Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Was Menendez clearly vindicated?

In reference to the prostitution accusations the Daily Caller made against Bob Menendez, I think it's incorrect to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that those accusations were simply "false". The more I read about the circumstances of the case the less crystal clear Menendez's innocence appears. The fact that the FBI, which was still investigating Menendez on this issue years after the Caller's story, hardly gave the Senator a ringing endorsement of innocence makes the truth seem far murkier than MastCell and other editors would have us believe. See ]https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/sd-me-menendez-case-20171012-story.html] among other articles casting doubts on Menendez's proclamations of innocence. Goodtablemanners (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

All politics aside, Menendez spends an awful lot of time under federal criminal investigation (both under Democratic and Republican administrations) to be given a presumption of freedom from suspicion. BD2412 T 01:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Um, no? Past bad acts and conformity therewith? WP:BLPCRIME clearly states that we should presume innocence and not imply guilt: it doesn't make an exception for people previously under ethics investigation for unrelated matters. Andre🚐 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We're not talking about our presumptions, though, but about whether it was reasonable for the DC to report allegations made against Menendez. BD2412 T 01:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It says it right there in the San Diego Union Tribune article: Federal prosecutors said Monday that they aren’t convinced claims U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez cavorted with underage hookers – widely seen as discredited – are false. Our job is just to report that they were widely seen as discredited - not speculation that they may not be. The 2017 case ended in a mistrial and an acquittal of all charges[1] As pertaining to the Daily Caller we simply need to say that the Caller was involved and reported on the allegations which were not confirmed. In fact there are further allegations that an individual working for the Caller paid the women to lie, which appear in this article. I haven't done research on those but the answer to, was Menendez vindicated, is that it doesn't matter whether he was or not. We simply write what the reliable sources say about it. Andre🚐 02:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There is indeed an allegation against the DC, and it is equally unsubstantiated and has been denied just as the original allegation was denied. It would be somewhat odd to treat the allegation against the DC as definitively true and the allegation against Menendez as definitively false. I'm not saying that we do that now, but the live dispute seems to be primarily over a narrow point of wording the section header. Specifically, should the header, in Wikipedia's voice, characterize the allegations against Menendez as definitively false, or debunked, or unsubstantiated, or dubious, or something else? BD2412 T 02:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the wording of the header but I do think that BLPCRIME applies to living people. It does not apply to news outlets. Andre🚐 02:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This whole article attributes the claim to "prosecutors." Your own personal view that the truth is murky is not relevant. We cover what reliable sources say. This article is from 2017 and Menendez still hasn't been found guilty, so I guess those allegations didn't stick either Andre🚐 01:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The judgment we are supposed to make here is not whether to accuse Menendez of a crime but whether to clearly say that the Daily Caller story about him was false. WE don't know with certainty that it was false. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC) The article here is about the Daily Caller not about Menendez. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Mendendez gets the benefit of the doubt, for the Daily Caller, simply reporting on unproven allegations is a form of journalistic malpractice. Andre🚐 04:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? Unproven allegations are reported all the time and by the most respected of news media. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Give me a break, the Daily Caller, a known right-wing outlet, reported on dubious allegations that unravelled[2] about a Democratic Senator. In November, the Caller published a story based on two anonymous Dominican women claiming that New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez had paid them for sex. ABC News says it received similar information at the same time, as Republican operatives organized interviews with those two women, plus a third woman the Caller did not talk to, all of whom said the senator paid them for sex. But ABC News didn’t run with the story, because “none of the women could produce identity cards with their names, and they all provided the same story almost word for word, as if they had been coached.” After the Caller’s story was published, things started to unravel. Andre🚐 04:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh My!! a known right-wing outlet!! It must have been false!! The point remains. All criminal allegations are legally unproven until adjudicated so news organs can't help but report unproven allegations. Did The Caller exercise admirable journalistic restraint and meticulous research. Probably not. Does that mean their stories were unequivocally "false"? Not necessarily. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable outlets had the same info but didn't report on it. Daily Caller shoveled out oppo on a political party opponent. And yes, it should be considered false due to policy as stated, a BLP presumption of innocence for Senator Menendez. There is NOT a presumption of innocence for right-wing outlet Daily Caller when they're smearing an opponent. Andre🚐 04:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No. BLP doesn't mean we go out of our way to declare someone innocent. There are all sorts of political figures who have been accused of crimes by certain media outlets who were never convicted or even indicted for those alleged offenses. That doesn't necessarily mean we go around accusing those outlets of making up stuff. Goodtablemanners (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction That's policy. And it's not me saying it. It's reliable sources saying it.[3] FBI agents conducting interviews in the Dominican Republic have found no evidence to back up the tipster’s allegations, according to two people briefed on their work. Andre🚐 05:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I know that accusations and arrests don't amount to a conviction. That has little to do with calling an accusation false. O.J. Simpson, among countless others, was accused and investigated and tried, but not convicted. That doesn't mean that the accusations against him and countless others were false. At this point I think we should agree to disagree. Goodtablemanners (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So, this is an article talk page, you started this thread casting aspersions on Menendez (note that under WP:BLP, such allegations would not be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia including talk pages), and you can't make a claim like OJ Simpson was never convicted and then simply drop the mic and call it a done deal. First of all, OJ was found guilty of wrongful death In 1994, Simpson was arrested and charged with the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. He was acquitted by a jury after a lengthy and internationally publicized trial. The families of the victims subsequently filed a civil suit against him. A civil court awarded a $33.5 million judgment against him in 1997 for the victims' wrongful deaths. In 2000, Simpson moved to Miami, Florida to avoid paying on the liability judgment, which, as of 2022, remains mostly unpaid. per the linked article. Which makes this one of the bad and complicated analogies. Because Menendez was never found guilty of anything! In fact he was acquitted on all accounts and significant holes were found in the accusations about him. Andre🚐 20:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Let us also not forget that media outlets are not yet run by article-writing intelligent machines. The people involved in the process are also subject to WP:BLP. Per the nearly sixty-year-old decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Menendez himself had a remedy at law. He could have sued and proved that the Daily Caller knowingly published false information, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. We don't have a conviction of Menendez to point to, but neither do we have a judgment of a court finding wrongdoing on the part of the Daily Caller. BD2412 T 15:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  If we have reliable sources saying the Daily Caller's reporting was discredited and even some alleging that the story was intentionally fabricated or the like, we can report on that without running near a BLP violation. No people are named or implicated. BLP doesn't apply vaguely to organizations that have people working there. BLP applies to biographical information about individual living human beings. There is absolutely no BLP protection for the Daily Caller's reputation or its association with unsavory things. The Daily Caller is more than "public figure," it's a public outlet and a published organization. The idea that an outlet itself would be protected by BLP is not one that I can find anywhere and not one that I think the spirit or the letter of anything supports. Andre🚐 20:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Intentionally fabricated by whom? If we are not naming specific Daily Caller employees as the fabricators, then we have no basis to say in Wikipedia's voice that this was fabricated by someone inside the Daily Caller rather than outside of it. This is why I (and others) changed that one word in the header to "debunked"; we can't report a mere allegation as a fact. BD2412 T 20:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with "debunked." As I said, "some alleging that the story was intentionally fabricated," doesn't mean we should necessarily say it in Wikivoice because as you point out, there are details left out. But, it does not follow that the Daily Caller should have its reputation protected from the allegation. We presume Mendendez to be innocent. We do not presume the Daily Caller to be benevolent. Andre🚐 21:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Daily Caller, not Sen. Menendez. What is significant is that the Daily Caller published an article that was partly based on false information, while other media thought it was irresponsible to publish. TFD (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times

• "Far-right media outlet targets L.A.'s Asian business leaders. They're fighting back". Los Angeles Times. 9 April 2023. Retrieved 12 April 2023.

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a publication writing about an article that was written by another publication. What exactly is the suggestion?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a far-right outlet. Andre🚐 06:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of recent material

The recent removals of material by @CNMall41 cite a consensus that doesn't exist. 4 editors have objected to the removal, and I don't count as many seeking to remove it. Andre🚐 06:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

There are actually four supporting the removal until the most recent back and forth. Which is why I have cited ONUS. It wasn't just a hard removal of content claiming ONUS because it is something I didn't like. So if we there is consensus to restore it then so be it, but it needs discussed. The discussion began in February 2023 so this isn't something I came up with overnight. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As you can see if you look at the old threads and the archived threads I was a participant in the discussion and there was never a consensus to go along with the lobotomy of the article's critical portions. Andre🚐 06:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

There were many back and forth discussions in other threads but nothing that was specifically started to discuss trimming content. That is, until the thread above was started by BD2412 in February. There was a rough consensus for the trimming of that a lot of other content. Now, as far as ONUS, you stated (on my talk page), "Onus isn't a carte blanche to claim a consensus that doesn't exist and remove whatever you don't like and keep reverting to remove it when multiple editors have disputed and reverted your removal." My response - "You are correct. That would be WP:TE for me to remove content and claim ONUS just because I don't like something. It was removed based on the discussion in which there was ample time for objection. Had there been more support for keeping it, I likely would not have removed it (hence the reason why I have not reverted the climate change information claiming ONUS).--CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no. Looking at the thread, there is a consensus to remove a section about Bitcoin. No consensus to remove "a lot of other content" and no consensus to remove the Obama material. Once again, on Wikipedia, if there's content that is well-sourced and otherwise policy-abiding, and you remove it after it's been there for years, and several different people restore it, that's not an onus-reason to keep it out. This is not a BLP, and there's nothing wrong with the content. Additionally, you are accusing me of bludgeoning. The "old discussion" in February which BD2412 started and you responded to, you cited several participants from the previous discussions but strangely, ignored the other participants such as myself and Valjean and others who didn't agree. There is absolutely no policy argument here to continue reverting to remove this. If we are at an impasse we should start an RFC and the status quo would stand until resolution. Andre🚐 07:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be a good idea so that there are more opinions on the matter. As far as status quo, ONUS and NOCON seem to be competing with each other here. I found this discussion which I am weighing through now to see what, if anything, was decided. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I took a look and the discussion link above shows that there is no agreement on if the two conflict. It leads to a rabbit hole of other discussions with the same result. This just tells me that an RfC should be done for ONUS as there are too many editors in disagreement despite both policies being cited regularly in Wikipedia. Let's do this......I will draft an RfC for climate change if you would like to draft an RfC for the Obama press conference. Would that work for you? I think it's a debate that needs a resolution. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

There is not and has never been a conflict between NOCON, PRESERVE, RFC, and other core processes and principles, and ONUS. ONUS is simply there to help you remove controversial new material - NOT long-standing material that has no consensus for removal. It continues to be out of order and a perversion of our policy. Andre🚐 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I fully support Andrevan's reasoning. There is no consensus to remove so much material. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree. I understand that is your interpretation of ONUS, but I would say the lengthy unresolved discussions on the topic would support my statement. Regardless, I am not about to 3RR so we can go back to discussing the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

---

Should this article include text about the "heckling of President Obama"[4] Andre🚐 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

The sources [5][6][7] answer your question. The paragraph could be clearer about it. Llll5032 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• No. Not a pattern repeated, an unimportant dustup in historical perspective. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  I concur, and merited. Andre🚐 01:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

[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)

• No The material in question is more suited for a tabloid publication rather than Wikipedia. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  That's an excellent point. Thank you for including these sources. I concur. Penguino35 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Yeah of course, it was a while ago so it's probably archived now. Andre🚐 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)