Talk:Chris Cuomo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Advising Brother

KyleJoan, is your only complaint about lehman's opinion? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to address the issues in the article, not an editor. you might want to take another approach to discussing the latest controversial edits. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not discussing "an editor." I'm asking an editor what they believe is wrong with an edit and how we can improve it. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I had an issue with the inclusion of Jacqueline Jones's opinion and Nicholas Lemann's opinion as well as the reverts of grammatical corrections and the formatting of dates and references, yes. KyleJoantalk 02:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh you meant Jacqueline Jones. My mistake. I thought you were referring to Tom Jones from Poynter. That's why I was confused because I agreed that the Poynter article was undue. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Let me look into the Jacqueline Jones quote yet. Incerto501, what was your source for the Jacqueline Jones quote, and do you have other sources to support that quote? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
So you just reverted without looking at what you reverted? I already explained why Jacqueline Jones's quote was inappropriately included in this edit summary. KyleJoantalk 02:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I thought you were referring to Tom Jones' opinion--that's why I was confused. You're saying that the Jones' quote lacked context? Per ABC: "Jacqueline Jones, a professor at Morgan State University's School of Global Journalism and Communication, said Chris Cuomo should have been well aware last spring of the conflict of interest issues she routinely teaches her students. “Too much of broadcast and cable news programming has blurred the lines between straight news, punditry and entertainment,” Jones said. “It confuses viewers and strains credulity for the networks and their show hosts about the straightforwardness of their reporting.” I don't understand. What additional context do you want to include? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Including the quote by itself gives the perception that she was singling out Cuomo as someone who blurred the lines when she was making a general statement. Without ABC's preceding statement, it fails WP:NPOV; with it, it's too much. Simple as that. KyleJoantalk 03:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This is clearly in reference to Cuomo. The preceding sentence says: "...said Chris Cuomo should have been well aware last spring of the conflict of interest issues she routinely teaches her students." And what are your complaints about the Lehman quote? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
ABC says she brought up Cuomo's conflict of interest issues. She then commented on news programming blurring the lines. She never mentioned Cuomo in the quote. Why would we include a quote that does not mention the subject? If we'd like to insinuate things about Cuomo with quotes that don't mention him, I can present a multitude of quotes for that.
Lemann's quote was part of the original report as a piece of commentary, so naturally, other sources that quote the report would include it. It's not as if he wrote a solo piece that was quoted by other sources that regarded it as significant. My other complaint is that it adds nothing. He wrote that it was not okay; he didn't say that it was a major journalistic ethics violation and that Cuomo should be fired. The network already said it was inappropriate for Cuomo to do what he did, which is more notable (and more descriptive) than what Lemann wrote. KyleJoantalk 03:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • So we can only include quotes about Chris Cuomo if the quote specifically includes the words "Chris" + "Cuomo"? I don't think so... She did bring up Cuomo: "Chris Cuomo should have been well aware last spring of the conflict of interest." And then her quote is in relation to Cuomo. She didn't just randomly say that phrase for no reason. By your logic, should we remove the "inappropriate" from CNN because 1) it's in quotes, and 2) it doesn't mention "Chris" + "Cuomo."?
  • If Nicholas Lemann was some random reporter, then, yes, I would agree with you that his quote is meaningless. But, Lemann is a subject-matter expert on journalism. His views carry more weight than some random reporters. And RS included his quote in their reporting. If they didn't think the quote was important, then it would have been removed. All CNN said it was "inappropriate." Lemann went further than that. He brought up the crux of the issue: it was inappropriate because Chris is a news host on a major news network, and Andrew is a high-profile politician. This is what CNN failed to state. And, besides, the quote is succinct and basically summarizes the whole dilemma. I highly doubt you would want to include the quote if Lemann stated that Chris should be fired or that he committed a major ethic violation. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's recap. Jacqueline Jones said that Chris Cuomo should have been aware of the conflict of interest issues with covering his brother's sexual harassment allegations, right? Well, lo and behold! He, in fact, didn't cover them! Next.

Did I not address reliable sources quoting Lemann? Did they do so because he's a subject matter expert or because it just happened to be his quote that was in the original report? And if the quote was so succinct and basically summarizes the whole dilemma, then why did it only say that what Chris Cuomo did was not okay? We know what he does for a living. We know what his brother does for a living. Next.

I've now made all of the points I need to in this discussion, so I'll wait for the RfC. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 04:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the Lehman quote. Or allow Incerto501 to do it since it was their edit. I won't restore the Jones quote. FWIW, this is the second time I have comprised with you. I also removed the Poynter quote from before. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
You're not going to open an RfC? KyleJoantalk 04:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I have agreed to take out the Jones quote. I'm not fully happy, and you're not fully happy: this is how collaborative editing occurs. We don't need an RfC everytime to decide if a quote should be included or not. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
You believe both quotes should be included. I believe neither should be. You're fine with including only one. I'm not fine with including either. Why not ask more editors? Collaborative editing should also involve as many participants as it can gather, no? If you're not going to do it, I'll open an RfC to determine whether the Lemann quote should be included. Would you like me to also present the Jacqueline Jones quote and see if that should be included as well? KyleJoantalk 04:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Fine, but make the RfC neutral. Make sure that Jones quote is connected to the Cuomo not covering his brother story. And make sure that the Lemann quote is connected to this new story about Cuomo advising his brother. And make the RfC state that we can either include one, both, or neither quotes. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Any opinion for including a quote from UltraViolet, and how they're calling for Cuomo to be suspended? [1], [2]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo himself responded to the reports, and that was your takeaway? A group calling for his suspension doesn't warrant inclusion. People demand that people do things all the time. Should we include those urging politicians to resign too? Thank you for the 'Daily Beast' piece, though. I added it in the article to support the apology. KyleJoantalk 05:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Wow, Chris Cuomo responded to the reports and apologized? I'm baffled. You may want to read: WP:MANDY Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
We include those urging politicians to resign all the time. Go read Andrew Cuomo, Josh Hawley, etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
MANDY tells editors not to place undue emphasis on their expected denial. What denial? Also, the source you provided was not self-published. Please explain MANDY's relevance. Do we include those urging politicians to resign all the time? Go read Greg Abbott, Ilhan Omar, etc. KyleJoantalk 05:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The MANDY essay works in spirit. "Of course Cuomo apologizes, why wouldn't he?" I'm not saying we should take out his apology, but the fact that he apologized isn't a big deal. And, sure, not "all" BLPs include calls to step down. But, a fair chunk of them do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion but I'll just say that this whole controversy is obviously significant enough to include details and reactions from journalists. CNN released a statement, Cuomo himself apologized on air last night[3], and even Brian Stelter, CNN's media reporter, who normally completely ignores any media story that reflects poorly on CNN (and by extension, the Democratic Party), sent a tweet. A big reason for the uproar is Cuomo and CNN present his show as a hard news program. Was anyone surprised when stories emerged that Sean Hannity met regularly with Donald Trump when he was the president? Or when he went onstage at a rally? Of course not, though he did apologize and Fox News issued a statement. The difference is that Hannity is a self-proclaimed opinion commentator, and Fox News bills him as such. In contrast, Cuomo and other overt partisans on CNN such as Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, John Berman, and many others tell their viewers that they are "real journalists just presenting the facts without fear or favor." That said, I prefer editing in other areas and don't plan to spend much more time on Chris Cuomo than I already have, but what's in the article right now is just bare bones and there really needs to be a separate section given this event's significance. Incerto501 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Incerto501, You make some fair points. Besides placing it in a separate section, is there anything else we should include? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


RfC

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.
There is consensus against including the disputed material. Editors opposing inclusion argue that these quotes don't help the reader understand Cuomo, that the first quote isn't directly related to the topic of the article, and that the material misleadingly suggests that the controversy was greater than it was in reality. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism were also brought up as issues. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


Should the bolded commentary about Cuomo's work be included? KyleJoantalk 05:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, on both. As far as I can tell, these are subject-matter experts quoted in multiple high-quality RS. The quotes are succinct and basically summarize the two controversies. If forced to choose between the two, I would go with the Nicholas Lemann quote since it received more attention in sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, on both. It goes on to say that he issued an apology, the network said it was not okay, why does anyone's opinions belong in his career section when both he and CNN said it was not appropriate? Why not include everyone's comments on his behavior in his "Career" section?Tepkunset (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No on both. Just because someone has an opinion, that doesn't mean it's notable, noteworthy or contributes to the article. The two people cited are minor voices with little to say. This will blow over fast and hardly merits all the conservative-leaning verbiage used to hit Cuomo. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • "conservative-leaning verbiage used to hit Cuomo" lololol I just can't. These are all sources that are left-leaning! Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude both per my extensive comments above. KyleJoantalk 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes to both No surprise here as I originally added the quotes. Cuomo's actions drew widespread condemnation from journalists, including media figures from far-left media companies. Erik Wemple, who makes a living largely by attacking Fox News and Tucker Carlson, wrote a scathing editorial about the ongoing problems here.[9] I'm not particularly beholden to these two specific quotes, but certainly there should be information about how the media world reacted to this controversy. Incerto501 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks like most people here agree that the quotes shouldn't be included in the page, but I wanted to point out that since the news broke, there have been more significant quotes we could use instead. Cuomo's colleague Brian Stelter has suggested that Cuomo should take a leave of absence.[10] WaPo has written two full op-eds critical of CNN: [11] and [12]. CNN chief Jeff Zucker said Cuomo "crossed the line." CNN employees are said to be "disgusted," with one reportedly saying she is "disappointed" with CNN and expected disciplinary action [13]. One thing that stands out here is that these aren't exactly conservative people. This criticism is coming from far-left media outlets. Personally I'm not convinced by the arguments to leave out opinions from Colombia and Poynter journalism experts, although that seems to be the minority view here. But what's the argument for leaving out complaints from within CNN and ideologically-aligned news companies? And not including a separate header for readability? Right now the information disappears into the morass of text about his general career history. Incerto501 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This statement makes clear your lack of objectivity regarding the issue. CNN is a mainstream media outlet, not "far-left" media. That is the mythology of the right. Moreover, Stelter did not make a statement regarding Cuomo taking a leave af absence; he raised a question as part of a panel discussion of this type of conflict of interest on his Sunday discussion show, but did not take a position on the matter. This was a tempest in a teapot, its 15 minutes have passed and it hasn't merited comment in mainstream media for days. Clearly, WP:Recentism applies. Time to move on. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to make things personal, since that route rarely moves discussion along, but I strongly disagree with your assertion that CNN and WaPo are not far-left companies. I think that's a fairly obvious fact, but it's not all that relevant. The main point here is that Cuomo's colleagues are strongly criticizing him. We're getting new information a week after the report dropped, so it's not just the two quotes above in question anymore. Incerto501 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Incerto, neither venue is "far left". Check out the wiki articles on Washington Post and CNN for some fairly good representation of their political leanings in the 21st century (or check out this chart [from 2014 and thus somewhat outdated in the Trump and post-Trump era]: [14]). They are nothing like Mother Jones, Bernie Sanders, or The Squad, who are consistently progressive liberal. CNN and WaPo are center to center-left, and, particularly in the 20th century, have a lot of bothsidesism. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I would say more than "somewhat" outdated. Michigan puts Drudge to the right of Fox News in that chart, though in present-day, Drudge has switched sides. I don't share your views on CNN and WaPo, but as I stated above, this disagreement isn't all that relevant here. The relevant facts here are that Cuomo's boss said he "crossed the line," his company's "media analyst" suggested he take a leave of absence, and CNN staff are said to be "disgusted" and "disappointed" with the lack of disciplinary action taken against Cuomo. Those are the facts, and they are significant, regardless how one views the partisanship of CNN. I'm not going to belabor these points, so if there is a widespread belief that these facts aren't relevant to the controversy, I have no strong desire to keep stating my case for them to be added. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No, Brian Stelter did not suggest Cuomo take a leave of absence, as mis-stated in some media accounts. He raised a hypothetical question for discussion on "Reliable Sources". The clip is out there. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 15:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Incerto, my statements about CNN and WaPo are not "views", they are facts, and you making inaccurate statements like "CNN and WaPo are far left" and then doubling down on that is going to cause Wikipedia editors to monitor your edits to see what other sorts of POV agendas you have and are pushing and possibly inserting into the encyclopedia. You're fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'm just letting you know. Post-1992 American politics is a contentious and regulated field on Wikipedia, and many POV pushers get topic-banned from the subject. Softlavender (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, your statement that people are going to "monitor" my edits if I don't stop saying things you disagree with sounds vaguely like a threat. It could be that I'm misinterpreting the remark so please let me know if that's the case. Things often get lost in translation in a text-only format! I'm not ashamed at all of my work, so I invite any constructive criticism. But I'm not going to say that CNN and WaPo aren't far-left companies simply because you deeply believe that they are not. Everyone interested in media/politics has a POV, here. We should be able to respect different opinions, not demand that other people agree with our own. But I have to say, once again, whether or not CNN is a far-left organization isn't what's disputed here. We are talking about what Cuomo's boss and colleagues think about what Cuomo did. CNN's partisanship and objectivity in general is a completely different topic. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
It was a word to the wise, Incerto. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Another word to the wise: you might want to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV given your newness here. Everyone has a point of view, yes. It just can't enter into how content is presented on this site. That's what Softlavendar, a very experienced editor, was trying to tell you. This is not a forum for politically biased interpretations of events, but rather for neutral presentation. Trouble is, all your rhetoric comes across like it comes from someone fed a steady diet of FoxNews/OANN/Newsmax and GOP political exaggeration. Demonizing media outlets such as CNN is Trump's MO, whether truthful or not, and it's permeated the right. But we're going to hold content in this article to verifiability and to neutrality, regardless of our own political stripe. If that's not something you can do, you may find yourself being called out for it, and possibly, as Softlavendar said, being topic banned. That's not a threat; it's just the way it is around here. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yikes, we don't have to turn a simple difference of opinion on CNN quotes into a series of personal attacks. If you want to have a (polite) debate about the objectivity of the media, we can talk offsite or even on my talk page. But I hope you have a great weekend anyway. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
If you believe you have experienced "a series of personal attacks", then you are welcome to report the behavior at Administrators Noticeboard/incidents. Be aware that your behavior will be scrutinized as well, and the report may end up boomeranging on you. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No on both. The first quote (Jones) is particularly bad. We basically say that Cuomo recused himself from reporting on his brother - then add a quote criticizing newsmedia-in-general for inappropriately blurring lines. It's not clear whether Jones somehow intended that as a criticism of Cuomo specifically, and if that is what she mean then our text would still be grossly-confusing and nonsensical because it fails to give any remotely comprehensible explanation how or why Cuomo recusing himself was somehow wrong or bad or blurring anything. Insofar as I can tell, a reporter recusing themself from COI reporting on a family member is a good and appropriate thing. Including that quote in Cuomo's biography and in that manner seems to rise to the level of BLP-violation. The quote and placement seem to imply that that it criticizes Cuomo-specifically, seems to imply that he is specifically being criticized for the just-mentioned recusal, which is implicitly cast as grossly bad behavior for some utterly unexplained and utterly incomprehensible reason. What??? Why? Huh?
    The second quote (Lemann) is better, but we already have Cuomo's employer saying it was "inappropriate" and we have Cuomo himself acknowledging it with an apology, I don't see how the quote is explaining or adding anything that isn't already sufficiently covered. To be frank I think the entire advice-item is pushing on Undue weight. To quote policy NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. If Cuomo had reported on his brother's situation (either supporting or criticzing his brother) that would have been big news and almost surely would warrant significant detail in the biography. If he had used his position at the network to pressure other coverage at CNN (either in favor or against his brother) that would be a big news scandal and a significant biography item. But the fact that he spoke to his brother and ...oh-my-god... offered advice? THAT is what passes as a "scandal" or "significant biography item"? Yes, it was mentioned in the news cycle. That is the minimum for possible inclusion. However the policy supplement Recentism explains: Consider the ten-year test as a thought experiment that might be helpful: Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here? I don't think the news or any historical sources will be wasting time on the advice-item a month from now, never mind ten years from now. Alsee (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No on both. - The commentators are not important to his biography. DoctorTexan (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No on both. The opinion of the 2 people cited holds no relevance. Sea Ane (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No on both - I usually have no problem with expert / academic quotes in articles and I personally like to see them included, but in this case neither of the two quotes is particularly elucidating. The first one, as mentioned above by Alsee, is confusing, while the second one doesn't really say anything other than "it's not OK". I'm sure there are better ways to summarize the reactions to Cuomo's actions than with these two quotes. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No on both. We don't put absurdly random cherry-picked quotes from individuals criticizing the person in a BLP article. (If necessary, we merely summarize general reportage, giving due weight to various opinions.) By the way, the cherry-picked quotes should not be in the article while this RfC is underway. This is a BLP, and any BLP violation should be reported immediately to WP:BLPN. In fact, this RfC should probably be mentioned at BLPN for further expert input. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Apropos of your BLP concern, the discussion of Chris not covering his brother is also factually inaccurate. I saw the program the night it was broadcast, and he actually said he would continue not to cover him, as had been his practice during his tenure on CNN. The point of the statement was he was acknowledging that he recognized his colleagues would be covering the story. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:54, 26 May 2021 (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.

This article reads like Chris Cuomo himself wrote it.

No mention of Chris's attacks on a innocent teenager, who was not a political figure and under the age of 18 - Nick Sandmann. No mention of Chris being caught outside of his home not quarantining and had Covid at the time, and not wearing a mask, while on a daily basis on his show he lectures the public to wear masks even outdoors and take the virus seriously. The man was caught writing excuses for his Governor brother, again no mention. Conveniently enough however, the article mentions that Chris was called a name that hurt his feelings and makes sure to mention that he thinks it's equivalent to the N word...awww poor Chris. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:68F9:C8E9:E5F5:2F (talk)

Hello. We don't include trivia or poorly sourced contentious material in Wikipedia articles, particularly not in articles about living people. Please see the relevant notice at the top of this page, and/or read WP:BLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo used his media sources to find out info on brother Andrew’s accusers

Should information from this article, CNN host Chris Cuomo used his media sources to find out info on brother Andrew’s accusers, records show be used in the article? Is this news article about Chris or about Andrew?Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is no comments or a reach of consensus, then I will add the information from this article back into the article.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why your addition was removed, but obviously it's worthy of inclusion and the section regarding the coverage of his brother is due for a significant expansion. CNN says it's conducting a "thorough review"[15] of documents related to the investigation and called the role Chris took in advising Andrew "intimate." A few sample texts would be good to include, along with a note that so far Chris has not addressed the revelations. Incerto501 (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I concur that it's absolutely relevant to him. I'd say we ought to aim for a normal-sized level-3 subsection in the body and a brief mention in the lead within the sentence on Andrew Cuomo being his brother. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Change "Chris Cuomo is a CNN anchor" to "Chris Cuomo was a CNN anchor". He was just fired it's all over the news 2601:648:8201:41F0:BC6C:F12D:1217:BF77 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: He is currently suspended, not fired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

I feel like the Wikileaks subsection gets pretty close to the article just listing objectionable things Chris Cuomo has said as controversies - which is going to end up making this page a mile-long and not super helpful for folks looking for information regarding Chris Cuomo. Obviously, Cuomo has attracted a sort of hatedom[16] on the political right - hence, I think, the flurry of recent edits to this article. Perhaps it might be better to have a subsection regarding that with some illustrative examples (there's definitely a reason his sometimes half-cocked comments made him a bit of a punching bag), rather than indulging in a pile-on of anti-Cuomo subheaders. Would be a bit delicate to pull off well, but that's my two cents. LookOnMyEditsYeMighty(talk) 13:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the WikiLeaks material entirely, as it did not meet WP:DUE. WP:CRIT says controversies sections that are of the "mixed bag" kind are inappropriate, which is clearly the case here. Some of the Andrew Cuomo-related material doesn't seem to be controversial (e.g., the subject interviewing him and not reporting on the allegations against him), so we should not present it as if sources regard it as such. KyleJoantalk 13:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I think that's a sensible way to deal with it. LookOnMyEditsYeMighty(talk) 20:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Stopping Short - Sexual harassment allegation

Re: Stopping short of asking him to be fired from CNN...

1) This source (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/24/former-abc-producer-accuses-chris-cuomo-of-sexual-harassment) states:

Ross said she did not want Cuomo to lose his job. “I hope he stays at CNN forever if he chooses,” she said.
Saying 'she did not want him to lose his job' is more definite than 'stopping short of asking him to be fired from CNN...'

2) The wikipedia entry is also grammatically incorrect. It should be something like:

Stopping short of asking that he be fired from CNN...

3) Suggestion:

Though she did not want him to be fired from CNN, she said she would "like to see him journalistically repent."

94.126.214.7 (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Was

Someone change that is to was on the first line 2603:8081:D02:2801:11FE:5530:8644:8363 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Cuomo is still alive and still a journalist, just not currently employed (as the sentences immediately following make clear). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 00:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Forwarding Documents

According to Fox : Additionally, the transcript from investigators' interview with Democratic strategist and Andrew Cuomo ally Lis Smith showed Chris Cuomo had forwarded her documents regarding the governor's second accuser Charlotte Bennett and her "time in college.". Should this be placed on the article? While the article have stated that Cuomo used journalistic sources, sending documents is more concise and clearer and should be placed on the article. Thoughts? SunDawntalk 23:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't seem noteworthy. I don't know it would help readers that much to read: "Cuomo used his media sources to uncover information about his brother's accusers. He sent information about one of the accusers' activities in college to one of his brother's allies." The relevant point is that Cuomo participated in the dirt-digging, so to speak. Obviously the information would be passed around. KyleJoantalk 00:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate reasoning stated for termination

The page isn't entirely correct about why CNN decided to terminate Cuomo on Saturday:

On December 4, after an internal review conducted by a law firm, CNN terminated Cuomo's employment and said they would investigate Cuomo's "involvement with his brother's defense"

Basically it implies that he was terminated only for the incident of his involvement with his brother Andrew, which is not accurate. Here's what the cited source says:

CNN said in a statement: "Chris Cuomo was suspended earlier this week pending further evaluation of new information that came to light about his involvement with his brother's defense. We retained a respected law firm to conduct the review, and have terminated him, effective immediately." "While in the process of that review, additional information has come to light," CNN's statement added. "Despite the termination, we will investigate as appropriate."

NPR has more details about the allegations: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/05/1061639233/chris-cuomo-newly-fired-from-cnn-faces-an-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct

In other words, they didn't terminate him only for his journalistic misconduct, but when new information (including documentary evidence) about the sexual misconduct allegations came to light, they decided to terminate him. So that bit should read something like:

On December 4th, CNN abruptly terminated Cuomo's employment citing additional previously unannounced sexual misconduct allegations that they received earlier in the week, which are unrelated to his alleged journalistic misconduct. CNN is currently investigating those allegations further. 97.124.152.48 (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

While the sexual allegation may be a factor of CNN's termination, it is not a proven fact. SunDawntalk 15:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the full story behind his firing. But, he'll likely be eventually hired by MSNBC news. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it really an internal review if it's conducted by an external law firm?

Sorry if this is nitpicking, but the article currently says, "an internal review conducted by a law firm". Is it really an internal review if it's conducted by an external law firm? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A interesting point you bring up, however in the fox news cited WP:RS it does specifically say "internal review" so, I'm not sure. You maybe could use WP:COMMONSENSE to edit it out, and see if anybody else reverts it? MaximusEditor (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The internal v. external is determined by what's being reviewed (i.e. CNN) not who the reviewers are. So this is very much an internal review done by external reviewers. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. If it were an external review, some other agency or government department or organization would be conducting it -- such as the District Attorney, the DOJ, the FBI, a media watchdog organization, an activist group, etc. Companies often conduct internal reviews on their high-profile employees or leadership when necessary, and they of necessity use outside parties such as law firms to do so, as they lack the objective expertise and specific manpower to effectively conduct a neutral and sufficiently thorough review themselves. Also, they may need legal cover for terminating him if he sues them for being terminated. Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Katz allegation

I noticed that Cuomo Prime Time had been edited to state definitively that the sexual misconduct allegation led to his termination, citing the attorney Debra Katz' to that effect. Is there a source which corroborates this? As far as I know, CNN has focused on the Andrew Cuomo case in statements. I personally have no problem accepting Katz' statement, but have edited both articles to reflect that this has not been independently confirmed (again, as far as I know). LookOnMyEditsYeMighty(talk) 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't say anything in either article that is not reported as fact in reliable sources. People magazine is not a reliable source in this matter. If someone thinks it is, they should get it approved by the WP:RSN before using it as a citation in this matter. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The Chris Cuomo Project

Please add THE CHRIS CUOMO PROJECT https://chriscuomo.com/the-chris-cuomo-project/ to the article. 2601:C4:C300:A210:ED6C:3F1E:4134:999B (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Number of kids

How many kids does he have 4? 100.36.55.194 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Cuomo/Archive_2&oldid=1218082382"