Talk:Center for Public Integrity

Things That Could Be Added

also: libel lawsuits brought against.

Other things to be covered yet, maybe: Center staffer fired after caught plagiarizing.

I gave this topic a shot. Not sure if it's exhaustive, but there's some stuff in the history section now. Gabby Fest 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, would it be worth considering adding a bibliography of all the Center's published books?

Looks done to me. Gabby Fest 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody could fill in that "Notable Work" section. I think it's a great idea, but it needs a little help. Gabby Fest 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest. Center founder's failure to disclose to readers/members/funders marriage to longtime Washington lobbyist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.132.87 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly sourcing on the web to back you up, but I'm honestly not sure how to work it into this article. Are there examples of criticism that could be added? Because, if not, I wonder if it's not just more biographical stuff about Lewis himself. So I only added your find to his biography wiki entry [[1]]. Did I make the right call? Gabby Fest (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters can be considered to be an invalid source - large quantity of quotes are out of context. O'Reilly, Soros specifics should reference transcript files available online through FOX.

You mean Fox, the well known right-wing propaganda outlet? Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly is a registered independent thus can hardly be referenced as conservative; once more - Media Matters should not be referenced .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.69.158 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 

Bull! O'Reilly is a registered Republican, and a well-documented liar. Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Criticism" Section

why so much detail on Soros? this article is about CPI. It doesnt even mention how much Soroshas donated.

I think the article does document a number of contributions by Soros-led foundations.

I don't know when this criticism was registered, but I also see the Soros-related grants registered (See the citations at "OSI"). Gabby Fest 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about Soros is here because certain conservatives like to claim that a link with Soros means that it's tainted. That's the only reason. Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism has a problem: while there are references for the different donations, there are no references for the criticisms themselves. Thus it can be considered original research, and be removed from the article. -- ReyBrujo 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do see one criticism cited ("The Center for Public Integrity...snicker snicker") in the middle of the Soros section. KevinTapani 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section strikes me as POV--donors are cited as if the criticisms were cited; the criticisms are in fact inferences from whoever composed that text--that because an institution has "progressive" funders it is necessarily bias. I'm not huge fan of Soros, as it happens, but that doesn't mean I can support a deceptively structured critc section of an institution's chosen to fund.Benzocane 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to address these concerns by lining up a number of sources that I think support the assertion that the Center is, to some notable degree, criticized for taking money from Soros-related foundations and other sources that critics view as politically liberal. I'm unsure whether these criticisms actually add up to "bias," but I think we're getting closer to a point where people can consider the criticisms and make up their own minds. What do you think? Gabby Fest 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the "criticisms" are biased. If they weren't, they wouldn't be here. Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this section read like it's critical of Soros's other dealings and not with how he relates to the Center for Public Integrity? I think it should be trimmed for pertinence or wikipedia would be useless if everytime a name was dropped a debate about them that belongs on thier bio. article was brought up. -Kain Nihil (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested re-wording of lede

The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is a US-based nonprofit investigative journalism organization whose stated mission is "to reveal abuses of power, corruption and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions in order to cause them to operate with honesty, integrity, accountability and to put the public interest first."

Thoughts on that? I think it would address the weasel word problem and more accurately reflect the organization's stated mission. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on financial data

This article has a high level of detail of financial data up to 2005. In my opinion, such a high level of detail is not necessary for the article. I think that links to CPI's web page should suffice (rather than listing all of the foundation supporters, for example). Currently, this info seems to be cluttering up the article rather than providing helpful, up-to-date info. The article could also be updated with data from the past 7 years, but that would just make the article more cluttered. I would recommend synthesizing the current information on the page with more up to date financial info, and then presenting that on the page in a couple of sentences, rather than charts/exhaustive listings. Thoughts on that? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Media Research Center

A recent addition to this article cites two Media Research Center web postings as evidence that CPI was criticized for collaborating on a t.v. documentary. I am not convinced that MRC is a stand-alone reliable source here. And the cited posts are more sensational and accusatory than reporting oriented. Besides, the criticism leveled by MRC is of the documentary itself–the fact that CPI was criticized by MRC for being involved (along with PBS), is implicit, I suppose. But it mostly seems like criticism of Frontline/PBS, and Soros-bashing MRC doesn't seem reliable in this instance. Anyway, I edited the addition to try to make it more NPOV, but I think its presence on the page is still lending undue weight. Thoughts on this? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideology

First of all, let me acknowledge that I work at the Center for Public Integrity. I have made only one editing change ever to this article and that dealt with a short-lived name change to iWatchNews. I'm completely new to editing in Wikipedia.

Can you find a source that notes the end of the iWatchNews project? Right now we have a source announcing the roll-out of iWatchNews. We can't remove that source and the information it verifies unless we can provide another source negating the information. Otherwise, we're just taking your word for it. Even though I have no doubt that you're right, we need to provide an encyclopedic source. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source: https://twitter.com/iWatch. And you can simply go to www.iWatchNews.org and see that it no longer exists.Dh journalist (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to raise some concerns about what I see as inaccuracies and lack of fairness in a couple of sections of this article.

The sources questioning the Center for Public Integrity's ideology are inaccurate. The original source is a 1996 Los Angeles Times story. The reporter apparently assumed we were liberal. He does not cite any source for his information. There's no evidence that he talked to CPI. Other news organizations reporting the same story at the same time got it right. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that we were "nonpartisan":http://articles.philly.com/1996-02-16/news/25655765_1_larry-pratt-insider-advisers-outsider and the Associated Press reported that we were "independent": http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=19960215&id=CYokAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jNAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6574,1236884

These sources may be inaccurate (in your opinion), but are they verifiable? The Los Angeles Times is generally considered to be a verifiable source, given that it engages in industry standard fact-checking for its articles. The Philadelphia Inquirer and Associated Press stories are good sources as well–and they add information and nuance to the article, and the way we can now describe CPI given the variety of available sources. We can say "CPI has been described as liberal, independent, nonpartisan, etc." (Update: I added additional sourced descriptors to the lead). Safehaven86 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Associated Press are reporting on the same story on the same day as the cited sources that got it wrong. The Associated Press quoted someone from the Center in its story, while the LA Times did not. The story from the LA Times shows no independent verification of its information. Reporters make errors all the time, even at big newspapers. Just because a reporter in 1996 made an error in describing CPI -- a NYT editorial repeated it the next day -- does not make it reasonable for that error to become part of our description in an encyclopedia. If the LA Times mistakenly reported that Richard Nixon was a Democrat, it would not be reasonable to include in Nixon's biography that "some have described him as a Democrat." He was not.Dh journalist (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

CPI is routinely described as liberal, left-leaning, and progressive. The LA Times and NYT articles are certainly not the only time this has happened. If the LA Times and NYT descriptions were truly factual errors, would they have not been corrected by now? See this Huffington Post [2] piece from this February and this Fox News article [3] from 2011. Describing someone as a Republican when they are a Democrat is a factual error, yes, and likely to be corrected in whichever outlet it is published. But a group can be nonpartisan and be widely perceived as having ideological leanings (not Republican or Democrat), but left, right, etc. That appears to be the case with CPI. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not true that CPI is "routinely described as liberal, left-leaning and progressive." Virtually the only sources that use these labels are opinion writers, and even then, typically they are columnists/bloggers/advocacy groups trying to discredit a story with an ad hominem smear. These sources generally do not have any standards for accuracy or fairness. You also cannot discount the fact that some writers may be drawing their information from inaccurate reporting on Wikipedia itself. You imply that these labels are well thought out and researched, but I've shown that the precise sources cited are in reality factual errors, which have either been corrected or contradicted in subsequent coverage by the same source. Under Wikipedia guidelines, the burden is on the person adding or restoring information to show that the information is true. It is not.Dh journalist (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times opinion piece the next day seems to be merely echoing the mistake made in the LA Times without doing any of its own reporting.

We can't know if the New York Times piece is "merely echoing" the LA times piece. We know that the NYT is generally considered a reliable source. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It makes mistakes too. Wikipedia acknowledges in its guidelines that errors shouldn't be left in articles just because they appear in verifiable sources. The obvious question is if the NYT fact checked this, where did it get its information? What is the proof that CPI is liberal other than an error in the LA Times?Dh journalist (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting report not only got our ideology wrong, the author of that report mistakenly thought we were a think tank, like the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institution. We are not and never have been. The author may have gotten his information about our "leanings" from Wikipedia.

In a more recent analysis in 2006 and again in 2007, the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting group characterized us as "centrist," contradicting their earlier classification, which was in error.http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/cost-effectiveness-2007-09.pdf In its most recent report, FAIR finally realized that we didn't even belong in its analysis because we are NOT a think tank and never were. http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/think-tank-spectrum-revisited/Dh journalist (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organization. We routinely do stories raising questions about both Democrats and Republicans. One of our biggest stories in recent times has been the Solyndra green-energy loan made by the Obama administration. And we were one of the first news organizations to report on the so-called Fast and Furious scandal. Wikipedia lists our first major project in 1996 as "Fat Cat Hotel: How Democratic High-Rollers Are Rewarded with Overnight Stays at the White House."

Ok, this information goes into the section on how CPI describes itself.Safehaven86 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The sections on our funding are in some cases poorly sourced and argumentative. The following sentence is not written from a neutral point of view: Despite its claims to be a nonpartisan news organization that subscribes to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics,[54] CPI has been accused of bias towards left-wing political causes because it has accepted money from organizations and individuals that favor liberal policies and/or actively oppose right-wing political causes.

I agree that this sentence violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and I will edit it. (Update: I removed it). Safehaven86 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.Dh journalist (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite what the article says, it barely cites any sources criticizing the Center directly. The stories cited generally criticize the source of the funding, listing the Center as one of the recipients.

The sources cited as criticizing the Center for accepting funding from George Soros are: an opinion piece written by the National Rifle Association, a couple of bloggers, a reader column in the Idaho Statesman and an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ editorial doesn't criticize the Center directly. It is a critique of Soros and names the Center as one of the groups he funds. The editorial lacks balance or nuance.

The section on Bill Moyers quotes a story written by Knight Ridder that questioned Moyers for funding advocacy groups while serving as a host of a PBS show. Since the story does not even deal with the Center for Public Integrity, it's not clear to me why it is included in the article.

I will take a look at this. If the piece isn't directly about CPI, it could be a case of WP:COATRACK. (Update: you're right, this whole section is about Bill Moyers and not CPI. I removed it) Safehaven86 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Given my association with the Center, I wouldn't feel comfortable editing these sections myself. But I would hope that someone would take another look at these sections and make their own judgments about their accuracy, fairness and balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dh journalist (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Dh journalist (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for noting your association with CPI. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You were right to suggest that you should not directly edit the article ("Do not directly edit articles about yourself, your organization, your clients, or your competitors" is one COI guideline). I see that you have made some recent edits to the article, and I am going to revert those. Things should be hashed out on the talk page, and once consensus is reached, another editor will be able to make the relevant edits to the page. I think it would also be helpful if you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. See the section on "But I know the truth!" The standard for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is that the information is verifiable via a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). You likely know many things about CPI that are true, but unless they can be verified with a reliable source, these facts do not meet the standard for inclusion in the article. We have to go off of what is verified in reliable sources (and preferably not primary sources, such as the organization's own website. I will address your specific concerns with the article, item by item, in a moment after I revert your previous edits. Thank you, and let me know if you have any more questions. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ideology II

The Center for Public Integrity has never been characterized as a "liberal group" by an accurate, reliable mainstream news source. The sources cited here at the top of the article and again in the "ideology" section made simple errors.

The LA Times reported parenthetically in a story Feb. 16, 1996, that the Center for Public was a "liberal-leaning Washington research group" without any attribution. The next day an editorial in the New York Times repeated this error.

Many other newspapers covered the same story in February 1996 and none of them made the same mistake. The Philadelphia Inquirer, which quoted the Center's founder, described us as "nonpartisan." http://articles.philly.com/1996-02-16/news/25655765_1_larry-pratt-insider-advisers-outsider

The Associated Press called us "independent." http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=19960215&id=CYokAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jNAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6574,1236884

On the same day, we were in many other original stories that described us as "nonpartisan," including stories in the Austin American Statesman, the Charlotte Observer, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Cox News Service, and the Globe and Mail. The CPI story sparking all the coverage won praise in the New Yorker.

The New York Times later ran a statement from the Center correcting its error: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/26/opinion/l-trade-protectionist-rhetoric-didn-t-start-with-bill-clinton-campaign-report-073598.html

The Los Angeles Times has done countless stories since referring to the Center for Public Integrity as a "nonpartisan" group. Among them was a story that ran a few days after the error: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-25/opinion/op-40029_1_presidential-candidates/2

As to the analysis that labeled us a "progressive think tank," it was wrong on two counts. We are nonpartisan. And we are not a think tank. Even that organization later changed our description to "centrist" http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/cost-effectiveness-2007-09.pdf. Ultimately, it took us out of its analysis all together.

I've raised this issue before and one editor -- who made several quality edits -- came up with a solution of keeping the errors but adding the correct information to offset them.

In our business, this is called refusing to correct an error. I would hope that others would look at this issue and do the right thing. It is unacceptable to defend errors in a Wikipedia article.Dh journalist (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Dusti (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Safehaven86

A staff member of CPI objects to this sentence being included in the article: "CPI has been characterized as "progressive" "nonpartisan," "independent," and a "liberal group." S/he says the descriptions of CPI as liberal or progressive (these descriptions come from references in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Huffington Post, among others) are factually inaccurate and should be removed because CPI describes itself as nonpartisan. I opined that under the guideline of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, that it would not be appropriate to remove reliable sources (major U.S. newspapers) because a staffer of the organization is saying "But I know the truth!" Thank you for stepping in here. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please add links for the NYT, LAT, and HP? Dusti^*poke* 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. NYT [4], LAT [5], HP [6]. I would also point out that what the other editor says is a "correction" by the NYT is actually a letter to the editor. Also unclear why the other editor, whom I've helped out substantially with this article while acting with civility and good faith, is now deciding to attack me for "creating favorable articles about people who have been the subject of articles written by CPI." (?) That's a bit ad hominem. Let's stick to the issue at hand, shall we? Safehaven86 (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Viewpoint by dh journalist

An editor who has created favorable articles about people who have been the subject of articles written by CPI is guarding and adding information that is demonstrably incorrect. The New York Times ran a correction. The Los Angeles Times has referred to CPI many times as nonpartisan but on one occasion in 1996 made an error in describing what was then a startup enterprise as a "liberal group." Two weeks later the LA Times described us as "nonpartisan" and has ever since. CPI must constantly tell sources and donors to ignore Wikipedia because it is wrong. The burden of proof is on whomever is adding a fact. There is no proof that we are anything other than what we say we are.Dh journalist (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please add a link to the correction from the NYT and any times that the LAT has referred to the CPI as Non-Partisan? Dusti^*poke* 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

First the correction:

The New York Times later ran a statement from the Center correcting its error: [7] Dh journalist (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a correction. The article is written by an individual FROM CPI. You may wish to read this to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. It being a letter to the editor is not a Retraction. Dusti^*poke* 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times had the option of not running the letter if it believed it to be untrue.Dh journalist (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times will also run other letters that complain about articles, conspiracy's, etc. and that doesn't mean that they believe it is true, nor does it mean that they believe it. As it stands, there hasn't been a retraction from the NYT. Dusti^*poke* 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you to step back and think about where the New York Times got its information? If the head of CPI says it's untrue in the New York Times, who is saying that it IS true?Dh journalist (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Links to other LA Times's references: [8] [9] [10] [11] {There are many more.}Dh journalist (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What you are showing me here are editorials where they are listed as nonpartisan. The actual dispute here lies in the fact that you, as an employee are disputing the fact that the center has been called something other than "nonpartisan" - correct? Dusti^*poke* 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

These are not all editorials. I believe only one is. The New York Times source is an editorial. I am saying that the original sources cited are errors.Dh journalist (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Editorials, articles, etc. All you have shown is that there is information about the Center that's been publicized. What I need from you is undeniable proof that there was a misprint in any of the label's that have been Retracted and stated as false. Just because one person calls Santa fake and ninety nine say he's real doesn't mean there are arguments he's real and/or fake. Do you see what I mean? You've got to step back and become a third party to this situation, like I am. Dusti^*poke* 01:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that we now have to ask the LA Times to correct an error from 17 years ago before Wikipedia will recognize that it is untrue? The fact that the original statement was unattributed and contradicts all other stories that the LA Times has said about CPI is not relevant? Wikipedia guidelines note that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors" and that decisions are made on a "case-by-case" method.Dh journalist (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is below in my decision. Dusti^*poke* 02:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by Dusti

Wikipedia is a website about truth, and fact. In maintaining truth (and fact) certain policies need to be implemented - and followed. The policies that relate to this issue are policies surrounding the truth, conflict of interest, civility, edit warring, and finally - the ownership of articles.

THe two editors currently editing this article are simply trying to make the article better, in their own eyes - and that's a beautiful thing. When editing, you need to keep in mind that you don't own this article. You're simply volunteering your knowledge and making sure others know what you know. You can't hide the truth, and you can't hide facts. Editing is a privilege - and trying to make a point about something through edit warring is not the way to do so. You need to step back and allow others to assist you, because again - it's not your article.

What I've found here is that while you may work for the Center Dh journalist, you can't dispute the fact that there is an article that places a label on the Center as being a liberal group. You cannot use your status to forcibly remove information from the article. You have a conflict of interest and that is stopping you from being able to accept this. You cannot edit war trying to win your way in an argument. That will most definitely get you blocked from editing removing your ability to add any information at all to the article.

The fact that there was a Letter to the editor does not mean there was a Retraction to their article calling the Center a liberal group. Labels do not define individuals, organizations, or businesses - their actions do. Dusti^*poke* 02:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

2007-Present

The section starts "In 2007, Rawls was succeeded by William Buzenberg...." Who is Rawls?