Wikipedia

Talk:Insight on the News/Archive 1

< Talk:Insight on the News
(Redirected from Talk:Insight (magazine)/Archive 1)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Matt Lewis in topic This article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice
Archive 1Archive 2

Importance of retaining NY Times references

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link to the NY Times article are essential, so that readers can see the truth beyond this story. And the links are to keep wikipedia with verifiable documentation, otherwise, reference-less articles are no better than Insight's sourceless accusations. Dogru144 13:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy into this article

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Copied from other article's talk page by HailFire 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm thinking that this page should be redirected to the page for Insight (magazine). The Insight page isn't really large enough to warrant a controversy page of its own, this is just one controversy, all of this information is already being updated on the Insight page, you have to go to the Insight page to even find this one, etc. I'm going to redirect it within a few days if nobody objects.Athene cunicularia 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I support your decision. I tried thinking of a way to standardize this article's format/content, and couldn't. I agree, this controversy can easily be covered within Insight Magazine's main article. To be honest, this controversy is the only reason Insight itself is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Italiavivi 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. --HailFire 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. -Silence 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Against - This controversy is much more about Fox News picking it up (and refusing complete corrections and retractions) than about the original report in Insight magazine. I don't expect the article to stand alone, but an article about attempted Obama smears might be a more likely home. Flatterworld 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are, however, descriptions of this incident both on the massive Fox News Channel controversies page, and on the Insight (magazine) page. I'm just not sure that this controversy is worthy of its own article, when it is already noted in detail on the other relevant pages. It seems that it'd be a lot easier to get the information if it was part of a larger article.Athene cunicularia 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Added merge discussion templates to both articles. --HailFire 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know! Why don't you suggest merging Plame affair into the Robert Novak article? It could certainly be contained within that, and after all it really doesn't rate it's own article.... Flatterworld 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the difference is that the "Plame affair" is much larger than the Insight Madrassa scandal. The Insight scandal doesn't involve perjury or grand jury trials, does it? My whole point is that this article is in 3 different places, and each is independently updated. The questions is, would you rather the information be removed from the Insight page, or would you rather the scandal page be merged with the Insight page?Athene cunicularia 14:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Plame scandal didn't start out as much of a 'scandal' either - the grand jury trial didn't start day one, now did it? (And if it hadn't been for Patrick Fitzgerald, it never would have.) If you prefer, we can use the Killian documents as an example of how to link a 'scandal' with a source (in that case, Dan Rather). You're ignoring my suggestion of merging this article into a general 'Obama smears' sort of article, which could include the incessant repetition of his middle name, claims he never sponsored any legislation, and so forth. imo we should have such articles for every candidate, so we don't clog up their main Presidential campaign pages. Meanwhile, why are you so determined to remove any linkage of it from Fox News, when that's the main issue? No one's read that Moonie online Insight magazine since it went out of print in 2004 - at least no one did until so many Fox News people insisted on quoting that one article so much. Do you really expect anyone to believe that all those Fox 'news' people were 'confused' that they were supposed to actually check out stories they presented as 'news'? If only one of them had made the 'mistake', I'd buy ignorance and/or incompetence as an excuse - but all of them? At the same time? I don't think so. And nothing but a mild memo as a rebuke? With no direction to immediately take down the story from their websites? Or at least post a full retraction on their websites? No suspensions? Murdoch isn't that terminally stupid (or forgiving), and neither is Roger Ailes. Flatterworld 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
An "Obama smears" article as you suggest is commonly called a "POV fork" amongst editors here. Italiavivi 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Flatterworld's argument is weak, and seems to be mostly based on a desire to over-emphasize the importance of this incidence in order to use it as an attack against FOX News. While I'm always up for criticizing FOX News (and for defending Obama) outside of Wikipedia, such POV advocacy is inappropriate for Wikipedia to promote in its own articles. Flatterworld argues that we should keep this article because it might become as important as the Plame affair; this is clearly a false analogy fallacy, as there is absolutely no reason to believe that this scandal will become remotely near to the Plame affair in importance. More importantly, however, it is a violation of WP:NOT for us to speculate that this might ever happen; until it does happen, Wikipedia policy is quite clear in stating that we should not have an article merely on the chance of this becoming a noteworthy stand-alone article. There is agreement that the contents of this article would be better-placed in other articles: Insight (magazine), Fox News Channel controversies, and Barack Obama. There is also agreement that it does not merit its own article, which is a stub with very limited potential for growth. This merits its own Wikinews page, but not its own Wikipedia page. So, on the basis that this topic does not merit its own article in isolation, and that a page for "Obama smears" is an unacceptable and unambiguous violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the merge proposal seems to be a clear "go". -Silence 14:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Wholeheartedly agree. Italiavivi 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I always forget that Americans don't do irony. ;-) As to the point of "a page for "Obama smears" is an unacceptable and unambiguous violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" - not true. The neutral point of view refers to how material is presented, not a requirement to censor such material altogether. Please reread the relevant sections in the Killian documents and Dan Rather articles I pointed out earlier. I would now add The 1/2 Hour News Hour. Flatterworld 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Another similar example: John Kerry military service controversy.Flatterworld 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Update on merge

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because the "media controversy" article had basically become an identical representation of the same section on the Insight page, I have gone ahead with the merge/redirect. The information regarding the controversy can be more easily found on this page anyway. Athene cunicularia 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge Barack Obama Muslim rumor into Insight (magazine)?

Latest comment: 17 years ago24 comments15 people in discussion
  • Oppose - As the other article (which I started) says, the rumor dates back to 2004. Insight magazine is mentioned but that is only one part of the story. Redddogg (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Redddogg, the common theme is Obama, not Insight. And his article is long enough to justify keeping this a sub-article. Andyvphil (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is purely a housekeeping/maintenance merge request on my part based on the previous consensus established here. I have no interest in the outcome of this merge request, although one could argue that the latest incarnation, Barack Obama Muslim rumor, is a fork of the older merge. I made the merge request based on the following article history which includes past article creations, discussions, proposals, merges, redirects, and deletions:
  1. Obama madrassa media scandal: Article first created on 07:48, 31 January 2007 by User:Fairness And Accuracy For All [1]
  2. Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy: Moved to new article title on 15:06, 5 February 2007 by User:HailFire [2]
    1. Merge request officially proposed on 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC) by User:Athene cunicularia [3]
    2. Merge request to Insight Magazine made 12:36, 9 February 2007 by User:HailFire [4]
    3. Proposal copied to Talk:Insight (magazine) by User:HailFire at 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC). Discussion leading to consensus takes place from 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC) - 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
    4. Merge request removed 17:41, 26 March 2007 by User:Steve Dufour (see reason in edit summary) [5]
    5. Article redirected to Insight magazine at 17:08, 6 July 2007 by User:Athene cunicularia [6][7]
    6. Old talk page (Talk:Insight magazine "madrassa" media controversy) was deleted at 3:38, 28 September 2007 by User:DerHexer as "unnecessary redirect" [8]
  3. Barack Obama Muslim rumor created 06:26, 21 November 2007 User:Redddogg [9]

—Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - Duplicates text and sources already included here and here. The argument against merger seems to hinge on the view that Andy Martin's remarks from 2004 are notable and should not be merged because they predate the Insight article. Why not? If reliable sources point to Martin as having launched the false rumor later popularized by Insight, and this detail is deemed notable, then it merits the current inclusion at Insight (magazine)#Barack Obama. --HailFire (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no RS showing any actual connection between rumors that Obama is or was a Muslim, dating back at least to 2004, and the Insight report. It does not require such a fertile imagination that it could not have originated independently many times. Andyvphil (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete for now The article Barack Obama Muslim rumor seems to be mainly a news item. I don't think WP should have articles on every rumor there is. How about the "Hillary Clinton lesbian rumor", or the "George H. W. Bush adultery rumor", or the "John Travolta gay rumor", or even the "Queen Elizabeth II alien lizard from outer space rumor"? If it turns out that Senator Obama doesn't get the nomination and reliable sources say the rumor was partly to blame, then it should be mentioned in his article and the articles on the campaign. As for the Insight article, about half of it is taken up by this one incident now. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The story is big already. One story I read said that "Obama Muslim" is one of the top searches on Google. Are people looking for the truth about the rumors going to look for the article on Insight Magazine? Redddogg (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's mentioned in one sentence on that article. Redddogg (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed. It is two sentences (plus one about negative campaigning generally) actually. I think all the substance from Obama madrassa media scandal could be added into those sentences to make a separate not too long paragraph in Barack Obama, and anything specifically about the quality of Insight's reporting and later handling can go here with along with a summary of the incident (which already seems to exist).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"Fork" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, i.e. as part of "POV fork". Which this is not, since the treatment of the material does not differ in point of view, but is merely more extensive than would be desirable in its parent article(s). There is no basis in policy for shoehorning this material into other articles where its development will be constrained by considerations of undue weight and relative importance so long as the subject is "notable", i.e. the subject of coverage in multiple "reliable sources". Which it is. Andyvphil (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I still have a problem with an article on any rumor. Almost any public person is going to be the subject of some rumor or other. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
But all rumors are not WP:N. And it's not like we don't say it's false. Andyvphil (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion topic moved to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor. --HailFire (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Publishtruth and Jkuhner

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

At the Jeffrey T. Kuhner article, a user named Jkuhner edited the page. Shortly after this user was notifited about WP:Auto, a new user named User:Publishtruth joined and began to make similar edits. I have asked this editor to stop making edits until we can build a consensus on the articles. The editor is not making an effort to follow Wikipedia editing standards, and is merely adding information or making changes without regard to standards. Maybe it's time we should temporarily disable editing on this article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article posted on Insight on the News is a mess. There is no clear distinction between the past employees of the previous print publication and the current web magazine. There is no clear distinction between the past controversies related to the print publication and those related to the web version of Insight (Obama). The article is tilted in the direction of trying to smear Insight on the News and destroying its credibility. The same is true of much of the manner in which information is discussed in the bio of Jeffrey T. Kuhner. Why are you putting more emphasis on information from the New York Times than on information from other sources which bolsters both Mr. Kuhner and Insight on the News?

This message is from username publishtruth, December 7th, 2007 ( I don't know where the four tildes are) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publishtruth (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to add information to this article, it can't be self-researched. You need to provide cited sources that easily lead editors to verifiable facts. Please make proposed changes here in the Talk section.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editors: I wish to apologize for the misunderstanding earlier. Both publishtruth and jkuhner were first-time users and did not know how Wikipedia works. We will respect the process and did not mean to disrupt the site; we thought we just had to keep loading the information until it got through. We will provide verifiable links in the next while to a great deal of information your readers need in order to form their own judgements on these vital matters. However, we will be on our guard to prevent the text from giving credence to many of the smears and distortions which have been propagated by both the liberal press and supporters of Hillary due to a blockbuster story which we produced which unveiled her use of investigative reporters in an attempt to dig up dirt on Obama and derail his campaign. We will not tolerate a biased representation of either Mr. Kuhner's name (he has an outstanding reputation) nor of Insight whose reporting has NOT been disproven. In fact, the debate has now reemerged with the piece published in the front page of the Washington Post this week which has caused an uproar among its editors (see Politico.com) because again the reporting on Obama appears to be driven not by facts but by a political agenda. I assure you Insight will be vindicated. And I repeat, we will be respectful of the process but are not going to accept being undermined if you persist in presenting information which attempts to smear us but does not give equal weight to our side of this vital story. What is at stake here are the very standards with which the press does its job and both CNN and The New York Times chose to cover up for Hillary rather than expose the truth. So just give us a fair representation and don't tilt the information in favor of the attacks against us. If you are even-handed, we are confident your readers will get the full story and will realize how right we are. Best wishes, publishtruth Dec. 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publishtruth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just be cautious with your editing. It is now not only clear that your organization supports a specific, non-neutral point of view, but also that your organization intends to change the tone of these articles to support your non-neutral point of view. If you wish to make changes, please bear in mind that there are several people who actively monitor these articles, and that the content is judged by consensus, not your definition of "reputation" or "vindication. If you continue to make disruptive edits, your organization could be banned from editing Wikipedia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First, read WP:AUTO. Second, get over any confidence you have that our readers will, if they get the "full story" realize how right you are. People's opinions aren't that malleable and about half the readers will want to edit the article to say you lied about Obama no matter what information you give them. Third, probably nothing much is going to happen fast. You are not allowed to edit this article and no one else has turned up who is strongly motivated to put a lot of work into it. So... pick one thing that you think is egregiously wrong and that won't take a lot of effort to fix and tell me, and maybe I'll fix it. Or maybe I'll tell you that's a bad choice (and why) and ask you to tell me another. Let the process work and maybe you'll get a feel for it, ok? Andyvphil (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated Jeffrey T. Kuhner for deletion as non-notable. Hopefully that will take care of some of their objections. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I also made some changes to this article. Before some of it was cut and pasted from the NYT story, with possible copyright issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The belief that you have to keep loading the information until it got through is a common mistake. Even a Wikipedia old-timer like me has fallen prey to the lure of "keep on slamming it in". Please learn from my mistake and "build consensus" instead. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Help Requested: Insight Needs to be Updated

I made more suggestions recently but what I wrote doesn't appear anywhere so I will try again:

1) Print controversies should be placed beneath web controversies since they have nothing to do with the current Insight (invert order)

2)Spat over how much Insight pays or doesn't pay per article is completely irrelevant and should be omitted. Mr. Kirkpatrick got his facts wrong.

3) The section on Obama needs to be updated:

  • article in washington post on Obama rumors
  • dissension among Washington Post editors chronicled in Politico. com
  • Ombudswoman for Post makes a statement to correct blunders
  • Insight issues statement setting record straight (current Washington Watch: Our Focus was Hillary, Not Obama)) and asking for a correction from Washington Post, CNN and New York Times
  • Mr. Kuhner published article on subject in New York Sun, Wednesday Dec. 13 with all of these latest facts on the Obama controversy: "The Fifth Estate"

Since we are barred from making edits, we need help to ensure there is an update.

Best wishes, Publishtruth (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) publish truth December 13

Conversation moved from talk:Publishtruth

Dear Editors:

There are improvements in the manner in which Insight is being presented. I have an objection to "Employees" and the listing of David Brock. Mr. Brock has nothing to do with the current web version of Insight. Why is he given such prominence? Just list Mr. Brock somewhere in the print magazine controversy section. To give an old employee of a magazine such importance appears like you are trying to tarnish the current activities of Insight with the actions of this man. We don't know Mr. Brock, have never met him and don't want any association with him. His record has nothing to do with Insight since it was revived in 2005. "Employees" is not at all an accurate or objective category and it makes no sense that this appears as the top category after Insight is introduced.

What is the relevance of including a discussion on how much money Insight does or does not pay per article? Mr. Kirkpatrick's article on Insight was full of errors. there is no proof--or even any value in this debate. I suggest you eliminate that--it is nonsensical. Would you include a false statement made about any other magazine or publication just because someone makes it?

Also, why are all the controversies related to the print Insight listed before the controversies related to Obama and the web version? The categories should be inverted: the current controversy should be placed first because they relate to the; the previous controversies should come second (if readers want to go back that far)

Also, why do you have two sections on "controversies" but have not created any section for the accomplishments of Insight. To highlight the controversies without also including all the accomplishments--all the stories Insight broke which were confirmed by the rest of the press--also appears like a lop-sided description of the magazine. Publishtruth (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)publishtruth

It's up to you to make the article better. However, your first several efforts were clear attempts to bias the article in your favor, as opposed to improvement, and you even said as much in your apology statement: "liberal press," "Insight will be vindicated," etc. You have also indicated that you either are or you work for Insight magazine, so your edits are more likely to be scrutinized. Wikipedia operates on citations of reputable sources. If you can provide these things to support your claims, your edits will be constructive. If you are only going to manipulate the content without any kind of factual support, then your edits will not be accepted--by right-leaning, left-leaning, and neutral editors. Try making some suggestions (with citations) on the talk page for the Insight article. If you are careful with your edits, and you respect the process as you said that you would, there won't be any problems. Just remember that editing Wikipedia is not the same as writing an op-ed for a political opinion website.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's not up to Publishtruth to make the article better. In large part he is forbidden to do so by the COI rules. He can provide information and suggestions, but he also needs to find some disinterested party who's interested in doing the work of adding the information and considering the suggestions. Hmm... WP:RFC is wrong. That's for disputes. What Publishtruth wants is volunteer help. Any suggestions?
Anyway, the first thing Publishtruth needs to understand is that there is no real answer to his repeated question, "why?". I can tell you that the reason there are two sections on controversies is that there used to be one, but I split it in two because Jkuhner or Publishtruth complained that we were conflating the two incarnations, and it was an easy improvement. But there's no section on accomplishments because no one has been interested enough to find any and add them. Got no bosses here to detail flunkies to get things accomplished. If you want to see how it works, go to the "History" tab. Andyvphil (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
...oh, here's an example of what you can do under WP:AUTO: [10]. Andyvphil (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarifications. Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not hide anything

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Steve, if you think you are "helping the cause", you are not. The church does not shy away from controversy but welcomes the attention that media exposure provides. And Wikipedia - rhymes with media - provides exposure.

Insight (along with World&I and Washington Times) was founded by Unification Church members. I believe it is part of a media corporation owned by the Unification Church; see News World Communications. It serves no one here and no on in the church to conceal this relationship.

Now, don't take this too hard. I know that church members sometimes disagree with each other, just as Wikipedians do. But I've been a Wikipedian for 6 years, and I have a reputation for fair play that a little thing like probation has not quite erased from the memories of old-timers, anyway.

If they want to write an article on the current editor of Insight why not let them? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW Ed, I did start the article on Tom McDevitt. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Still, by the strict rules of WP editing, Mr. Kuhner is not notable. I would be surprised if 100 people around the country would recognize his name. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Household name" and "notable" are not necessarily synonyms.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If the New York Times had not interviewed him there would be no sources at all for his bio. I didn't notice that any of the other news stories about the Insight/Obama affair bothered to mention his name. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going to try to improve the article.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I withdrew the nomination for deletion on Kuhner's article. Maybe the information from the Croation article linked there could be added to this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Coverage of Obama & Hillary

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I glanced briefly at the first ref, which said:

  • An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia.

This would seem to make Insight endorse the "discovery" that Obama's stepfather raised him an a Muslim. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the Obama campaign said:

  • Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian ... [11]

So it looks like Insight either

  1. Got the story wrong (they thought they had a scoop about a "stealth Muslim" candidate; or,
  2. Worded the story poorly (they meant to say that Hillary's campaign was spreading this dirt)

Either way, I think they blundered (if my sketchy research is any good). Did they ever print a clarification or retraction? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] There's a third possibility, which is that the Obama statement you quote is at least as misleading as Insight 's. Did you see the Baltimore Sun 's comment about their revision of it to "Obama has never been a practicing Muslim."? [12] And all the articles reporting that his stepfather took him to Friday prayers at the mosque? (Even Barker's tendentious "debunking" admits that.) I don't see anything in the Insight article to indicate they thought Obams is a Muslim, but I'm having a hard time understanding the denial that his stepfather was raising him as one, albeit maybe not very assiduously. Andyvphil (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Kuhner wrote a couple of later editorials in which he tried to make it clear that the purpose of the original article was to expose what Clinton's people were doing, not to spread rumors against Obama. For one thing he seems to have an almost irrational dislike of Senator Clinton, which is beyond politics -- Obama is more liberal after all. For another he should have waited to get a response from Obama before running the first story. He said he called them but they didn't return the calls. So I agree with the critics that it was bad reporting. If there was really an "informant" from the Clinton camp or not is another question. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote from July which makes a point of saying the Senator Obama is a Christian:
  • Indeed, Barack Obama has exceptional qualities and deserves kudos for his achievement. He is genteel, articulate, poised and charming. He is a Harvard-educated lawyer, yet he remains accessible to the common man. He has been married since 1992, has two lovely daughters and is by all accounts a devoted family man. He is a pious Christian and a member of the United Church of Christ. He has virtually sky-rocketed into the national spotlight—winning a landslide victory in his Senate race in 2004; he became the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only current African American Senator. His fame has been enhanced by the publication of two-bestsellers, Dreams from My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). He now trails only behind Hillary in his bid to secure the nomination of his party. And he has done all of this even before he celebrates his forty-sixth birthday later this summer. [13]
Steve Dufour (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Mr. Kuhner wasn't endorsing the Islam rumor about Obama, then it looks like he was trying to pin it on the Clinton campaign (but bungling the attribution rather badly). All the more reason to consider him "notable". When a magazine editor (1) makes a mistake and "stands by his story" even when everyone else "proves him wrong", it kind of makes that editor stand out. Even if it's only "15 minutes of fame". Or if the editor (2) tries to cause trouble by accusing a major politician's campaign staff of negative campaigning, but fails to make his csae.

I'm sorry that Kuhner is an embarassment, but I stopped reading Insight years ago. Its quality of reporting dropped when its management changed (according to "church sources") and I've paid it no attention since then. I personally regard it as a rogue operation, but as this is an enyclopedia and not a blog my opinions don't count. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the arguement that the church should get out of the media business altogether, maybe selling the Times to Rush Limbaugh. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, heh, doesn't seem likely any time soon. But unloading Insight might be a good idea - or perhaps hiring me to manage it? I've had 6 years experience with anonymous writers here ... --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Katie Couric paragraphs

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There seems to be a lot of detail in this section. Maybe it could be replaced with one sentence saying that she denounced Insight's story. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Couric's blog entry is relevant mostly because it's a case of a prominent news media personality who reacted publicly to the Insight article. However, attempts to analyze or compare her statements to the article itself need reliable sources making such a comparison or argument, otherwise it qualifies as original synthesis of published material.
[Edited to add that] I further find that the last two quotes in that section, of Insight defending its Hillary/Obama story in July and December 2007, are rather superfluous. The preceding quote, from February 2007, is sufficient to recount that Insight says the article was about Democratic Party rivalry instead of Obama's background. There's no need to repeat the attacks on Clinton and the "liberal media" (which Kuhner already named in his January response to The New York TImes). - Tobogganoggin talk 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead, I hope not too boldly, and took out the section on Ms Couric and the one about Fox. This article is about Insight, not them. There is a whole other article, linked at the top of this section, that focuses on media coverage of Obama rumors. I also took out the extra 2 quotes of Insight defending itself, as you suggested, leaving only 1. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Iraq invasion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deleted from intro:

Insight was founded in the 1980s as a conservative print magazine called Insight on the News. It was noted for its reports about alleged scandals in the Bill Clinton administration and for its support of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I deleted the struck out portion of the sentence above, because I couldn't find support for it in the NY Times article referenced. Possibly they DID support tho invasion. If so, a quote from the NY Times (or better yet, Insight itself) would demonstrate this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I don't see how David Brock leaving is a "controversy". Where are the two sides?

The story about the "non-military" burial also shows only one side, i.e., the government moved the remains out after a report by Insight. Again, where are the two sides? Is there anyone who says Clinton was right in what he did? Or who says Insight coverage was inaccurate?

I would say only the "pin dirt on Hillary" thing (i.e., Obama raised Muslim) is an authentic controversy. The two sides are the Democrats, who all deny the story; and Insight, which still stands by its story in some way.

I intend to move the first two paragraphs out of this section, and also to rename "controversies" to something like "Obama controversy". (could use a little help on the wording here :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I put the Paula Jones thing back. The problem is that the only time Insight gets mentioned by the mainstream is when it gets something wrong or stirs up a "controversy". I would not object if you went ahead and took out the word "controversy" and replaced it with "notable events" or "notable stories" etc. Redddogg (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, leaving 'Barrack Obama' as a heading can't be right. I've tried "Unsourced report of alleged Hillary Clinton plan to attack Obama". I thought of adding '(on since disproven grounds)' but it's long and complicated enough! It's about Insight first and foremost as the story remains notoriously unsourced (and it's the Insight page) - and then it's about Clinton - the alleged attack plan for Obama - and then it's about the fact that the basis for the alleged attack has been disproven. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Good points. You might take out "alleged" since "unsourced" kind of gives the reader the same info. Redddogg (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "alleged Hillary Clinton plan to attack Obama". This lets the reader decide for himself whether Insight had any sort of source for the alleged plan. This has a bearing on the type of magazine which has succeeded the print version. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me...you want to use Wikipedia to parrot the unfounded, unsourced and discredited Insight story for the purpose of leaving Wikipedia's readers to "decide" whether Insight "had a source"? Kuhner may not need to WP:PROVEIT, but Wikipedia does. This encyclopedia DOES exist for them (our readers) and not for us...and oh-by-the-way, WP:BLP applies to this article too. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
At the moment the heading reads Insight identified as source of "anonymous smears" - but it's totally unspecific, and being so, kind of makes it look they it's an unusual event for Insight (and whether it is or it isn't, that's a POV impression). I'll try appending "surrounding Obama" to it. It's the type of heading that requires some kind of focus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Matt, the point is that it is absolutely not "unusual" for Insight, see my post below for proof via WP:GOOGLEriverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks very long now. Surely the older headings were better? Such as Unsourced allegations against 2008 Presidential candidates, or one of the varients such as Allegations against Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, see below...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton and Obama

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Perhaps we should rewrite the section on the Clinton campaign's approach to Senator Obama.

Kuhner wrote:

  • What we did claim—and stand behind 100 percent—is that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted an investigation into Obama's Muslim background, and they had concluded he had been raised and educated as a Muslim. In fact, our sources close to the Hillary camp confirmed that the investigators were planning to leak this information to their media allies later this fall—just before the '08 primary campaign. Moreover, our sources also confirmed that the Hillary camp was going to make the issue not so much Obama's Muslim background, but the fact that he had concealed or downplayed it. [14]

I would recast the section as follows:

  • Insight claims Clinton campaign was investigating Obama's background.
  • It claims they were planning a sort of October Surprise (?) in which they would hurt Obama's election chances by accusing him of hiding his "Muslim background"
  1. (Obviously playing on fears of Christians about "Muslims, foreigners and people of color".)

The question is whether Hillary would ever stoop so low. Let's not try to answer that!

What remains is the chronology of events.

  1. Kuhner publishes his article online.
  2. The "Madrassa" is proclaimed secular or multi-religious.
  3. Obama clarifies his religious background
  4. Clinton camp denies any scurrilous plans.

An interesting point of speculation is whether Kuhner helped or hurt the Democrats by publishing his report. If it helped Obama, by preventing Hillary from attacking him? (But this speculation is probably beyond the scope of the article.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is what it is, a "double smear splatter", "black propaganda" "hit job" on both candidates.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable opinion. Now all you need is a source, and you can turn your personal speculation into a well-referenced point. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Was the MediaWeek source sufficient? C'mon Ed...do you really think of me as someone who would make such a "personal speculation" if I didn't have a reliablesource? Please don't get me going by implying such things, when you get WP:personal and WP:impugn my character, it's not WP:nice, ok?
FYI, I'm farming this source now, just not sure which article to put it in yet as I haven't cross-checked the references to Rev. Moon yet. Man, I love Google Scholar!!! riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why you say I'm in Puning. That's one part of China I've never visited. I do all my Wikipedia contributions right here in that great Democratic bastion, New York. Next month, however, I'm planning an excursion to Nice; shall I bring you back some French bread? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed...sorry if I misunderestimated you, and thanks for the chuckle...I needed that, and I appreciate the offer of bread. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Triple smear

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
  • Soon after, Mediaweek described the report as a "double smear", and reported "The lies, amplified not only by Fox but by Headline News' Glenn Beck, originated with a Web site blandly called Insight. Allegedly owned by the Moonies, the Web site purportedly was once part of the ostensibly right-wing Washington Times which is reportedly also owned by (some say—though off the record—and only in the sense of "proprietorship") the Moonies." -- Mediaweek reports "Double smear" by Insight [15]

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Insight_(magazine)&diff=prev&oldid=188167147

Why use words like allegedly, purportedly, and reportedly to describe the relationship of the web site to the Unification Movement? Can there be any question in anyone's mind about whether the movement owned the monthly World&I magazine, the weekly Insight (magazine), and the daily Washington Times newspaper?

Is someone trying to smear Rev. Moon indirectly, by portraying the media he founded as so obscure that even MediaWeek can't keep track of their ownership? Sheesh. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pen is mightier than the sword. Live by the pen, die by the pen???? But yeah, I caught that...given the business that MediaWeek is in, I chalk it up to their lawyers suggesting an extremely conservative approach... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The quote leaves off the final sentence of the paragraph: "Media Person is taking no chances with his accuracy." And if you want to get an idea of the tone of this opinion column consider this earlier paragraph:

Didja hear? Obama went to one of them mattress schools where the Muslimofascists turn kids into terrorists! Yeah, he was in Indochina then. And guess what his middle name is? Hussein! Same as Saddam. No, really, Hillary's dirt-diggers dug it up to use against him. The bitch.

Wndl42 wants to use this column as the basis for asserting that MediaWeek is a RS for the "fact" that the Insight report was a "double splatter smear". No, this column is a RS for the fact that Lewis Grossberger adopted the Clinton campaign talking point[16] as his own, a fact hardly remarkable enough to merit mention. It's not as if Grossberger claims to have done any digging. And if you look at this link to the same article you will note that it is clearly labeled "Opinion". Andyvphil (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
...your argument "Insight identified as source of "anonymous smears" - same article, different url. note heading "columns/opinions". Grossberger doesn't claim to have done any reporting" is purely not relevant...the point is that MediaWeek is a WP:RS for commentary on MEDIA, and if they picked up Grossberger's "opinion" and decided to publish it as a "commentary" on Insight, it's still MediaWeek publishing Grossberg and MediaWeek is a reliable source for the subject of the article, which is a MEDIA organization, ok? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (preceding copied from my talk page)Andyvphil (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the job of a responsible journalist is made extremely difficult by Rev. Moon, given an almost incomprehensible ownership and complex subsidization chain (that sucks $300 million/year out of Unification Movement), I wonder why it's not just called "Unification News World"??? UNW is a catchy name, no? By the way, in contexts like this, does headquarters prefer "Unification Church", "Unification Movement" or some other variant...what is the preferred name for entity that owns News World Communications? Or is it just that the stockholders all belong to the Church? I share the journalists frustration..., can you blame the writer for treading gingerly? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever tried Google? Here is the result of nearly 30 seconds of searching:
  • News World Communications is a newspaper publishing company owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. The company publishes "The Washington Times," which reaches more than 100,000 readers in the Washington, DC, area. It also produces the news magazine Insight Magazine, as well as international publications "The Middle East Times" (Cairo) and "Tiempos del Mundo" (weekly Spanish-language newspaper distributed in Latin America and the US). In 2000 the company added struggling news service United Press International to its portfolio. [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Touche Ed, you made your point better than I made mine. The MediaWeek author has no legitimate journalistic excuse for using that kind of characterization, he clearly did it to make a point. Columbia Journalism review says it straight up, "News World Communications is the media arm of Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.", that characterization has been there for at least two years before you personally took the lead in creating the clear article above, to your credit. My characterization of "obfucsation of ownership" on the part of Rev. Moon is unwarranted. Thank you for pointing this out.

MediaWeek article a "smear" of Moon?

But was the MediaWeek piece a "smear" of Rev. Moon? If I got a little testy above it was perhaps for the same reason the MediaWeek guy was. In responding to well warranted allegations that Kuhner perpetrated yet another politically biased, factually incorrect and irresponsibly published "double splatter smear", Kuhner's response to NYT is to cry "foul", "It is a form of religious bigotry that tries to smear our credibility by implying that we are owned by religious zealots." Credibility? What credibility??? You gotta have some credibility before claiming "smear". And why did Kuhner use the word "implying" to refer to a statement of fact? And Kuhner's whining about "religious bigotry" in the context of his own religious bigotry as he smeared Obama...well, whoever said "hypocracy is the only unforgiveable sin" could have been describing behavior like this. Now...wrt "zealots", from a journalist's perspective, certainly the UC's flushing $300million per year into subsidizing politically and ideologically driven media (including garbage like Insight) is pretty "zealous", so if NYT characterized Unificationists as "zealots" (as Kuhner claims), and if NYT they implied by association that Kuhner is the journalistic equivalent of a religious zealot then this is (especially in the context of this story and Insight's long history) totally fair criticism. As I've commented before in private space, I allow room for the interpretation that Rev. Moon is benevolent at heart...but if that's true then where is HIS (or NWC's, or the UC's) criticism of Kuhner, and why does this clown still have a job? The questions of critics...is this the UC's idea of "heavenly deception" as "advocacy journalism" are fair. Couldn't Kuhner get with the Board of News World, show them his sources and say "I've shown my sources to x, x has made a statement, I still have my job and that's all I need to say". Where is Preston Moon? The Unification Church's silence is deafening, even Fox News came out against Kuhner's story!! My issue, and the real question that is "obfuscated" by the Unification Church is; Where does the "buck" stop at News World? There is not a single instance I can find of anyone on the board of News World Communications ever returning a a phone call on this topic, please correct me if I'm wrong, but for a story this big, when Fox News Sr. Execs will comment publically, NWS silence is just too wierd, and if it fuels well founded speculation...well, that's the Church's big problem...would you agree?
As for Kuhner's weasle-whiney excuse..."we weren't guilty of implying that X was a madrassa trained muslim and closet islamofacist, we were just reporting that the EVIL Y was plotting to say that about X.", wow...I struggle for a wiki-appropriate word for Kuhner's "explanation", even in the context of WP:SPADE.
Last point. Another media "owner" abuse of power for comparison. Once upon a time, Walter Annenberg was so frustrated with Gov. Milton Shapp for opposing a profitable (to Annenberg) railroad merger, that Annenberg had one of his employees plant a question in a press conference..."Have you ever been in a mental institution?". The stunned but unflappable target Milton Shapp replied simply "no" to Annenberg's filthy lying implication by proxy of one of Annenberg's employees. Next day, Annenberg's paper ran the front page headline and five column story "Shapp Denies Ever having been in a Mental Home", destroying Shapp's political career. Milton Shapp was, by almost any standard, an american hero, and whatever minor human flaws he may have had don't erase that. Later in life, Annenberg became disgusted with his behavior, or perhaps began thinking about his legacy. He founded the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Annenberg's legacy now also includes the Annenberg Foundation and (one of my favorites) "Annenberg Political Fact Check". Annenberg's legacy now speaks volumes, in stark contrast to the filth he once practiced. Insight's tactics are the modern internet-equivalent of Annenberg's, but Insight has been doing it for 25 years, according to very reliable sources. What will Moon do on behalf of his (and his Church's) legacy?
Anyway, I am working from this perspective on expanding the article. Looking for comments from others on how to portray criticism of Insight. Specifically, I am concerned about WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism, but from what I can see, reliably sourced criticism is all over the place and I am seeing very little in the way of praise for Insight or Kuhner. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I showed my edits to the Insight article to a church official, and he had no objection. I refer to the part where I described Insight's "she said he said" as unfounded. I stand by my characterization, and I think you agree with me.

By the way, if NYT were ever to characterize me as "zealous", please let me know. I haven't had a really good pat on the back in over two months. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed, case in point...(deleting my only-partially-sensible-but-mostly-unnessecary comment) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we need a "criticism" section here?

Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments2 people in discussion

Bordering on an edit war over the language used by journalists to describe Insight's tactics...

Let's discuss, OK? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit:[18]. You disimproved the cite, changing from a version which clearly identified Media Person as editorial content to one which did not, for no other evident purpose except to warn me I was approaching 3RR, which is pretty rich as you thereby violated approximately 5RR...
Have to start counting reverts with the first revert, and then apply the "count" from the beginning. If you'd like, I could take the time to comb through your 16 edits in 90 minutes, publish the revert count beginning with your first revert, point out the fact that you didn't make a single comment on the talk page, nor did you seem to be even aware of the discussions here. I mentioned 3rr twice, once to gently direct you to the talk page (thanks for joining us) as after I began restoring your first round, and a second time after you began reverting my content restorations. Now that we're all here, let's talk. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You're not up on 3RR policy, either. Consecutive edits by one editor count as one edit/one revert. Keep that in mind, go back 24 hours from the edit I specified, and start with your first block of edits that restored previous text. You violated 3RR by a bunch and someone less tolerant than I (or maybe even I, depending on whether you prove educable) is going to use it as a club if you keep it up. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (Dude, an edit is not a "revert", an edit doesn't revert anything. Read 3rr, specifically..."An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." I tagged you for it because you weren't discussing my edits here before you reverted them.) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude, don't consult a general dictionary to find out the meaning of jargon. The relevant sentence in 3RR#What_is_a_revert? is "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." Which is not well written, but is well established to mean exactly what I told you. For the purpose of 3RR my "16 edits in 90 minutes" count as one revert. Got it? Now, "go back 24 hours from the edit I specified, and start with your first block of edits that restored previous text..." Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Re this edit:[19]. You are replacing an NPOV description of Insight 's article ("Allegations against 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign") with an unattributed POV characterization ("Insight identified as source of 'anonymous smears'") on the grounds that the former "propagate[s] the Insight smear", which is nonsense. The former doesn't endorse the allegations, the latter does adopt a partisan interpretation of the facts.
  • (Stuffing Google's search indices with Wikipedia articles headings containing "foo's plan to attack fee" does, in fact, propagate. Wikipedia's policies (including BLP "do no harm") make this quite clear, and again...this article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I am undoing your revert, which has the effect of using the article's heading structure get the words "Hillary Clinton's campaign" into the act, as a means of "headlining" the discredited Insight allegations. Not withstanding your passion for highlighting the charges against Clinton, This article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice, it's NOT about "foo's presitential campaign". I have made this point in my edit summaries several times now. Please don't use the article on Insight as a soap box for airing your riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The facts are that the Insight piece was widely reported by reliable sources to be an "anonymous smear", in the context of a long history of such behavior. Try a google search on your choice of keywords and "smear" -- it's not NPOV to characterize Insight as the overwhelming majority of reliable journalistic commentator's do, in fact to use a weaker word would be NPOV. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk)
Claims of consensus must be attributed, and a citation in a header is a MOS violation, as the header you insist on is on other grounds. (All the newly itialicized quotes are also a MOS violation, btw.) Your assertion that my insistance -- that the header not be a POV attack on Insight (but instead suggest it accurately and neutrally describe what Insight wrote) -- has some partisan motive is an AGF violation, as well as being wrong. (I do in fact believe that it is probable that some Clinton flunky was tasked with doing opposition research on Obama and self-importantly gossiped to some "reporter" - maybe Kuhner himself - and Kuhner rushed the half-baked buzz into print, where it sucessfully produced a lot of buzz for Insight. Kuhner has no reason to "burn" his source, obviously, but I don't see any reason to think he lied.) Andyvphil (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (a) I just checked the MOS on section headings. Unless I missed something, the MOS says nothing to contradict a heading using the phrase "anonymous smears". If you caught something in the Manual of Style that I missed, please direct us to it. (b) Let's get the article right and then we can work on style points. Right now the discussion is about content and basic structure. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Re this edit:[20] The verb "reported" is an inappropriate characterization of "Media Person"'s statement of opinion. The NY Times is at least as much a RS as AdWeek, but even though they published Nicholas Kristoff today calling Pat Robertson a "self-rightious zealot"[21] you cannot write that "The NT Times reported that Pat Robertson is a self-righteous zealot." The NY Times is not a RS for that statement. Your assertion that it is "purely not relevant" that the Media Person column is identified a "columns/opinions" and that Grossberger doesn't claim to have done any reporting is absolute nonsense. An outlet that is generally considered a reliable source because it has a responsible fact checking process is nonetheless not a reliable source for statements that are not subject to that process. Grossberger may believe that Kuhner lied in order to construct a "double spatter smear" but barring a documentary discovery that has not taken place neither he nor anyone else is in a position to fact check that belief. There is therefor no RS, anywhere, for that assertion (except Kuhner, should he confess). Andyvphil (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Insight. Insight is not a "living person", this is not a BLP, so your comparison to Pat Robertson is irrelevant here. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You are utterly missing the point. I'm not making a BLP argument. I am attempting to educate you about what "reliable source" means. Try. Reading. It. Again. Andyvphil (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(a) I didn't "use a BLP as an example". Reporting "Nicholas Kristoff today called Pat Robertson a 'self-rightious zealot'" isn't necessarily a BLP vio and "The NT Times reported that Pat Robertson is a self-righteous zealot" wouldn't be any more so if it wasn't first a non sequitur.
(b) As I've already pointed out, CNN's fact-checking department is no position to "check" an assertion that Kuhner "lied". Again, CNN is therefor not a WP:RS for that assertion. Andyvphil (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
WRT your concern over "The verb 'reported' is an inappropriate characterization", lets see if "characterized" looks better in context. If so, I'll go for that, but FYI, MediaWeek and Columbia Journalism Review are non-partisan sources. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your authority for the assertion that Grossberger is "non-partisan" in his "opinion" pieces? Andyvphil (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My assertion was/is that Mediaweek is nonpartisan. But since you mention it, allow me to oblige you with the evidence on Lewis Grossberger. Per WP:Google, a search of the Google News Archive (note, not a "web" search) yields the following 89 hits from the Google News archives, demonstrating that (a) Grossberger's publication history since the 1970's makes him an expert on Media, and (b) shows clearly that not a single article he's written can be characterized as "partisan" based on the summaries provided by the Google News Archive. So, any assertion that either or both of Mediaweek or Grossberger has a partisan bias is unsupported. Grossberger is among those rare examples of media critics who writes purely from the perspective of criticising media and journalism on their merits solely, and is clearly notable per WP:Google News. Sure his piece has satirical elements, but Satire is a valid vehicle for criticism (especially criticism of media), and Grossberger's piece is 100% accurate in the facts he cites. Grossberger's use of Socratic irony to chastise Insight, Fox, etc. is a tradition as old as Socrates. Does this evidence in support of my argument suffice? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't assert that Grossberger was partisan. You asserted that MediaWeek is nonpartisan, and since you've insisted that the article read

Mediaweek described the report as a 'double splatter' smear, and said 'The lies, amplified not only by Fox but by Headline News' Glenn Beck, originated with a Web site blandly called Insight. '

without distinguishing between Grossberger's opinion piece and MediaWeek it's a bit late to assert that it was only MediaWeek, not Grossberger, that you were asserting is nonpartisan. You've also reverted a longer version of the quote that would make it clear that Grossberger is a humorist, leaving no evidence that irony is being deployed. Next, partisan is the default assumption for an opinion piece. That's why its called opinion. Lastly, you still haven't grasped the basic concept of "reliable source". Grossberger's opinions on the media may be "expert" (it's the wrong word, but it's the word used in Wikipedia policy, and "notable" is already misused for something else) and quotable as such, but it is not a reliable source for a factual assertion (that Kuhner lied) that Grossberger cannot possibly know to be a fact. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (Huh?? What?? You asked (above), "What is your authority for the assertion that Grossberger is "non-partisan". I answered your question, even though I'd made no such assertion about Grossberger. After I demonstrated Grossberger is non-partisan, in response to your rhetorical assertion that he was, you now come back with "I didn't assert that Grossberger was partisan." Nice try, but do you care to address the points I actually raised and talk to the actual evidence I provided? And as I said, Grossberger's use of irony does not negate the reliability of his facts, nor his expertise in the subject. There are plenty of facts in Grossberger's piece (it is, as I said, 100% based on established fact), so...do you care to address the factual accuracy of Grossberger's criticism?) riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While I was at it, I thought I'd also check Google Scholar, and I note that Grossberger's work is also referenced in a number of university textbooks on media and journalism. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't mean he can consult his navel and produce "facts". Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken Louis Grossberger "double splatter" and "lies" quotes out for now, pending a little more discussion and some cooling off. I still think the quote is appropriate to describe Insight's brand of journalism, but want to turn down the heat so we can discuss it more... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Another "scoop"

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The Clinton-Obama article followed... a widely discussed report on the Insight Web site that President Bush’s relationship with his father was so strained that they were no longer speaking to each other about politics..."[22] Sounds vaguely familiar. RS for this? Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, because you have to "subscribe" to Insight, and their "subscription only" stuff is not in google's index or cache, but Colombia Journalism Review is generally impeccable. Meanwhile here's a domain specific search, which works fantastic for CJR but sucks with Insight[23]
Maybe look here too...I found a reference to the "strife" buried in the "story" that Cheney was set to retire in 2007. [24] That's Insight for ya! riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Heading accurately characterizes Insight as a historical source of smears?

Latest comment: 16 years ago31 comments3 people in discussion

This Google Search (per WP:GOOGLE), which excludes the word "Obama" yields over 1,800 hits. When I get some time I will begin farming the hits for additional examples, but in the meantime I think it's somewhat disingenuous to try to characterize Insight's behavior as an "isolated" event. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, The Google News archive timeline may also be helpful -- here and here should help narrow down the hits, by limiting the search to Google's archive of reliable news sources riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment on my edit was is the 'Controversy section' above - where I've been posting. I've seen a few title versions, made plenty of successful edits on the issue (esp on the linked-to Obama page) and have been part of the AfD on the Obama fork - so I'm not new to the argument as your edit note suggests.
  • This is not a place for re-hashing the charges in Insight's discredited voice, in this article we are discussing Insight in the context of it's journalistic practice. As you know, there are other places where readers will hash out the "who did what to whom". As regards Insight, the discussion should remain focused on Insight and it's critics. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There being a 'disingenuous' nature to the title is my very problem - your own version of the title Insight identified as source of "anonymous smears" does make it seem to me like it's a rather isolated event for Insight as a whole (and hence a POV assumption)! Your Google stats are irrelevant to the point I'm making - that a WP heading like this needs a focus! It's a simple style matter. Think of new people reading through the contents. I don't understand why you want the detail out of the heading - some of the older ones were fine.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Matt, I understand your point a little better now, and I was moving too fast when I mistook your argument as another effort to use the headline to say "criticism of Insight's report's on Sen. Foo's evil plan to expose that evil Sen. Fee is a closet muslim", and I assert that "Foo and Fee" should remain out of the headline altogether. I'd suggest that a separate section for "Criticism", and a subsection under that heading for "Smears" would be the wiki-way, and would yield nice, clean, one word encyclopedic headings. Maybe that's already in the section above, if so count me among supporters. Thanks for slowing me down, sorry if I mischaracterized you or your edits. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
A Criticisms or even 'Notable events' section would be better I agree, but currently the article has virtually no content other than stuff that would move under that! The 'print era' and 'internet era' sections would then either need filling out (if there is anything to fill them out with - they don't even have intros at the moment), or even removed, with a line added to the main introduction (or background section) on the magazine having a print/internet history. Looking at it, the article has virtually nothing on Insight itself at all (its history etc) - its like a stub with a few scandals thrown in! I'm not following the non-Obama issues here - maybe they are better dealt with elsewhere too(?) (if they have ay validity). More or better sections or headings are sometimes the key when things get bogged down, validity allowing.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To your first point Matt, I think we're in agreement on need for a better structure. Kuhner's complaints notwithstanding, I see no reason to sectionalize the article into "magazine era" and "internet era", it was/is the same journalistic model in both "eras", and all of the controversies and criticisms were the same then and now, and the era-wise stuff seems only to serve the purpose of distancing Kuhner from the previous EIC, which suits him but not the article.
To your second point...I don't know how we can be NPOV without accurately reflecting the overwhelming consensus of non-partisan authorities on journalism. To create an article that looks like more than a "stub with a few scandals thrown in", one would have to balance the negative with reliable sources that have anything good or even interesting to say about Insight, other than Insight itself. Insight is notable because it is notorious, and NPOV requires us to present the topic as the world of reliable sources does, not through any 'lenses' that we would invent to present a 'balanced' view on Insight, a view that does not exist in the real world. If we do our jobs here, this article will reflect the "consensus" POV of reliable sources, and if that POV looks "ugly", well...so be it. Any "softening" of our presentation would violate WP:UNDUE, which cuts both ways.
That said...an idea or two. Supposedly Insight has gotten "scoops" that were not smears, so..."Notable Scoops" would be a good one, and as long at those "scoops" were not smears, then we will have some balancing content. I have an idea, I'll add it and see what you think.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I can see that Insight is clearly gutter press, I meant more that it was lacking the usual biog filler, rather than needing any positive stories to counterweigh the scandals with. I'd be amazed if there were any. If no one's interested in filling it out then we should get rid of the 'era' headings, and create a kind of 'notable release history' or something like that (I'm tired, so cant think of better name!) --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
More ink  ;-) Wndl42 (talk 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The '"Anonymous smears"' part is looking a bit of a narrative at he moment, rather than the unambiguous facts - you're doing good stuff, though I think the first few lines of this were better phrased before. I'm going to try and stick to a single article today(!) - one I seriously need to catch up on, but will look at this soon. It seems Insight may be a 'tad' better than 'gutter' - my main interest is in the Insight/Clinton/Obama smear, to be honest.
Remember we don't know if Insight really gave the unsourced 'story' (made up?) actual credit themselves (so should it be 'later discredited?' And when later? - it's a bit ambo at the moment - simpler, like before, is sometimes better). My point of title-focus still seems to stand. What if you find other 'anonymous smears'?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a few quick points..

These following 2 lines are simply not as useful as the ones they replaced;

"In January 2007, Insight published unsourced allegations[12] that presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign team were investigating rival candidate Senator Barak Obama's early childhood schooling at a madrassa in Indonesia, which Insight falsely characterized as an Islamic religious school.[13]

Though the story would be quickly discredited, it was picked up and repeated by Fox News Channel, ..."

the better previous lines were;

In January 2007, Insight published unsourced allegations that presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign team were planning to attack rival candidate Senator Barack Obama for concealing that he was educated in an Islamic religious school (madrassa) during his youth in Indonesia.[11][12][13]

Insight's story was initially taken seriously by Fox News Channel, and other media outlets, leading to criticism of their journalistic practices.[14]

The madrassa line (which at one point I had changed to 'a madrassa') can be removed, or changed to '(a religious "madrassa")'. (I had worked on the muddled madrassa page to make the meaning clear - the wiki-link will properly explain it).

My 3 points on your newer version again:

1. Insight are claiming that Clinton's campaign team had found out the madrassa was a religious seminary - it's not Insight's definition as such (and we can't prove they up 'made up' the story, remember).

  • Matt, this is an article in the "journalism" and "media" categories. I appreciate your passion for the political angle, and that angle is given due weight, but please be aware of the categories we are editing in.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2. The 'quickly discredited' line needs a citation (is there one?) - the CNN story wasn't until after the Fox report, so it can't refer to that.

3. It's not a good idea to use the word 'discredited' at this point anyway, as it implies Insight originally felt it had credit (and as it's unsourced we just don't know that they did).

4. Also - I can see that you have since changed 'attack' to 'investigating' which i can now see is clearly pro-Clinton misreporting of the article!

Some other points;

  • The "see also" line is supposed to be at the top where it was (per WP style), not at the bottom.
  • Clinton's name should be back in the heading, and Obamas too arguably (though less so - and it can get a bit long, of course)
  • Also, where's the 'double splatter' quote gone? - it's at the heart of it.
  • Matt, as I am the one who added it (the Mediaweek "double splatter" quote, and others here objected (including you), I removed my own edit to reduce contention here so we can discuss, and I put that in my edit summary. Dude...slow down...read the edit summaries.

This section was looking fine at one point, it's gone backwards now.. I propose returning to this diff, and using the earlier heading "Allegations against 2008 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign". I can see now that you changed all of these! I felt that they had all settled (even if just for a day or two - nobody made immediate changes to them), and I can't agree with your edit notes for changing them as you have;

  • The above '2008' title didn't 'propagate' the smear on Clinton (it's just a title! - about allegations on Clinton!)
  • I don't see the need for 'simplification' (it isn't simpler now anyway).
  • I don't see how the 'double splatter' line is suddenly a bone of contention to the degree that it has to be 'temporarily removed'. (scanning the other arguments above - I can't see why you'd want to remove it based on them. It is certainly worth including as a valid take on the Insight report - which IMO was a pretty obvious 'double smear' too.)
  • Sorry you haven't noticed the contention here on the talk page. I found and added the Mediaweek stuff, defended it when it was challenged, and then I removed it to give the editors here (all of them) time to air their views...in an attempt to facilitate a calmly derived consensus. You'd know that if you were reading the edit summaries before mass reverting. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see good reasons for all of the above changes, otherwise I'd like to see the stuff I and others have spent time working to consensus on back. My earlier point (made at the top) was simply about the rest of the article being like a stub (and you've found more stuff, and improved the layout which is great) - but I was personally pretty happy with the Obama-related parts as they were, as I've said.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers?! You lost less than two days (not three) - a period I came to the conclusion you were stringing me along, which is why I got angry and called you a 'time waster' - you kept ignoring all of my clear points as if I hadn't written them! When I looked and saw your first edit note regarding this particular issue (that Clinton's name in the title is propagating the smear!) I suddenly felt you'd been seriously taking the mick, when I could have focused elsewhere. I still do to be honest - you keep softening the Clinton bits, but it just makes the article utterly silly!
According to Insight, Obamas so-called 'Islamic madrassa' was "ammunition" that Clinton planned to use against him - read it again (the first paragraph especially). You insist 'attack' is too strong for what they claimed Clinton was up to - but you really are wrong on that. Please, read it again. As for me 'slaughtering' your new work - the top of the section had actually settled down when you made your changes to it! We can moan that our work has been removed. You took backwards this crucial section unfortunately, and I kept giving examples all along - but to deaf ears it seemed to me (even on the citation and wording issues I've been mentioning).--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Why can't the title of the Barack Obama controversy section be Barack Obama controversy? Why does it have to keep changing? Let the reader read the section to find out the rest.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've decided Wndl42 is a time waster, pushing a clear POV agenda (a pro-Clinton 'softening' agenda, taken to extremes now) - so I'm removing his/her changes and adding the proposed change to 'madrassa' (to 'a religious "madrassa"') that I mentioned above.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the controversy surrounds Barack Obama. All of the other headings in the section are titled based on their subject. Why are you fighting so much over a ridiculous heading? Changing it every day is no better. Pick something, like "Barack Obama," even. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got the Insight/Clinton/Obama introduction and title back to where it was yesterday. Can I have support that this is a better place to work from? It seems simple and unbiased to me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Matt, you are way off base. Your charges of "POV pushing" on behalf of a political candidate are (a) blatantly false (as you would see if you took a moment to check my overall edit history), (b) a personal attack, for which I will report if you if you continue.
If you so badly need to attribute a POV to me, then examine the facts, get them right, or simply ask me rather than assuming. I am interested in Sun Myung Moon's media properties in the context of "Straussian lies" and "heavenly deceptions", please see (a) George Mason University's article on Straussian lies at "Stop the Straussians before they lie again", and how that topic is related to this topic. I am a critic of Sen. Clinton's on the basis of her failure to "speak truth to power", and on her acceptance of corporate funds for her campaign, but I see the real problem here on Wikipedia in the editorial focus by WP:Tendentious editors on "perpetuating the myths" that have been so successfully propagated through the moonie media machinery. I am a "Cato institute style" libertarian-(paleo)conservative and an ardent critic of post-Reagan neoconservatism, just like Francis Fukuyama is. Matt, by posting personal attacks on my talk page, you are being a WP:DICK, please stop. Wndl42 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You copy and paste exactly the same response here and on your talk page and you call me a dick? You've wasted a lot of my time, pal simple as. I've been busy (and am busy now and yoou are a ML:timewaster)--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Matt, you made your personal attack in both places here and on my talk page, and as such I responded in both places. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikiquette alert filed

Fyi, the Wikiquette noticeboard has been updated as follows:

fixed bot signage above riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record (if it's needed - surely not), my above arguments are pretty hard to read now, but I still stand by each one. The page is a lot better now - that's all I care about. (ie it's now this and it was this --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I am in the process of (carefully) re-doing your latest reverts, and I ask you to consider that this article needs to focus on the event from a non-partisan journalist's or media commentator's viewpoint. Your edits (again) shift the focus to the "he said, she said" aspects, and to the political implications, but these are covered (thanks to your efforts) well and fully elsewhere. In this article, our focus should be on a journalistic interpretation of the event, and should therefore be as de-politicized as possible. People who are interested in either (a) candidate Obama's religious background, or (b) candidate clinton's campaign tactics, or both, can go elsewhere. Also, please review Wikipedia is not news.
I sincerely hope that just means rewriting and fiddling with my recent hard work. I based all my new stuff on the original consensus (all your own changes to that consensus were done on your own initiative). Your version is NOT the base, and I HAVE SEEN NO ONE AGREE WITH YOU. Play with my graft by all means - but do not revert it to your philosophical/POV idea of removing all allusion to politics out of a story about politicians! You have reported me, and I am very serious with you now - please do not think I will be easily pushed over. You didn't make a 'base' to revert to, as no consensus was involved in your edits - I watched you patiently for that time simply because I thought you were listening to me (and got angry only when I realised I was being strung along). I'm not happy chappy mr Wnd142.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To all, allow me to provide some historical context. Walter Annenberg once smeared Milton Shapp by planting an "ambush" question for candidate Shapp in a news conference; "have you ever been in a mental home?". The next day, Annenberg's paper ran a five column front page story "Shapp denies having been institutionalized", ruining Shapp's political career with this famous "smear". Now, to this day, what is notable is not whether Shapp was a mental patient (he was not), but how Annenberg's smear became a "journalism 101" textbook case of a pre-meditated character assination. We should write this article, not from the heated context of the current presidential race, but from the context of how history will remember it. Long after the 2008 election, this event will go down in history of journalism and media as one of the most famous "double splatter" smears ever. Does this make sense? Thanks... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually realise you have made a complaint about someone?--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable "scoops"

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I deleted the Scoops section and moved the content to the Events section. First, I'm not sure why we're defining the journalism term "scoop" in an Insight article. Not only is it a commonly used term that everyone should know, but the section defining the term was full of bad grammar and unnecessary quotation marks. Plus, there is only one item listed. Has Insight only had one notable scoop? Probably not. I don't see any reason why it can't be included in the events section, or why the events section can't be renamed to include all items currently listed below it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Athene, us editors may know what "scoop" journalism is, but the people we write for probably do not. If you saw something you thought was "bad grammar", then by all means, feel free to wordsmith it, but the section I wrote passes my grammar checker, so do please elucidate what you thought was bad. And do it specifically please, rather than making vaguely worded statements to characterize my edits. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"Scoop" is not an obscure journalistic term. I am sure that everyone is familiar with the cliche "What's the scoop," and I feel no need to define it here. The main grammar problems I saw were "It's" vs. "Its," various missing punctuations, and overuse of quotes. I didn't know who made the edits, but I do see current problems with the article come from hastily made or edited changes. I think that everyone should take a step back and focus on quality for a while, not necessarily the controversies. Constant re-wording and squabbling isn't going to help the article by any stretch.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks for the cool head, thanks for your fixes, and hopefully I've made an acceptable offer to Matt. WNDL42 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Insight and it's journalistic practice

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There are other places to "hash out" all of the political issues that the Insight article raised. This article is in the categories of "Media" and "Journalism", and it's entire structure and focus should be from that perspective, with only enough (bare minimum) detail on the politics to preserve context.

Please, all, lets take the politics elsewhere. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok...with out referring to specific POVs of editors who have (until recently) been more attentive to the page than me, the matter of a previous consensus has been raised. When I got here, I read (for example) this section, and quite frankly along with the rest of the talk page, the entire debate seems (probably quite naturally) to reflect the intense feelings about Islam, the candidates, the "thinking" of the candidates...all fueled by Insight's speculation...and as a "media critic" who is not totally devoid of my own political leanings, my reaction was purely one of "where is the POV that merely wants to reflect on Insights journalistic integrity?" as opposed to the contents of this talk page, of which about 90+% appear devoted to the "politics" of the victims of the smear. Honestly, the only consensus I see looks like a general agreement with Kuhner's speculations about the "attack planning".

So what I'm really looking for here is about 90% of the article to be devoted to the journalism and media perspective, just enough of the political stuff as is needed for context, and absolutely no reinforcement of Kuhner's speculation in the article or it's sectio headings -- partly because Kuhner does not, and (conveniently) cannot WP:PROVEIT, but mostly because I think this article should reflect the "media" and "journalism" categories to which it belongs. That is why I gave the "Scoop journalism" angle a shot, and I'd still like to pursue it. Anyway, from my POV, I think we should not in any way give further voice to any of Insight's idle and politically motivated speculations other than as needed to identify them clearly for what they are. This is the discussion I am looking for, and it has not been happening here until I "got busy" on this article, so I suggest that we please view whatever consensus existed before as an evolving consensus, which now includes a "different" POV.

Thanks and please lets discuss. WNDL42 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was going well (in the typical WP sense) until you made your own radical departures from the road-paving of consensus. People have their various deeply-set POV's (we always do of course) but between us, the balance was getting in. That is how Wikipedia works!!
The problem is you made lots of changes that took it into a 'PG version' direction, from the intro downwards! After initially standing back and giving you my trust, I found the changes way too much, as you know. I have to say that I disagree 100% on what I see as 'non-politicising' philosophies. My objection is from a solid WP viewpoint. Kuhner, Insight - what's the problem? Your now deleted introductory paragraph explaining what "scoop" means was extraordinarily un-WP - we needn't explain any such think if it's developing in the right way. We must all have a good grasp of the various guidelines - I think you've made the common mistake of focusing on policies (like Good Faith etc), but without properly knowing the guidelines (like Style and congent issues). You have at times reeled-off the 'WP:'s' (to me anyway), and are just not listening to others IMO - so you can't really complain if I'm strong with you, as I am.
Myself, I want to see a balanced article without undue weight IN ANY WAY. Insight is entirely a political entity - I can't sress that enough - and it's what we are dealing with! If anyone doesn't like seeing the grit of politics, they ought to go somewhere else and certainly not 'intellectually' bully people into softening it! Attacking people for politicising, whilst always being vague on why, is not right. I feel I'm a target, yet I work hard to be objective and balanced all the while.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insight_on_the_News/Archive_1&oldid=1245922682"