Talk:Daily Kos

A userbox relating to this topic is available: {{User:UBX/Dailykos}}

This user is a Kossack.

Far left?

I would hardly call Kos a "far left" community. Left, definitely. Far left? Hardly.

There's a certain mindset that considers anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater to be "far left" and anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support G. W. Bush to be anti-American. To a person of this mindset, Daily Kos is practically off the scale. Vgranucci 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Far from progressive, is DailyKos. The morph from "pseudo-progressive" to "political sell-out" has been most obvious in its rise in popularity over the last 2 years. Issues of real human concern (censored as they were from the very beginning, hmmmm) have been replaced by blatant pandering on behalf of rich politicians; politicians who claim to be progressive, but are in reality nothing more than an ironic mockery of true progressiveness, like DailyKos itself. Drop the "progressive" label, Kos doesn't deserve the title. {Kimberly}

the daily kossak 71.107.96.117

There's also a certain mindset that considers anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy to be far right and that cheering the deaths of American soldiers and espousing the propaganda of the terrorists is conventional political discourse and not anti-American. This mindset also reacts to any criticism of anything they say or do with the common axiom, "you're attacking my patriotism!" This line is a knee-jerk reaction common among the left because they are unable to directly refute the argument of their critic.

Politicalwire.com and Politics1.com are moderate left blogs. Daily Kos is far left. If Daily Kos isn't far left, then what is? Oh that's right-there's no such thing as far left. All leftists are really moderates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 12:38:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Communists are far left. The Daily Kos, the last time I checked, is not a communist organization. Take a look at the political compass to see where the 2008 presidential candidates fall in the world/historical political spectrum. http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007 compare this to the analysis page: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 Wikipediatoperfection 19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So according to the Political Compass, Ron Paul is authoritarian while pro National I.D. card, anti-gun Gravel, and big government, anti-gun Kucinich are libertarian? Give me a break.

Actually Gravel IS a libertarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.224.233 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich also supports the "Fairness Doctrine", and in that respect is more authoritarian than republicans such as G.W. Bush. But the chart puts him, along with only two others, in the Libertarian side of the spectrum. This makes me think that this site isn't worth much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fairness Doctrine is not authoritarian at all. The public airwaves are public property. The government can put any rules it choses on them and it would not be authoritarian. btw Gravel is not anti-gun. What mindset considers anyone "to the right of Ted Kennedy" Far right? If someone agrees with, say, the British National Party, they are "far right". If someone supports Ron Paul, for example, they are not. Anyway is it possible to just say liberal/progressive and not use any French Revolution analogies? Far left really means Jacobin, and I don't know of any Jacobins.

BTW, there is no sympathy for terrorism on the left. On the contrary, there is sympathy for terrorism on the right, when the terrorist is Ronald Reagan or Oliver North or Oliver North, but when it is Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussien they go nuts. Anti-American is such a dumb charge. Anti-terrorism is more like it. Anti-American comes from the Bible, when King Abad called Ellijah, a hero to many evangelicals, Anti-Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. The term "far-left" has certain connotations in this country that have absolutely nothing to do with the term's origins in Revolutionary France. To claim that far-left refers to Jacobins only is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on Wikipedia. Almost as stupid as the claim there is no sympathy for terrorism on the left. Really, there isn't? So the well known affinity some groups on the left in the US have with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah is all just a figment of our imagination? The domestic terrorists that were active in this country during the sixties and seventies weren't left wing organizations? Bill Ayers is a conservative? Man, you are a fucking dunce. But we all knew that as soon as you weighed in on how the US is not authoritarian because it owns the airwaves and thus can do whatever it wants. So evidently, it can prohibit talk show hosts from exercising their First Amendment rights because it "owns" the airwaves. So if George Bush had told Air America it couldn't criticize him, that would have been a-ok. Again, you are fucking stupid.

Opening paragraph

Daily Kos has received the Colbert bump.

What is a Colbert bump? Is this a US-centric thing? Snuff3r 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A Colbert bump is when a site is mentioned by Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report. Since he's an incredibly popular satirist/pundit, it immensely increases the number of traffic to said site. --Cronodude360 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your second question: yes (most people outside of the US wouldn't understand this phrase) and no (I am from outside the US and I do). I know what you mean though, there is a fine line between vernacular and solipsism. Nina202.43.236.242 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Daily Kos and Markos have been on the Colbert Report enough in the past month that it warrants a section.

What's the source for the claim regarding "strengthening the Democratic Party"? A review of the DailyKos about page, http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2, doesn't seem to support this contention. Gerardw (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

@Gerardw The FAQ for the DailyKos clearly says it is a democratic blog. "This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog... It's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory." Source: DailyKos FAQ: "What is the purpose of this site?" on 08/14/09 URL = http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/DailyKos_FAQ#What_is_the_purpose_of_this_site.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.186.81 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Content Section

This is an important piece of the article that's been given short shrift--I put in the basics, but I'm sure that what I've written can be improved, expanded upon, and given references--I invite people to jump in and edit here! Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama Clinton Controversy

This section seems to have been written almost entirely by User:Kossack4Truth who describes himself as a member of the Daily Kos. Is there a conflict of interest? The event also strikes me as being of fleeting interest, almost gossip, and not essential to understanding the Daily Kos. Life.temp (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If Kossack is a member of Daily Kos, that doesn't necessarily preclude him from editing this article. As for the amount of weight given the "controversy".. You're probably right. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have kind of noticed that what the mainstream public terms as fleeting, User:Kossack4Truth feels is direly important that we need to know. Also, I've read the blog, article, and his edits and I highly doubt he is a Liberal or a Democrat. Brothejr (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was there. My personal account of this event; Witness to Daily Kos "adjustments" resulting in the mass blocking of Obama supporters, or members that reported negative (but factual) accounts of Hillary Clinton's past and current campaigns.j0eg0d (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives in the lede

Let's not let this be a lame edit war.

The original version of the lede went as follows:

Daily Kos (English pronunciation: /koʊs/) is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view.

Some time ago, the usual vandalism occured where someone went and swapped in "socialist/communist" in place of "liberal", and it wasn't reverted properly. Now, user:Dr. America has decided to change it (variously) to "left wing" or "extreme left wing".

This should be reverted to the original version, which is neutral and goes by what the site itself states. One that's settled, I'm going to removed the {{unbalanced}} tag, because the rest of the article is fine.

People, please don't feed the trolls. If a change is continually reverted back in, warn and then report the user. Continually reverting back will only make it harder to restore order.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

What does "kos" mean? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The name derives from Markos Moulitsas' nickname "Kos" Vgranucci (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Street Prophets and Mother Talkers

We are in the process of creating pages for SB Nation and Congress Matters, and will add references on this article to those sites, as well as adding references within this site to "Street Prophets" and "Mother Talkers", which aren't quite notable enough for their own pages. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CIA allegations

There have been allegations that the owner of the website was somehow linked to the CIA. It would be interesting if this could be mentioned in the entry, along with appropriate sources of course. ADM (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't "allegations"; the claim that Kos interviewed/trained with the CIA from 2001-2003 came from Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zuniga's own mouth during a talk he gave at the Commonwealth Club in 2006. Even though the words are from Kos' own mouth and the audio is sourced to the Commonwealth Club, it was removed from the Markos Moulitsas page. As it may have been added before to this article, I'm just going to put it here in the discussion page; often the best place to check to get the full story.

Kos- "Here's a little secret I don't think I've ever written about: But in 2001, I was unemployed, underemployed, unemployed. You know I was in that . . You all have been there "dot com" people? Kinda like, in between jobs, doin' a little contract work and . . . kinda. So, you know. That's where I was: in this really horrible netherworld of 'will I make rent next month' and . . . So, I applied to the CIA and I went all the way to the end, I mean it was to the point where I was going to sign papers to become Clandestine Services. And it was at that point that the Howard Dean campaign took off and I had to make a decision whether I was gonna kinda join the Howard Dean campaign, that whole process, or was I was going to become a spy. (Laughter in the audience.) It was going to be a tough decision at first, but then the CIA insisted that if, if I joined that, they'd want me to do the first duty assignment in Washington, DC, and I hate Washington, DC. Six years in Washington, DC [inaudible] that makes the decision a lot easier." http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/06/06-06zuniga-audio.html

Additional revealing info about Kos' past, all from mainstream sources: http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/08/indictment-of-markos-ca-moulitsas-ziga.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No such thing as "power users."

I have been a member of DailyKos for a few years, and I do know this aspect of site mechanics very well. There are no "power users," and no members have the ability to "edit, delete, or otherwise prohibit diaries and responses posted by ordinary members."

What we do have is "trusted users." This status can be achieved by absolutely anyone at all, simply by having a history of their comments being well rated by other users. These trusted users have the ability to do two, and only two, things:

1) They can vote to "hide" a comment. This is more commonly known by users as "troll rating" a comment. This is done when the user feels the comment is offensive or breaks site rules. When a comment receives two or more such ratings, it is hidden from view from most casual visitors to the site, but can still be seen by the thousands of "trusted users." If other users disagree, they can "uprate" the comment and the comment will once again become visible. At no stage in this process is the comment deleted -- this is impossible and no one has this ability. Important note: This procedure applies only to comments. No one has the power to "hide" or "troll rate" a diary post. Once posted, a diary is there forever, visible to anyone and everyone.

2) They can also make changes to the tags of other users' diary posts. This is done when the original poster has made a typo, broken the understood tagging conventions, or has left out an important tag that would help other users find the post.

No one, not even these trusted users, has the power to delete content or prevent someone from posting. The only thing that can prevent a user from posting is being banned from the site. This happens when someone has received so many troll ratings that an automatic procedure, known as "autoban," kicks in. Site administrators also have the power to ban users for serious breaches of site rules (such as "outing" a user who prefers to remain anonymous, or making threats). Even once a user is banned, none of their diary posts or comments are deleted, as no one has the power to do so. And no one, not even an administrator, has the ability to edit content except the person who posted it.173.61.3.79 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no one has replied to my comment above. This may seem like a minor issue, but the article as it stands makes it sound like there is some secret cabal at the heart of the site controlling content. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. No one, NOT EVEN AN ADMINISTRATOR, has the power to edit or delete content from the site. This isn't just a minor operational detail, it's a central feature of the heart of Daily Kos -- the site is completely community moderated. Please address this issue. Revelwoodie (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing controversies

This article is one of the more fair articles about political blogs that I have seen in Wikipedia. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the Drudge Report, it's interesting how much of the Drudge Report article focuses on the personal life of Matt Drudge, rather than his site, and has an overwhelming number of negative comments about Matt Drudge and his site.

A few comments on this article:

1. The opening statement uses the word "news" to describe the site. It's really not a "news" site; rather, the site's content interprets the news from the site's stated "progressive" (or liberal) point of view. I know this won't be popular, but the site is really a "spin" site. I hope this doesn't violate the Talk page guidelines. I propose that the word "news" be deleted from the first sentence in the first article paragraph.

2. The site is used to actually create news. For example, back in March 2007, the site was used to launch an attack on Ann Coulter for a joke she made about Senator John Edwards. The anonymously posted article was then used by CNN as a way to report a "news story;" the "news story" was a story about a story. So in a way, the site is being used to "make" news, not really to report it. DailyKos did not disclose its work for the Edwards presidential campaign at the time, either. I apologize if this violates any Talk page guidelines. Under the "Content" section of the article, I propose a sentence about DailyKos endeavoring to "make news."

3. There is no mention in the article about Jerome Armstrong's violations of SEC rules (http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2007/dig080707.htm). Armstrong worked closely with the front man for DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas. Armstrong used the Web to promote investments in a company while at the same time he was actually dumping the stock because he knew that it was a bad investment. Now, this is not quite as titillating as reporting rumors about Matt Drudge's sex life. But, I think it is relevant because Armstrong was using the Web to mislead investors; and that implies issues with his use of the Web, via DailyKos.com, for persuading voters. I propose that this be included in the "Controversy" section, perhaps in a paragraph covering "controversial contributors" to the site.

4. There is no mention in the article of the fact that one of the longest-serving, senior "Contributing Editors," Dr. Greg Dworkin, is a senior executive at the Danbury Hospital in Danbury, CT. The Danbury Hospital admitted to mroe than a million dollars in Medicare over-billing (http://www.justice.gov/usao/ct/Press2006/20061026.html). This is relevant because DailyKos is one of the leading backers of healthcare "reform," and a "single-payer" system, yet one of the site's senior editors directs a hospital that has admitted to bilking money from the current federal government-run healthcare plan, Medicare. Maybe it's not obvious, but this seems really hypocritical to me, regardless of anyone's stance on healthcare reform. As in point 3 above, I propose that this be included in the "Controversy" section, perhaps in a paragraph covering "controversial contributors" to the site.

5. Related to my point number 2, DailyKos has been used to present false and/or undocumented claims against organizations (public and private) as well as private citizens, as part of the site's efforts to advance particular candidates, issues or parties (well, one party). For example, in the Ann Coulter situation described in point #2 (and I get that not a lot of people like Coulter, but it's still a valid point here), DailyKos provided unverified information about a private company as well as private citizens who happened to have Coulter as a customer. I understand that Coulter enrages a lot of people, but it should be noted that DailyKos attacked what was essentially Coulter's plumber or lawn service. Again, I apologize if this violates any Talk page guidelines. I propose that under the "Content" section, a sentence should be included covering the site's somewhat sloppy journalism.

There are definitely questions about the funding of the site, but I do not have the research ready yet to cover that, so I won't go any further on that topic (sorry for mentioning it).

Respectfully, 98.175.25.151 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)A Virginia Wikipedia-er

Thanks for your comments, I will try to address as many of your points as I can.

1) The word "spin" has a negative connotation in the way you are using it, and would probably fall afoul of wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. A more neutral term, but still as accurate, is "opinion" which is included in that first sentence. Second, Wikipedia describes news as "communication of information on current events", which certainly seems to apply to DailyKos.

2),3),4),5) Please review Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and no original reporting. You have not cited any acceptable sources for the allegations you have made. Please also note that Wikipedia's insistence on citing reliable sources also extends to talk pages such as this one.

3) Jerome Armstrong really doesn't have any official connection with the site and was to my knowledge never a major contributor-he had his own political website completely independent of DailyKos.

One other thing to keep in mind is that DailyKos is not a single monolithic entity, registration is free and open to anyone, and the vast majority of the content on the site is produced by individuals who are not paid or otherwise compensated for their contributions. So, for instance when you say "DailyKos attacked", presumably you are referring to the writings of one or more individuals, none of which by themselves can speak for DailyKos.

Again, thanks for your comments, I hope mine are helpful to you.--Mooksas (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications and answers. I apologize if I violated any rules. For item #4, would it be appropriate for me to add a link from Dr. Dworkin's hospital's management team page listing him as an executive there, to combine with the US Justice Department statement page to make the entry acceptable? I apologize for my naivete on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.25.151 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Wikipedia conventions can be daunting at first, and you did the right thing in bringing your concerns to the talk page.

I do believe that adding the links and allegations from your item #4 would violate Wikipedia's policies prohibiting original research. For any information that is included in an article (and this is especially important if the claims have the possibility of being contentious), "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented"(WP:NOR). Furthermore, the policies prohibiting original research say: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."(WP:NOR)

Additionally, the sources you cite are what Wikipedia calls "primary sources". With regard to primary sources, Wikipedia policy says, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."(WP:PRIMARY) In other words, you need a valid secondary source before you can include those claims in this article. If you can provide such references, then the material may warrant inclusion in the article, but without them, their inclusion is prohibited.--Mooksas (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly & Colbert

Why is there no mention of Bill O'Reilly & the Nazi comparisons and the coverage about it on The Colbert Report? Both are notable shows and probably the most mainstream coverage the blog has gotten. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)