Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

CharlesGlasserEsq's relationship with The Daily Caller

CharlesGlasserEsq, you wrote "I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?" No, that's probably not OK. You included "Esq" in your username; you wanted us all to know you are a lawyer. You wrote, "I was retained specifically to try and undo the (IMHO obnoxious) approach made by previous people on behalf of the Daily Caller." Are you now saying you were retained as "a media adviser and ethicist", and not as an attorney? Remember Rule 4.3; you are communicating with unrepresented parties here. Are you an attorney representing The Daily Caller or not? – Levivich 01:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, ich, that sounds awfully hostile, and this issue has been clarified elsewhere. If it gives you any comfort, I am not proposing that *I* make any edits, but rather submit to editors who have not been involved in this article three or four factual and clarity/fairness issues, that THEY can decide whether or not to address. I am working on it and should have something in a few days. As for my being an attorney, I've made it clear here and elsewhere that there is no legal threat, and if I did *not* add "Esq." to my name someone might think I'm hiding it, so it's a no-win situation either way. My default position is to err on the side of transparency. There's no secret agenda here: as a media ethicist I'm simply trying to see if I can help straighten this out in a cooperative and respectful way. I'd rather hope WP would *encourage* rather than discourage people from trying to participate in a calm and respectful way. I would suggest folks eager to jump into the nuts and bolts of the article hang loose for a few days, I'll create a new section (as was suggested by experienced editors earlier) and let's take a breath, and move from there, instead of rehashing back and forth piecemeal. Thanks so much for your time, all. 2601:8C:C301:14B0:6821:576F:6578:5021 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

You haven’t answered the question. Are you or are you not The Daily Caller’s attorney? It matters whether you are (1) a disinterested "media ethicist" or (2) an attorney ethically bound to protect and advance the interests of The Daily Caller. It matters whether you are being paid by The Daily Caller to post here. And it matters under Rule 4.3 whether or not you’re being clear about your role here. – Levivich 15:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds very much to me like he is a licensed attorney, but in this capacity, he is just someone who has been hired by the subject for a position unrelated to his position on the bar. I don't think his motives are in question here. He is following WP:COI to the letter and spirit. Not sure what else you want from him. If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3...I see no reason to doubt him at his word. Buffs (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3" is exactly what I'm getting at. Communications from attorneys usually begin like, "Hi, my name is X, and I represent Y with regard to Z." If he's not their attorney, he needs to say that clearly, too. It would be unusual for a media company to retain a media attorney who advertises a practice in reputation management, litigation, and crisis management (among other areas) [1], but not in their capacity as an attorney, meaning there is no attorney-client relationship, communications aren't privileged, and so forth. So I think he is retained as their attorney, in which case the statement "I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?" is not accurate. If he's not their attorney, then he shouldn't be making statements like "there is NO repeat NO intention of filing any kind of legal action". It's contradictory. What kind of an ethicist plays around with Rule 4.3? – Levivich 18:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

ich, you are entering the territory of personal attacks as well as legal threats. It has no place on this page. If you want to discuss your concerns further, take them to the conflict of interest noticeboard or ANI. If you persist on discussing them further on this page then I will proceed to ANI myself. TFD (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand where you see a personal attack or legal threat in anything written here by anybody. – Levivich 18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious whether Newyorkbrad or BD2412 share my concerns raised in this thread or not. – Levivich 18:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that someone involved in this discussion could take action towards having a participating attorney disbarred? If not, I see no point in bringing it up at all, which does make it seem like it is being raised as some kind of implicit threat of legal action. bd2412 T 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting the editor hasn't been clear about his relationship with the article subject; specifically, whether or not he is their attorney. – Levivich 19:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted a report to ANI.[2] I suggest that any concerns about user conduct should be discussed there and this page reserved for improvement of the article. TFD (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm sorry that I have not been able to engage as quickly as I'd like, I'm on medications at the moment that make me really sleepy. At any rate, (and I added this to the talk page on the article about me) I wish to make it clear to anyone and everyone that I am being paid by The Daily Caller as a media consultant to offer (but not make) some revisions and corrections to the Daily Caller article, but in no way involved or retained to intitiate any legal action of any kind. I'm here as a paid facilitator, nothing more. noting less. It would seem that given the acrimonious and a little nasty back and forth that preceded my coming here that the proposed revisions (not many, rewrites for clarity and accuracy and WP style) be looked at by two or three experienced editors who have no emotional or personal "dog in the fight" vis-a-vis previous edits and we can improve both the article and WP's reputation for inclusiveness and willingness to listen to a diversity of voices. I would like to express my thanks to Buffs, talk, and [User talk:Doncram|talk] for their patience, help and understanding. If I am not using the correct coding to disclose my paid relationship in this very limited regard, I would ask someone to straighten me out. I will be submitting the specific short revisions within the next few days. Cheers, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Forthcoming proposed edits from Charles: Overview

Hello all. First, thanks again for your patience and help. I wanted to set this section up so that this is as simple and efficient as possible. I am going to set up four sections, breaking the article down as follows: 1) Proposed Lede Edits; 2) Proposed "Controversy" edits; 3) Proposed "Staff" edits; and 4) adding a section called "Significant stories." The article is long, and from what I've reviewed of the talk page's history there's often cross-talk and confusion about what particular item people are examining. Breaking it down this way should make it much simpler and easier to follow. I'm assuming that at the end of each proposed section, someone will step up and voice the editors' consensus and approve/modify/reject the edits. Nobody wants edit wars, I'm sure, and I sincerely hope that I can convince you all to approach this with an open mind, an open heart, an assumption of good faith and a focus on clarity, accuracy and value-neutral writing. Be advised (and I beg your indulgence) that the sections I propose are for substantive examination only. Coding and style will invariably be a mess at first, but we can sort that out. Some of the edits are really simple. Others more complicated. The format is that I'll provide a copy of the section with edits/corrections embedded, and at the end of each section explain my rationale for any changes. I apologize for not being able to provide these proposed edits more quickly: my medical problems are being sorted out but still affect my ability to stay awake for more than a few hours at a time. Again, thanks for your time and effort. Gratefully, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

CharlesGlasserEsq, may I suggest to you the following format:

• What the article says now
• What you think it should say
• Quotes from and links to reliable sources supporting the change – Levivich 19:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That's the plan! See my answer to question about sources in "Lede" section below. ThxCharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I've deleted your empty request sections. This isn't a workspace, just post your edit requests when you have them ready.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Lede Edits from Glasser

Created 11/2/19, substantive proposal to come. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Leave the lead to the end please Charles. Our manual of style states that the lead should be a summary of the body text, so we should do that after the body text is approved by our process. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 13:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Roxy, the dog. Esq. Would you prefer I delete this section and re-create it so it's at the bottom? Whatever works best for you folks...CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you just get on with things. Now that you've created sections, leave them, but would you consider making some suggestions as to the reliable sources you have obviously already researched? -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 14:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, getting a list of potential sources would be a good place to start. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:LEAD that says it should be written last. While the lead summarizes the article, writing the lead first helps to write the article in an organized way. TFD (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Either way works, in general. I've tried both before, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. On this particular subject, I suspect that the quality and utility of each candidate source could be a matter of much debate, and I think going through them early on would reduce the hassle overall. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Most of the sources are the same as those in the original article as it is. There are a few new ones, but nothing off-the-wall, a couple government websites and places like Newsweek, Politico, etc. that already appear in the article as is. Is the "Tin Foil Hat Review" acceptable? (Kidding! I kid!).

You'll see that the majority of what I submit will be rewording in a more value-neutral way, the inclusion of facts that have transpired but not noted in the article, some grammaticals, some factual errors and some suggested deletions. At the end of the proposed replacement texts I'll supply a short and simple bullet point "rationale" for and such change.

As for the "ordering", as a journalist and academic I'm used to writing the lede and nut graf first, but I'h hoping to soon upload all the sections at once, and you folks can decide which one you want to look at first, of course. Many thanks CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Charles, I have edited your post above to conform to talk page guidelines regarding indentation. seeWP:THREAD, this is just helpful to facilitate understanding. If you are going to be around it might ease your way to follow our conventions on Talk page use, have a look at Talk page guidelines. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's a good start, however I am uncomfortable with the phrasing starting with the "Critics say" bit. The issue is not that critics are claiming it; the issue is that it is generally agreed that they publish an unacceptable number of false or misleading stories. For things about which there is general agreement, we need to speak in Wikipedia's voice unambiguously (while still citing reliable sources) and not use weasel words. If it were just some critics, we should be attributing them directly by name anyways. However, it isn't just "critics" (which would imply partisans with an axe to grind), it is the general agreement among otherwise neutral media analysts that the Daily Caller has a less-than-acceptable standard for publishing misleading or false stories. We need to be unambiguous in that. --Jayron32 15:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32 Thanks for the thoughtful read through. I added "Critics say" precisely because the second para says "The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos." What is frequently? I don't see any citation from any journalism studies about TDC having an "unacceptable" number of errors. I'd wager good money this could be said about anyone, from ABC News to The Huffington Post to Wikipedia itself. It seems (with all due respect) that the only consensus is the viewpoint of WP editors. Even the one pointedly specific journalism ethics source in the entire article, (Jack Shafer's chiding TDC, which I did not suggest deleting) does not make such a sweeping statement.

And as you are most likely aware, this is a difficult statement to make unambiguously. So much so that the Poynter Foundation (the sine qua non of journalism ethics researchers) retracted and withdrew a published list of "fake" or "wholly unreliable" news web sites. I encourage you to read this very short article, and reconsider "Critics say." Failing that is inserting your own characterization or judgment as fact. https://www.poynter.org/letter-from-the-editor/2019/letter-from-the-editor/

CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

The current lede (as well as the rest of the article) can doubtless be improved in many ways. However, the attribution to "Critics" is, as Jayron32 pointed out, an assertion of partisanship, at least implicitly. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I hear you, XOR'easter, there has to be a more artful way of writing this crucial part of the article. I also understand the preference to avoid the partisanship thing. But the fact remains that even TDC's harshest critics, like mediabiasfactcheck, which you seem to accept as authoritative, says while they are close, they do not fall into the "Questionable" category.

For that reason and the fact that this is the "table-setting" part of the article, it's really crucial to not lump TDC in with Weekly World News or Gateway Pundit or other off-the-wall sites. I can't stress enough how important this is. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I do not regard mediabiasfactcheck.com as "authoritative" (somewhere up this page, I mention it as a site that happened to be in my browser history); I was merely using it in passing to gloss a parenthetical. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk), thanks so much for your insight. Given that as you here point out, and as have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doncram, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Four_Deuces and others pointed out elsewhere, this is a critical problem, perhaps the most serious flaw in the entire article. Lacking an authoritative source to state in WP's voice that TDC is "known for" or "widely regarded" as a fake news site I can't for the life of me figure out how you can make that part of the lede. I'm sure it is your view, and that's OK, people will have differeing opinions. But surely this is not the place for opinion. I would ask WP editors to really have a close, honest and introspective look at this segment, and seriously reconsider rewriting it or deleting it with regard to the unambiguous statement that the thrust of TDC is publishing mostly fake stories. That can't be right. Thanks again, Charles CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

SUBSTANTIVE EDITS, CITES AND RATIONAL BELOW---- PROPOSED RETOPPED LEDE Proposed Revision of First two grafs in WP article (expanded to three) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller)

The footnotes are included here as a matter of convenience to show factual basis for statements.Given the less-than-user-friendly nature of this screen, I'm including a OneCloud link so anyone can see the below in Word format. https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohwdjs1lDGQ2oQsCA?e=0Unepn

---

The Daily Caller is a conservative1 news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. Carlson does not have editorial input at The Daily Caller.

The Daily Caller has published several major stories quoted and followed by mainstream media often criticizing or exposing potential wrongdoing by both Democrats and Republicans.2 Daily Caller reporting led to investigations of the Republican National Committee;3 President Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and ties to the Turkish government;4 and exposés about the billionaire Sackler family and their relationship to the American opiate crisis.5 Critics say that The Daily Caller has published numerous incorrect stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos, and that the website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.

RATIONALE: • There’s no question in the overall context, critical tone and tenor of the Article that the phrase “right-wing” is a pejorative characterization. While editors may feel it’s justified, it’s still a personal interpretation, not a “fact.” The only RS’s referring to TDC consistently use the phrase “conservative.” Even one of the key citations in the current Article, namely The Atlantic story about Greer, pointedly uses the word “conservative.”

• Because of his controversial personality, readers should know that Carlson has no editorial role at TDC.

• The original article’s description of TDC begins with a non-stop litany of complaints that while may or may not be well-founded, overwhelmingly paint a picture of a right-wing “nut” publication. Far from “bothsidesism”, readers should know that TDC often turns its sights on many right-wing “sacred cows.” That is validated not by just the appearance of those stories in TDC itself, but that many reasonable, reliable and respectable news organizations have cited and or followed many TDC stories. At the same time, the “controversial” publications should surely be acknowledged -- they have to take their lumps -- but I respectfully suggest doing so in a NPOV manner. “Critics say [XX]” is fair. To simply side with those critics and repeat the “known for false stories” as gospel is not rooted in any factual basis – especially when at the end of the day we’re talking about a value judgment.

• The Greer episode is not definitional to what TDC is and is best moved to the “History” section. It’s worth noting here that the original Article garbles some important facts regarding Greer: he left the Daily Caller three months before The Atlantic exposed him as a racist. Readers should also know without ambiguity that he kept his nefarious writing a secret from TDC. Failing to include that leaves the unfair and false impression that TDC knew and/or approved of such writing. The fact that TDC’s own original material was redistributed by the ACLU and used to help convict the thugs at the “Unite the Right” rally should be included to dispel any such guilt-by-association.

CITATIONS: 1 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/a-daily-caller-editor-wrote-for-an-alt-right-website-using-a-pseudonym/569335/

2 https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/14/american-cartel-opioid-blood-money-sackler-family/

3 https://dailycaller.com/2010/03/29/high-flyer-rnc-chairman-steele-suggested-buying-private-jet-with-gop-funds/; https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303410404575152461551782520; http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/29/rnc-investigating-money-spent-at-racy-nightclub/; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/how-will-rnc-strip-club-scandal-hit-donors/346160/; 4 https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/trumps-top-military-adviser-is-lobbying-for-obscure-company-with-ties-to-turkish-government/; https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-turkey-lobbying-231354; https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-turkey-lobbying-231354; 5 https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/17/sackler-family-met-museum; https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/09/american-cartel-billionaire-family-behind-oxycontin-apparently-spends-zilch-rehabbing-addicts/; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/31/john-kapoor-insys-trial-opioids-crisis

CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

You didn’t read WP:TPG did you? I’m not going to help until you do. Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I did indeed read it, in all it's confusing glory. I'm trying my best here. The last thing I want to do is make extra work for people, and tried to lay the above out in a clean, readable and concise fashion. I'm hoping that iron-bound adherence to formatting does not interfere with this. (That's why I added the OneCloud link to the Word version so people can more easily follow what I'm submitting. Thanks again, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Controversy section proposed edits from Glasser

Note: this is probably the most complicated section. In some instances, the article is out of date or simply erroneous, in others WP editors opinions are stated as fact without direct RS, and finally in others, the context that clarity demands may involve too much “getting into the weeds.” See “Rationale” section for more detail. Footnotes in brackets are in the original article, additional ones are added here. For convenience, a link to a Word version of the below is at: https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohxNLtdkl-pSNGF_Q?e=mzsdcM

---

[Climate change denial -2nd graf)]

“In 2017, The Daily Caller published a story erroneously claiming that a "peer-reviewed study" by "two scientists and a veteran statistician" found that recent years have not been the warmest ever.[21][22] The alleged "study" was a PDF file on a WordPress blog, and was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal.[21] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller republished a Daily Mail story which claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manipulated data to make climate change appear worse; at the same time, legitimate news outlets disputed the Daily Mail story. [23] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that a study found no evidence of accelerating temperatures over a 23-year period, which climate scientists described as a misleading story.[26] In 2016, The Daily Caller published a story claiming that climate scientist Michael Mann (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) had asserted that data was unnecessary to measure climate change; Mann described the story as "egregiously false".[27] Mann lost a libel suit in August 2019 suing writers who alleged Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, and featured prominently in a U.N. 2001 climate report was “fraudulent”. The court did not rule on the validity of the “hockey stick” but rather dismissed the case because Mann refused to provide the court with his underlying data claiming that it was protected intellectual property. Mann was ordered to pay the defendants’ legal costs. 1,2 In 2015, The Daily Caller wrote that NOAA "fiddle[d]" with data when the agency published a report concluding that there was no global warming hiatus.[28][29]

RATIONALE:

• The second graf of the “Climate Change Denial” uses the word “falsely” as opposed to “erroneously.” The former implies knowing falsity and a malicious intent, and is an editorialization, whereas “erroneously” is factual, value neutral and undeniable. Moreover, much of the information is out of date: Since publication, Mann lost a libel suit because he refused to supply the B.C. Supreme Court with the underlying the data that is the basis of the infamous “hockey stick graph.” That raises also sorts of questions about Mann’s honesty or credibility, and I would suggest either including this new and relevant context, or better yet, trimming this section to simply show readers that The Daily Caller has indeed published articles from climate-change skeptics.

CITATIONS: 1 “A Climate Change for Lawsuits” (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-climate-change-for-lawsuits-11569279287

2 “Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit” (https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/)

[Misleading video about NPR]

In 2011, The Daily Caller was the first news outlet to republish a video by conservative provocateur James O'Keefe which purportedly showed an NPR fundraiser deriding Republicans. The video was later proven to have been misleadingly edited.[36] Carlson explained to the Columbia Journalism Review that “The Caller did not produce the video, [but] only reported on it.”3

RATIONALE:

• The “Misleading NPR” section cherry picks and avoids Carlson’s explanation that TDC was not the creator of O’Keefe’s video, but merely the first to report on a newsworthy video. Leaving this out implies a false endorsement and misunderstands the doctrine of “Fair Comment” in which journalists must be able to show a “bogus” story to comment on its impact or meaning.

CITATIONS:

 This was omitted from the same source article relied upon by WP (fn 36) 

[2016 presidential election]

Suggest delete: “The Daily Caller played a significant role in creating and disseminating stories that had little purchase outside the right-wing media ecosystem but that stoked the belief among core Trump followers that what Clinton did was not merely questionable but criminal and treasonous.”

RATIONALE:

• The “2016 election” section states without factual support that TDC had “a significant role in creating and disseminating stories that had little purchase outside the right-wing media ecosystem.” I see no RS showing metrics of how often TDC was quoted by “the right-wing media ecosystem” or data showing it’s actual influence. This is an editorialization, virtually impossible of being proved true or false.

[Encouragement of violence against protesters]

“The video drew attention in August 2017 eight months later, when a white supremacist plowed his car through a group of counterprotesters at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville.”

RATIONALE:

• The section on “Encouragement of violence against protesters” implies a cause-and-effect. That’s pure speculation. The fairest way to address this is to add that the Charlottesville tragedy occurred eight months after TDC’s video.

[Ties to white supremacists]

Daily Caller deputy editor Scott Greer left the publication in July of 2018, and in August 2018, The Atlantic reported that Greer had secretly written pieces under the pseudonym "Michael McGregor" in the white supremacist publication “Radix Journal” from 2014 to 2015. None of these pieces were published in The Daily Caller, and Greer kept his pseudonym a secret from The Daily Caller. Greer reportedly expressed anti-Christian and antisemitic theories, as well as his relationship with white nationalist Richard Spencer. [55] Neil Patel, The Daily Caller’s publisher subsequently commented on why Greer had not been fired in 2017 and admitted having been deceived by Greer: “We had two choices: Fire a young man because of some photos taken of him at metal shows in college, or take his word. We chose to trust him. Now, if what you allege is accurate, we know that trust was a mistake, we know he lied to us. We won't publish him, anyone in these circles, or anyone who thinks like them. People who associate with these losers have no business writing for our company.” Prior to The Atlantic’s article, The Daily Caller had been criticized for publishing opinion pieces written by people characterized by the SPLC as “extremists” or “white nationalists.”4

RATIONALE:

• I might suggest deleting it altogether as this is addressed in the “History” section The “Ties to white supremacists” section garbles the timeline of Greer’s departure, which occurred before The Atlantic article. It also fails to include that Greer deceived TDC, who did not know Greer was publishing under a pseudonym and fails to include that none of his racist writing appeared in TDC. The article also avoids Patel’s admission that he had been deceived, which is in the very same source article used by WP to make the allegations in the first place.

CITATION:

4 “The Daily Caller has a white nationalist problem” (originally published by SPLC, available at https://www.salon.com/2017/08/21/the-daily-caller-has-a-white-nationalist-problem_partner/)

[Stefan Halper]

Suggest this be moved to new section “Significant Publications” and with updates.

[Allegation of non-profit abuse] Add: Neither The Daily Caller News Foundation nor The Daily Caller, Inc. have been the subject of any investigation or probe by the Internal Revenue Service suggesting inappropriate activity or violations of 501(c)3 regulations.

RATIONALE:

• The “Allegation of non-profit abuse” section fails to tell readers that TDC has not been the subject of IRS investigation, a fundamental failure of fairness and completeness.

[Imran Awan]

Suggest deletion because the Awan story has developed so much further than when originally published and has less to do with The Daily Caller than with Awan.

[Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez]

Add: The photo itself was not a “nude” selfie but showed only a pair of legs in a bathtub, and was not a full-body photograph.

RATIONALE:

• The “Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez” section ought to tell the readers that the photo was not really a “nudie.”

[Fake nude picture of Ocasio-Cortez – repeated subhed]

Suggest deletion because the article repeats the AOC subhed, but speaks to a story about how The Washington Post erroneously attributed a quote from Rep. Ilhan Omar to The Daily Caller, and retracted that allegation.

RATIONALE:

• The repeated subhed of “Fake nude picture” makes no sense. To begin with, it’s about Rep. Ilhan Omar, all it says is that The Washington Post erred in attributing a quote to TDC. Aside from piling on, this tells readers nothing about TDC and should be deleted.

CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Technically, there is no "Controversy" section any more; it was reorganized to split out some thematically-grouped material, to integrate other material with existing sections, and to establish a chronological history section that could be built up in a less contentious way. That said, I do not find myself enthusiastic about these proposed changes. For example, a photo does not have to be a full-body image in order to qualify as a "nude selfie", and indeed, per Business Insider, It shows a pair of feet in a bathtub, but a blurred reflection of a nude female torso is also visible [3]. Saying that the Daily Caller has not been the subject of an IRS investigation would be goalpost-moving and special pleading, in addition to being a selective presentation of our reliable sources; the WaPo notes that the IRS could be reluctant to get involved for political reasons, a point we would have to address. I see no reason to delete the Imran Awan material simply for being part of a larger story; the story may be larger, but the role of the Caller is amply documented and worth mentioning. The "Encouragement of violence against protesters" subsection already notes the time gap between January and August 2017 and makes no claim of causation that I can see, only echoing the statement of correlation made by CNN Money. The passage on the 2016 election could doubtless use work, but the sourcing and attribution to the Berkman Klein Center report are adequate for the claims currently made. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter, thanks for taking the time to read through and comment. I understand your position on most of the points above, but respectfully raise the following--

As to the AOC "selfie", I don't understand the reticence to simply add a line that we agree is correct, ("per Business Insider, It shows a pair of feet in a bathtub, but a blurred reflection of a nude female torso is also visible"). Why bury the clarifying information by making a reader click through to another article and dig for the fact? Clarity costs us nothing, and we agree that the line from Business Insider clarifies. IOW, what's the harm in adding it to this body of text?

As to the "Encouragement of violence against protesters" section, I've dealt with this problem many times in the past, and again, it's a simple edit fix lending clarity. You are technically correct that "it makes no claim of causation", but that's only on the surface. If the hint of causality where not implied, then there would be no reason to publish this item in the first place. The ordinary reader sees this section as it is, and reasonably infers a connection between the video and incident. Readers will not "do the math" and nullify the intention behind the section, namely, to imply a connection that we all know isn't there. Surely it was not included in the article to point out a "mere coincidence." On that basis, I would ask you and others to rethink those two very simple but clarifying fixes. With just a few keystrokes, we gain clarity, inform the reader and do not hide the events described. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

As to the AOC "selfie", I don't understand the reticence to simply add a line that we agree is correct — the current, brief, description of that incident is adequate to my eyes, and further hair-splitting would merely balloon the prose beyond the limits of due weight. The photo was billed as a nude image, the Caller said people were calling it a nude, and we have reported that. Over-elaboration is not clarity. Readers will not "do the math" and nullify the intention behind the section, namely, to imply a connection that we all know isn't there. I don't know that a connection ... isn't there. I make no claim one way or the other. The Caller removed a video from their website, an act which was documented in secondary sources to an extent that it warrants a mention, and in order to explain the context as our sources do, we have to say something about the background. The phrasing of that explanation is, of course, up for debate, but I am not sure how reiterating an amount of elapsed time does much to improve it.

The second graf of the “Climate Change Denial” uses the word “falsely” as opposed to “erroneously.” The former implies knowing falsity and a malicious intent, and is an editorialization, whereas “erroneously” is factual, value neutral and undeniable. In my experience, fact-checkers write "falsely" precisely in order to avoid editorialization. Falsely claimed does not imply malicious intent or conscious deception, as lied would, for example. The validity of the hockey stick graph is not contested in mainstream climate science, and has no bearing here. (I note in passing that "Principia Scientific" is not a reliable source, the status of the WSJ opinion section is at best dubious in that regard, the Columbia Journalism Review noted a dearth of reliable reporting on the British Columbia dismissal, and that at least one recent legal battle involving Mann ended with his detractors apologizing.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter regarding the implication of causality, I kind of think you are making my point for me. You say "don't know that a connection ... isn't there. I make no claim one way or the other." I understand there's a point at which one simply has to put the pen down, so to speak, and not beat any specific point to death. But as I said, if it were not to raise an implication of connection, why would the item be in the article in the first place? Aye, there's the rub.CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Proposed edits for staff/contributor section from Glasser

Apologies again for the formatting mess. Pasted below are the suggested edits and rationale. You can also see a Word version of the below for your convenience at https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohuLA9U8FDagjwCkA?e=0cgq0Y

---

PROPOSED EDITS-----

STAFF AND CONTRIBUTORS (Additions/Clarifications) The Daily Caller is a member of the White House rotating press pool1 and has full-time reporters on Capitol Hill credentialed by The Periodical Press Gallery2,3 , which oversees credentialing of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. The Daily Caller is also a member of the Online News Association, the world’s largest digital journalism association.

Opinion contributors to The Daily Caller have included economist Larry Kudlow, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and aide to President Obama Luis Miranda, former US Senate Candidate and Judge Jeanine Pirro, Socialist educator Glenn Sacks, history professor and impeachment advocate Allan J. Lichtman, Ann Coulter, the NRA-ILA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). 4,5,6,7,8

[add third graf] The Daily Caller also owns and operates Check Your Fact, a for-profit subsidiary website wholly owned by The Daily Caller, Inc. The stated mission of Check Your Fact is “to independently fact check statements by influencers, as well as reporting by other news outlets. We also vet the many widely-shared claims that rocket across the internet every day” and says that “our mission is a non-partisan one. We're loyal to neither people nor parties -- only the truth. And while the fact-checking industry continues to grow, there are still countless assertions that go unchecked. We exist to fill in the gaps.” Check Your Fact invites readers to submit queries about news stories.9

RATIONALE: • Adds more precision to credentialing facts.

• The list of opinion contributors (all of these contributions are clearly marked “OPINION” and carry a disclaimer that they do not represent the views of TDC) that appears in the original article may appear to be cherry-picked to show only right-leaning contributors. In fact, TDC frequently runs Op/Eds from a wide range of viewpoints and experiences, including those of former staffers for President Obama, The Democratic National Committee, proponents of impeachment, proponents of socialism, and other persons and entities who are far from “right-wing.”

• Adds missing info about Check Your Fact.

Citations: 1 “Daily Caller joins W.H. Pool” (https://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0210/Daily_Caller_joins_WH_pool.html)

2 https://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/about/

3 https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/?page_id=9213;

4 "On Christian Political Apostasy as The Source Of America's Greatest Peril" (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/25/on-christian-political-aposta sy-as-the-source-of-americas-greatest-peril/).

5 “The President’s Wall Confession Should Have Been the End of the Shutdown” (https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/miranda-wall-confession

6 “Conservatives Shouldn’t Ignore Socialism’s Successes” (https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/06/sacks-socialism-successes)

7 “Mueller Is Done; It’s Time for Congress To Impeach” (https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/25/lichtman-mueller-impeach)

8 “Costly USDA Proposal Would Spend More Tax Dollars And Help Animal Abusers” (https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/29/winders-usda-animals)

9 https://checkyourfact.com/about-us

CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Discussion of LEAD

(section was titled "Revert of Doncram's changes"; i hope this title is accepted as more productive for discussion. There is a content issue to discuss: what should appear in the article. If anyone wants to suggest something negative about me personally, please let's discuss at my or your user Talk page and consider going to wp:ANI if necessary, instead of here. --Doncram (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

While the first title was accurate I can understand why Doncram did not like it. His rephrase was not a neutral title but this does place the focus, neutrally, on content rather than editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted Doncram's insertion of bothsidesism into the article lede. While I think the section in question is not well-written, NPOV does not require us to create a false balance. The claim that "most major news sources ... have published numerous false stories" is entirely unsourced and not likely to be true. We treat The Daily Caller differently than The New York Times because they are different - one has a widespread reputation as an ideological mouthpiece for the right-wing (and specifically now, Trumpism), while the other has a widespread reputation as a mainstream news organization. Different things are different, and we have no requirement to treat them similarly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not about me (Doncram); i am not invested in this article; I have been involved only in trying to be somewhat of a peacemaker at wp:AN and above.

I was coming here to open discussion of NorthBySouthBaranof's deletion, inappropriate in my view. I am NOT trying to create a false balance. However the existing statement "The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories" is inappropriate and comes across as petulant and unprofessional, as I and others have commented above. What happened here is I noticed that someone (appropriately in my view) removed the sentence, then it was immediately restored. Of course I prefer that some properly supported statement about the relative lack of "truthfulness" or whatever in Daily Caller be created, as far as can be done professionally, encyclopedically. But in the absence of anything appropriate being provided, I believe it is best for it to be removed entirely. It is meaningless on its own, as indeed that can be said about any major news source. It just seems stupid to start out that way, frankly. If the poor quality statement is not removed, it is second best to negate its intended impact further and qualify it, i.e. add a flat assertion of the true fact that most major news sources have indeed published false stories. Including the New York Times, and 60 Minutes and every other major news source. Therefore, yes, it is vapid to say this one source has done so, when they all have. --Doncram (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It was inappropriate to add unsourced and irrelevant editorializing into the lede of a controversial article, regardless of your stated motives. Cherry-picking other outlets with decades of history on the Daily Caller is not productive. This is not merely an occasional issue, sources define the Daily Caller by its history of sloppiness and now also white supremacy. If reliable sources define other outlets the same way, discuss how we should explain it on those outlet's talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Doncram, I see your point. Unsupported attributions says, "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." It's okay if sources actually say this, but not for editors because it violates "No original research." The implication of the wording is that the DC publishes more false stories than mainstream media. Your edit however adds to the unsourced comment with another unsourced comment. We really need a reliable secondary source that analyzes the site without which this article will remain a POV nightmare.

TFD (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think what we need, rather than a "counterbalancing statement" is a quote or paraphrase of a reliable source or sources so we can state something like "The Daily Caller is especially noted for its false reporting" or something like that. The issue is not the existence of a or some false stories, it's that reliable sources have made special note of the unusually large number of such stories. I'm not even saying that is true, and if it isn't, we shouldn't make special note of it. But if it IS true, and widely reported, and covered by reliable sources, our phrasing should state exactly such. That would solve the problems we are having here. --Jayron32 12:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32, and actually I think everyone else here probably does too.

But in the absence of a suitable quote or paraphrase as Jayron suggests, it seems to me that the existing sentence is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It is in fact wp:weasel wording ("words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated"). Similar to what TFD suggests further above (talking about climate change denial), this statement appears to me to be meant to convey something to a certain kind of "in"-type knowledgeable persons, like "Democrats in the Hamptons or the Bay area", that this news/opinion source is frequently untruthful. It probably does succeed in conveying that, to that group. But the mere, flat statement that it has "published false stories" also conveys to everyone, sophisticated and unsophisticated, that this article will be, well, a biased hit-job with its own form of reckless disregard for the truth. It is so obvious a fail. Everyone knows that the New York Times and, I repeat, all major news sources that have any substantial history, have published false stories. Maybe not knowingly false stories, maybe not believed to be false at the time they were published, or whatever. It is politically stupid (sorry for the flatness of my judgment on this) for Wikipedia to put itself forward with this statement as it is now, self-identifying ourselves as the kind of obtuse, biased, willing-to-cut-corners-to-criticise-Donald-Trump, etc. type source that, I am guessing, The Daily Caller probably labels the New York Times and other sources that most of us editors probably do generally respect. It is silly to sink to the level of making the obviously insinuating, damning, but vacuous and vapid statement.

Okay now I see three alternatives: 1) come up with a respectable sentence (which seems not to be happening soon); 2) delete the sentence; 3) tag the article and that sentence in particular with negative tags. The point of negative tags is for Wikipedia to disavow this article, helping readers to understand that a consensus of us think this is NOT good work (and maybe convey that some of us are outright ashamed of it), apologizing, and perhaps reducing the extent to which Wikipedia's reputation is at stake here. Negative tags which could be appropriate to add now include:

• {{weasel}}: "This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
• {{tone}}: "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."
• {{Misleading}}: "This article or section may contain misleading parts."
• {{Lead rewrite}}: "The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten."
• {{Cleanup rewrite}}: "This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards."
• {{More citations needed}}: "This article needs additional citations for verification."
• {{Criticism section}}: "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject."
• maybe {{debate}}: "This article is written in the style of a debate rather than an encyclopedic summary."
• maybe {{synthesis}}: "This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic."
• maybe {{disputed}}: "This article's factual accuracy is disputed."
• maybe {{dispute about}}: "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed. The dispute is about [selective presentation of negative material, relative to Wikipedia's standards for coverage of news/opinion sources]." (or with some other wording)

Those are a few of the tags in Category:Article message templates which seem relevant. It is seeming to me that some here may be committed to keeping the offending sentence in, for now. So negative tagging seems to me to be the way to go for now. I will pause for discussion here, but expect to proceed and insert some of these to the article soon (with edit summary pointing to the fact that these are under discussion here at Talk). It is my somewhat general understanding that negative tags, when fairly supported by at least some editors at the Talk page, cannot or should not be removed by editors seeking to hide the disagreement/judgment that the tags reflect. Again, this is what to do now, and to keep in place unless and until some better lead is created and obtains some consensus here. --Doncram (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit was completely unacceptable, and was a clear example of editorializing apologetics. And now it appears you’re threatening to disrupt the article? You’re not a new editor. If you have a genuine concern based in policy, voice it. Don’t threaten to tag bomb the page because you were reverted. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for expediency's sake, I've removed the disputed sentence while we craft one which has a more appropriate tone and with proper references. As a starting point, it looks like the Berkman Klein study mentioned here and located here may be a good, neutral, reliable source for some of what that sentence was trying to say. --Jayron32 13:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The long-standing lede is perfectly fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the way it is worded is that it isn't usefully distinctive about this site. The issue is not that it has published multiple false stories. Literally any news organization in the world has published numerous false stories. The deal with the Daily Caller is that it has published an unusually high number of false stories, more so than one would expect from a reliable news source. We need to craft a sentence that says that rather than one that merely notes the existence of more than one false story, which is all the sentence does now. That's the problem with it; it's too vague and doesn't justify itself as being necessary, since the statement is banally true of every news source ever. TDC is notable not because it has published more than one false story in its history, it is notable because it has published an unusually and unacceptably large number of such stories. --Jayron32 14:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it should go for now, since it is OR. I don't agree with having a mass of templates, but one for NPOV could be justified. The article National Enquirer, while it could certainly be more informative, could be a model for this one. It covers all the controversies from the defamatory story about Carol Burnett to the story connecting Ted Cruz's father to the Kennedy assassination, both of which provoked considerable controversy at the time. Yet it retains a neutral tone and avoids controversy sections. TFD (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

TDC is notable not because it has published more than one false story in its history, it is notable because it has published an unusually and unacceptably large number of such stories. Yes, this. Arguably, though, making the bare statement that the lede currently does conveys that point, because the lede is for summarizing the article and saying what the most significant things about the topic are. I'm not sure the current sentence needs to be changed (and leaving it in place would be the "conservative" thing to do, ha ha). Also, while we're discussing the introduction, I suspect that some language like "The Daily Caller has deliberately courted controversy" would be supportable by RS'es. And, looking over that long list of suggested tags, I don't think any of them are appropriate. Blanket banner-bombing is not a productive course of action, and in no way is this article so bad that the Wikipedia community needs to disavow it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You are justifying explicit OR in the lead with implicit OR in the article. TFD (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello all. FWIW, I have spent most of my recent time learning the COI rules and making sure everyone knows who I am, and what I'm about. I put that on my personal article's talk page and hope it passes the test. I won't dig into the details here, but will be submitting for your consideration a proposed revision, and many of the points made above will be embedded in it. It does seem to me that there is a NPOV problem with the lede, as it implies that TDC is "known" for publishing bogus stories. I'll address that in the proposed revisions section, which will appear hear in the next few days. I just wanted to thank many of you folks who take WP's mission to heart, namely, providing clear and clean information to people without the coloration of political bias. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I’m sure you’ll do fine, Charles. Thank you for doing your due diligence in trying to learn the ropes. It really is appreciated. I hope you don’t mind, but I removed the WP:PAID template you attempted to add before your signature. It was malformed, but more importantly, it’s unnecessary. A COI notice has already been added to the top of the talk page by someone else, apparently. That’s all that’s needed, in addition to it being added to your user page. If you need to add it to any additional articles, let me know, and I’ll point you in the right direction.

Essentially, the usual course of action for PAID and COI editors is to request an edit, and let the community weigh in. You are of course free to respond thereafter, as well. But it’s important to abide by consensus when it’s reached, and not attempt to force your preferred version through. Never try to solicit edits from others, including off-Wiki. I’m sure you’ve already read all this. But it’s fairly simple. Editors are generally willing to accommodate COI editors to the extant that they’re allowed per policy, as long as it abides by WP:NPOV, and doesn’t violate WP:BALANCE, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. The margin is pretty wide, otherwise. Sorry for over-linking there, but it’s good for any new user to know our foundational policies. Good luck! Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, [User talk:Symmachus Auxiliarus|talk]. Indeed, as a paid consultant my plan (coming soon, I promise!) is to submit to you all (open and transparent) suggested revisions in a few sections, each with 1) a suggested rewrite; 2) citations that support revisions; and 3) a short synopsis of the rationale for the revision.

Then, I am hoping that you folks adopt/adapt what you find useful and more in keeping with the WP mission. Some of you have raised some points here already that I'll address in detail later. For one thing, I have no idea where the statement that "The Daily Caller has referred to itself as "right-wing" comes from. I also understand the meaningful guidance of "bothsides-ism" ("Hitler was kind to dogs") but I'll be able to show you that they have published many *real* articles than were not only scoops, but picked up by legacy press, and many of these articles take direct aim at exposing the wrongdoing of Republicans, white nationalists and others. I don't think it'll shock anyone to hear that as it's written now, the tone and tenor of the article makes The Daily Caller look like some batshit crazy outfit "known" for false stories. ("JFK's Frozen Head Found on Mars!").

They have screwed up in the past, for sure, and made mistakes they need to own, but in journalism and academic writing the lede is important as a "table setter" and it seems to me the folks who are drawing a hard line on keeping things status quo have been involved in the edits before, have a definite bias (one called the Daily Caller "a piece of sh*t" in talk pages. That's hardly NPOV).

But please give me a chance to prepare a calm, professional, academic submission, and again, it's up to you to adopt/adapt or not. I would strongly request though that folks who have been involved in previous edits stay out of it: a new broom sweeps clean and all that. Thanks again for listening and really going out of your way to disprove the public notion that WP is "impossible to work with" or worse, that it's a bunch of politically-motivated folks who abuse their power for agenda. Let's prove them wrong! CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I'm looking forward to it. Can you confirm that you are not acting as a lawer with regard to your client? What do Paid facilitators do on wikipedia? Will you be willing to share your remuneration with the editors who help you improve the article? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As a little help for you, you asked where the statement about "calling itself right-wing" camne from. Answer - somebody called Calton Tucker Carlson. I'll give you that one for free. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please not use this page for discussing other editors and limit your discussion to improving the article. There are other fora for those discussions. I am looking forward to the suggestions. I would mention however that any mention of the real articles they have published or that they are picked up in the legacy press requires secondary sources, i.e., it has been noted in another newspaper or journal article. Their use as fact-checkers for facebook has been noted in news media, but I found very little else. TFD (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

All I can find is Carlson saying the DC would not be right-wing.[4] In my experience, no one experienced in politics - except some overt fascists - calls themselves right-wing. They instead call themselves centrist or center-right or say that the left-right spectrum is a meaningless concept invented by leftists. TFD (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and Doncram: Please remember this talk page, not edit summaries, is the right way to communicate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This is very simple: If Doncram (who has been intent on scrubbing reliably sourced from the lede or inserting some absurd false balance in the lede) wants his changes added to the article, he or she needs to seek consensus here. Instead, the editor has brazenly lied that there is consensus for the change (far more editors have expressed opposition to Doncram's alterations than support for them) and edit-warred to forces his/her preferred changes into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, please also remember to discuss content not editors and to not make allegations against other editors. Your response, which would have avoided running afoul of policy could have been "If Doncram wants his changes added to the article he or she needs to seek consensus here." which would have been fair enough. While you discussed your issues with the idea behind it above it would probably be helpful to explain explicitly which part of the changes you find troubling or if the whole thing why (perhaps referring to existing or new sources) to help further the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to say. I'm a bit confused. I asked where User:Snooganssnoogans (talk) had a factual basis for saying here that the Daily Caller has "admitted" or "said" that they are "right-wing." So far, nada, zip, zero. I spent the last 2 hours combing the archives and can't find anything even remotely close to that. In fact, one of the other editors found a direct quote from Tucker Carlson dispelling that characterization. Is that just ignored because it doesn't fit a few editors preconceived narrative? What gives? Not being wise in the ways of Wiki, are some editors more "powerful" than others and able to unilaterally override changes? Also, I'm not sure what Roxy, the dog. wooF means by sharing remuneration. I'm assuming in good faith that's just a joke. I'm hoping to be able to upload here this weekend a few suggested changes, reliable citations in support and rationale for some changes. And again, I reiterate that some editors who are rather plainly hostile to the subject seem to have an agenda or interest in not having their previous work changed. Seems to me that fresh eyes are called for to avoid any appearance of bias. Is everyone cool with that? I take no offense at being corrected, but editors digging in their heels seems to fit the public perception that WP is a "club" where some editors hold sway over what is and isn't revised. Surely, that can't be right. Thanks as always, and yours in fairness and truth-seeking, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Where did I say that the DC had "said" or "admitted" that they are right-wing or conservative? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What are the sources that support "The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos."? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anywhere in the body of the article where we say that it has published "numerous" false stories. I see about a dozen examples of false stories, two doctored photos and one doctored video. For us to take a set of examples, and draw a conclusion from those examples, would be WP:SYNTH. So are there sources in the article (or anywhere) that say that TDC has published "numerous" false stories, or "many", or more than other similar publications? Has any source compared its veracity with, say, NYT, or CNN, or HuffPo (like that study that compared the accuracy of Wikipedia to other publications)? I think we need secondary sources stating this proposition directly in order for us to state it in wikivoice in the article. – Levivich 03:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources have made the comparison, but they may not be the best for our purposes (e.g., I happened to have [5] in my browser history; [6] puts a rightwing website that has pushed misinformation in its lede, indicating significance of the point; Oxford's Computational Propaganda Project deemed them "junk news" [7]). The gist of the Berkman Klein Center report was that it wasn't so much that their reporting was entirely false, but rather that truth was mixed up with distortions and extrapolations. (The second most tweeted story [...] offered a case study in how disinformation is created by weaving bits and pieces of evidence into a fundamentally misleading presentation [8].) XOR'easter (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I'd take the academic sources but leave The Guardian and other competing news media sources out of it. Doesn't seem fair to source criticism of a company to its competitors, or allow its competitors to label it. But I think there's been plenty written about TDC by academic and other independent (non-news media, non-competitor) sources, such as those you've linked to (and those linked to in the article). – Levivich 04:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point. On the other hand, the views of one publication about another may be pertinent information (we can safely assume that a broad characterization in a lede has to pass through editorial control and isn't one journalist's spur-of-the-moment opinionating). If we attribute it adequately, then readers can choose to ignore it as they see fit. (Regarding the "right-wing" descriptor, Here, here and here are similar examples, while this one is clearly marked as an opinion, and this and should probably be considered such.) XOR'easter (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that "Context matters" provides a useful guide: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The inclusion on a list of many publications as "junk news" meets that description. As for the Guardian article, I find that news media are reliable for news reporting but not complex analysis. Is this the journalist's personal view (in which case it lacks weight) or are they repeating what they have read in an academic source (in which case we should use that source)? Also, MEDIA BIAS/FACTCHECK is an amateur source. I note that it places the centrist Democrat Think Progress[9] to the left of the actual left-wing magazine The Nation.[10]

If we don't have adequate secondary sources for a good article, then we should consider trimming it. Content policies places restrictions on how articles are written and unfortunately that means that many articles will remain incomplete until the world provides us with better sources. In the meantime, a brief description like "American conservative news site founded by Tucker Carlson and Peter Brimelow" provides me with most of what I need to know.

TFD (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, those sources were basically the first I pulled out of the miscellaneous bucket that is my browser history on the computer I happened to be using at the time, which is largely why I figured they "may not be the best for our purposes". (Regarding the Oxford study, I'd quibble and say that I don't think that "Context matters" really applies: including an item in the list of things the study is principally about — the list of "junk news" sources in a study of "junk news" — may be "in passing", but it is definitely "related to the principle topics of the publication". Sure, I'd like to see more detail, but it's not a case of using a source for something peripheral, like sourcing a fact about the Franco–Prussian War to a cookbook of Alsatian cuisine.) I am open to revising the lede, but I've yet to see a proposal for doing so that really bowls me over. XOR'easter (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would compare the list in "The Computational Propaganda Project" (CPP) with the SPLC list of hate groups. The SPLC investigates and categorizes groups annually, their reports are used by academics, courts and police forces, and their categorization is routinely cited by journalists. Hence in the lead for VDARE (similar to other groups it reports on), it provides the SPLC description followed by founder Peter Brimelow's rebuttal.

I don't see the same deliberation in the CPP report, or its widespread use. It certainly is not so well known that one would expect the DC to respond. And note that the SPLC categorization is presented as opinion, while in this case the CPP report would be presented as fact.

Context applies because the objective of the CPP report is not to categorize various media, but to show that right-wing media concentrate on different stories from mainstream media. Their list does not have to be 100% accurate to do that. They don't publish articles about each publication explaining why it was added, they don't update the list and there is no evidence that academics, courts, police forces and journalists rely on their list. They probably got the list from other sources, rather than independent investigation. But even if the list is only 95% accurate, it does not detract from the overall conclusions of the report.

If there were an equivalent of the SPLC that provided a list of fake news media, then I would certainly agree to use it in the same say. But there isn't and what we need is quality secondary sources specifically about the DC. If we can't find that then it is better to leave it out.

We should ever relax RS and WEIGHT because the answers we would like to see are otherwise unavailable. Readers who want to know more are of course free to go to google the Daily Caller and read what various websites that don't meet rs say about it. Personally, I form a lot of my opinions by reading the opinions of people I trust. I don't need Wikipedia to tell me everything.

TFD (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is regrettable that we don't have a good SPLC-hate-group-list analogue to work with. According to their methodology section, the CPP did not obtain the list from other sources, but generated it by the kind of procedure involving checking for agreement among multiple text-coding readers that seems fairly standard for quantitative media analysis [11]. I would not base a wiki-voice judgment entirely upon what the CPP says, but using it as a source somewhere in the article body seems appropriate.

On a tangential note, the SPLC report that the article currently does cite makes an interesting point that our article does not yet reflect. Writing in 2017, they said, "A few years ago, the Daily Caller publishing the work of an established white nationalist would be unthinkable." The times, argues the SPLC, have changed. This points, I think, to the general difficulty of writing about a topic that is a moving target, where the most upstanding and dependable sources may be from 2012 or 2014 and today sound like they're coming from a different world. XOR'easter (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

They don't provide any information about their data. The other problem is their use of the term "junk news," since it could cover a range from fakenews such as Pizzagate to selective publication of stories that differs from mainstream media. But that begs the question of whether mainstream media is unbiased in its selection of stories to cover. For example, why did anti-government demonstrations in socialist Venezuela receive more coverage than similar demonstrations in neoliberal Ecuador, Chile, and Haiti? I would want to see something more than inclusion on a list, unless the list (such as the SPLC hate list) was widely used. TFD (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)