Talk:J. Hutton Pulitzer

Arizona fraudit

Pulitzer is identified as involved in the Arizona fraudit, in three ways: his claim to have invented the so-called "kinematic marker" detection system which is being used by right-wing conspiracist Doug Logan in the fraudit itself. Second, he is claimed to be the originator of the claim that ballots from China were dropped into the boxes, and that these will be identifiable due to higher bamboo content. Third, his claims have been referenced by Sidney Powell in her frivolous lawsuits.

We are not going to pretend that the fraudit is anything other than what it is: a partisan stunt. That's what all reputable sources say it is. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This is telling: "We are not going to pretend that the fraudit is anything other than what it is: a partisan stunt." Who is "we"? Wikipedia is supposed to be a collective effort, not the property of a few maxi-editors, self-styled elites. I'd never heard of the silly term "fraudit" until here, and it is straight out of a rhetorical talking points page that might be distributed by the DNC. The facts indicate the audit, which is the term being used by even hostile Media sources, is being carried out by a number of different contractors, and it is not even clear what level of involvement Pulitzer has. Ken Bennett, the guy acting as liaison for the audit, said he was unsure whether Pulitzer would be personally involved or whether the workers would be using his system.

If you wanted to do something constructive, you might fix the link for the allegation about Chinese involvement. Whether Sydney Powell makes a reference to this guy might be relevant, and if so, then that is a subject matter all its own, if done in an unbiased way. Again, whether her lawsuits are "frivolous" is a matter of opinion, not fact, and such a description would be inappropriate in any article that could be considered neutral.

The basic problem here is that this, as with any Wiki article, should retain a neutral dispassionate voice, and not impose the partisan opinion of its author. This is like a political infection, and has already destroyed the credibility of CNN, the New York Times, and all the once respected major TV American networks. It's hard to explain how much contempt most Americans have for the news media these days. It's easy to understand how people outside the U.S. are unaware of that fact.Sych (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sychonic, just curious, how familiar are you with the 2020 election and its aftermath? Arizona GOP, especially, engaged in all kinds of batshit insane rhetoric about "stop the steal", they called for - and got - recounts and other checks which were run properly by qualified people, and they did not like the answer, so they hired a firm run by a QAnon crazy which has zero experience of elections, and this person set about "auditing" the ballots with UV looking for watermarks (a QAnon conspiracy theory, the paper is not watermarked), they're now looking for bamboo (another QAnon conspiracy theory) and Pulitzer is piling in with claims that "kinematic markers" can detect fraudulent ballots because he thinks all early ballots will have been folded for posting (not true: they may have been taken to drop boxes, for example).

News coverage is unambiguous: Secret Chinese ballots, UV lights and watermarks: Arizona GOP recount mired in conspiracy theories, Fact Check: Georgia Senate Masquerades Failed Treasure Hunter as Hacker and Election Security Expert, Arizona Senate's election audit is looking more absurd by the day, Yes, a guy from the insurrection is handling your ballot. Thank the Arizona GOP for that, Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on, News of volunteers searching for evidence of conspiracies linked to bamboo fibers and ultraviolet lights has made Arizona the punch line in late-night comedy.

In passing I'd note that you cite Pulitzer's unsupported claim to Vision Times, which has no indicia of reliability. In your last revert you reinserted this source and removed the BBC, AZ Central and The Independent, which are reliable.

Election audits are supposed to be run by non-partisan specialists, with oversight from all interested parties. In this case it's being run by one party, using partisan non-experts, with virtually no oversight (and that only applied post-hoc), amid a cloud of nonsensical rhetoric that is simply not borne out by the facts on the ground. And one of your sources for the content in whihc you frame this as a legitimate exercise is an AP story (AP are as neutral a source as you can get) titled "Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on". Fantasies is not an endorsement of the AZ GOP's claims.

To treat that as anything other than what it is - a partisan stunt - is a gross failure of NPOV. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The Vision Times is an outlet of 'new religious movement' / right wing political group Falun Gong, and absolutely should not be cited for anything related to US politics. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the U.S. election, since I voted in it and have something of an interest in a fair result. The most distinctive thing about this election is how virulent the Media reaction to claims of impropriety have been. I've seen elections questioned for various reasons since at least 1980, when I was old enough to notice the constant stories about improper collusion between Reagan campaign officials and Iran over the hostages then residing in the U.S. Embassy. This has been a constant theme, with the Florida chaos, and then a bunch of nonsense about the "steal" in Ohio of votes for George W. Bush by nefarious actors. This all then leads to the incessant attacks on the Trump election in 2016, where the news outlets were only too happy to follow along and give credence to every nutty Russian conspiracy theory that someone cared to throw out.

The Media sources, the exact ones you refer to, are no longer credible on this issue (and most to others), they have consistently shown bias in their reporting and this is further indicia of it. As distinct from the numerous elections before, they squelch any mention of possible fraudulent activity in the 2020 election even though there is voluminous material indicating possible malfeasance. I've actually read through the legal briefs submitted by the Texas Attorney General in Texas v. Pennsylvania, and a variety of other sources, both primary and secondary. I don't care much for Rudy Giuliani or Sydney Powell, but the material they present must be divorced from those presenting it and viewed in an objective fashion. I think of it as a somewhat unsavory character providing intelligence on criminal activity. What does an investigator do? Reject it? No, he reviews it for its value apart from the source. I've yet to see a comprehensive rebuttal of any of it in any serious way. In fact, the "fact checkers" from "reputable" organizations I've found to be in error when they are fact checked themselves.

This entire disaster has brought out the nuts on both sides of the issue, and here the Media is intent on discrediting the audit before it is complete, probably because they are afraid of what it might uncover. They are using it as a warning to anyone else who cares to get to the bottom of the issue, hence their attempt to paint anyone who thinks it worth pursuing as a conspiracy loon. They likely would have done the same to Woodward and Bernstein had they been after a guy named Kennedy rather than Nixon. You obviously have a point of view that you want to have reflected in the article, whereas I simply want a purely neutral characterization of facts. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, it should be left to the reader to decide what to make of the facts presented without help from the author. Perhaps more respect for the audience here is due.Sych (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sychonic, do you contend that sources like the Washington Post and AP are unreliable because they report the dominant view that there was no fraud in the 2020 election, and that sources which promote the idea of fraud are therefore more reliable?

Which source do you think is most reliable on the subject of the 2020 election?

By the way, I have excellent news for you, as one who claims to be interested in a fair result: Trump's own people say it was the most secure in history, and Trump's personal lawyer and part-time AG Bill Barr said the election was fair and Biden won. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wait a second... So editors who follow WP:NPOV as it pertains to WP:FRINGE topics are maxi-editors, self-styled elites ? That's... That's actually pretty cool. I think I could whip up an "Elite Maxi-Editor" userbox, if anyone's interested.

For anyone lacking the ability to read sarcasm and understand the logic behind it, let me spell it out. Our P&Gs on this are quite clear. The suggestion that following those P&Gs is somehow unfair, a minority view or a problem is completely spurious.

Furthermore, the argument above to make this article read as if it supports neither side is a blatant NPOV violation: there are no RSes supporting the claim that the election was fraudulent.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the claim that Sydney Powell's lawsuits are frivolous is an opinion, is only technically true, as it's the opinion of the reliable sources, and an opinion apparently shared by Sidney Powell herself.

P.S. We respect our audience by weighing views in proportion to their popularity among reliable sources, not by falsely inflating the weight of fringe views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, am deeply grateful for the existence of this article. Mr. Pulitzer is a delightful scamp, who makes me fondly remember my days in Internet Marketing with savory sorts like Frank Kern and Mike Filsaime. If anything, this article is too neutral. Thanks again. --Neopeius (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)