Talk:David Corn

Untitled

the following comments by "Andres Kargar" were on Talk:Gary_Webb but removed by someone (but still in the history). I thought this would be a better place for this, so that we may pull out the facts that can be added to the article, so I have copied them here. Jan 4 2005

Comments removed. Please review Wikipedia:Talk page. If you feel this information is important to the article, than post just that information. If you feel you need to post the whole article, then provide a link to a web page with a comment describing how the material will improve the article. --Viriditas | Talk 00:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote much of the article drawing on mainstream coverage of his books. Most of the stuff I dropped was filler, often taken more or less verbatim from his website. As for the section on the Plame affair itself, obviously we need some more specific coverage, since his personal involvement there is important. On the other hand, it should not come exclusively from a source like Novak, for whom it is equally personal and who has a major axe to grind. I haven't tackled that section yet, because wading through that particular hall of mirrors is likely to be rather time-consuming. Hopefully I've made the article a little more balanced in the meantime until that can be addressed. --Michael Snow 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it now. It might or might not warrant more detail, depending on what can be independently confirmed in reputable sources. Whatever one's views of Novak, his implicit observation is dead-on that "bloating" is a problem for accounts of this episode, including as it applies to this article. --Michael Snow 06:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange Eight Lines (about a French book)

Problem: Half of the introduction (8 of 16 lines) is dedicated to what seems to be a within-office dispute about a French book, not about his own writing or career accomplishments.

Explanation: There is a tension in the article between (a) the broad range of Corn's writing accomplishments, and (b) the emphasis given in the first 16 lines linking Corn to a small controversy.

The article seems to (rightly) list some of Corn's author accomplishments:

   * Blond Ghost 
   * Deep Background. 
   * The Lies of George W. Bush 
   * Hubris: 

However, despite this, about 8 of the 16 lines of the introduction to his career are fully dedicated to what seems to be a relatively small within-office dispute over a specific decision about a French book.

On one occasion, he criticized his own organization when Nation Books (a sibling to The Nation) chose to publish the translation of a controversial French book on Osama bin Laden and the September 11 attacks. The book, Forbidden Truth by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié (former editor-in-chief of Intelligence Online), suggested that the attacks resulted after a breakdown in talks between the Taliban and the United States to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Corn argued that publishing "contrived conspiracy theories" undermined the ability to expose actual governmental misbehavior.

The amount of space given to a within-office dispute is out of balance and strange.

Was that one of his career accomplishments? Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it's undue detail for the lead. I thought about shortening the 2nd paragraph but the incident isn't mentioned in the body text -- though notable enough -- probably because it can't be easily squeezed into an existing section. Someone would have to make a section on his non-book writings. El duderino (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Words not neutral

The words typical and normal are not neutral:

and broke from typical journalistic practice with its explicit charge of lying, a term normally avoided as editorializing

They create a clearly negative tone, they imply a moral judgment on Corn, and they inject a judgmental standard that is arbitrary and not supported.

Corn and many authors have supported their statements.

The terms typical, normally avoided are not a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Romney tape publication

He was involved in getting the Romney $50K party tape published. Might this be important? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Corn - on TV this weekend - jumped into a question about who wants a war with Syria. He answered that Israel would like a 10 year war with the US in it - the messierthe better, but not quick. Is Mr Corn still employed/with the living. 159.105.81.25 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Attacking Bill O'Reilly

Feb 20, 2015 - O'Reilly was a little pissed that Corn would bring up his reporting from 33 years ago in Argentina, after their surrender to Britain. Trying to do a Brian Williams on O'Reilly and get some payback for the political damage of losing Williams liberal slanted evening spot, thus needing to assassinate someone on the right in retaliation. O'Reilly produced evidence that he never told anyone about being on the Falklands, he was in the capital during the riots after the surrender, which he considered a war zone, since soldiers were shooting rioters. Corn and his staff wrote emails all day to Fox and other news organizations with a page of questions that they needed answers to from O'Reilly, and O'Reilly never gave him a tit to suck on. It all showed the spiral down of Corn, and probably the end of his "career" at MJ.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/20/bill-oreillys-talking-points-memo-22015-airing-tonight-8pm-et

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-bill-oreilly-mother-jones-charges-cbs-memos-more-invective-20150220-story.html#page=1

MonsieurET (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

After 24 hours MJ finally edited their story to correct their line about Argentina being at war with England. They said "Sharp-eyed readers have pointed out that it is more accurate to say that the UK, not England, was at war with Argentina." It was a glaring error, that really left readers wondering if David Corn and Daniel Schulman even knew where England was, let alone Argentina, or the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). That maybe (in truth) they didn't know where O'Reilly was either. MonsieurET (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

On Twitter David Schulman said he had to look up 'guttersnipe' in the dictionary. It's like amateur hour in the Capital City.

https://twitter.com/danielschulman MonsieurET (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Corn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006185727/http://www.observer.com/2007/mother-jones-lures-david-corn-nation to http://www.observer.com/2007/mother-jones-lures-david-corn-nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060228213117/http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/02152006 to http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/02152006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Allegations

Someone apparently associated with Corn or Corn himself has apparently scrubbed any mention that he was under investigation for sexual harassment. This was not a small matter. There were two lengthy articles about alleged conduct in Politico. Mother Jones officially said that Corn was under investigation, and then came under investigation a second time. Corn himself admitted that some of his misconduct was inappropriate. This information had been contained in part in this biographcial article for months. It was deleted apparently by Corn or someone associated with Corn because it was deleted with all other negative information contained in his article at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

Criticisms need very strong sourcing. I've removed these charges of misconduct. Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Per SPECIFICO NPOV requires us to include this information. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, Ernie. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, right? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I see this has been put back without consensus. It is UNDUE negative BLP content of no demonstrated significance. I am removing it. Use talk or BLPN to gain consensus, but do not keep reinserting this stuff. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cathradgenations, Gandydancer, and Mr Ernie: It's very disappointing to see this BLP smear stuff put back in the article without any consensus on talk or larger engagement at BLPN. Cath, please read WP:V and WP:NPOV, which includes the section WP:WEIGHT. Your edit summary says that the material must be in the article because it is verified by various sources, e.g. Politico. But that's not the problem. The problem is that it is WP:UNDUE -- because nothing ever really came of the matter, it's long since forgotten after brief and limited public reporting. It is not a significant factor in Corn's life and career, and your inclusion if it gives the impression that it is highly important to him or the world at large, when in fact the matter was quickly resolved with no real consequences. This material should be removed pending consensus, perhaps for a limited mention and perhaps to keep it out. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO that this is definitely undue. Gandydancer (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cathradgenations, Gandydancer, and Mr Ernie: If you were one of the women who had to endure his rape jokes-- as detailed in the story-- you might have a different attitude. If you were one of the women who Corn "regularly gave [several women] unwelcome shoulder rubs and engaged in uninvited touching of their legs, arms, backs, and waists,” and “made inappropriate comments about women’s sexuality and anatomy," maybe you would have a different attitude. If it was your daughter or wife or girlfriend or mother who Corn allegedly commented to about their "sexuality and and anatomy", maybe you would have different thoughts. Also, as long as it is someone on the political left, at least one of you appears to think this is alright. A women who endures alleged "uninvited touching of their legs, arms, backs, and waist", doesn't cry and live in some personal and professional hell bcause David Corn has left of center politics instead of some other ideology. One person weighing in here has scrubbed entry after entry regarding any negative regarding anyone on the left and so far, who only men have commented about this, excluding women or men who respect women from participating. Finally, at least eight women made these various allegations. They were reported by a credible source, Politico. And Corn himself admitted some if not most of the misconduct. As to the claim above of "no real consquences," none to Corn, but what about the eight women? Cathradgenations (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Cathradgenations, I just read the content that you've added. If included (looks like inclusion was opposed above), it should be a section in the body with all of those details, not in the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)