Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about The Daily Caller. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

History section: Proposed Edits from Glasser

IMHO, this is where the Greer material belongs. For convenience sake, a Word version of the below can be seen at https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgohvClFYp63l0hHoQw?e=MYO93d

HISTORY SECTION (clarifications, addition)

Tucker Carlson has no editorial control over The Daily Caller or its hiring policies. The ultimate editorial authority at TDC resides with publisher Neil Patel, a non-white immigrant who has voiced his rejection of “white nationalism.” The Daily Caller came under fire in September 2018 after Scott Greer, a former Deputy Editor was found to have secretly contributed under a pseudonym to a white nationalist publication. Greer left The Daily Caller in June, three months before his exposure by The Atlantic as a white nationalist. Patel said that that while the Caller was initially skeptical of the SPLC’s allegations against Greer prior to The Atlantic’s expose, “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,” Patel said. “Now 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.”1

Another contributor – not an employee -- was also exposed as the organizer behind the violent “Unite the Right” rally that resulted in the death of an activist. The Caller’s own video reporting of the “Unite the Right” rally was distributed by the ACLU and used as evidence in the prosecution and sentencing of white supremacists caught on camera beating a black man in a parking garage.2

RATIONALE:

Because this speaks to the internal activities of TDC, it makes sense to be explained/contextualized in the history of TDC. Further, because so much of the article implies an approval of white nationalism, readers deserve to know what TDC’s position on that is, Patel’s background, and his admission that trusting Greer was a mistake.

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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WtyNGKdxQY

CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Mentioning Patel's ethnicity and background is synthesis; the fact that the ACLU shared a video implies nothing definitive and reads like an insinuation. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk),Thanks for your insight. I would like to raise two points for you and others. First, I understand the avoidance of synthesis, but that surely it can't be to the exclusion of common-sense. We all have to admit that the tone and tenor of the article is very largely threaded around accusations of "white nationalism." The fact that the publisher, Neil Patel, is a person of color and an immigrant seriously offsets that consistent characterization.

As to the ACLU sharing the video, I'm not sure what you think it insinuates. Certainly nothing bad about the ACLU. The fact that readers ought to know is that it was TDC's coverage and video that was distributed world-wide as evidence of a racist attack, and TDC eagerly cooperated with everyone to help convict the racist thugs. Instead of making copyright claims against ACLU and organizations with whom TDC might not ordinarily be aligned, on this issue TDC was proud of their role in helping bring awareness and the prosecution. I hope that explains it, and again, it's a minor addition of a few words that adds much clarity and costs nothing. And as in other instances, my suggestion here does not try to rewrite or erase history, instead, it shines a bit more light on it. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I did not intend to convey the idea that it says anything bad about the ACLU; rather, that the proposed phrasing reads like an attempt to create innocence by association. Again, I do not see clarity being created here (though of course I am open to expanding what the article says about the Caller interacting with other organizations, provided those interactions can be properly documented in secondary sources). XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Significant stories

Some editors have noted elsewhere that the way the entire article is framed up, TDC is made out to be a organization "known" for publishing "false stories" and then is followed by cherry-picked examples categorized as "Controversies." I've looked around and don't see any legitimate publications treated this way. Rather than denying/debating the specific erroneous stories, it seems to me that the true academic mission here -- rather than one of political characterizations designed to discredit TDC in its entirety -- is to show readers that there are MANY stories that the TDC published that both target right-wing or conservative outfits, and these same stories broken by TDC have been followed by unquestionably reliable news organizations, often crediting TDC.

The sheer volume of such stories far outweighs any "bothsidesism" of pointing out minor things for the sake of just calling for "fairness": What we have here is an avoidance of a broader, more inclusive list with which readers can make up their own minds as to TDC's legitimacy. I hope to upload this section in the next few days. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I look forward to reading your proposal, though I may not be able to devote much time to Wikipedia over the next week or so, in which case, others will almost certainly reply first. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

“Significant Publications”: Proposed edits from Glasser

As many of you know, the article’s lede’s second para says “The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. The website has published articles by white supremacists...”

It’s discussed more in depth in the section above regarding the lede, but the key issue is that some editors (and myself) posit that because there is no RS or journalistically accepted index being relied upon in the lede and using the word “frequently” paints an incorrect (and possibly biased) picture of TDC. It appears that the only “general agreement” of TDC being some kind of fake news outfit is the consensus of WP editors. But the balance of facts tell a different story.

Mistakes have happened, and I would never suggest pretending they haven’t happened. These examples were highlighted at one point in a “Controversies” section which someone changed.

My proposal in this regard might make more sense: The article as-is cherry-picks the worst of the worst. I am not proposing “bothsidesism” but when you look at the large number of legitimate news stories that TDC broke and that have been followed and/or cited by a wide range of respectable publications, and that many of these articles criticize the right as well as the left, we can do a much better job of showing readers fairly what TDC is about, and they can come to their own conclusion. Much of the article can be shortened and avoid the present “piling on” by rolling the significant stories – good and bad – into this section.

Again, apologies if my formatting here isn't the standard, and for convenience' sake here is a link to a Word version of my proposed edit: https://1drv.ms/w/s!ApIWbgSY4gIzgoh1JA-n2ggW6_E15Q

-----PROPOSED CHANGE----

(Intro graf)—The Daily Caller has published a wide range of articles about politics and public policy which have been followed or cited by leading news organizations. At the same time, The Daily Caller has also been criticized for publishing false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change, and has published articles written by white supremacists.

Breaking News Stories

Breaking news stories followed or cited by leading news organizations include: Investigations of misuse of funds by GOP Chairman Michael Steele [1] cited by The Wall Street Journal[2] and CNN[3]; The interview of Hillary Clinton by the FBI [4] cited by NBC News [5]; exposing financial ties between President Trump’s top military advisor and the Turkish government [6] cited by Politico [7]; the death of Congressional Baseball shooter James Hodgkinson [8] cited by Newsweek [9]; Drug abuse by Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann [10]; and criticism of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s use of government funds to support her reality television show [11].

False or Erroneous Stories

False or erroneous Stories published by The Daily Caller include: an "investigative series" of articles co-authored by Carlson, purporting to be an insiders' exposé of Media Matters for America (MMfA), a liberal watchdog group that monitors and scrutinizes conservative media outlets, and its founder David Brock. [12] Reuters media critic and libertarian Jack Shafer, while noting "I've never thought much of Media Matters' style of watchdogging or Brock's journalism," nevertheless sharply criticized the Daily Caller piece as "anonymously sourced crap," adding "Daily Caller is attacking Media Matters with bad journalism and lame propaganda." [13]

The Daily Caller had posted articles written by Jason Kessler, a white supremacist who it was later learned had organized a rally of hundreds of white nationalists in Charlottesville. Before Kessler posted his article, he had spoken at white supremacist gatherings. [14] After Kessler received attention for his organizing of the Charlottesville rally, The Daily Caller removed his articles from its website, but The Daily Caller executive editor Paul Conner defended Kessler's articles, saying “The story is factually accurate and plainly states what happened at the event…but in light of his activism on the issue, we have mutually agreed to suspend our freelance relationship with him.” [15] In August 2018, The Daily Caller also ran a story alleging that a Chinese-owned company hacked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server and successfully obtained nearly all of her emails. The Daily Caller cited “two sources briefed on the matter.” After publishing the story, President Trump tweeted the allegations made in Daily Caller's reporting. The FBI later rebutted the allegations[16].

The Daily Caller has published a number of articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. According to Science magazine, The Daily Caller's "climate reporting focuses on doubt and highlights data that suggests climate concerns from the world’s leading science agencies and organizations are incorrect."[17] In 2017, The Daily Caller published a story falsely claiming that a "peer-reviewed study" by "two scientists and a veteran statistician" found that recent years have not been the warmest ever.[18] According to Snopes.com, the basis was a PDF file on a WordPress blog, and was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal.[19] Also in 2017, The Daily Caller published a bogus 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, other news outlets debunked the Daily Mail story [20].

CITATIONS

1. “High flyer: RNC Chairman Steele suggested buying private jet with GOP funds”, https://dailycaller.com/2010/03/29/high-flyer-rnc-chairman-steele-suggested-buying-private-jet-with-gop-funds/

2. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303410404575152461551782520

3. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/29/rnc-investigating-money-spent-at-racy-nightclub/

4. “EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Scheduled To Meet With FBI On Saturday”, https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-scheduled-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/

5. https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-scheduled-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/

6. “Trump’s Top Military Adviser Is Lobbying For Obscure Company With Ties To Turkish Government”, https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/trumps-top-military-adviser-is-lobbying-for-obscure-company-with-ties-to-turkish-government/

7. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-turkey-lobbying-231354

8. “EXCLUSIVE: Congressional Baseball Shooter Dies At Hospital”, https://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/exclusive-congressional-baseball-shooter-dies-at-hospital/

9. https://www.newsweek.com/who-james-t-hodgkinson-shooting-suspect-congressional-baseball-game-named-625600

10. “Stress-related condition ‘incapacitates’ Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged”, https://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/stress-related-condition-incapacitates-bachmann-heavy-pill-use-alleged/

11. “Conservatives take on Palin for government-subsidized reality show, Palin calls criticism ‘ludicrous’”, https://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/conservatives-take-on-palin-for-government-subsidized-reality-show-palin-calls-criticism-ludicrous/

12. “Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations”, https://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/

13. http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/02/15/media-madders/

14. https://www.propublica.org/article/things-got-left-out-of-the-daily-callers-report-confederate-monument-rally

15. https://www.nationalmemo.com/right-wing-media-provided-home-white-supremacist-organized-charlottesville-rally/?cn-reloaded=1

16. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fbi-rebuts-trump-tweet-about-china-hacking-clinton-s-email-n904811

17. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/facebook-fact-checker-has-ties-news-outlet-promotes-climate-doubt

18. https://archive.is/20170706143558/http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

19. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

20. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/25/the-mails-censure-shows-which-media-outlets-are-biased-on-climate-change

Thanks all, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I am not convinced that the material currently in the article would benefit from being shortened. In particular, the climate-change-denial section reads as an adequate length, though quite possibly in need of a prose tune-up. If we want to discuss Breaking news stories followed or cited by leading news organizations (which is, a priori, a legitimate thing to do), secondary sources for items 10 and 11 would be necessary to show the interest from leading news organizations. (The "politicalticker.blogs.cnn" item may be too superficial to merit including, but that's not a decision of great moment either way.) Reporting allegations or speculations that Bachmann was abusing drugs without follow-up sourcing would violate WP:BLP. At the time, even left-leaning commentators didn't want to go there. As it happens, the Wikipedia article on her doesn't even mention her migraines. That the Caller was the first to post news of Hodgkinson's death seems too incidental to rise above the significance threshold; it's not really an example of in-depth reporting that another news organization then leaned upon. I don't think there's a policy case one way or the other on that. The same goes for the FBI happening to interview Clinton on a particular Saturday; NBC described that interview as long-awaited and points to the Caller noting some rumors about it 11 grafs into a 20-graf story. XOR'easter (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks XOR'easter for the thoughtful read. I have to say that we can't have it both ways. If a reliable news source found an item worth following (for example, Jack Shafer's criticism of TDC) then when another news organization follows a TDC story, where do we get the authority to decide the validity of *their* news judgment? Only when it fits our pre-conceived notions? That surely can't be right.

I guess the thing I'm trying to get to is by creating a "Significant Publications" section, with a "good" and "bad" side (that's shorthand) and condensing it gives the reader a wider scope, a fairer view, and doesn't "hide" or pretend that TDC hasn't made mistakes. The way it reads now seems to be simply a list of items that they erred on -- with more than a few judgement-laden words -- and not a word about their legitimate work. It kind of reads like just piling on. Good heavens, we could produce hundreds of pages cataloging the "bad" work of NBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, whomever. The question is: should WP read like a "catalog of sins" (which IMHO it reads that way now) or instead should we present enough solid material to show a full picture without getting lost in the weeds? I hope you see where I'm coming from, and that you can see your way to agreeing that some edits and condensation are surely in order. Best, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Yes, the article could benefit from edits and condensation (I have no strong fondness for the exact words of any given sentence in it). The problem is that much of what was provided above just doesn't rise to the level of "follow[ing] a TDC story". For example, the Sarah Palin item: the news that her reality-TV show was getting over $1 million in tax credits was first broken by the Anchorage Daily News. The Caller story is just links to criticisms already made in the National Review, Reason and the Washington Examiner, plus a lengthy self-exculpatory statement from Palin. If saying that the Caller has "frequently" published erroneous stories is a judgment that we can't make in Wikipedia's voice, then so is the claim that they have printed "a wide range" of stories taken up by other publications. XOR'easter (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A profile of Tucker Carlson in the Columbia Journalism Review last year says of the Michael Steele item, The story was poorly sourced and drew more skepticism than accolades. (Found via the RfC linked at WP:RSP.) An older CJR piece already cited in our article says, Yet the Caller's first story on the filings incorrectly implied Steele himself had been behind the velvet rope, in the presence of topless performers simulating lesbian sex. That off note hinted at what was to come: a series of splashy stories that, when examined, produced more skepticism than pick-up, and caused new hecklers to raise their voices. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach towards clarity and neutrality would to be to instead call this section "Daily Caller's Coverage" and change the opening line from "Breaking news stories followed or cited by leading news organizations include.." simply to "Coverage by The Daily Caller includes..." I added the followed by/cited by language to try and get across that they are a legitimate news publisher. We can leave the additional citations where other news orgs picked up the story without having to add it to text.

Yes, they've erred, but as I said before, all we have now is a cherry-picked "catalog of sins." I also have to reiterate that in a reticence to change anything at all, it seems to me you're kind of nit-picking the legitimate stories to death and inserting your own news judgment for theirs. The fact that NBC said Hillary Clinton's interview "was expected" doesn't take away from the fact that TDC CONFIRMED it, and was First with it. Also, you dismiss the reporting of Hodgkinson's death as not significant enough. OK, (I mean he *did* try and kill Congresspersons) but there are plenty more examples of fair reporting in the public interest, and this article seems to go out of its way to mention *any* of them. The Daily Caller published extensively on the opioid crisis, and was first to break the story that the Metropolitan Museum of Art began reviewing its gift acceptance policies after information about the billionaire Sackler family's antic with Oxycontin were revealed. https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/17/sackler-family-met-museum/. Another TDC story revealed the Sackler's wide-spread political donations: https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/17/sackler-family-met-museum/. That's pretty important stuff.

At the end of the day, I'm really hoping that WP editors can take a step back, and consider rolling a lot of the article into one concise and solid section ("Coverage") showing that some stories are important, some stories badly written/false, whatever. Right now, the article in this regard reads like a papal condemnation of a heretic about to be excommunicated, just a litany of wrongdoing. I totally get that you don't like TDC or its coverage, and I've made it clear that I'm not trying to hide their faults or errors, but as you know, the phrase is "warts and all" not "warts, warts, warts." We're totally missing the "all."

Surely, there must be a way to do this. As always, thanks for your time, respect and consideration. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

We can leave the additional citations where other news orgs picked up the story without having to add it to text. No, we really can't, not when the blowback and criticism and discoveries of bias or elisions in their coverage of legitimately significant topics is what the secondary sources are telling us about. I have no objection in principle to listing stories they've broken that have held up, but I have an obligation to be conscientious and not present busts or mixed successes as total triumphs, or to imply that reporting a datum is of equal magnitude and consequence to revealing a major story. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter Thanks again. I do believe we are getting somewhere. I see your point about secondary sources that criticize TDC's coverage. And I hope by now that you accept my good faith argument that as you put it, "I have no objection in principle to listing stories they've broken that have held up, but I have an obligation to be conscientious and not present busts or mixed successes as total triumphs, or to imply that reporting a datum is of equal magnitude and consequence to revealing a major story." So what I suggest is the following, and hope we can move forward on the following understanding:

(1) Roll all the individual examples of reporting (good, bad and ugly) into one section titled "Coverage" or "Coverage and Responses" (or something similar); and

(2) Let me re-send a cohesive list of stories that TDC has broken, that are not "right-wing" biased, and most importantly, held up under scrutiny (or lack of critique) by other news orgs. The point is, as I said before, that as it stands, the article is a litany of wrongdoing or hack journalism or "fake news." We could easily publish hundreds of pages about the same kind of allegations being made against any publication, but TDC seems to be singled out for this treatment (tin-foil-hat sites like InfoWars aside.) This is not an accusation of any kind, but I have to say the article as it is remains awfully one-sided, even biased. As my grandfather used to say, "never confuse malice with stupidity." And in my search for telling the truth, I have no intention of hiding examples of TDC acting "stupidly." I think you get my drift. Let me know if you agree we can get somewhere and tighten this article up. It reads like a polemic at the moment, and WP readers deserve better, we can all agree. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

My apologies for not replying more quickly; this seems to be the week where I have to juggle work obligations and a cold. (1) sounds like it would involve removal of cited content, which is guaranteed to get Wikipedians' hackles up (people get prickly when they see negative numbers in their watchlists). More significantly, it would make this article further from those that have been suggested as models for it, like the page on the UK tabloid The Sun. Regarding (2), starting from a "cohesive list of stories" would be good, and having more specifics to focus upon would perhaps help bring other editors in to provide their opinions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

I've taken in a lot of the substantive discussion above, and there seems to be consensus (to some degree) that the article could be improved, although to what degree remains to be seen. I am going to take the cue from XOR'easter https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:XOR%27easter and have a look at how The Sun and other tabs have been handled, and try and draft something whole. That said, I'm a bit suprised at his comment that any change that would "involve removal of cited content, [which] is guaranteed to get Wikipedians' hackles up (people get prickly when they see negative numbers in their watchlists)." I don't understand at all if there is a place in WP for being proprietary about past work, or what "negative numbers in their watchlist" even means. Does that mean that if an article is revised and a cite deleted, it counts as some kind of demerit against the editor? That can't possibly be right, because it de-incentivizes any evolution or change to an article. WP editors, as far as I can see, do a good job of serving the public interest, and I'm awfully sure that individual pride of authorship takes a backseat to that public interest. If I'm missing something, it would be helpful to hear. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

No, there is no formal system of demerits (nor, for that matter, is there a formal system for awarding merit points, only a determinedly casual way of expressing gratitude). I only meant that, in my experience, Wikipedia editors tend to find the removal of adequately-written material supported by adequate sources to be a bad thing, whether or not they themselves wrote that material in the first place. This is a lesson of experience; over time, one associates such removals with (to put it in slightly grandiose terms) badly serving the public interest. The psychological reaction to seeing large negative numbers in one's watchlist is typically negative itself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter, especially when such edits are proposed by representatives of controversial subjects.

The comparison with The Sun is instructive: that is a very old newspaper that was turned by its proprietor into a mechanism for advancing political interests. The Daily Caller was never anything other than a conservative propaganda sheet. As with all conservative media at this point, it must necessarily obfuscate and excuse the actions of Donald Trump, or it will lose revenue. It cannot make money by being honest about Trump or the Republican Party. Unsurprisingly, the article reflects this, and its attendant issues with fact-checkers. Truth has a well-known liberal bias. Guy (help!) 16:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

CharlesGlasserEsq, there is consensus that every article on Wikipedia could be improved. In as much as that consensus is specifically relevant here, the edits you proposed do not have consensus.

Start small. Identify things that are wrong and propose changes in the form "change X to Y based on Z source". Look at our list of good and bad sources to see what counts. Sources need to be reliable, independent and secondary. Articles on controversial subjects should not obscure their controversial nature - we do not whitewash. Note that the Daily Caller is at the borders of extremism according to https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/, and every independent observer notes that it is highly partisan and that accuracy appears to take second place to ideology, which is understandable given its history.

Above all, please keep it brief. Remember, most of us think the article is fine as it is, so you need to make it easy for us to understand why anything should change. Guy (help!) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see also WP:PAYTALK, CharlesGlasserEsq, and keep in mind that the editors engaging with you are different from you in that they're not paid for their efforts. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC).

Well, with the greatest respect and sincerity, to say "The Daily Caller was never anything other than a conservative propaganda sheet. As with all conservative media at this point, it must necessarily obfuscate and excuse the actions of Donald Trump, or it will lose revenue. It cannot make money by being honest about Trump or the Republican Party." There is nothing in the article or reality that ties it's revenue to a Trump loyalty. And that statement indicates a far from objective viewpoint. In addition, stating unequivocally that "Truth has a well-known liberal bias" is indicative of a non-objective position. That said, what would it take to prove (with the highest caliber of sources) to show that TDC has often criticized conservatives, Trump and the kinds of industry generally associated with mere propaganda sheets? I'm not here to argue or insult, I'm here to persuade and appeal to your better instincts. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

CharlesGlasserEsq, have you read Network Propaganda by Robert Faris and Yochai Benkler? It proves that point by statistical and network analysis.

A publication that thinks "patriot" is synonymous with "conservative" is not an honest broker. Guy (help!) 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to try and draft something whole and bill your client for the time you spend doing that, but I don't think it's the best way forward. Rather, I think you should heed the advice above (start small, keep it brief) and you may want to follow the format I suggested earlier: (1) what it says now, (2) what you think it should say, (3) quotes from and links to reliable sources supporting the change. Just start with one change and propose it. One place to start might be to propose a sentence or two to add to the History section about the awards received for the 2012 "Horse Soldiers of 9-11" story [1], which is currently listed in the awards section but not otherwise discussed in the body. – Levivich 17:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that, mucho thanks. I know I've said this before, but a few folks just coming back in ought to hear it loud and clear: There is NO EFFORT TO WHITEWASH anything. The Daily Caller made mistakes, and they have to own them. No getting around that. If I had been asked to "erase history" I would have never taken the assignment. What seems to happening here is one handful of people have prejudged TDC because it's conservative and any facts that support a "scorched earth" approach seem to be reason enough to change nothing. Another handful are cognizant that the article is an awfully lopsided litany of "here's everything bad we could dig up" and satisfied that that's enough. I'm aware of the bothsides-ism issue, but they have a lot of important and positive contributions to political discourse that the true value of WP can be realized by showing. Even if one doesn't agree with that particular story or argument. The Daily Caller's well-documented crusade against the rich Sackler family and their profiteering off of Oxycontin abuse is a good example. It's kind of sad that WP editors so intent on making TDC look as evil as possible would ignore such reporting: especially given the public importance of showing how corporate profits took priority over human lives. That's a long way off of being a conservative mouthpiece and WP's refusal to include episodes like that (there are many others) can't help but to lead one to see the article as it is as a smear piece. Do you see where I'm coming from? Thanks again, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) CharlesGlasserEsq

It is still making mistakes. For example, it is promoting the Kremlin line on Ukraine. As to being a smear, that depends on your perspective. If you believe that conservative media honestly portrays a truthful interpretation of the same facts as mainstream media, then yes, you'll see it as a hit piece. If, on the other hand, you don't fall for the fallacy that "mainstream" and "conservative" are antonyms, and accept that companies such as AP, Reuters, Bloomberg and the rest are accurate (as independent scrutiny shows them to be) then you will not fall into that trap, and you'll realise that ideology, not fact, is the underlying value system in the conservative media. Guy (help!) 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy Media ethics is what I do for a living, and I was Bloomberg's top Media Global Counsel for 14 years. That's after 16 years as a reporter. There's a HUGE kerfuffle right now after Bloomberg announced last week it would not cover any Democratic competitors to Mike. And the French market regulators just fined Bloomberg 5M Euros for publishing hoax news. So pardon me for not accepting that all independent scrutiny shows them to be "accurate." The point is you're welcome to see TDC as ideologically driven. That's no less true for Daily Koz, MSNBC or Mother Jones. But all of them deserve to be treated fairly, whether you agree with ideology or not. And "adopting the Kremlin line on Ukraine" is a value judgment, not a fact. C'mon, man, work with me here in good faith. Reasonable people will differ, let the stories speak for themselves and trust people to see what's worth believing or not. The New York Times falsely reported that W Bush served a fake plastic turkey to troops in Afghanistan, but that shouldn't define the entirety of the Times' work, should it? We can list dozens of episodes of the Times getting it wrong, but we shouldn't make that the centerpiece of describing them. That has to be true for everybody: not just the folks with which you agree. This is exactly the emotional and political resistance to a truly academic approach that frustrates so many about WP. Almost as if to say "it's *our* football and if you don't like the way we interpret the rules, go home, noobie." CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

CharlesGlasserEsq, I don't know if you've noticed, but we treat partisan-left and partisan-right sources equally: we don't trust either. I was the one who deprecated Occupy Democrats as a source. I removed citations to it, and to MJ and HuffPo and the rest. But there is, right now, an asymmetric bias in US media. Conservative media loses revenue if it publishes fact that contradict conservative narratives. Liberal media suffers if it publishes ideologically-driven but factually incorrect material. There is a difference in kind between, say, Maddow and Carlson, and it lies in how their audiences will react if they prefer agenda over objective truth.

Anyone can publish a false story. The question is, whether they do it unusually often, and whether they promptly correct it when they do, and whether they adequately distinguish between fact and opinion, and whether they operate on the common fact base or not. When your editorial line appears to include climate change denial, denial of the Ukraine shakedown, support for Kremlin talking points around Ukraine (not a value judgment, see the testimony of Fiona Hill), uncritical repetition of the statements of people like Nunes, who again repeat Kremlin disinformation as if it were fact, then you have a serious problem, and it's really not our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 20:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Times retracted their error about the fake plastic turkey. That's what reliable sources do. – bradv🍁 20:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Same with Bloomberg. "Only a few minutes after the publication of the fake press release by various financial media outlets, Bloomberg News was the first one to publish a correction." The fact that they got fined for their mistake doesn't make them less accountable either. – bradv🍁 20:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't argue for fun,
I won't argue for free,
with someone who's paid
to argue with me. – Levivich 20:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll argue all day,
I'll fight 'til I'm tired,
At least if I lose
I won't get fired. – bradv🍁 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering adding the above to WT:COI in a quote box. Any objections? E Eng 22:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe ask at WT:COI instead of here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking the authors first. If they're OK with it I'll just boldly add it. If people object, then we'll see.`E Eng 03:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. – Levivich 04:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Me too. There are several different attitudes toward dealing with paid editors, and I think our little interaction illustrates two of them. – bradv🍁 15:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Little"? It's huge! In the future, every university student will be required to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the Lincoln–Douglas debates, and the Levivich–bradv talk page rap battles. – Levivich 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

CharlesGlasserEsq, please also acknowledge, and respect, the asymmetry at work here. You are being paid to make this article more favorable toward the Daily Caller. We are working for free to align it with site policy. Those goals aren't always in opposition—there may be instances where a neutral article should be more favorable toward the Daily Caller—but they don't necessarily overlap either. While you earn $500/hr (or whatever) to sway this article in favor of the Daily Caller, you're imposing a significant burden and cost on the time and goodwill of volunteers. MastCell ^Talk 02:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I express no opinion about specific content issues but am speaking instead as an administrator. CharlesGlasserEsq, please stop with the lengthy philosophical ramblings. You are a paid editor, full stop. Confine yourself to very specific edit requests formulated as "change A to B, based on indisputably reliable source C". No experienced editor will be convinced by your self-serving appeals to "fairness", when you are representing a client like this, as described by the preponderance of reliable sources. In brief, stop wasting our time. That may work in certain courtrooms but it does not work on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much User talk:Cullen328 and MastCell: I get it. Taking all the advice above on-board, see the short "proposed edits 12-3". CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Awan/DWS - investigation:?

I'm surprised that their investigation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Imran Awan doesn't have any coverage here. They were all over that story in 2017.^[2][3] Am I missing something or was it just never written about here yet? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We should import the text from the Imran Awan article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a little bit in the subsection titled "Democratic representatives", but only a little bit. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Doctored photograph of Joe Biden

I have reverted an edit by Snooganssnoogans which inserted this: "In 2013, The Daily Caller published a doctored photograph which purported to show Joe Biden groping a White House reporter with the title, "Vice President Joe Biden gropes White House reporter."[25] No, it did not publish a doctored photograph. Look at the cited source -- this factcheck.org article. Notice how it says that the doctored photo showed a chest grope and a whiskey bottle? Notice how it says those items weren't in the original picture? Well, now notice what it links to for the original picture -- The Daily Caller! That's because The Daily Caller published the original picture not the doctored photo. The link from factcheck.org has now become obsolete but here is the wayback of the original Daily Caller post, which has no chest grope or whiskey bottle. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, so you're substituting your own original research for what the independent source says? Guy (help!) 17:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy: no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I misread the FactCheck.Org article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur. The source doesn't say that the Daily Caller published the doctored photograph; rather, FactCheck uses TDC as a source for the original, undoctored photograph. – Levivich 17:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edits 12-3

It has been suggested that I focus on one thing, and here it is. If this looks like a mess (I'm no coder) you can see a comparison sheet (before/after) at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TmkdidVPf4plAdMnPotZaejOVJ4Wh0NG. I do not know how to show citations.

Material in bold is added. PLEASE NOTE THAT NONE OF THE 'NEGATIVE" STUFF HAS BEEN EDITED OUT.

AS IT IS NOW: The Daily Caller is a right-wing 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. Launched as a "conservative answer to The Huffington Post", The Daily Caller quadrupled its audience and became profitable by 2012, surpassing several rival websites by 2013. The Daily Caller is a member of the White House press pool. The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. The website has published articles by white supremacists, such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow. Scott Greer was The Daily Caller's deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed that he published articles espousing white nationalist, racist anti-black and antisemitic views under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications. It has been accused of abusing its non-profit charity arm, The Daily Caller News Foundation, to avoid taxes.

SUGGESTED EDITS: The Daily Caller is a conservative 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. Launched as a "conservative answer to The Huffington Post", The Daily Caller quadrupled its audience and became profitable by 2012. The Daily Caller is credentialed at the White House press pool and the U.S. Senate Press gallery. Carlson does not have editorial input at The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller publishes a wide range of controversial stories investigating both liberal and conservative entities,' and some stories have been proven false. The Daily Caller has also been accused of sharing deceptively edited videos and photos. 'The website has published articles ranging from exposes of the Sackler billionaire family’s involvement in the opioid drug crisis, to challenging the scientific consensus on climate change, Republican mismanagement of donations and President Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s ties to the Turkish government. The Daily Caller has also published opinion pieces ranging from the Democratic National Committee staffer and former aide to President Obama Luis Miranda, conservative news analyst Judge Jeanine Pirro, Socialist educator Glenn Sacks, and history professor and impeachment advocate Allan J. Lichtman.' The website has also published opinion columns by white supremacists such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow on subjects other than white supremacy. Scott Greer was The Daily Caller's deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed that unbeknownst to The Daily Caller, he published articles under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications espousing white nationalist, racist and antisemitic views. It has been accused of abusing its non-profit charity arm, The Daily Caller News Foundation (“DCNF”) to avoid taxes, although the DCNF still maintains its 501(c)3 tax status.

Sources:

 https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/?page_id=9213
 "On Christian Political Apostasy as The Source Of America's Greatest Peril" at http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/25/on-christian-political-aposta sy-as-the-source-of-americas-greatest-peril/.
 “The President’s Wall Confession Should Have Been the End of the Shutdown” at https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/miranda-wall-confession
 “Conservatives Shouldn’t Ignore Socialism’s Successes” at https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/06/sacks-socialism-successes

Thanks all for your valuable time. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Initial impressions: "conservative" is a whitewash, "right-wing" more accurate. Phrasing like "has also been accused of" is weasel wording. "Carlson does not have editorial input" is a particularly strong claim not supported by the available sources, unless I'm overlooking something; it may be verifiable that he has no formal editorial role (although I question whether that datum would be significant enough to be included in the introduction), but what source could demonstrate that if they got him on the phone, they wouldn't do what he said? The listing of "articles ranging from" X to Y establishes a false equivalency. The only one of those which was not either heavily qualified by later events or criticized outright is the Flynn item. (I looked for secondary sources commenting upon their Sackler stories, but couldn't find any; it's entirely possible such sources exist and got lost too deep in the noise for me to dig up in the time I had available.) The roll call of people they happen to have published gives undue weight to individuals whose publication by the Caller has attracted no significant interest or commentary. XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of this is weaselling (though increasingly it is true that conservative and far-right are becoming synonymous, the Overton window has moved so far and so quickly). The rest looks like PR fluff and "my black friend" level excuses. If you actually visit the site, the more fundamentalist hard-right content is for "patriots only", and this conflation of patriot with hard-right religious zealot conservative Trump supporter is echoed in Carlson's own words. He may claim to have no direct control, but there's no distinction between this "patriot" canard and his statement that "not even Putin hates America as much as our media do". Guy (help!) 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better, but that's not one thing, that's eight additions. Let's take the first one: conservative v. right-wing. Here are some sources supporting describing TDC as "right wing": [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. What sources support the label "conservative", as opposed to "right wing"? – Levivich 18:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What sources call Glenn Sacks a "socialist"? When I Google him, he is most commonly called a "men's rights movement activist". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him; Glenn Sacks redirects to an article that describes him as a "men's rights activist". If he's not notable, then I doubt his writing is intro-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The bold section beginning with "The website has published . . ." seems to be sourced to the respective Daily Caller articles themselves. Although it is an undisputed fact that Daily Caller published the articles in question, the determination that this particular set of articles is representative of the whole was made by a Wikipedia editor and therefore violates our Original research policy. The problem with original research is that it can easily be abused to push a certain viewpoint. Why emphasize the range of opinion pieces when we could just as easily say that they cover everything from puppies to rainbows or Stalin to Hitler? This is why we rely on secondary sources to decide what is significant. –dlthewave ☎ 04:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter: You alerted Guy about CharlesGlasserEsq's actions on this talk page. WP:CANVASS says you should balance by also informing editors who might support some of CharlesGlasserEsq's proposal. Did you? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Deceptively edited videos and photos

I have partially reverted an edit by Snooganssnoogans which inserted this among other things: "The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos." The edit summary said "lede should summarize body" but the words "shared deceptively edited videos and photos" no longer reflect what is in the body. Recently a mention of a deceptively edited video was removed (see this thread starting with the fifth post). Recently a mention of a deceptively edited photo was removed (see this thread). So the body only mentions one deceptively edited video and no deceptively edited photo. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

An accusation about the non-profit in the lead

I have removed this sentence from the lead: "It has been accused of abusing its non-profit charity arm, The Daily Caller News Foundation, to avoid taxes." The accuser is Lisa Graves whom Wikipedia describes as a "progressive activist"; the body identifies her -- but the lead didn't, a WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation. There was also a non-accuser, a professor who specializes in tax law saying the Daily Caller's conduct appears to be legal/acceptable; the body quotes him -- but the lead didn't, a WP:BALANCE violation. And only a few weeks ago I noticed that the New York Times was accused of paying zero federal income tax (which of course wasn't worthy of mention in our New York Times article), making me suspect that it's common when X's opponent says X doesn't pay a fair share of taxes. I conclude that this isn't a summary of the requirement that the lead have a summary of the article's "most important contents", and so is a WP:LEAD violation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not the only source though: [11], [12]. Nor is it a surprise, this seems to be widespread (e.g. the Trump Foundation's $25,000 bribe to Pam Bondi's campaign, following which she - amazingly! - decided not to join the many states suing Trump "University"). Guy (help!) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, How is what relevant? The Washington Post story backing the claim, or the fact that the claim is unsurprising in context? I think the relevance of both should be obvious. Guy (help!) 10:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post already is our cited source for the quote by Lisa Graves, and NPQ is merely quoting The Washington Post, and nobody disputed that she said something vaguely similar to an accusation of abuse, so there's no apparent reason for you to bring them up. As for Pam Bondi: well, if it's obvious then other editors will understand why you bring her up, so I leave it to them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal from the lead. The reasoning makes sense to me: if it’s one person’s accusation, it should be attributed in the body if it’s included at all. – Levivich 15:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Except that it's not really just one person's accusation. Between the sources already provided, there's Graves, and also Sugin and McCambridge saying that it is at least problematic. And since Graves is quoted as the public face of an organization, reducing her comments to an individual's complaint is overly dismissive. I don't have strong feelings on including or not including this bit in the lede, but I don't see the case for removal really adding up, either. (Sorry for chiming in late; am traveling for work through the holidays.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's WP:DUE in the lead based on the one CMD report, as reported in WaPo, and re-reported in NPQ, if that's the extent of the coverage on the matter (I don't know if it is). I also don't think the phrasing "accused of abusing" is supported by the sources. None of them describe it as "abuse" AFAICS, and none of them make direct accusations of illegal activity or wrongdoing. CMD says "raises serious concerns" about what "would be a violation of the law" and "raises significant tax law questions". WaPo reports that "tax experts" said it "appears" to violate the spirit of the law. And, WaPo had the obligatory "other side" expert from American U saying it was OK, to counterbalance Sugin. NPQ/McCambridge say there are "potential problems". It's something short of an accusation of abuse; it's "raising concerns" or "questioning". I think the CMD report is DUE in the body, but I don't think the current wording in the body is supported by the sources cited, either, for the same reasons. My !vote would be to keep it out of the lead and rewrite the body section to say that CMD came out with a report and it "raised questions about potential problems", or some language like that. If there are other sources that can be cited on this, of course, that might change my view. – Levivich 06:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Request slight change for clarity?

Hello all. I'm just back from a string of illnesses and injury that kept me offline for a while. Here's what I would like to ask you: The second graf is a bit unclear about the Greer business. Might I suggest it be changed from:

"Scott Greer was The Daily Caller's deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed that he published articles espousing white nationalist, racist anti-black and antisemitic views under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications."

to:

"Scott Greer was The Daily Caller's deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed that under a pseudonym he published articles in white nationalist publications espousing racist, anti-black and antisemitic views."

The reason for the edit request is that the graf could (and should) be clearer that the racist crap was published elsewhere, NOT The Daily Caller.CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

The current sentence is rather flat and uninspired, but it seems a bit of a stretch that it could be misinterpreted in this particular way (and, if one is willing to stretch that far, the proposed replacement would be open to the same misinterpretation). XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder about the word "when". Did Mr Greer leave before or after it was discovered? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The main text says Upon being confronted with his past white supremacist writings, Greer resigned from any affiliation with The Daily Caller. I suppose we could work the main text's mention of Radix Journal into the lede to make the lede more specific, but on the other hand, excess specificity may be overkill. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, if the article cited there is good, then "when" is the wrong word. I believe the fix is to change from "deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed" to "deputy editor until June 2018; later it was revealed". The other thing I'm unclear about, CharlesGlasserEsq, is why change "white supremacist publications" to "white nationalist publications"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't understand the resistance to change to make it clear that The Daily Caller did not publish that garbage. It costs nothing to fix, and more importantly, is not any kind of effort to hide the episode from the public. I don't think it's a stretch at all to see how it could be misinterpreted y a first-time reader: as written the reader has to dig to the end of the graf to get to that point. I humbly suggest that XOR'easter has read the thing so many times, that there's no ambiguity in his (apols if wrong pronoun) mind. That's not a knock, but as a journalist and editor I have to say that we have to read and edit things as if we are coming to the story anew. As to talk's comment on "white nationalist" vs "white supremacist" I probably just conflated the two (the pain meds are still messing with me) and have no issue with either being used. As to the "when" vs "later" question, it's a good point, and I'll have to circle back to my notes and see exactly what the timeline was. Thanks all. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC) CharlesGlasserEsq

Then the proposal is merely moving words around in the sentence. I see neither harm nor good in that so will be neutral. As for the timeline, that's now clear, Mr Greer ceased to be editor well before The Atlantic story came out, no need to check notes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggested to change from "deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed" to "deputy editor until June 2018; later it was revealed". Instead, XOR'easter boldly changed to "deputy editor until June 2018; shortly thereafter, he resigned his position as contributor when it was revealed". I believe that is inferior to what I had suggested and should have been discussed here. Anyone else got an opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a little longer, but I don't think it's substantially worse; I think it's important to note the change in status that actually transpired (contributor to unaffiliated), rather than presenting the revelation without indication of its consequences. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

But "contributor" is trivial. Googling site:dailycaller.com/author contributor shows 250+ results; the ones I glanced at were obviously not employees, their contributions were like op-eds. The supposed significance of Scott Greer was that he was a deputy editor (even that looks overemphasized but that's discussion for another day). And so far you have no consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted XOR'easter's change. Nobody said they supported it. Also Mr Greer was perhaps not a "columnist" at the time The Atlantic article came out. The current statements are bad but I'm hoping we can get a consensus for something that's not worse, or just throw them out. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody else said they opposed my change, either, and reverting it reintroduced factual errors into both the lead and the body text. I'm not at all committed to the phrasing I introduced (heck, maybe it had too many semicolons for its own good, even), but I am genuinely puzzled as to why we should trade slight verbal awkwardness for factual inaccuracy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Then how about we remove the factual errors, without inserting new ones? Then the sentence you changed in the body would start "In ~~August~~September 2018, The Atlantic reported that Scott Greer, ~~then~~formerly a ~~columnist~~contributor at The Daily Caller and formerly its deputy editor, had written pieces under a pseudonym "Michael McGregor" ... and the sentence you changed in the lead can be removed until two or more editors agree about wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The August/September bit was an error in the previous version (now the reinstated version) which I failed to catch. (The Atlantic ran its piece on September 5 but reported that Greer said he "would drop his contributor status last week", which I guess means they sought him out for comment at the end of August.) To me, "columnist" and "contributor" were more or less synonymous, so I went with "columnist" to vary the phrasing a little, but "contributor" is what The Atlantic used, so we can go with that. I don't see any reason to cut the sentence from the lead. Your earlier proposal of deputy editor until June 2018; later it was revealed is fine by me — I had preferred to have a little more detail there, but with the fuller explanation down in the body text, I don't think that's obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a moderate reasonable reply. I admit that I am now asking for what I said could be delayed, but I have looked up some history of the factual errors and prior controversy, and now suspect that there is no consensus for the sentence in the lead. Snooganssnoogans put the erroneous statement in the body. Later Snooganssnoogans put it in the lead. 173.70.86.98 took it out. Snooganssnoogans put it back in. 67.132.175.4 took it out. Snooganssnoogans put it back in. Atrix20 took it out. Snooganssnoogans put it back in. Levivich took it out. Snooganssnoogans put it back in. Now CharlesGlasserEsq has objected about the wording. If I am right that there has not been consensus for the Snooganssnoogans edit in the lead, and that it was based on erroneous editing in the body, then it should be removed. Any other editors agree/disagree? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm a "real" editor, but FWIW, I think removing it makes sense. Sometimes less is more.

Thanks all, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Your opinion counts, so I now count 6 editors who expressed a desire to remove the sentence (though most of them will not resurface and possibly have left Wikipedia). Also I think we can doubt Snooganssnoogans's claim "the deputy editor is the second in command" since the "about us" page listed Mr Greer underneath executive editor and editorial director and editor-in-chief and publisher, but correct me if he was in fact the organization's number 2. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have partially reverted edits by Snooganssnoogans in the body and the lead about Scott Greer. As is clear from this discussion, the edits had some factual errors and there has been opposition. Mr Greer is a living person so WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:BLP say that re-insertion of the errors and the over-emphasis requires consensus -- although perhaps there will be consensus. Other editors should indicate whether or not the reversion should be re-reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Well, that lasted 17 minutes before Snooganssnoogans put it back in, though not all of it this time, just a Scott Greer sentence in the lead. I won't remove again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)