Talk:The Daily Caller

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposal to refine and consolidate

As has been noted in passing previously, this article has an excessive number of short sections, many focusing on comparatively trivial matters. Per MOS:OVERSECTION: "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". I agree with the MOS on this. It is unencyclopedic to have so many one-paragraph sections, many on points already barely worth noting, if at all. For any media outlet of substantial scope and tenure, it would likely be impossible to catalogue every complaint raised against its reporting.

Some editors have suggested WP:TNT or stubifying, which may go too far in the opposite direction. I would propose, as a compromise, that we refine the "Journalistic standards" section to the top four or five examples that are most exemplary of issues that have been raised in this area, and the same for the "Controversies" section, and that of this, anything that is one paragraph or less should be consolidated into the lede paragraph of that section. Based on the previous discussions on this page, I understand that some editors may feel that this would be an exercise in whitewashing, but if we can come to an agreement on what are the most serious issues to cover, the article will continue to reflect the important points while looking less like a junk drawer thrown together without any thought being given to the relative importance of the content to an encyclopedic presentation of the topic. BD2412 T 17:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with GenQuest and TFD on this, and with Peter Gulutzan on the Kessler point in particular.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I don't think that we will ever get to a consensus to stubbify or blow up this article. Reading TFD's last comment in the previous discussion, for example, I would guess that even editors who find the article highly problematic would support removing reference to the Menendez story. I do think a compromise position is possible based on determining how much of the content in these sections is necessary to paint the broader picture. BD2412 T 20:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am not necessarily saying to stubbify. I am saying that we need to cut the chaff. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example. This is not about the Daily Caller. This is about someone who wrote for them and resigned from the DC after receiving an accusation of being paid to run an article. This is something that should be included on that person's page if someone feels inclusion is worthy. There's plenty more but this was low hanging fruit for what I have been talking about. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I think that's a good start, but would like a broader sense of what items in these sections you and other editors think should be included in them as exemplary of content suitable for these headings, and which fall below meriting mention, or having their own section. Obviously, there is no WP:DEADLINE for this, but it is on my mind to act with respect to improving the current messy situation. BD2412 T 04:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think we start trimming and what is left worthy of inclusion can then be put into a single heading based on what information is left, or transferred over to the editorial or history sections where it likely belongs. I am not going to trim any more just yet as I know there are other voices here. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good trim. Could §Heckling of President Obama be next on the chopping block? The stakes are so much lower than in rest of the sections. I see a flurry of contemporaneous coverage and then occasional reference back to it, usually in articles about things Obama had to deal with. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: That is definitely of questionable value. One would think from the header that this referred to a pattern of heckling behavior, but it was a single incident reasonably explained as one mis-timed question. It involve nothing even remotely covered in Journalism ethics and standards (which is primarily about things like vetting sources and identifying sources, and not at all about the manner of asking questions at a press conference). It would fit better under "controversies" if anywhere, but it's really overly trivial to include at all. BD2412 T 05:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree and emphasize the word "trivial." Much of the content seems to be trivial content placed en masse in order to comprise a larger section heading. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged in the MOS:OVERSECTION issues, but have not removed that content. Some of these are still too trivial to merit inclusion. I would think that the heckling incident and the AOC picture article would be the first to go. BD2412 T 03:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better as far as layout. Will go through some of the content a little bit closer in the next day or so. Thanks for the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Any thoughts at this point? BD2412 T 12:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little hesitant about which ones need to be removed and which ones should stay so maybe start with some of the obvious. I think it will get to a point where it would be a judgment call (and likely discussion here) on content that it kept. Overall, we just can't keep making a list of times people haven't liked the coverage, in the same way we can't make a list of every time people praise it for its coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Obama heckling incident. I am wondering about the climate change information. As right-leaning publication, it is going to report stories more favoriable to climate change denial. This is a given. I am not sure that we need to editorialize each and every incident of it. Currently, there are three paragraphs or various "examples" but I think we need to keep it to a single sentence of - "The Daily Caller has published 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" - which is already the beginning of the three paragraph wall listed about climate change. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CodeTalker has reverted with edit summary = "Unexplained removal of sourced content". I believe that is not correct, CNMall41 explained in edit summaries ("Let's start here. This is neither a controversy nor something that is outside the typical news cycle or lasting." and "This is more of a politcal stance"), and more importantly there is explanation in this talk page thread. Perhaps CodeTalker missed it? I support the removal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was absolutely explained as discussed exhaustively on the talk page here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't received any feedback on this so I am going to go ahead and remove. The first few sentences are good as they report about the publication printing climate change denial stories. I am removing the list of stories that were published pursuant to NOTNEWS and NOT. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also wondering why Jason Kessler isn't included in the contributor section since he was in fact a contributor at one time?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted. This was a significant amount of well-sourced content that gave more detailed context; I don't think the one-sentence summary accurately covers the issue. –dlthewave ☎ 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Removal of properly sourced content, especially so much, is a slap in the face to all the good faith work of other editors and violates WP:Preserve. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced content does not always get included per WP:ONUS. Let me know the policy based reason why we are including everything they have ever reported on. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of trivial content, no matter the sourcing, improves the article by enhancing the impact of non-trivial content. I'm sure someone could add a lengthy section on Daily Caller coverage of the Obama tan suit controversy, but that doesn't mean that taking up space with such coverage benefits the reader (either here or in the main biography of Barack Obama, or in Presidency of Barack Obama, neither of which discusses the matter). Including trivial matters only makes it seem like all matters in the article are likely to be equally trivial. After all, if this one is so important, why not have a separate article, 2012 press conference interruption of Barack Obama? I agree with the removal. BD2412 T 19:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "heckling of Obama" there is already consensus on. If anyone feels it should be added back we can have that discussion. For the other, this has been discussed since February with no objection. It would be a slap in the face if I removed content without discussion which I did not. PRESERVER would not apply as that is for content that can be fixed. This isn't something that belongs in the article at all which is why it was removed (based on reasoning provided above). If there is a policy reason to keep it, I am happy to discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When myriad RS cover a matter, it is no longer trivia. All this content that was deleted demonstrates that these are not isolated incidents, but are the way The Daily Caller is designed to function, which makes sense. Most sources have some sort of agenda and follow it. They have a fringe agenda and they follow that agenda. Don't make edits that hide that fact. By deleting this stuff, you are making it appear these are isolated incidents when they are not. Regarding the heckling incident, it can be shortened, but should not be removed as many RS did comment on it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A thing can be well-reported for short period but trivial in context. Again, the Obama tan suit controversy is notable enough to have its own article, but trivial enough to (correctly) not merit mention in the main articles on Obama and his administration. It is easily possible to find gaffes by reporters for other outlets that similarly received brief coverage. Removing them hides nothing about the overall "fringe agenda" of the subject, which is well-explained in an entire paragraph right in the lede. BD2412 T 18:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the passion and I in no way defend The Daily Caller. Their reporting speaks for itself. As far as listing everything to show they are not isolated incidents, that isn't something we do. We simply state they have been involved in these incidents (which we do) which is similar to the climate change denial information. There is no policy based reason I see for putting it back (and no policy based reason for keeping the other in). It is covered in reliable sources but per ONUS, not everything that is verifiable should be included. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Given its prominent coverage, the climate misinformation surely merits more than a single sentence, no? –dlthewave ☎ 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WEIGHT should be considered but I do not think there is a weight issue regarding "all significant viewpoints." Specifically with the climate change information, the competing viewpoints would be they either believe in climate change or they are climate change deniers. The sources say the Daily Callers disputes the scientific consensus on climate change, and I cannot find reliable sources saying they agree with scientific consensus. As such, appropriate weight is given to it as we cannot add anything to weigh their dispute with their agreement. WEIGHT would be an issue if someone came and tried to add content to the page saying they agreed with consensus based on only a handful of sources (since there are many more that say the opposite). The question comes down to how much are we going to say about it. WEIGHT does not mean to we include a quantity of context in an article based on how many times it has been discussed in sources. The two sentences that were left sum up everything perfectly fine. Those sentences already state a conclusion made by reliable sources so we don't need to list the dozens of articles they ran in order to lead people to that conclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An edit that WP:CAREFULly removes a third or half of the wording in the climate change section instead of 90% might gain more consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Although please note there was nothing nefarious as this was discussed for some time and the edit was proposed on the talk page for a while with no objection. I understand the contentiousness of the subject. There is consensus for trimming a lot of the information but have been doing so at a slow rate so as not to cause issues for anyone who may have other objections. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in fact there is not a general "consensus to trim a lot of the information" or a carte blanche to proceed removing sourced information against objections and reversions in good faith. Andre🚐 06:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS is still on you to get consensus to include it, regardless of how long it has been in. I would appreciate a discussion as opposed to an edit war. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noperooney. Not how it works, at all. Andre🚐 06:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise (per WP:10YT), some past incidents with WP:SIGCOV could be described in a single sentence or less, instead of being either removed or described in a long paragraph. Llll5032 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, and I think that specific language could be worked out in a discussion here. BD2412 T 02:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible. I will take a closer look shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAREFUL offers good guidance. In my opinion, the editing should preserve longer wording when it is necessary for clarity about WP:INDY descriptions, exactness, and fairness. Llll5032 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That has been the discussion. The consensus is that there is too much detail that is not necessary for clarity. Particular to the climate change information, what would you recommend being kept? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph could be improved with chronological order. Probably all incidents should be kept. Wording could be condensed by summarizing the final WP:BESTSOURCES about each incident. Llll5032 (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the issue. Why would we include all the examples of articles they ran? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No single source or incident appears to summarize all of them adequately. I am counting only 7 examples in the section, but some of the examples are long. Llll5032 (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is on source that sums up its climate change denial pretty well. That's why I am wondering why we need to list all of the stories that it ran. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this talk page there is no consensus here to remove long-standing info or whitewash a perfectly good article to protect the reputation of a right wing propaganda outlet. I count several editors objecting. Andre🚐 06:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article in Science is a good source, for incidents before its publication in 2019. A more complete summary sentence based on that article and other sources might help to address the concerns of some editors about cutting back on longer descriptions of single incidents. Llll5032 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is going to eventually lead to an RfC. I am still unsure of what policy based reason there is to include examples of it when it is already clearly stated. I am going to start a draft for the RfC for the full content as written and for the content I trimmed it to. Would you be willing to provide a third option to include in the RfC based on the compromise you are suggesting? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Obama material

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I see a rough consensus against including the material. The crux of this comes down to whether the material has lasting significance (10YEARTEST) against significant coverage at the time demonstrating that the content is noteworthy. The sourcing provided was not sufficient to convince most of those responding that the coverage at the time was enough to demonstrate the material was worth including. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Should this article include text about the "heckling of President Obama"[1] Andre🚐 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. It's been a few months since I looked into it, but at the time I could find little lasting coverage. We're past ten years since the heckle, and I saw little to suggest a WP:10YEARTEST pass. What I did find was short mentions of the event in roundups of the Obama administrations relationship with the media, meaning it's not covered as something that needs to be said about The Daily Caller. As general context, I think there's a need for the blow-by-blow list of controversies to be shortened, and this is an easy target for a trim. I would very gladly change my vote if I'm wrong about non-contemporaneous coverage. I would also be fine with a short bundled mention if there's more sourced stuff to say about the Obama-era Caller. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's a notable historical event that pertains to the Daily Caller publication. I can see that it doesn't need to be said about Obama because a lot of things happened about Obama. But I think it's notable enough based on the existing sourcing for a mention, and I don't see that 10YEARSTEST would obviate its importance given that we're still talking about it 10+ years later. I also don't agree that controversies need to be ceteris paribus shorter or trimmed simply for length reasons. Truly trivial material, like the bitcoin thing that was removed or Malik's sexual scandal, should indeed be removed. This is NOT trivial. It's a notable example of interactions between journalists and the government. Andre🚐 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I concour with FFFs comments above about including this and I also agree.... "I think there's a need for the blow-by-blow list of controversies to be shortened,". Piling these things on tends (IMHO) to weaken the article. A small number of the best examples is always good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Lukewarmbeer (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. American presidents and press sometimes have testy exchanges, some editors will think one like this is encyclopedic, others won't. In this case the re-insertion and edit-warring accusation was not justified as the 14 April 2023 removal of the heckling sentences had indeed been conducted after three editors discussed it on this talk page in thread "Proposal to refine and consolidate" (look for the word "heckling"). And this was not the first time the matter was discussed, see the 2012 thread Reporter interrupting President Obama, along with back-and-forth removal/re-insert, followed by removal in 2014 which I think lasted a long time, I didn't follow after that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As your diffs substantiate, the stable version of the article has this material included and it's been there for many years. To drive by and claim ONUS is a far stretch and untenable. The removal was reverted each time it was conducted by at least 3 other editors and an affirmative consensus never obtained for removal. The re-insertion as you call it, was actually reverting the removal. Andre🚐 20:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Implicit consensus and "stable version" aren't an argument to keep. Can you imagine how AfD would look if "it's been there for many years" were treated as a valid argument? It's no "far stretch": ONUS doesn't care how long something has been here. Affirmative consensus needs to be obtained here to keep it, per a straightforward and commonsensical reading of WP:ONUS. DFlhb (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I defer to the discussions started back in February. It is trivial. We do not put a laundry lists of things we don't like about a topic just because we don't like the topic. Just because its in the news doesn't mean it is something worthy of inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but it does not require such a long paragraph. It could be summarized as this article ("famously heckled") summarized it three years after the incident. Llll5032 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good summary. It got me thinking, though. This is a person behind the incident. So even if we consider it worthy of inclusion, what does it have to do with TDC? That would be WP:COAT imho. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It would be a coatrack if the cited articles, including the Politico article, did not describe The Daily Caller. But they all do. If you search on Wikipedia for Neil Munro, who is the "person behind this incident", what article does the link redirect to? Llll5032 (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not necessarily "describe" the Daily Caller. It says this reporter worked for the Daily Caller and is no longer working there. What is the specific involvement of the Daily Caller with the incident we are discussing? Also, a redirect does not mean we include everything about this person's time at the Daily Caller on the page. That is not the purpose of a redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources [2][3][4] answer your question. The paragraph could be clearer about it. Llll5032 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Not a pattern repeated, an unimportant dustup in historical perspective. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per the above and per the utter lack of encyclopedic significance of the event. I see by comparison that the article on CNN has zero mention of the White House going so far as suspending the press credentials of Jim Acosta, an incident that itself received far more robust and prolonged press coverage. BD2412 T 18:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That incident has its own Wikipedia article, "CNN v. Trump". Adding a sentence about it to the CNN article would probably be uncontroversial. Llll5032 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, and merited. Andre🚐 01:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the Trump-Acosta incident "received far more robust and prolonged press coverage". The focus on keeping trivia in this article has lost the forest for an historically insignificant tree. BD2412 T 02:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Per existing arguments made above, primarily that it was a minor issue from a while back that does not pass the test of time for noteworthiness. Not notability, noteworthiness. It just isn't important to the subject of this article. No comment on whether the information might be suitable elsewhere, though a very cursory glance suggests Llll5032 may be right. Fieari (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I've been back and forth while reading the arguments above, searching and reading through verifiable sources, and taking into consideration the current page as well as comparing it to other pages similar in nature. In the end, the widespread coverage of the heckling incident by verifiable news outlets seems to me an argument for inclusion according to WP:Notability: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Penguino35 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Edited to add] I would be interested in seeing validation for including any of these controversies in the text of the article. One of the pages I compared when researching my response was The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon because I assumed there would be many possible notable episodes to choose from, and I was interested to see how the editors of that page made choices. In each case, the episodes called out were couched by explaining the significant number of views, the notability of the event (Super Bowl, Holidays), or the notability of the guests contributing and news they broke in interviewing with Fallon. If we could get similar reasoning in the body of the text for these events, I think we would have a stronger case for the information being notable and, therefore, unquestioned. Penguino35 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No The material in question is more suited for a tabloid publication rather than Wikipedia. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to your opinion, but if you want your opinion to hold weight in an RfC, you'll need to do more than present a false dichotomy. Penguino35 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - This received coverage in multiple sources and merits inclusion per WP:WEIGHT, not just at the time that it happened but also in the years after. Sources often mention it as background when discussing either Neil Munro or heckling of Obama: NPR (2017), Guyana Chronicle (2015), Politico (2015), VOA (2015). –dlthewave ☎ 13:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent point. Thank you for including these sources. I concur. Penguino35 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The sources provided by dlthewave show that it received sufficient coverage for inclusion. One of their sources (The Guyana Chronicle) says, "A FEW months ago, one of the stories that dominated American news outlets was the heated exchange between U.S. President Barack Obama and White House correspondent, Neil Munro, after the latter interrupted the head of state during his Rose Garden press conference."
I would rephrase the current wording to reflect what this source says, that a Daily Calle reporter attracted attention by interrupting the president. The subject of the president's speech and the "question" should also be mentioned.
I suggest editors watch the clip. Obama was making a speech on the DREAM Act and Munro interrupted, asking, "Why do you favor foreigners over Americans?" Munro later said he thought Obama had finished speaking.
TFD (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guyana Chronicle article you cite does not make a single mention of The Daily Caller. That, I think, amply demonstrates that while the event would be noteworthy to include in an article on Neil Munro (or on Obama's relationship with the media), the relationship to a specific media outlet is trivial. I would support including the details suggested above in an article on Munro. BD2412 T 21:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit silly to me, since Munro's entire claim to fame at the time of the event in question, and the organization whose name he was representing, was the DC. It'd be like if Wolf Blitzer slapped George Bush and then I said that shouldn't be mentioned in the CNN article. Andre🚐 21:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be at all the same. Neil Munro is no Wolf Blitzer, the latter being a household name in his field who has been with CNN for 33 years. This is more analogous to the absence of the 2009 "You lie" outburst by Joe Wilson from the article United States House of Representatives (or even History of the United States House of Representatives). The article on Munro as an individual was deleted in 2012, and that subject has since received coverage sufficient to make it more than a BLP1E (see, e.g., Niall O'Dowd, "E3 bill dies thanks to Senator Tom Cotton and incredibly, an Irish journalist Neil Munro", Irish Central (December 21, 2018)). BD2412 T 21:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This example is not more analogous. The House of Representatives is a body made up of lots of people who represent different views and parts of the country. The Daily Caller is a right wing outlet that hires right wing people and encourages them to do right wing stuff and makes a brand on that. It may be under new ownership now but we shouldn't erase what they have stood for. It's not petty and it's not a tabloid story. It's quite significant given that the president is usually accorded some respect by everyone. Andre🚐 22:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the Guyana article is that it says the story had significant coverage. Whether or not they mentioned the Daily Caller, I assume that most U.S. media did. While the Daily Caller did not ask their reporter to heckle the president, they did nothing to mitigate the situation, such as apologizing or firing their reporter.
It's clear why this would have made news. The reporter interrupted Obama's speech to interject he didn't care about Americans. It wasn't a real question, it was heckling, as other media pointed out. It was AFAIK unprecedented at the time. TFD (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of this would be relevant to an article on the journalist. Apparently, he is currently with Breitbart. BD2412 T 21:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you say that article was deleted. Maybe it's due to be recreated but either way, it merits a sentence or two in this article linking to that one since that's the outlet he was with and it was a significant event at the time. It's also silly to pretend that he was an independent person just doing what he himself wanted to do and the heckling wasn't connected with the DC being a right-wing propaganda rag. Andre🚐 22:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you had they sincerely apologized or fired him, which any reputable news outlet would have done. TFD (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That the outlet didn't act is basically a negative space, again a triviality. As User:Hyperbolick noted above, there was no pattern of behavior, so this doesn't say anything at all about TDC as an entity. Compare that to the Acosta press credentials suspension, in which CNN was directly involved, in that they filed the lawsuit against that suspension, and became a notable court case. There is nothing comparable here because there is basically nothing here. BD2412 T 00:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no criticism of Jim Acosta reported in reliable sources. Acosta did not interrupt the president or heckle him. The story was not what Acosta said, or even Trump's reply, but his expulsion from the White House group of reporters. And that story is about Trump's White House, not CNN. TFD (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acosta was accused (by the White House) of "putting his hands on an intern" in order to resist giving up the microphone. Accurate or not, there was an assertion of actionable conduct on Acosta's part. However, the key thing is that this would universally be dismissed as a non-event but for the fact that 1) his press credentials were suspended, and 2) CNN sued to have them reinstated. This article as a whole contains substantial nontrivial content. The material on dubious prostitution allegations against Senator Menendez, for example, is of historical consequence. "This one time a reporter talked over the president and asked a sharp question" is not. BD2412 T 03:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that event has its own article. This is just a mention in another article. A sentence or two. Not an entire mainspace article. Andre🚐 03:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - not a notable or significant event that has any bearing on how they are defined, and it doesn't stand the test of time either. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan: I don't see this thread listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All. Did you announce it formally? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah of course, it was a while ago so it's probably archived now. Andre🚐 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right, I should have looked at the history before asking, sorry. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Update: Close requested. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What source suggests that writers wrote "white supremacist or anti-Semitic content" for the Daily Caller?

Regarding this edit by User:Nightscream, what source suggests that writers wrote "white supremacist or anti-Semitic content" for the Daily Caller? If this is about this subject, there needs to be a source explicitly saying this. If it is about people writing for some other site, then it is not lede material. BD2412 T 02:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Sorry. Taking another look at the two sources at the end of that sentence (which are the two from which I derived the info), I see that I should have been more precise/accurate. I've fixed it. Let me know what you think. Thanks for pointing out my error. 03:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Per my original comment, unrelated activities by contributors is a confusing jump to include in the lede; that, like most detail, is best expanded on in the body text. BD2412 T 14:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit should be restored

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=prev&oldid=1216981984

what do others think? soibangla (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion. I see this as WP:NOTNEWS. It is sad that they did this, even more sad that Fox did it and has NOT retracted it. However, retractions happen all the time and don't believe we need to keep filling pages with reports that news agencies make. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see this event as notable, as right-wing media is generally not known to correct, let alone fully retract, their false content that is designed to create viral nontroversy, so the editorial integrity DC has shown here is notable, in light of the viral influence the story has had and is likely to persist despite the retraction. soibangla (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but due weight comes from sources. Is there anything beyond the one Deadline Hollywood source? Consider all the more important stories they haven't retracted but really should have, mentioning this seems a bit like damning with faint praise. Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well yeah, one does not need to google much to see it's been sufficiently reported, just within the day it happened soibangla (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was reported in a few after the White House thanked them for retracting. Not sure of the lasting effect of it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edit is properly phrased and sourced to show a) it was a falsehood that went viral, and b) to its credit, DC retracted it soibangla (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your contention, but per NOTNEWS, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I do not see how this would. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as fleeting NEWS, rather it is a significant and irreversible event in the history of DC in that it uncharacteristically retracted a story that had generated viral nontroversy soibangla (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in the context of the universe, I know this is nothing. but in the context of this article, it's something soibangla (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The retraction shows them acting as a WP:NEWSORG should: While the Caller did not explicitly state at any point that the rule was new, this additional context rendered the main thrust of the article misleading to readers, who could reasonably have come to the conclusion that the rule was new. ... We sincerely regret the error and are taking the necessary steps to ensure similar mistakes can be avoided in the future. I agree that WP:NOTNEWS is applicable here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Daily_Caller"