attkisson-refuses-to-address-hacking-inconsistencies-198357 More red meat from Politico's Dylan Byers re: Sharon Attkisson] - Now, Dylan Byers tells us more about his sources for his statements about Sharon Attkisson than about Attkisson or her hacking allegations - the news sources he quotes are Vox, Huffington Post, and Media Matters.

I've caught Vox and Huffington Post in blatant acts of plagiarism before, and I don't trust them as sources for information at all. If they don't know how to attribute a source, fact-check for themselves, or don't know why they should - as they didn't in the Dornella Conner blinding (during the Ferguson riots), they're not reliable enough to quote for substantive facts. The ONLY online source to get the facts right the night of the event was the [www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/woman-blinded-in-one-eye-after-officer-shot-bean-bag/article_c0980b49-3c5d-5bf8-b32c-c5eeaa7eb691.html St. Louis Post-Dispatch article by their Samantha Liss], and it was the only source to post the mitigating factor that the car in which Ms Conner was seated was hurtling toward the policeman who fired a beanbag round at it in reaction, tragically blinding Ms Conner in one eye.

Vox and Huffington Post showed that night that they're all about the eyetracks, the benjamins, the sensationalism... and the benjamins. They, Yahoo News, firedoglake.com, Daily Kos and six or seven other sites published nearly identical reports in which Ms Conner's name was misspelled "Conners," none of which mentioned the shot being a beanbag round fired in self-defense. They encouraged their readers to believe Dornella Conner had been shot in the eye by a policeman, and didn't say why. I don't really care about their politics, as news organizations, they suck.

We shouldn't rely on the Politico.com reporting on this particular issue at all, and since the Media Matters report depends partly on what's a circuiar flow of information from them through Politico`s Dylan Byers back to Media Matters in this last article, there's a very clear reason to doubt the reliability of any source in the circle. loupgarous (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Timothy B. Lee writes for Ars Technica, which I suppose makes him a geek who can write. Fair enough, and to be honest, the phone video... (action: shaking my head). He's got enough credentials to comment knowledgeably, and Ars Technica pretty much has to stick to the facts (though they're as left-of-center as you'd expect policy wonks to be - you can't get anyone off the Hill to listen to you unless you make them comfy about which side you're on... ). loupgarous (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I did not realize this section was being discussed. The recent revert of my edit for WP:COATRACK reverts the paragraph to one of WP:CHERRY. First, I established that Media Matters is indeed a partisan website (or is that type commentary only allowed against conservative sources?), "[dailycaller.com/2012/02/17/left-wing-foundations-lavish-millions-on-media-matters/ Left-wing foundations lavish millions on Media Matters]" and then presented another quote from the existing Media Matters cited source. Here is the .[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharyl_Attkisson&diff=prev&oldid=691886392 Diff] Media Matters fails Wikipedia:Independent because they are reliant on partisan funding, and fixing cherry picking is not coatrack. Additionally, WP:COATRACK pertains to notability of the subject, we have a multiple EMMY Award, Edward R. Murrow Award and NY Times Best Selling author here, there is no doubt about notability. The entire section could be boiled down to Attkisson published video evidence that her computer was in the progress of being hacked and the DOJ denied involvement. (Dicslosure: I do take paid writing assignments, but I have no connection to this subject, financial or otherwise.) -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Commentator"

There is no evidence that Attkisson is a "commentator." The burden of proof for having this in here is on those who want it in.96.37.243.153 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "commentator" is defined in our article on the word as " a person who comments or expresses an opinion on a subject."

Agree or disagree with her, no reasonable person can deny that Sharyn Atkisson is a "commentator" within the meaning wikipedia ascribes to it. Her length of service with CBS News gives her reasonable standing to comment on its practices as they concerned her.

You don't have to accept her allegations of hacking (and her phone video doesn't convince me, I know how key capture devices work, and if the US Government were complicit in the hack, they'd be unnecessary anyway - just get into any of the servers involved, easy-peasy for the NSA) to accept the things on which her testimony would be admissible in court - such as CBS News' internal disputes with her over her investigative reporting. loupgarous (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between a news journalist and a commentator, anyway? Quis separabit? 20:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Loaded question. The temptation is to answer "Not much, these days" because no one's shy about editorializing in what's supposed to be straight news now. Sometimes, if they're crafty, they'll do it with modifiers applied to the experts you don't like ("A conservative FBI employee applied the Western Blot test to DNA from Monica Lewinsky's dress... ") and not used for the guys you like ("Reliable sources saw Sharyl Attkisson apply a number 10 foil pie plate to her head in her cubicle at CBS News... ").

It used to mean that a news journalist reports the news as objectively as possible, while a commentator gives her opinion on the news. That simple. But it hasn't been that simple in media since the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine, when any expression of opinion on the part of a local television affiliate could provoke an FCC-mandated (and unprofitable) free "opposing comment" broadcast segment by someone who begged to differ from your comment. loupgarous (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that comprehensive reply. I know there is an anchor in NYC who is not shy about inserting his opinion, albeit, as you say, "craftily", into some of his reports. He thinks he's clever. Quis separabit? 22:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pov question

Isn't saying she "has been identified in the medical literature as using problematic rhetorical tactics" stating opinion as fact? (The opinion being that what she is doing is problematic) Wouldn't it be more neutral to say she was accused? "Identified" makes it sound like the accusation is a fact rather than the opinion of the article author. I tried to fix this [1] but was reverted whithout explanation (the edit summery of the revert just said "rv she was identified") Tornado chaser (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See above: #Vaccines. Did you read the source? Jim1138 (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The vaccine against pertussis produce only sort term protection. The proof of this is that now vaccinated adult are getting Whooping cough. If the mother has been vaccinated she doesn’t have the full set of antibodies to pass through the placenta to the unborn child and so the child can get Full-Blown pertussis requiring hospital treatment. So what was once just another one of those childhood disease that almost ever child experience has become a feared disease due to the lack of this perinatal protection. Pertussis is one of those bacteria that do not provide life-long protection after the initial infection (if one gets it at all due to perinatal antibodies). Yet, frequent exposure to this bacteria keeps reinforcing the immune system, so adults did not suffer from Whooping cough before the introduction of pertussis vaccines and neonates which had some natural immunity, making it no more than a bad cold. One can not miss the primary sign – the coughing sounds like Whooping – hence the 'common name' given to pertussis (if medic wants to argue - I am older enough to remember those times and modern times, where children now have to be taken to hospital !). So to answer the OP's question – Of course it should be simply be accused rather than identified. Because here on WP we hold a NPOV and nothing has shown that she put any child at risk. So identified doesn’t pass. Aspro (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I read #Vaccines that discussion was about a different sentence so I don't understand why you refer to it here, I do not have access to the full text of the source, but if a RS states an opinion, Wikipedia can quote that RS, but still cannot state it's opinion as fact, the source may well have identified her rhetoric as problematic, but this is the source's opinion, and should be stated as such by Wikipedia. On my talk page you say Atkisson is no expert on vaccines, I never said any such thing, only that calling someone's rhetoric "problematic" is an opinion and should not be stated as fact.

Aspro, I agree with you as far as article wording is concerned, but why do you attempt to support your argument by questioning the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine? Whether or not it is neutral to say "identified" rather than "accused" does not have anything to do with weather the pertussis vaccine is safe or effective, and this sounds more like an off-topic rant than anything else. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP

Is the header "False reporting on vaccines and autism" appropriate per BLP? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's an appropriate header unless we have secondary RS that mirrors that language. I do think we need to clarify that the vaccine-autism link is a fringe notion (per WP:FRINGE) in the header. I'm pinging Tryptofish who has experience with WP:FRINGE and can help us word this content appropriately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I should ping JzG since he came up with the header "False reporting on vaccines and autism". Tornado chaser (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I'm going only by what I have read on the page. Of course the vaccine-autism thing is bunk and was long-ago shown to be so, and of course it's appropriate for us to treat it as a fringe topic. That much is easy. But the question as I see it is simply how much we should try to shoehorn into a section header. I think JzG knows a thing or two about WP:RGW, and I would hope that he will agree with me that if we go too far in hitting the readers over the head with the fact that it's fringe, we would be falling needlessly into the RGW trap. For that reason, I just changed the header to "Vaccines", although anyone should feel free to revert me, with an explanation. It seems to me that the text of that section gets the NPOV right. So if we tell the readers that this is where they can read about her reporting on vaccines, that's all the readers need until they actually read the section. What we don't need is a section header that amounts to an editorial. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Your version is fine. My problem was with a section heading "Reporting on vaccines and autism" - which she was not doing, she was repeating discredited anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. That's not reporting. Nobody is reporting on vaccines and autism because the two are not linked. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that your analysis there is a very good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• There is no possible doubt that her reporting is false. In fact, it's been called anti-vaccine propaganda. BLP only mandates accuracy, not deference to lies. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Citing Attkisson's own reports

I have been told by @Tornado chaser: that my addition of reports by Attkisson was all invalid because they were just "referencing someone's website for info on something controversial she said"; the edit can be found here. This post is in no way meant to attack TC who has been civil and understanding; I merely don't want to use up his time to fill up his talk page with questions and hope that others have input on the matter. All of the sources I added were interviews she had done which she either published on her own website or for her talk show, Full Measure. My intention with the sources was to show what her reporting on vaccines actually was; as there were many sources by others but not any reports by Attkisson herself, I believed this to be a necessary addition.

I started off citing her article in The Hill; within said article, she includes several interviews she conducted with Dr. Bernadine Healy and Dr. Frank DeStefano, both of whom have worked with federal health agencies in the US. I understand how these sources may be problematic if 'she' was making the claims 'herself' but these individuals make the claims in the interviews with her; for example, Dr. Bernadine Healy flatly says that she believed the medical officials working for the US federal government were being "too quick to dismiss the hypothesis" that vaccination could cause autism in a subset of children, as I stated in the section.

Also, I don't understand why the Full Measure article the Twitter post by UMass Medical, or Dr Zimmerman's affidavit which was published on Attkisson's website were deleted. From what I understand, Attkisson is associated with it but she doesn't have full control of the show, meaning that there is a team working on the show and editors it; is using a report by Anderson Cooper on his own show invalid on his Wiki page? When it comes to the UMass Twitter post, I added it because it shows Dr. Zimmerman clarifying his 2007 affidavit which was fully published on her website.Somenolife (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Your edits introduced, for example, a video cited to Children's Health Defense, an Orwellian-titled antivaccination group run by RFK, and sought to establish a false balance between antivaxxers who promote the MMR-autism hoax and the scientific community which has, by now, comprehensively disproved it. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: While the title of an organization is utterly irrelevant, Children's Health Defense is not a reliable source and your edits did appear to create a false balance. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: @JzG: Again, my only intention was to cite her work; I did not remove any of the criticism of it. I don't see how I am creating a false balance by adding statements that others made when she interviewed them or cited their statements; none of the links I posted have anything to do with claims on MMR or Wakefield, for that matter. None of this explains to me why any of this reporting, even if flawed, shouldn't be cited at all.Somenolife (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Since the sources establish that her "work" in this area is unreliable, I think we are done here. Guy (Help!) 01:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Why would we cite reporting we know is flawed? Adding unreliable sources can create a false balance even without removing criticism. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Because it reflects what she has original reported on and who has said what to her. I think to hide the fact that these individuals have made such statements to her damages the ability to refute these claims. The only thing that can be considered flawed would be that these people's statements are incorrect; why would we not show the source of the claim when refuting it? @JzG: Regardless of what you think, Dr Bernadine Healy and Dr Zimmerman made her statements through their own will and no amount of scare quotes will change that.Somenolife (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: I disagree, I think your edits gave WP:UNDUE weight to the anti-vax point of view. You say Regardless of what you think, Dr Bernadine Healy and Dr Zimmerman made her statements through their own will and no amount of scare quotes will change that but I must be missing something, because I don't see where JzG used scare quotes. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: JzG put quotes around "work", which to me, implies that she is somehow making up or misrepresenting information but both Zimmeran's affidavit and Healy's statement are available in full from the links provided. On whether I am giving undue weight to such claims, all I can say is that I posted what was said in her reports by the people she interviewed; if you or someone can rephrase it so that it is more balanced, be my guest but do not include it at all seems deeply problematic and certainly unfair. Journalist Seymour Hersh, for example, has made a number of controversial claims through anonymous sources, no less, but all of his work is included as a primary reference; I don't see this case as anything different.Somenolife (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

NOT putting quotes around work would imply that JzG thinks that it's in some way legitimate journalism, so quotation marks are perfectly appropriate.

not include it at all seems deeply problematic and certainly unfair. See previous statement about the unreliability. --Calton | Talk 04:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Calton:And as I stated previously, no one's thoughts on the validity of her journalism pertaining to this topic can change the fact that the above-mentioned doctor's made these statements; as these individuals made their statements to her and she reported them, they are relevant to her page. If, somehow the way I summarized said reports has caused a problem, then I would invite you to change it but nothing I can write can change the fact that the claims made in her reports are being made by these individuals and not her.Somenolife (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: No one is saying these people didn't make these statements, what we are saying is that including them is WP:UNDUE. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: But I don't see how that is possible. The section is about her reporting on vaccines and these are reports by her that include statements either made by health officials directly to her or were recorded in court affidavits. As of this post, that section header has once again been changed to "anti-vaccine reporting" despite her statements that she supports vaccination, something she says in several of her reports I cited; what is being argued here isn't whether vaccines can ever cause autism but rather about her reporting of vaccination and autism, the validity of her reporting, and, with the current section header, if that reporting is against vaccination as a practice. By not adding the statements she has been given and that she reported on, it makes her seem like she may have been making everything up especially since there is currently only criticism of her work without any of her work cited. When it comes to the current section header accusing her of being anti-vaccination, regardless of what you think about her distinction of her beliefs about vaccination and those against vaccination as a principle, it only matters if a court could think that such a distinction is valid enough to consider it slander. I do think that this is possible BLP violation and should be treated as such.Somenolife (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We do not give articler subjects the last word, we do not report their statements in a vacuum. Everything Attkisson says about vaccines is attested by reliable sources to be dangerously wrong, and we're not going to leave the reader in any doubt about that. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that the section header "anti-vaccine reporting" violated BLP, but I raised the issue at BLPN[2] to be sure. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

That was a great way to waste more time and make you look more like an antivax sympathiser. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Really? taking a BLP claim that I'm unsure of to BLPN makes me antivax? I think not. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because it's already been addressed before on this talk page and giving undue deference to querulous complaints from people who don't like spades being called spades is a waste of everyone;'s time and a further mark on the scorecard of antivax-sympathetic actions by you. It should be apparent to you by now that you should avoid articles on antivaxers like the plagues they promote. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

See my talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think this wording had been discussed before, and WP:SPADE is an essay on user conduct that dosen't override BLP policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bored now. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Except nothing I posted gave Attkisson "the last word", she made none of those statements which are all in works by her. You can not deny that these officials made these statements to her or in affidavits. I don't see how including these statements "leaves the reader in doubt"; as an example, it can be recorded that "Dr. X said to Attkisson that they believed there needed to be more studies" and then you could counter such a claim with someone who has done studies and found no link; you seem to be so confident of yourself so why not do so rather than accusing TC of being some kind sympathizer to antivax propaganda.Somenolife (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: The issue is that citing an unreliable source at all can give something WP:UNDUE weight, please read and understand WP:UNDUE, this took me a long time to understand, but is an important policy to know. P.S. the one thing I agree with you on is that JzG should stop making accusations. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: I did go back to reread WP:UNDUE but I am still confused how citing these articles violates said rule here. I understand how I could violate this rule by inserting her articles into a page about the safety of vaccination, accused links to disorders like autism, etc since they would certainly be in the minority, one that doesn't have work backing it. But this section is about her reporting on the issue, and she is an investigative reporter, awarded for her other stories, that happens to be reporting on this issue. I don't see how stating what she has reported somehow gives an unfair "balance" to these views since, as required by WP:UNDUE, the majority view on links between vaccinations and autism. The problem I see is that this a section about her work which only cites those who criticize her work, like Dr Paul Offit, without citing any or her actual work. As this is a section devoted to discussing her work, I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. I also don't see how her work is can be considered unreliable when it comes to a section about her reporting on this issue.Somenolife (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see if I can simplify this. Please correct me if I've misunderstood something.

• Attkisson has reported on anti-vaxxers
• Attkisson used quotes from anti-vaxxers to represent their views
• Attkisson has expressed pro-vax personal views
• It seems possible that her reporting on this subject has been neutral. E.g. reporting isn't the same as supporting. Admittedly (and this is important), I have not yet read any of her articles on the subject.

Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at this one. The article:

• Calls Andrew Zimmerman a "world-renowned pro-vaccine medical expert" (whoops! that link points to somebody else. Maybe he is not world-renowned enough to merit his own Wikipedia article?) But here is what David Gorski says about Zimmerman's methods. In any case, for a pro-vaccine person, he sounds remarkably like an anti-vaccine person. "He said his opinion was based on “scientific advances” as well as his own experience with patients." So what? Such things are found out in studies, not by "experience". What advances are those?
• Calls anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a "Vaccine safety advocate".
• Quotes anti-vaxxers Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rolf Hazlehurst, and Bernadine Healy.
• Does not quote pro-vaxxer Frank DeStefano contradicting, but quote-mines him when he is talking not about scientific results but about theoretical possibilities.

The only pro-vaccine voice, which does not get much say, is immediately contradicted by Zimmerman saying "that is not what I said", although the voice does not even claim he said it. This essentially voids that voice by sleight of mind (a strawman).

So, one side gets to dominate the debate 5 to 0. And it is not the pro-science side. Your "It seems possible that her reporting on this subject has been neutral" has the same status as Attkisson's DiStefano quote: it is flatly contradicted by reality. Her writings are clearly anti-vax. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We must keep in mind that WP:FRINGE applies to this subject matter. It is fine to briefly describe Attkisson's reporting on vaccines as long as we make clear that some or all of it runs counter to more accepted ideas. See WP:EVALFRINGE. I think we should also avoid relying solely on Attkisson's self-published works to decide what's worthy of mention and what's not. There is consensus at WP:RSN that The Hill's contributor pieces should be considered self-published. R2 (bleep) 20:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sinclair media

An IP removed the description of Sinclair Media as "conservative" without explanation, so I reverted[3], leaving a notice about unexplained content removal on the IP's talk page. The IP made the edit again[4], this time I thought the IP made a valid point in the edit summery so I did not revert, but JzG did[5], using the edit summary It's significant that she broadcaSTS ON WINGNUT CABLE I reverted JzG, pointing out that conservative ≠ wingnut[6], but was reverted by Calton [7].

I want to know what others think about whether to describe Sinclair as "conservative" in this article, I know Sinclair is known for being conservative, but I have seen plenty of mentions of Fox news that don't start with "the conservative media company..." so I am not sure about this. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, far-right hyper-partisan would be a better description of Sinclair. It's way to the right of Fox. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be OK with calling them "far right" or "right wing" IF we have sufficient neutral sources that describe them this way, but since we don't usually state a news outlet's political leanings when we mention a news outlet, we should only mention Sinclair's bias here if sources show that they are more blatantly biased than things like Fox and CNN. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Stick with conservative, then as that is supported by a mountain of sources. This is Sinclair, 'the most dangerous US company you've never heard of', Sinclair Made Dozens of Local News Anchors Recite the Same Script, While You Were Offline: Sometimes the News Is the News, Trump said Sinclair ‘is far superior to CNN.’ What we know about the conservative media giant, Sinclair, the pro-Trump, conservative company taking over local news, explained, and so on. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My question is how do we determine when to mention that a media company is conservative/liberal. We don't say "the left leaning news source CNN" or "the right wing news organization Fox" so why "the conservative media company Sinclair"? I am not entirely against this, but we should have some consistant way to decide whether to list a news outlet's political bias. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It provides context. If you have a problem with that sort of wording, go to a noticeboard and make your argument there. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Undue, remove - "Sinclair Broadcast", in quotes, gives you 2,660,000 google hits. Its Wikipedia page had 28,715 visits last month. It is, according to Wikipedia, "the largest television station operator in the United States." It needs no descriptor, just like we write no descriptor when we mention The New York Times, described by some as one of the U.S.' newspapers of record and described by some a lefty bird cage liner. Any description of what Sinclar is or is not on Attkisson's bio is undue and unnecessary political commentary. XavierItzm (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Of course, the media company should be described. If someone works for Big League Politics, Media Matters for America or some other largely unknown media company with clear political leanings, we describe it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this brief descriptor is appropriate; it is well-sourced, encyclopedic, and helpful to the reader. Neutrality^talk 17:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• This article is about Atkisson not.the broadcast company. We should stick to coverage ofnher and her programs. This is a BLP. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The issue at hand should not be Sinclair's political leanings but rather its reliability. If it's not reliable, we should blacklist it. If it is reliable - or at least if it's reliable in this instance - then the reader doesn't need this bit of trivial detail. If they want more information about the publisher, they can elect to click the link for themselves. If we find reliable views that oppose Sinclair's then we should include an example for balance. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Sinclair's political agenda is very noteworthy to an article about Attkisson. She chose to align herself with an aggressively ideological organization. R2 (bleep) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. May I weigh in on two points? 1. It's certainly fair to call Sinclair an organization run by conservative billionaires. However, if one is going to slant descriptions with politics, it would be important to note my program is nonpartisan. Just like my reporting at CBS, most of the reporting has nothing to do with politics. If it could be characterized it could fairly be called watchdog in nature, stories looking out for taxpayers, citizens, etc. This includes reports on MRI safety, Deep Fakes, terrorism in the Philippines, lawsuits about talcum powder, the aging lawsuits litigating tobacco/cigarette cancer victims, asbestos in houses, greyhound racing, etc. When we do cover politics, I have as many fair interviews featuring liberal politicians such as Rep. Adam Schiff, Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jackie Speier as conservative politicians such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows. So mention Sinclair's leanings but be fair not to imply my own work or program is "conservative." 2. If we do decide to label Sinclair, then it would only be fair to label (on my biography and others) all organizations based on their political leanings. There is a great deal of bias on this front with liberal organizations often not labelled, but conservative organizations labelled. For example, I worked at liberal CNN, liberal CBS and liberal PBS. For CNN and CBS in particular, when I worked there, they were run by/ managed by liberal billionaire donors (Ted Turner, Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves). That did not impact my reporting any more than working at Sinclair impacts my reporting politically (except in cases I have discussed where corporate influence or political leanings of a particular editor at CBS began to interfere with the general newsroom operations and content). Likewise for those who work at the New York Times, I think there is little dispute it is a liberal newspaper even though it doesn't mean all of the reporting is likewise "liberal." So for what little I matter, for consistency and fairness, I would vote for EITHER labelling all media organizations across Wikipedia when mentioned AND making sure we are not unfairly implicating employees as being ideological OR not labelling media organizations at all. Thank you for your kind considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

None of those organizations are liberal in my view. More importantly, none of them are consistently described as liberal by reliable sources (unlike for example the Huffington Post). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. Thank you-- but with respect, therein lies the problem with your biased judgement. You are selectively ignoring the documented liberal management of these companies but choosing to accept the judgement of a conservative company you obviously dislike (as a liberal). You also didn't address the idea that if you are going to label an employer, it's only fair to not incorrectly label or taint the employe or program with a political view that is untrue. Further, you are using your own judgment to decide what is "reliable" (in other words, you as a liberal, are waiting for a liberal publication to declare other liberal publications "liberal"; but accepting it when the liberal publications declaring other publications conservative, even when it's used as an obvious propaganda tool to propagandize and smear.) Along these lines, even other liberals besides me would not argue that the New York Times and CNN today are generally "liberal." However, I think there will always be differing opinions and judgement. In light of that, I would argue that it's best to refrain from these arguably-biased and subjective political descriptions on a biography page, which is not intended to litigate these difficult and subjective issues or put them to rest. However, again, Wikipedia does as Wikipedia wishes. I submit these comments with great respect and thank you for engaging even, if you are biased. I believe you do mean well. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl - as you know, one of WP's 3 core content policies is NPOV. There are times - often motivated by unrecognized bias - when NPOV is not as closely adhered to as WP policy dictates. If one group of editors with a particular POV outnumber their opposition in an RfC, they have an advantage over consensus which is typically how challenged material ends up in the pedia. I don't think it comes as any surprise that WP leans left but the process eventually self-corrects to reflect a more neutral POV. After an RfC runs its course, the closer (usually an admin when the topic is highly controversial) is supposed to judge the arguments in an RfC based on substance, not on vote count because WP is not a democracy. If the closer agrees with the majority, perhaps because of their own unrecognized bias, they will determine consensus accordingly. Fortunately, the majority of closers are quite capable, fair & neutral. Also, consensus is not permanent and can change (meaning the close can be challenged, or consensus may change later on if another RfC is called), so it's really not a case of Wikipedia doing as Wikipedia wishes; rather, it is a case of consensus & the numbers...always with the possibility that things can change. Rest assured, editors are trying to get the article right. And thank you for taking part in the discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)