| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tony Dokoupil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Tony Dokoupil be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
NPOV content
edit@KyleJoan Regarding your submission on my talk page, where you posted:
please also look at these sources,The HillThe WrapCNNDeadline where it's been documented that some employees "objected to Dokoupil's tone", that "several staffers at CBS were angered by how Dokoupil conducted himself", that CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon also said the interview did not meet CBS standards, and that Paramount executives disagree about how the matter was handled (with Chair Shari Redstone saying that it was a "mistake" to criticize Dokoupil in public and Co-CEO George Cheeks praising McMahon for stewarding the network's standards). Why does Jan Crawford warrant a mention over these other individuals? What does due material that takes every reliable report about the aftermath of this event into consideration look like?
to argue against including mention of pushback against the CBS decision and defenses of the article subject cited to a LA Times article and Associated Press article.
I think it's pretty obvious it's due for inclusion just by simply looking at the sourcing you provided. All four of your own sources mention opposition to the CBS decision, and mention Crawford and her arguments specifically. If I look around for other paper of record-level coverage of this incident: New York Times, Washington Post, they also mention defenses of Dokoupil, particularly Crawford and her arguments. The "staffers angered" perspective is already covered in the CBS decision to rebuke Dokoupil, as evidenced in the CNN source you provided: The assessment pacified some employees who had objected to Dokoupil’s tone during the segment with Coates. But it offended other employees who thought Dokoupil’s interview was appropriately tough.
Currently, only that perspective is mentioned, with CBS rebuking Dokoupil with a claim that he violated their standards. By contrast, there is zero mention of the defenses against that rebuke. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- CBS's finding about editorial standards came from an internal review. No source relates it to the staffers that expressed anger, so it is false that the "'staffers angered' perspective is already covered" here. Not all four sources I provided mention opposition to CBS's decision. CNN and TheWrap suggest a mixed internal opinion. The Hill mentions "one reporter ... pushing back". Deadline mentions nothing related to staffers' position. No source has dedicated an entire piece to Crawford's view, whereas some have published individual pieces on Redstone's and Cheeks's.[1][2]
- Improper synsthesis isn't helpful in determining due weight (i.e., sources document defenses and criticisms of Dokoupil among staff + Crawford is often highlighted in sources as defending Dokoupil ≠ "some staffers defended Dokoupil" is due). That's not how NPOV works. We must first demonstrate that a claim about some staffers defending Dokoupil, separate from what Crawford said, warrants inclusion on its own. KyleJoantalk 07:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rational, unbiased editors see that this has opinions on both sides, with Shari Redstone, Jan Crawford and others openly criticizing CBS for caving in to the young, internal woke mob. As such an article only presenting the anti-Dokoupil view is an extremely obvious BLP violation. Please stop edit warring with every single editor here while simultaneously accusing others of edit warring.
- Matza Pizza (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- An internal review found that standards had not been upheld. If that's anti-Dokoupil, you're welcome to balance that by providing sources that say an internal review had determined that standards were met. We'll wait. KyleJoantalk 08:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like both you and matza ended up blocked; in the meantime, I made an edit incorporating the items you mentioned about some staff members being angered and Paramount chair objecting. Presumably, that should cover the issues raised in this talk section. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- An internal review found that standards had not been upheld. If that's anti-Dokoupil, you're welcome to balance that by providing sources that say an internal review had determined that standards were met. We'll wait. KyleJoantalk 08:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
RfC
editBased on the sources above, which item(s) about the aftermath of Dokoupil's exchange with author Ta-Nehisi Coates should be added to the article?
- I CBS News executives said that an internal review had found that Dokoupil had failed to uphold the network's editorial standards in the interview
- II Some CBS News staffers defended Dokoupil's conduct
- III Some CBS News staffers objected to Dokoupil's conduct
- IV CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford defended Dokoupil, saying that a journalist is obligated to ask tough questions when interviewing someone presenting a one-sided view
- V Paramount Global Chairwoman Shari Redstone called CBS News' public criticism of Dokoupil a "mistake"
- VI Paramount Global Co-CEO George Cheeks supported CBS News executives in calling out Dokoupil's interview approach
KyleJoantalk 10:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- VII Close RfC and go do something more productive. KyleJoan is currently blocked for editwarring for 48 hours. Polygnotus (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I'm pulling the plug on this rushed RFC. A little more WP:RFCBEFORE could be used here and this was rushed and badly formed. Nemov (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable people
editPlease keep the information about non-notable people to a minimum, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Polygnotus (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)