Talk:The Daily Caller

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@CNMall41: Any thoughts at this point? BD2412 T 12:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. It was absolutely explained as discussed exhaustively on the talk page here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Noperooney. Not how it works, at all. Andre🚐 06:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

It is possible. I will take a closer look shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That's the issue. Why would we include all the examples of articles they ran? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@CNMall41: It's been a couple months. I assume that this discussion will be archived without any movement on this proposed RfC. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412:, still on my radar. I will likely start a new thread shortly. Just been busy fighting film-related spam and UPE at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Climate change

Starting a new thread to continue the discussion from last year on climate change that fizzled out. I have a feeling this will likely go to RfC so hoping to get a few options for wording. The section in question is on [climate change]. We have an entire section with three large paragraphs that document many instance of its climate change denial. I had previously cut this down to a summary saying they are climate change deniers. This was objected to and after looking closer it was likely too much of a cut. However, the current wording lists many specific instance of their climate change denial and it reads more like POV-pushing. There is no need to list every article they published denying climate change. If we did that for everything they did, we would have an article that would cause the WMF to purchase a new server. Initially looking for feedback on the amount of information we should put in this section. CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend against heading toward an RfC in particular. Based on my recollection of the last discussion and a quick skim, there's a decent chance at consensus for a version that's 50–70% as long as the status quo. I'd certainly support such a trim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And, I agree which is why I started the discussion. It almost went RfC last time due to a contentious editor who is now blocked. I believe there are cooler heads here though so hopefully we can agree on wording that is NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Initial wording proposed:

Here is the initial wording that sums up they are against climate change. Open to feedback about anything additional that should be included. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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".

I am generally in agreement with this. The outlet is not exactly widely portrayed as an authority on climate change. Certainly the Daily Mail content is really more about that outlet than this one. BD2412 T 04:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed wording:

This discussion has seemed to stalled again so I took some time to go through and create a summary which would meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I played with it for a while and there was some copy and pasting back and forth but believe the references line up. Here is what I would propose changing the current climate change information to read:--CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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". The accuracy of certain articles published in the early-to-mid 2010s was particularly questioned, as with a 2011 article claiming that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was on a path towards spending $21 billion per year to hire 230,000 staff to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; at the time, the EPA had 17,000 staff and a total budget of $8.7 billion, while the numbers reported by The Daily Caller reflected the numbers that, according to Politifact and a legal brief filed in a related case, the agency in question would be obligated to hire "to regulate greenhouse gasses from all sources that emit them above the level set in statute". The story went viral in right-wing media, and was repeated by Republican politicians. Criticized articles on the subject later in the 2010s included the republication of a 2017 article published in Daily Mail which claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manipulated data to make climate change appear worse; other news outlets debunked the Daily Mail story. A 2018 story cited an Obama Administration memo pushing authors of an EPA National Climate Assessment report to include worst-case scenarios as evidence that the Obama Administration intended those authors to focus on such scenarios. FactCheck.org disputed this story, stating that the memo "does not show that the Obama administration pushed for certain scenarios".

References

White Washing and a warning about discretionary sanctions

@BD2412 this article is under AP2 discretionary sanctions which, I'm pretty sure, include 1RR - you should self-revert your second removal of the far-right category tag. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Based on the course of events, I suspect that you added the tag as an IP in the first place. It has never existed in this article before today, and is unsupported by any source or content in the article. You should therefore self-revert your re-addition of the IP addition of that category, and allow for discussion. BD2412 T 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely did not do any such thing. I have no relationship to the IP other than agreeing with their edit. Now please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The category description for Category:Websites with far-right material specifically instructs: "entries in this category are required to be verified by reliable sources, otherwise they must be promptly removed". I will self-revert, but I will also then promptly remove, as required. There is no "WP:DUCK" test that permits unsourced categories to exist in articles. BD2412 T 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is now done. BD2412 T 15:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok sources:

• [1] LA Times calls Daily Caller far-right.
• [2] NBC comments on the support of the far-right for Carlson and his outlet.
• [3] Mother Jones describes the Daily Caller as having embodied "the spirit of that spreading right-wing extremism".
• [4] The Guardian describes Daily Caller as participating in Trumpist conspiracism. There are more. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Now restore the category please. Self-reverting and then immediately reverting the self-revert with a different edit summary isn't going to fly if I take this to the edit warring noticeboard. There is no reason to whitewash this source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether the LA Times piece is reporting or editorial, nor do any of the other sources specify that the website is one "with far-right material", even if they characterize Carlson or Trumpism that way. I am curious as to whether there is some sudden urgency to decide this right away, and without developing a broader consensus through discussion. Of course, it is your right as an editor to take any dispute you want to a noticeboard, but why? What's the rush to escalate the drama?

If you want to restore the category, however, go ahead, I won't re-revert or take this to a noticeboard. BD2412 T 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I will be honest. I think it's actually quite bad for an encyclopedia to incorrectly categorize far-right media outlets like Daily Caller as if they were clearinghouses of mainstream thought. Frankly I am honestly surprised this category wasn't already on it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is overthinking the significance of categories. The lede of the article describes the subject as "a right-wing news and opinion website", and states that it "has published false stories and declined to correct them when they were shown to be untrue". I doubt that any reader coming to the article is going to read that and think that they had better scroll down to the categories to see whether the subject is a clearinghouse of mainstream thought. Of course, a website can be right-wing and untrustworthy without being "far-right", but I don't see how a "far-right" category adds anything in that case. BD2412 T 17:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are we referring to it as far-right or even right-wing again? There are references that say it is Conservative. I hate classifying something with such a negative connotation unless it is widely supported by reliable sources and doesn't conflict with other sources that widely support a different claim. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Conservative = right-wing. The only open question with the Daily Caller is its relative level of extremity within right-wing ideology. And even within mainstream American sources it's pretty clear it's treated as relatively extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Where is it said that "Conservative = right wing?"--CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Conservatism - 45 times - with multiple relevant citations. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the sentence in the lead of Conservatism that says "historically associated with right-wing politics." Associated with and "=" is not the same in my opinion. I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying so I want to ask for clarification - Since The Daily Caller is considered Conservative and Conservative is historically associated with right-wing politics, are you saying this is the reason why the term "right-wing" is being used?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that reliable sources, including but not limited to the ones I put above, note that the Daily Caller is a far right-wing publication and that claims it is a conservative publication are non-contradictory to that because conservativism is a right wing ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If we use the Right-wing page to describe it, "Right" and "right-wing" have been variously used as compliments and pejoratives describing neoliberal, conservative, and fascist economic and social ideas." I would say that right wing is an ideology of Conservatism, not the other way around. Right wing has grown out from Conservative as opposed to Conservative developing out of the Right wing or Far right perspective. Regardless, there are many sources that also describe it as. Given the conflicting sources, the style we use to describe other media outlets, etc., what would you say we use to determine the wording to use on the page? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead (Right-Wing or Conservative), or both?

Based on the discussion in the section above, I looked closer at the use of right-wing to describe The Daily Caller. Taken directly from Right-wing politics:

""Right" and "right-wing" have been variously used as compliments and pejoratives describing neoliberal, conservative, and fascist economic and social ideas."

It is clear that The Daily Caller is at least a Conservative outlet, but are they "right-wing" and being labeled as such according to the source above? When it was initially launched, it was referred to as "Conservative" by The Guardian with others mirroring the statement. However, under the "Political stances" section on the page, we document how it is referred to as "right-wing" by outlets. What that section fails to state is that other media referred to it as Conservative many times as well. Even Fox News has been referenced as "right-wing" in the media yet we call it a "multinational conservative news" outlet. With that in mind, I think we need to do one of two things. The first would be to change the lead to say "Conservative," and describe its use in the "political stances" on the page. The other would be to state how it is described as conservative in WP:DUE weight in the "political stances" section (keeping the information that also describes it as right-wing), and then change the lead to maybe have a sentence saying it has been described as both "conservative" and "right wing." I would prefer the latter since there are sources that support both terms. Labeling it one or the other wouldn't be WP:BALANCED.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)