Talk:Nina Totenberg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vanity Fair

The reporter who wrote the "Queen of the Leaks" story has the article online, here. Perhaps one of you will be so kind as to put it in? Drmies (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It was already listed, but I included it in a template. jps (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Boykin source

Loonymonkey removed the William Boykin material with the edit summary, "Simply giving the name of a TV show on Fox news is not a reference." Sorry, but a news show on Fox News is a perfectly acceptable news source and easy access to the source is not a requirement for using a source per policy WP:SOURCEACCESS, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." If you've got a problem with the format of the reference, then point out what you see as wrong with it. If you need the related excerpt from the news show, then I can provide that. I'll restore the material. Drrll (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How is the cited material verifiable? While access to a source doesn't need to be easy, it does need to be possible.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a "quotation request" tag. If you can, please quote here the text in the citation to which you're referring.   Will Beback  talk  04:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, a broadcast or live speech for which there is no published transcript or video record is not verifiable. For example, I could not go to a meeting of the city council and cite an extemporaneous comment made by the mayor to the audience of a hundred people. Nor could I cite an off-the-cuff comment by a newscaster on an untranscribed broadcast to a million people. "You had to have been there to verify it" is not a valid citation, at least until the advent of time machines.

A lesser issue, but still important if we ever find a transcription of the show, is that it is described as a mix of news and commentary. We'd need to make sure we knew which part of the program we were citing.   Will Beback  talk  09:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The cited material is verifiable through Lexis-Nexis. The relevant part is a news segment, not a commentary segment. Here is the excerpt:

MIKE EMANUEL, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): NPR's public funding has been trending downward in recent years, receiving $634,000 in fiscal year 2008, down from $941,000 in 2007. Last year's stimulus package included a grant of $50,000 to help NPR retain an arts desk reporter. Now with Juan Williams' termination, some say it is time to stop giving any tax dollars to NPR.

PETE KING (R), NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: If Congress continues to give any money to NPR at all, then we become accessories to a violation of free speech. And we should not be encouraging this at all.

EMANUEL: NPR does receive money from major foundations, including a recent grant from liberal financier George Soros' Open Society Foundations of $1.8 million to hire reporters. In 2003, McDonald's contribution from Joan B. Kroc's estate totaled $240 million. Still, money apparently is a concern for NPR's president and CEO who apologized to affiliates for this taking place during fundraising week. She also tried to downplay the significance of public funding.

VIVIAN SCHILLER, NPR PPRESIDENT AND CEO: NPR gets zero, no, nada allocation from the corporation for public broadcasting, from -- which is government money. Now, there are -- there is a little bit of money set aside at CPP (ph) for grants and we apply for those grants in a competitive nature, just like we apply for grants from foundations.

EMANUEL: NPR has had other personalities make controversial statements who did not lose their jobs.

Andrei Codrescu, a commentator for the program "All Things Considered," mocked the Christian pamphlet about the doctrine of the rapture the ascension into heaven. Quote, "The evaporation of four million people who believe in this crap would leave the world a better place."

In October 2003, Nina Totenberg, NPR's legal affairs correspondent, appeared on the television show "Inside Washington" and spoke about Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin who believed God put George W. Bush in the White House. And Totenberg said, quote, "I hope he's not long for this world, because you can imagine." When challenged if that meant she wanted him dead, Totenberg said, "No, no. I mean in his job."

Drrll (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as what conservatives criticized Totenberg for liberal bias and partisanship, former Sen. Alan Simpson accused her of bias in the Kurtz article, unspecified conservatives accused her of bias in the Edsall article, and Paul Gigot accused her of partisanship in the Bardach article. Drrll (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that.  Will Beback  talk  19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so Totenberg has failed to live up to the high standards of objectivity which FoxNews expects from reporters. :) I still think that the sourcing in this section is a clear departure (in a negative sense) from the solid sourcing in the rest of the article.

One is left with the impression that someone wrote a decent, encyclopedic biography of Totenberg, and then someone else who didn't like her very much came along and tacked on a "Criticism" section consisting of whatever negative material could be dredged up on Google, however tangential. I haven't looked at the article history to know whether this is how things actually happened; but as someone actually reading the article for information, it leaves that impression. It's unfortunate but not awful, and I don't really care enough to argue much further about it, but it detracts from the otherwise good quality of the article and sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the Simpson charge of bias because it's already made in greater detail in the "Anita Hill" section.   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, the Simpson charge is already covered earlier in the article and it makes sense to remove it here. But charges of bias by Totenberg is common in opinion pieces and is discussed generally in the Edsall WaPo news article, apart from Simpson's charge. I think the general charge should be restored, sourced to the Edsall piece. Drrll (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edsall doesn't clearly say who criticizes Totenberg, just that she is among the three most cited cases of liberal bias in public broadcasting as a result of her reporting on the Ginsburg and Thomas nominations. If we are summarizing that source we should note that is says the nominations were controversial and that she says she just reports the facts. Also, considering that she's had a long career and is still active we should indicate this was written in 1995.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're edit to the article on this looks good. Drrll (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see the case that Fox News' reporters are less objective than reporters from Totenberg's news organization. I don't know what you talking about as far as source quality in the Criticism section. Besides the Fox News source, we have Vanity Fair, 3 books, The Washington Post, The Charlotte Observer, ABC News, NPR, and CBS News. Sorry if you don't like seeing criticism of Totenberg in her article, but the fact is there is criticism of her in reliable sources and it's hardly uncommon for controversial people to have criticism in their WP articles. Drrll (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Objectivity" can not be gauged easily, thanks in part to things like the Hostile media effect, but PBS is more trusted and less distrusted than Fox. [1]

As far as the sourcing on the Boykin comment goes, it's pretty crappy. The Ombudsman does not say that Totenberg's comments were controversial. In fact, he specifically says that those attacking her over it are engaging in an "attempt to demonize her and NPR." The article in general does not have any criticisms specifically about Totenberg. Trying to shoehorn something like this into the article is just POV pushing. I'm making changes based on this. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about NPR, not PBS (note that PPP's survey in 2010 found Fox News to be the most trusted network).

The ombudsman opinion piece may not say that Totenberg's comments were controversial (it does criticize Totenberg for her punditry while being an NPR reporter), but the Fox News news piece does say that. Your personal dislike of Fox News does not trump WP policies on reliable sources. I'm restoring the material. Drrll (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear that Special Report with Bret Baier is "news" rather than "opinion" - it's a blend of the two, which is sort of a FoxNews specialty. Regardless, I think you're hearing a few different people - presumably not all card-carrying members of the Totenberg fan club - tell you that the section sounds sort of jury-rigged to bash the article subject. I agree with Sxeptomaniac that the NPR ombudsperson piece is clearly not being used properly - it suggests that people are blowing her misstatement out of context, because they want to demonize her and NPR for ideological purposes. If we cite the source, then we should convey its content accurately. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you read further into the SRWBB WP article, you'll see that the show has an analysis/commentary segment called "Fox All Stars." The rest of the show is news and the segment that mentions Totenberg is done by the White House correspondent, not an analyst/commentator. It is clear that we're talking about a news segment. By the logic that we can't necessarily call the segment news because the show also has a analysis/commentary segment, Totenberg's own reports could be questioned because the programs in which her reports appear also include analysis and commentary. Will Beback left the sentences in, making some minor edits to the first sentence. As far as using the NPR ombudsman source, I'll remove it on the controversy sentence and leave it for the second sentence, where it talks about distinguishing between punditry and reporting. Drrll (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You're crossing into WP:BLP lines, Drrll. Totenberg's comments about Boykin were not "discussed" by the ombudsperson, they were vindicated as not controversial. The Ombudsperson then went on to question whether news reporters should take part in punditry, but does not say anything further about her comment. This mischaracterization of the source borders on dishonesty. The Fox quote contains little useful information, lacking details regarding who considers it controversial, so I don't see any reason it would be enough sourcing to keep the Boykin comment in the article.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As I already said earlier, I'll leave out the ombudsman reference in regards to the Boykin comments. And I'll leave out the other reference that used Totenberg's Boykin comments as a springboard to criticize her and other NPR reporters for engaging in punditry, since the ombudsman piece is an opinion piece (I was not the editor who added the sentence about reporting and punditry). But the Fox News news piece makes it clear that Totenberg's comments on Boykin were controversial: "NPR has had other personalities make controversial statements who did not lose their jobs." Drrll (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding - I'm not suggesting we leave out the ombudsperson report, but that we represent it more accurately. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you suggest we word it? Drrll (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add back the part about Boykin soon, as the Fox News segment is clearly a news segment and not an opinion segment. I plan to leave out all NPR ombudsman references, along with the sentence about reporting and punditry, unless someone has a suggestion on wording for use of the ombudsman source. Drrll (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Fox news segment is (1)vague, and (2) not directly about her; it's about Juan Williams' firing. Who considered it controversial? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of Mike Emanuel's (Fox News White House correspondent) news report on the show. As you can see, it is not vague about Totenberg. And you can see that a significant portion of the report is about Totenberg. There is no policy requirements that a source be entirely devoted to specific topic. As far who considered it controversial, it is Emanuel's description, though it may refer to the "critics" he mentions at the end of his report. Drrll (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing by NPR IP address

Someone at NPR who knows obscure details about Nina Totenberg made edits to this article today and in May 2007. Most of the changes cast Totenberg in a more favorable light. Here are diffs of the edits: [2], [3], [4], [5] Drrll (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that your problem with the edits is that they show Totenberg in a "more favorable light", as if there is something wrong with that. Are you solely here to make her biography less favorable? Whether or not the edits are reliably sourced, notable events, and weighted appropriately are appropriate questions. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, my main problems with the edits is that there is likely conflict of interest editing without discussion first (I know the two of us take very different views on that) and that most of the changes were unsourced (not to mention the lack of an edit summary). I mentioned the "more favorable light", as well as the edits occurring at NPR and the fact that obscure unpublished facts were added as indicators of conflict of interest editing. There is plenty of favorable material in this article and I don't object to its presence. Drrll (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the header to reflect the known facts. We have no idea who made the edits or if they have any connection to the subject of the article. Given that there have been news stories about prominent people editing their own articles before, it is irresponsible and potentially damaging to raise those allegations without any evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

[removed due to BLP concerns] We need to be concerned about such potential conflict of interest editing. Drrll (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Any long time editor of this page knows just as much about Totenberg. We should be concerned about COI editing, but we shouldn't use that concern as an excuse to reiterate irresponsible accusations. You can discuss conflict of interest issues without making references to a particular party or parties. Given the history of the news media running stories about people editing in such a manner, we should be conscious of things like that. Imagine a story in the Guardian or someplace saying "Wikipedians say so and so is doing this." Please be responsible and don't make an issue out of this when we can address your concerns just fine without doing so. Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, several items added by the NPR IP are not known by "any long time editor of this page." For example, the NPR IP added that Totenberg is to receive an honorary degree from Boston University this spring. That fact, as far as I can tell, has not been published anywhere yet, as is evident by this notice. Drrll (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably known by any number of people at NPR, such as their PR department. Who knew it is immaterial as the steps we take against COI editing will be the same regardless, and that - not speculation - should be the focus of any discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, we've got someone editing a few times, leaving, then returning four years later and making a few more edits. The edits aren't malicious or defamatory, and can be considered misguided at the worst. This is hardly a cause for concern. Sleuthing for COI is completely unnecessary and not really appropriate. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

COI primarily results in problems of flattery/boosterism, not edits that are "malicious or defamatory." I don't agree that COI is a trivial issue for Wikipedia. Drrll (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If the edits in question contain unsourced assertions, then let's remove those. If they contain WP:PEACOCK language, let's revise their tone to be more encyclopedic. Insofar as they contain potentially useful biographical information, let's keep it. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds reasonable. Is there anything the NPR IP added/changed that you believe should go back in? Drrll (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious heritage?

Totenberg is apparently a person of Jewish heritage. I am condensing a previous section that finally reached that minimal conclusion. I didn't like the way the entire talk section about this controversial and polarizing figure started, quote unquote, "She is a Jew." It was followed by a sarcastic exchange. Nonetheless I tried to move the content to this new section at the end of the discussion of the substantial issues. The program doesn't seem to want to let me do it. Profhum (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dean?

I've deleted the "Dean of the SC press corps" for Totenberg - Google turned up a few friends describing her that way, but not much else.

There doesn't seem to be any agreed basis on which one becomes "dean" of this or that section of the Press Corps. Both Helen Thomas and David Broder seem to have held the title for the entire DC Press Corps at the same time, and now that Thomas has been pushed out and Broder is dead, no one has it. . JQ (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Dean" just means the person in a particular press corps who has been there the longest. (Helen Thomas was the "dean" of the White House press corps, specifically, not the entire DC press corps.) Here is an interview where Totenberg describes herself as the "dean" of the Supreme Court press corps and explains that it's just a reference to longevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.146.43 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Education

In her profile box it lists Brown University under education, this led me to believe she was a college graduate, however, the article later states that she didn't graduate. I propose this be changed from "Education" to "Alma Mater" as the latter doesn't imply graduation. Obviously, the term "Education" doesn't imply graduation either, but "Alma Mater" is more specific and more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.33.83 (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nina Totenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101101114952/http://www.aegis.com:80/news/ap/1995/AP950702.html to http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1995/AP950702.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)