Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Hit piece

The wording in this article, including the LEDE, makes this article seem like a hit piece, something specifically forbidden here I thought. The lede section as written, with some minor changes, could just as easily be inserted into the NYT lede. But we won't do that, will we? Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree. There is an untoward proliferation of one-sentence sections detailing this or that transgression, and a complete absence of information about the readership/circulation/influence of the site. Notably, the fact that this much-derided site won an Edward R. Murrow Award is noted only in the award section at the end. BD2412 T 14:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be written in the same way it would be in a section of a journalism textbook about U.S. news sources. You can of course try to improve it. TFD (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: It would be nice to have a collaborative effort to that end. I don't think any of us wants to feel like we're doing the lift all alone. BD2412 T 19:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion has come up before, you can check the archives. I think that the best way to begin is to find articles in quality sources, i.e., textbooks and journal articles and use them as a template for how the topic should be presented. Do you know of any? TFD (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be particularly curious about the coverage of their journalism award in 2012. BD2412 T 01:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Me too. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: I ask in part because Google search results are actually not helpful here. They give 1) the Daily Caller's own announcement of having won; 2) the award bestowing organization's list of awardees; and 3) a lot of noise coincidentally containing both search terms. BD2412 T 03:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it didn't get much coverage, then the limited coverage in our article makes sense. We reflect things according to the coverage they received and not according to the coverage we feel they ought to have received; it could be that, for whatever reason, that particular award at that particular time is not as prestigious or meaningful as you assumed. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It was for writing by Alex Quade for a short doc she made about the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Quade is an established journalist, currently billed as a freelance war correspondent with the ''Daily Caller''. I don't know what the significance is. The ''Daily Caller'' certainly has some well-respected and talented journalists who contribute and that should be mentioned. That doesn't mean it's a great publication, but the article should mention that. TFD (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeing the alarmingly favorable reaction (not just here, but the subsequent editing) to this sensational thread (which maybe(?) would normally have been deleted immediately as trolling), I'll just leave some thoughts. Avoid whitewashing. Follow WP:Preserve by not deleting but improving content: find more and better sources; improve wording and formatting, and make sure your editing doesn't reveal it's coming from the same right-wing fringe POV as The Daily Caller (one of our worst deprecated sources) so no one suspects fringe whitewashing is occurring. That would be classic tendentious editing. Keep in mind that advocacy of fringe POV is forbidden here, while advocacy of mainstream facts and POV from RS is not forbidden but expected by numerous PAG. Fringe POV have zero due weight here. Also see WP:RSP: "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information." It is still a horrible source, and any sympathetic treatment will be noted. Those are my words of caution. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are concerned about "sympathetic treatment" of a media outlet that won an Edward R. Murrow award, which is only mentioned at all in an award section at the end? BD2412 T 03:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to improve that mention of a 2012 award. That doesn't expiate the major sins of TDC. It is deprecated for very good reasons, so that award doesn't seem to have much meaning, but it did happen. Just don't give it undue prominence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here is proposing that the source be un-deprecated, but that's really neither here nor there. There are perfectly nice and accurate blogs and other wikis that are unusable as sources on Wikipedia, we don't have articles on them cherry-picking every criticism that can be made about them in the most dramatic possible arrangement. BD2412 T 03:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

TDC isn't some minor bit player. They wield huge influence in the right-wing and far right-wing bubble, and myriad RS have noticed and documented their positions and writings. We document that. Uncontroversial sources are treated differently by RS and thus also by us. We are not writing a hit piece, but we do document when RS hit TDC. We document when RS describe how they have once again shot themselves in the foot, so don't imply that it's our fault they are always getting in trouble. We mirror the realities of what's happening. Reconsider what you're doing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: I've "stayed clean" for the whole of the seventeen years that I've been an administrator here. I know an out-of-balance article when I see one. You say "they wield huge influence in the right-wing and far right-wing bubble", which seems to be an important piece of information. but where is this reflected anywhere in the body of this article? BD2412 T 04:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"According to a study by Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, The Daily Caller was among the most popular right-wing news sites during the 2016 United States presidential election. The study also found that The Daily Caller provided "amplification and legitimation" for "the most extreme conspiracy sites", such as Truthfeed, InfoWars, The Gateway Pundit and Conservative Treehouse."

That seems to indicate that TDC wields huge influence in the right-wing and far right-wing bubble. 192.77.12.11 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Murrow award is prestigious to be sure, but most good media organizations win a few of those and a bunch of Pulitzers and maybe a Peabody to boot. Winning an award once in 2012 does not a reliable outlet make. Andre🚐 04:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that at least five different organizations give out Edward R. Murrow Awards, and the award that the Daily Caller won in 2012 was one among 99 Edward R. Murrow Awards that particular organization handed out that year. See Edward R. Murrow Award for more information. This particular award appears to be an industry backscratching award by a group that gives out an extremely large number of awards of various names. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not the accuracy of the article that bothers me, it's the tone. The article about the Völkischer Beobachter, which was Nazi Germany's worst propaganda newspaper, so much so that the Nazi government disowned it, is far less strident than this article. That article seeks to tell us about the news medium, while this one seeks to discredit it. I don't accept the argument that since Nazism is dead, we don't have to warn people about it, while the U.S. radical right poses a threat.

Do you not realize that the typical reader will pick up on the tone of this article and say, "Gee, these guys really hate the Daily Caller, wonder why?" and it will have no impact on them. TFD (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Der Stürmer has a strong claim to be "Nazi Germany's worst propaganda newspaper". And today, we have its modern successor, The Daily Stormer, to either read or ignore. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are also incorrect about the Völkischer Beobachter, The Four Deuces. Hitler owned 100% of the shares of that newspaper ever since 1921, well before the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 when it was banned for a while, and it was published continuously under Hitler's ownership until the bitter end of the Nazi dictatorship in April, 1945. Cullen328 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, I was confusing it with Der Stürmer. But my point remains. Wikipedia shows more animosity toward the Daily called than Der Stürmer, showing that articles can be informative while maintaining a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That is utter bullshit, The Four Deuces. You can do much better, starting by checking the accuracy of your false assertions before you click the big blue "Publish changes" button. Cullen328 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You wrote above that so much so that the Nazi government disowned it, and later claimed that you confused the two newspapers, The Four Deuces. While it is true that some Nazi officials disliked Der Stürmer, it is also true that the only Nazi figure who really mattered, Adolph Hitler, loved that vile hate rag and defended it to the very end in his Berlin bunker. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is about a comparison about how we treat a much worse publication compared to how we treat the Daily Caller. Do you agree that the German publication was worse than the Daily Caller? if so, it really doesn't matter what top Nazis thought about it. What we should be discussing is why a neutral tone is used for that article and isn't for this one. Any thoughts? TFD (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

TFD, I don't think anyone is implying that TDC is worse than the German Nazi paper. The difference between our articles is based on the amount of literature and news coverage available to editors. Wikipedia is a recent creation and article content reflects the fact that news coverage for old events is of limited availability, so historical events and newspapers are described in a historical context using the sources available now. Much of that is scholarly literature. Obviously, junk sources like TDC are not the focus of serious historians and authors. Unfortunately for old subjects, many, and often most or all, of the contemporary sources at the time are lost to us and cannot be used. Current events, current publications, and websites are treated using currently available sources, the availability and accessibility of which are greatly amplified by the internet. That automatically means that our coverage will be different, and it can't be otherwise. Maybe the article about the German newspaper should be developed more. This TDC article will only get a historical treatment as time goes by, and it is our duty to make sure that happens. We build, not destroy, articles here. That's the whole purpose of Wikipedia and the WP:Preserve POLICY exists to limit the damage caused by deletionists. Fix and improve rather than delete. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

It's a ridiculous comparison, since there are fewer accessible English recent RS about Nazi publications than modern websites. Andre🚐 23:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The tone of the article about the Daily Stuermer is neutral. If you formed a worse impression about it than the Daily Caller, it's because it was a far worse publication. But notice the article does not try to persuade readers of that by listing brief comments and anecdotes. In fact, it is more powerful, because of its neutral tone and comprehensive treatment of the topic. TFD (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, which publication are you talking about when you confusingly mention the Daily Stuermer above? Are you taling about Der Stürmer published by Julius Streicher or are you talking about the current publication The Daily Stormer published by Andrew Anglin? How can we make sense out of your comments when they are so ambiguous? Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

i was referring to the German paper. Sorry, but my keyboard does not have an umlaut so i was using the English equivalent. Umlauted vowels are written in English by adding an e as in names such as Mueller and Koehler, although some people omit them. TFD (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, tone can be a problem. So how do we fix it without violating WP:Preserve? What's missing? Fix that! Unfortunately with your example, there are far more RS about TDC than VB. Current events and currently active sources like TDC do get more coverage here. That's natural, so the comparison doesn't stand up very well. We should describe it better. There must be other aspects that can be included. Regardless of what we do, there will still be fans who feel this is a hit piece, and we'll have to live with that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least I don't think Omeed Malik's tenure is leadworthy. In a quick search, The Hill seems to be the only secondary source that took notice of him at all; and the other articles noting the transfer in ownership quite notably do not mention him. But as far as the tone of the second paragraph of the lead goes... we have to reflect the content and focus in the sources. Saying that they were one of numerous outlets that earned a single award in 2012 doesn't change the overwhelming direction of sources covering them, saying eg:

• The point here is to offer educators a means for teaching this difference through a critical understanding of how conservative news operates to foster "fake news" that often begins on forums and online blogs with little credibility and zero accountability and ends in content created by major conservative media outlets such as Fox News, The Daily Caller website, and others.
• The right-wing media sphere is very interconnected, and websites tend to legitimize each other and circulate the same information across social media platforms. Websites like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon, Campus Reform, Gateway Pundit, and many more are known entities for spreading unreliable junk.
• In interviews, staff at the Daily Caller News Foundation walked a line between being explicit about the publication’s political stance, and being covert.
• And the stridently white-nationalist and anti-immigrant Daily Caller website, which cofounder Tucker Carlson left in June 2020 to focus on his top-rated primetime Fox News program, makes a point of inviting readers to report any errors, which it promises will be “hastily" corrected "so that our readers can get the real story." Publicly accepting and correcting one's mistakes is, of course, usually understood as a prime signal of professional integrity, and the extent of a news organization's willingness to do so honestly offers a yardstick for measuring just how serious its commitment is to factual accuracy. The Daily Caller, however, doesn't quite work that way.

Those are the sorts of sources that fill the top page of a Google Scholar search for recent coverage of the Daily Caller; and they're from high-quality academic publishers. Maybe there are other sources we're missing, but "they won one award a decade ago, how can all this other stuff be WP:DUE" isn't really reasonable on the face of it - the tone of our lead reflects the way the Daily Caller is covered in the vast majority of high-quality academic sources that go into depth on it. It is not an exaggeration to say that academic sources regularly use the Daily Caller as a standard go-to example when discussing "junk news" or similar concepts. --Aquillion (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article be rewritten to portray the article subject as a high-quality source. The problem is, this could be moved pretty much as-is to a title like "list of criticisms of The Daily Caller", putting everything purportedly negative to be said about the subject on equal footing, whether the incident was in the larger picture trivial or not. Again, there is a glaring lack of context for the significance of the subject within the ecosystem of journalism. Perhaps the answer to this will be "so fix it", but it should not have gotten to a place where there is almost exclusively a relentless focus on criticisms in the first place. BD2412 T 13:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Start by blaming RS for that focus, not editors. Our job is to document how RS treat the subject. RS determine the due weight we give content. Good and RS rightly cricize TDC, and there seems to be little to justify any praise. Any "lack of context" should indeed be "fixed". Go for it. Otherwise, any "move" to another article with an exclusive focus on criticisms would be a classic POV fork. It seems that the fact that Tucker Carlson started TDC is a ball and chain that still manifests itself in TDC's continued failures to live up to even basic, honest, journalistic standards. He gave it a mission and that continues to rule. Anything ever connected with Carlson is tainted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Given comments like "anything ever connected with Carlson is tainted", it could be suspected that this is not so much a case of documenting how RS treat the subject as one of searching for content from RS that specifically demean the subject. It is also worth nothing that many of the sources cited for criticism of the subject are also competitors of the subject. BD2412 T 16:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

No, this is just how RS treat the subject. Andre🚐 19:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The comment also fails to AGF and politicizes the issue. (It is a mainstream RS view and fact that Carlson is an extremely unreliable source, so drop the political spin that defends him. Editors are supposed to adopt the views of RS and not defend unreliable sources and people. Such defensiveness is a partisan fringe attitude.) We are supposed to document what RS say and give the coverage the due weight they give it. We are not supposed to create a false balance. RS will always be the "competitors" of unreliable sources, so that's a red herring that ignores multiple PAG. Bothsiderism is unhelpful here. What can be done is fix any perceived deficits. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The nature of the article as-is politicizes the issue. You keep saying, "Go for it," but offer no constructive ideas how to move forward in a direction that you would find acceptable. It's a horribly negative article, that I was shocked to come across here. It's unfair to our readers and our mission to maintain neutrality. And, BTW, I can assure you I am not a troll as you alluded too above. Listing criticism after critism sourced to idealogical opponents is not NPOV. We have to do better than this. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The facts are that the Daily Caller is a widely regarded as low quality outlet. We say what reliable sources say. Trying to provide WP:FALSEBALANCE is unwise. Andre🚐 23:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the state of the article, not The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller may suck, every reliable source may say it sucks, I don't know. Apparently that's debatable. The article, however, sucks and needs to be fixed. That is something we can do something about. As it stands, having no article or just a stub would be better. ANYTHING other than a mere list of criticisms as it is now. Maybe TNT? GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose TNT Andre🚐 00:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion, these are all passing mentions of the Daily Caller. What I meant was let's find articles about the Daily Caller and use them as sources. To go back to Der Stuermer's article, it isn't a random collection of passing references to the publication and a collection of some of its most notorious articles. In fact it doesn't get into passing comments or details of articles at all.

The difference in approach is that the other article relies on secondary sources that provide analysis of the publication by experts who have presumably read the articles and drawn conclusions about their overall content and why they were written. There is no need therefore for the Wikipedia article to assemble evidence and prove that the publication was misleading and racist.

Can you find any reliably sources articles about the Daily Caller? It could be that few if any exist, in which case we might consider stubbifying the article.

TFD (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose stubification and disagree with this reasoning. These sources are not passing mentions at all. They are academic sources about right-wing propaganda outlets that use this as an example. Andre🚐 00:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that the Daily Caller is a paragon of journalism, or a politically down-the-middle enterprise. The issue here is that this article is written in a poor, and therefore unencyclopedic form, as a laundry list of transgressions, apparently none too minor to bear mentioning. For example, even the 2020 incident in which Daily Caller reporters were arrested by Louisville police, while merely reporting on the shooting of Breonna Taylor, is portrayed as a controversy for the outlet as opposed to a controversy for the police, under the header of "Threatened lawsuit against Louisville Metro Police Department". I find it hard to imagine the same incident being portrayed the same way in articles on other media outlets, and equally hard to imagine that many of the pettier controversial instances would even be mentioned at all in another article. BD2412 T 02:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• When a sources says, "major conservative media outlets such as Fox News, The Daily Caller website, and others," the topic is about "right-wing propaganda outlets," not the Daily Caller specifically. Otherwise, we could use it to create multiple identical articles. Does this source have a section specifically about the Daily Caller? TFD (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't need to be solely about the topic to be about it. It's more than a passing mention. Andre🚐 17:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

CJR, Guardian, WaPo, NYT? Levivich (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That's better,  because those articles provide detailed information. The only reservation I would have is that the last thre are analyses in news media and hence likely fail rs. But the ''CJR'' source is so brief, it would not support more than a stub article.

Imagine this article did not exist and we were looking for detailed reliable sources to create it. Do any such sources exist and what are they? TFD (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Several editors have said that because we don't have current news reporting on Nazi era news media, we are forced to rely on academic papers and textbooks. I would like to point out that academic sources are considered the most reliable while analyses in news media are considered unreliable. So the argument boils down to this article lacks neutrality because of a lack of reliable sources. The only solution based on policy therefore is to stubbify. If as one editor said, serious academics are not interested in the outlet, then it means it lacks serious notability, as defined in policy. TFD (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

analyses in news media are considered unreliable No they are not. This is a vastly incorrect line of argument. Academic sources may have more weight or prominence, but news sources are indeed reliable in many cases. Nor has anyone said that academics aren't interested in the outlet. There were several sources provided. Stubification is an non-starter and I strongly oppose. Andre🚐 17:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think going all the way to a stub is necessary, as there is some good content in the lede, and in the "History", "Political stances", and "Staff, contributors and organization" sections. In fact, I think the 2020 New York Times article, Tucker Carlson Sells His Stake in The Daily Caller, presents a fairly reasonable and balanced approach. BD2412 T 17:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor do I think we should systematically whitewash the "controversies." Some perhaps are overly detailed or could call for better encyclopedic prose style. But we don't want to end up with an article where "ties to white supremacists" and "refusal to criticize Fox News" etc are memory-holed. If the material is verifiable, well-sourced, and NPOV, it's not automatically POV to have negative information about the outlet in detail. Andre🚐 17:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no corresponding "ties to white supremecists" section at CBS MarketWatch or The Wall Street Journal or The American Spectator or Maclean's Magazine or Random House based on their association with one of the same people for whom this is a "controversy" for this outlet, so it seems that either it has already been memory-holed for all of those articles, or its appearance in this article is a double standard. The "refusal to criticize Fox News" is likewise odd; why doesn't every article on a media outlet have a section detailing other media outlets that they have failed to criticize. That is typical of the shape of things in this article. I have already noted the instance where reporters being locked up for covering a story is treated in this article as though this is a controversy for the outlet as opposed to being a controversy for the police department that arrested them. BD2412 T 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Scott Greer was deputy editor and contributor at The Daily Caller. After his departure in June 2018, it was revealed that he published articles espousing white nationalist, racist anti-black and antisemitic views under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications That is true of CBS and WSJ as well? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported in 2017 that The Daily Caller had a "white nationalist problem", citing contributions by Kessler, Brimelow, Greer, and Ilana Mercer, whose writing on supposed racially motivated crime in South Africa was also published on the white nationalist website American Renaissance the same day it appeared in The Daily Caller Really,. did SPLC say that about Marketwatch and CBS too? 'Cause... we say what reliable sources say. If they say it about other things feel free to update those articles too. The "refusal to criticize Fox News" is likewise odd; why doesn't every article on a media outlet have a section detailing other media outlets that they have failed to criticize. This is a straw man and a fallacious slippery slope argument. Tucker Carlson is a well-known Fox News commentator and associated with the Caller. He isn't associated with the other outlets. As far as the "controversy for the outlet", where does it say that? All the article says is the following: During The Daily Caller's coverage of protests in Louisville, Kentucky related to the shooting of Breonna Taylor and subsequent verdict on the police involved, two of their reporters were arrested, prompting co-founder Patel to threaten a lawsuit against the Louisville Metro Police Department. If you don't consider this a "controversy" maybe it should be moved somewhere else in a separate section, but seems perfectly NPOV. Andre🚐 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source to the effect that The Daily Caller was the only outlet that published those people (or does every article covering other outlets publishing them raise this as a problem)? With respect to the "failure to criticize" argument, is there a canon of journalism that requires media outlets to criticize other outlets? If not, then Carlson's presence is a non-issue. With respect to the arrest of the reporters, the subheader for that section is "Threatened lawsuit against Louisville Metro Police Department", which therefore identifies the threat to sue as the controversy, as though the outlet should have known that the police have the right to arrest journalists for covering a story, and how dare they threaten to sue over it. BD2412 T 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

With respect, why would they need to be the only outlet that published those people in order for it to be mentioned here? Additionally, if it isn't yet mentioned in other articles (which you haven't established that it isn't), it can be added to them as well. That's not an argument against inclusion here in place of whitewashing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree OuroborosCobra, and can't we have a little good faith? BD2412 you seem to be assuming that everything in this article was written with an intent to defame and attack the publication. Maybe these are just the facts and they happen to reflect a publication with an objectively bad reputation. Is it literally true that the Caller "threatened lawsuit against Louisville Metro Police Department"? Do most media orgs threaten to sue police departments? When NYT or WSJ journalists are arrested do they threaten the cops? Is it controversial? If so, I think it's rightly considered a controversy. Andre🚐 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: As I specified above, There is no corresponding "ties to white supremecists" section at CBS MarketWatch or The Wall Street Journal or The American Spectator or Maclean's Magazine or Random House based on their association with one of the same people. You can look at those articles yourself. If you dig enough into any sufficiently large enterprise, you will find some people who work there who have engaged in unsavory activities off the clock, and you may even find several people who have engaged in the same kind of unsavory activity. The article itself also describes Scott Greer as only having been discovered to have written white supremacist pieces after his departure from the outlet, which would make his time at the outlet irrelevant to such later discoveries. @Andrevan: I don't think any editor working to create this article acted in bad faith, per se. I think each acted out of a conviction that this outlet is bad and must be exposed as such, and collectively built up every detail consistent with this conviction, no matter how irrelevant. As for the arrest of the reporters, I would expect any news outlet whose reporters were being held in jail for reporting on misconduct by the police to take legal action to secure their release. This is not even unusual. BD2412 T 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Caller article discusses its ties to white supremacists because reliable sources discuss those ties. The articles for CBS MarketWatch and the WSJ should likewise reflect what reliable sources say. If such sources don't tie those outlets to white supremacy, then we don't. We write articles to reflect the content and emphases of reliable sources—it always amazes me to see experienced editors try to wriggle out of this requirement. You may personally think it's unfair to blame the Daily Caller but not those other outlets, but for Wikipedia's purposes it doesn't really matter what you think about that, only what reliable sources actually say. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The section also notes that the outlet cut ties with and reputiaded those individuals in every instance where the outcome was followed up on. Perhaps the section header should be "Repudiation of ties with white supremacists". BD2412 T 19:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not really what the sources say, and I'm getting increasingly concerned by the disconnect between source content and your framing of it. The sources say, for example, that the Daily Caller featured a video encouraging its readers to mow down protesters with their cars. After a neo-Nazi did exactly that at the Charlottesville rally, yes, the Daily Caller then removed the video. Likewise, they feature the work of white supremacists and, when caught doing so, they profess to be shocked—shocked. But your contention that they've "repudiated" their white-supremacist contributors appears to be false and a misrepresentation—the cited sources indicate that the Caller continued to defend Jason Kessler's work, for example, even after cutting ties to him once his extremism became a matter of public knowledge. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Caller, per those sources, removed Kessler's articles from its website and cut ties with him; the source does not say that the Daily Caller defended Kessler's opinions, but merely said that Kessler accurately reported the facts in his reporting for the outfit. Since there is no accusation that Kessler wrote inaccurate content (or white supremacist content) for the Daily Caller, what else does repudiating require besides publicly cutting ties with the person and removing their content, even though it was not inaccurate on its face? BD2412 T 19:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what this Google results link is intending to illustrate, but it doesn't appear to offer evidence for your assertion. Andre🚐 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Not every hit does, but most detail reporters being arrested in the course of reporting, with several further indicating that the arresting department was either threatened with legal action or that legal action was in fact taken against them. The point is that it is broadly understood to be improper for authorities to arrest journalists who are covering the activities of those authorities, and laudable rather than controversial for news outlets to defend reporters who are arrested in such a way. BD2412 T 19:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking for, but not finding, another analogous situation where a news outlet threatened to sue the local police department. It's true that reporters get arrested all the time, but I don't recall seeing the New York Times or the Washington Post threaten to sue the cops. I could simply be mis- or uninformed. However, you haven't provided any evidence of this. Whether it is proper or laudable is really beside the point since again, we write what reliable sources say and our opinions are not relevant. I happen to agree with you that police shouldn't arrest journalists. It's immaterial. Andre🚐 21:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

They don't just threaten it. Levivich (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. 68 journalists and two outlets since 2017. So this is almost certainly noteworthy and should be documented here. Because only two outlets were said to have done this that were tracked by this source, so presumably one of them is the Daily Caller. Andre🚐 23:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should be documented it here, that is uncontroversial. The problem is that the placement and header portray this as the outlet doing something wrong, which in turn paints the arrest of journalists peacefully reporting on a police action as legitimate and proper. BD2412 T 00:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

TFD: "while analyses in news media are considered unreliable"???? WTF? That's utter nonsense. Thank you Andre for beating me to it. I'm surprised that an experienced editor like TFD would make such a claim. That's a newbie misunderstanding. I will now have to lower my bar for evaluating anything from that source. That's just sad. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe all articles should be built upon WP:GNG sources, which guide editors as to what is WP:DUE for inclusion. For example, if there is a source about notable person A that mentions their ties to notable organizations X, Y, and Z, that suggests those ties are DUE for inclusion in the Wikipedia article about person A, but not necessarily in the Wikipedia articles about organizations X, Y, and Z. Conversely, if there is a source about the history of organization X, and it mentions person A, that would suggest that person A is DUE for inclusion in the article about organization X.

As to this article, there are GNG sources about TDC (linked in this discussion and in the article) and some of them mention some "person A" or "controversy B", etc., and so those might be DUE for inclusion in this article about TDC, but not every mention of TDC in a source about person A or whatever else is necessarily DUE for inclusion in this article. The way to tell the difference between DUE and not DUE for this article is by looking at the GNG sources about TDC.

My general rule of thumb when writing articles is to include only details that are included in two or more GNG sources, meaning every sentence/paragraph is supported by at least two citations, three for anything controversial (including negative information about BLPs). That's not a policy requirement and I don't know if it's even best practice, but it's my practice.

Finally I'd like to gently remind everyone to "focus on the content and not on the contributor" please. Comments about editors' motivations, track records, etc., don't belong on article talk pages and make the editing environment less pleasant than it otherwise could be. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Your analysis is not without merit, but you're calling for a stricter standard than the one Wikipedia actually requires, which should be noted. Andre🚐 22:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary, numerous people in this discussion have repeatedly violated the civility standards of Wikipedia. Everyone needs to tone it down a bunch. Buffs (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to sourcing standards and notability, such as include only details that are included in two or more GNG sources. I'm not sure which civility issue you are referring to here. Andre🚐 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there's been a slight miscommunication: Andre was referring to the second-to-last paragraph of my comment while Buffs was referring to my last paragraph. It's kind of funny if you read Andre's reply as being about my last paragraph :-D Levivich (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah yep sorry. My bad for not being clearer. Andre🚐 16:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

stupid vague pronouns... Buffs (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a hit piece per se, but we need to do better. For instance, the page seems to cover everything editors perceive as them doing bad, but not anything they would perceive as them doing good. For instance, the Daily Caller was the one who found documents related to Michael Flynn. I am not advocating for inclusion of that information, but I am advocating for removal of much of what is there on the other end. The article looks more like a list of articles run by the Daily Caller and Wikipedia is not the place for that. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I agree. The current state of things is overkill, and seems petty. BD2412 T 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an example of what is wrong with the page. What does Malik's time with BofA have to do with the Daily Caller? This information needs to go on a page for him or on the BofA page if worthy of inclusion. It is coatracking to put it here. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

A prime example of COATRACKING with a troubling side preference for Guilt by Association as opposed to neutral content. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem removing the Malik sexual conduct. I don't think he even has his own article. Andre🚐 07:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that as well. I added some of that to provide fuller context to Malik's situation, but I can see how it is really beyond the scope of this article. BD2412 T 21:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Jason Kessler

Remove the sentence about Jason Kessler from the lead? Reduce mention of Jason Kessler in the body?

There was some approval for that in the Peter Brimelow thread but, since Jason Kessler wasn't the topic, I ask again to be sure. I think that The Daily Caller published three Jason Kessler articles -- April 3 2017, April 26 2017, May 14 2017 -- and later erased them. I think that is insignificant and suggest removal of the sentence in the lead, removal of the paragraph in the body, and retention of the mention by the SPLC blog which should be cut to a single sentence.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree competely. BD2412 T 17:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Definitely not Lede-worthy. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Based on MOS:LEADREL, the white nationalist issue should be noted somewhere in the top section. If the people are named, it should probably be all three instead of Kessler individually. Llll5032 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  The inclusion of any of these specific names in the lede is vastly out of proportion to the miniscule number of sources on the topic that discuss them. BD2412 T 17:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  The number of sources in the "Ties to white supremacists" section is not miniscule. Llll5032 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  The number of sources referencing specific individuals is miniscule. There are 140+ sources in the article, of which a dozen are in that section, inclding the Insider piece that makes only one passing mention of the Daily Caller. The Washington Post piece only makes passing mention of the Daily Caller by noting that Kessler had been fired well before organizing the Charlottesville rally. Even this, however, is disproportionate to real-world coverage of the Daily Caller. BD2412 T 17:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Guilt by association is not Lede-worthy (or even article-worthy, IMO). Is there a section that describes the Daily Caller as publishing unrepentant, un-retracted white nationalist articles? GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It would be fair to note at the top when the articles were retracted or removed. Llll5032 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I am neutral about the names, but the overall issue was noted by enough RS that it should be mentioned at the top. There is no need to reduce the description of Kessler later in the article, where the connection to the DC is noted by a number of RS including the Washington Post, Pro Publica, and the New Republic. Llll5032 (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• I rewrote that sentence to summarize the section rather than focus on Kessler individually. Further improvements are welcome. –dlthewave ☎ 17:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Dlthewave added. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say remove it from the lede altogether based on the number of sources that cover it. The lede is a summary of the body but doesn't need to include everything or we might as well copy and paste the entire body in the lede. What is the relevant importance of having it there? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the coverage is misleading. None of the Kessler's articles were overtly white supremacist. Kessler's last article was the day after the protest against removing the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesille. When the Daily Caller was informed that Kessler had spoken at the rally, his article was taken down. See articles in the SPLC[1] and Salon[2] Kessler would later emerge as a leading figure in white nationalism as an organizer of the United the Right rally later that year.

The implication in the lead is that the Daily Caller invited a prominent leader of white nationalism to write an article, when in fact his prominence would come later. That's the type of problem that arises when we build an article around news articles instead of articles about the subject. According to the man bites dog theory, news media will report things that are out of the ordinary, giving the impression that they occur more frequently than ordinary events. We really need an article about the Daily Caller in a reliable source that can be used to establish the weight and analysis of the various issues.

TFD (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean we should use a tertiary source, like a reference book's description of the DC? Llll5032 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It could be, but even an article in a magazine or newspaper would be useful. What we have are basically news reports, making it difficult to write a neutral article. TFD (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that would be the best way to resolve the questions. Llll5032 (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Llll5032 and dlthewave that we should improve and not remove this, and further that there is not a consensus here to remove or reduce the mention of the Daily Caller's "white supremacist problem." Are there textbooks and reference books about the Daily Caller? There are some mentions that were discussed but none that go far enough into detail to name all of the people who wrote for it. I think it's fine to summarize the white supremacist problem and go into more detail in the body. By its nature a topic such as the Daily Caller is going to have a lot of coverage in periodicals, magazines, newspapers, thinktank publications, etc., and doesn't really register to the very elite academic crowd as a topic worth delving into for a weighty historical tome, in 2022. Andre🚐 07:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You both make good points. Perhaps the section should be updated with more sources since 2018, and any claim at the top should get references. Llll5032 (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

One could write for example an article about the Democratic Party that was dominated by scandals from Whitewater to Laptopgate, all of which was reliably sourced, but together gave a false impression of the party. The Labour Party (UK) was diagnosed as having an "anti-Semitism problem" more recently than the DC was diagnosed as having a "white nationalist problem," yet it has little mention in the article.

Propaganda "may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception." Weight is such a crucial policy because it assigns proper context to information. Furthermore, no synthesis prevents editors from encouraging any particular synthesis.

This is actually an example of ineffective propaganda. It's so egregious, that it discredits itself. It would have to be a bit more subtle in order to be persuasive.

What we need is a reliable article about the Daily Caller. See WP:TERTIARY: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." TFD (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that any wording needs to be careful and proportionate. Llll5032 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The Britannica entry about Carlson does not have specifics but has some general statements about the DC. Llll5032 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again an "OTHERSTUFF" type argument. Please go ahead and add more info about the anti-Semitism controversy to Labour. It probably needs its own article or section under the Jeremy Corbyn prime minister campaign. Andre🚐 18:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly made an edit in the second paragraph based on some of the questions raised in this discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I found two articles: "DAILY CALLER" (Covering American Politics in the 21st Century: An Encyclopedia of News Media Titans, Trends, and Controversies ABC-CLIO 2017, pp. 153-155) and "DailyCaller.com" (Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics SAGE 2013, pp. 345-346.)

Unfortunately, they are a couple of years out of date, but they do present mainstream perspectives.

If editors want to write an informed and balanced article, rather than a hit piece, they need to use sources like this as templates for the weight the article should give to various issues. They should also note the neutral tone these articles use, which is the style that should be adopted here. While that may mean walking into a university or research library, the time spent would be more productive than arguing here. TFD (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Excellent finds. The first example is exactly on point. I can only see the last page of the second one, but it is interesting that both focus on the Menendez example as a point of criticism. BD2412 T 15:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Look at the second one again because the article starts mid-page on 345. I also thought the first page was missing at first. TFD (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

As TFD pointed out, the tertiary sources he cites were published in 2013 and January 2017--before the controversies about ties to white supremacists began in 2017. So those sources can't be used for weight about those controversies, but they could be used for information about pre-2017 events. I agree that it would be advisable to find more current tertiary sources. Llll5032 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So far, as I interpret, five editors (Peter Gulutzan, GenQuest, BD2412, CNMail41, The Four Deuces) agree to remove from the lead, three editors (Lill5032, Dlthewave, Andrevan) want to keep or expand it there. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPUNDEL it is the re-inserters who would need consensus. Unless they become more numerous or more convincing, I am hopeful that we will be able to remove from the lead (including removal of the bold undiscussed additions that Dlthewave and Lill5032 made after this thread began). Then, since not all the editors who agreed to remove from the lead also clearly agreed to remove from the body, we might discuss that more, perhaps some compromise suggestions will appear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, if it's long-standing content that is well-referenced, you need consensus to remove it. Second of all 5-3 is not an affirmative consensus to remove by any stretch, consensus is not a majority vote, and you've omitted @MastCell, @Aquillion, and @Valjean at least if not others. This is a bludgeoning of the process because your consensus is not there to remove this. Just continuing to state the same arguments that are not agreed to is not progress along political lines. Andre🚐 18:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

See Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: 'While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

I have brought up weight numerous times and you have never once addressed the requirement for this article to adhere to that policy. Indeed everyone knows that the text is verifiable. That is not the issue. TFD (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Onus isn't a magic wand to remove any content you don't like. As mentioned, consensus can determine whether it's in or out. So far, we've been discussing and there is not a consensus to remove it. The opinion is roughly split on whether to remove it which defaults to the status quo. Edits have been made to change the text to make it more NPOV and I'm not opposed to that. Your argument seems to be that weight can only be obtained by academic sources which is not supported by policy. Weight can also come from other types of sources. Andre🚐 18:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And there's really no BLPUNDEL here because the Daily Caller is not a person, and the claims being made about individual people are WP:PUBLICFIGURE due to being journalists with bylines Andre🚐 18:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's undeniably notable and well-sourced that the Caller has served as a platform for white supremacists and other right-wing extremists. Given that emphasis in reliable sources, our policies require that the lead honestly inform our readers. It's not essential that Kessler specifically be named, so if that's the objection, then I think it's fine to use a more general statement. I'm concerned, though, that this is sort of a beachhead operation to remove all mention of the Caller's record on the subject, using the fig leaf of "Kessler isn't important". MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Andrevan's first statement is not based on any PAG that I'm aware of, Second of all, nobody said 5-3 is consensus. Third, I didn't "omit" the extra people Andrevan pinged, they hadn't commented in this thread. And of course I don't agree with Andrevan's conduct accusation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO for one. Or WP:NOCON. And I'm not accusing you of poor conduct but merely echoing the statement made by MastCell earlier I'm pretty alarmed by the re-write which seems to seek to bludgeon people into whitewashiing what sources say. That was earlier this month and doesn't just go into the memory hole because a new thread was started. It's the same topic. Andre🚐 18:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is an essay. WP:NOCON says one option is to go back before the "bold edit" i.e. the insertion of Jason Kessler. MastCell didn't respond to my edit by making a bludgeoning accusation, you did. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine, I withdraw my bludgeoning characterization. Inserting Jason Kessler was not the bold edit. Removing the material was the bold edit. Andre🚐 18:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Andre is correct, the controversies about white supremacists are longstanding in the top section, since 2019. Llll5032 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesus effing Christ! Is whitewashing still a pressing issue here? Apparently so. Keep, improve, and expand per WP:Preserve. Longstanding and properly-sourced content stays in.

TDC is a fringe, but extremely notable and influential, source with the typical far-right issues. Don't hide them, and above all, don't do it using blatantly "other things" arguments.

Stop forgetting we are not Conservapedia. Editors who forget they are not editing there should stay there and stop visiting our MAINSTREAM shores. Sheesh, grumble grumble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposition here seems to be that every effort to make the article something other than a laundry list of anything bad that can be said about the subject constitutes "whitewashing". I think TFD's reference to Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics and Covering American Politics in the 21st Century are very well-taken in this regard. I don't think either of those sources could be characterized as whitewashing the subject, as both point out major foibles, but both cover it with a reasonable understanding of what is important to convey for the reader to understand the subject as a whole. BD2412 T 20:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

They are good references but too old. Both were published before any of the controversies we are discussing. Llll5032 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that I wrote "Unfortunately, they are a couple of years out of date?" It would be helpful if you read my postings before responding to them. I next pointed out, "While that may mean walking into a university or research library, the time spent would be more productive than arguing here."

Presumably something has been written since then, but isn't available free on the internets. Can I count on you to look for similar sources that have been written more recently so that we can write a neutral and informative article and bring all the discussions to an end? TFD (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I did notice, and I agree with the solutions you propose. We can all try to look. Llll5032 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that there are a number of points covered in the article that do predate these sources – for example, DC criticism of Media Matters is addressed in the Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics, in a substantially less sensationalist manner. Actually, it is also frankly unclear what organizational principle controls the listing of content. The "Journalistic standards" section appears to be roughly chronological, with a few exceptions that can be easily fixed. The "Controversies" section basically goes 2017/18, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2020, 2020, 2018. I would also note that some of these "Controversies" are of questionable encyclopedic significance. The "Refusal to run a column critical of Fox News" probably falls below the significance of mention altogether, but certainly doesn't need its own one-line section under a separate header. The "Outing of Stefan Halper" seems inflated given that the DC is not even mentioned in Halper's article. BD2412 T 21:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Back to the thread topic i.e. Jason Kessler. Other editors changed the sentence in the lead after this thread started, now it's "In 2017 and 2018, the website cut ties with an editor and two contributors linked to white supremacist causes.[17][18]" If that survives, since it isn't a direct mention of Jason Kessler, it makes my suggestion about removal moot. The further suggestion, that the paragraph about Jason Kessler should be removed from the body, didn't get as much support. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)