Talk:Barbara West (TV news anchor)

Biased towards criticism?

Is it really appropriate to have 3 sentences of biography and 4 full paragraphs of controversy/criticism? See WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. --Rividian (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should probably be marked as a stub pending expansion of the biography sections. This blog link doesn't meet WP:RS standards, but might be helpful in locating Reliable Sources http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/10/conflict-of-interest-orlando-journalist.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.27.79 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Unfortunately, his whole article (and her 15 minutes of fame) started because the controversy over her interview with Senator Biden. I agree with your recommendation.

BTW, I suspect that last zinger about her husband's political donations are intended to make us think she is biased. I guess the correct thing to do now is go through all media people who have Wikipedia articles about them and list their political donations and apparent biases. Seems pretty dopey to me. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1) bluetidalwave.com is not a WP:RS, 2) the Orlando Sentinel report that she is a registered Republican whose husband worked for the GOP is in there.[1] Readers are smart and will figure it out. There is no need to use poor sources and repeat claims to beat the readers over the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bluetidalwave is not meant to be an "information" source, it is meant to show that left-leaning blogs have criticized her for her interview (the BTW article got over 1000 Diggs). It is important to show that she has been criticized for a conflict of interest and I included a video from Countdown with Keith Olbermann to further back this up. Any more removal of these references will be reported. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 02:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a novice observer here, but it seems that this whole page is set up as one big hit job. Notability appears severely lacking in the big picture and a single controversial interview doesn't justify a Wikipedia dossier. It may just be a better idea to scrap the whole page, or exclude the extraneous information concerning party affiliation and alleged conflicts of interest. The partisan door swings both ways, after all.

Cleanup

I've tried to cleanup the page best I can to make it more readable & sensible. For disclosure's sake, I have met Mr. West and I know some of his friends. I don't agree with their views, but I do agree that things have gotten out of hand here. Cwolfsheep (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it really Wade who just editted the article? If so, does he really believe 90% of all reporters are Democrats. If that type of evidential thinking informs the family, no wonder why those questions were asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is Definitely not speaking from a neutral voice. I have tagged it with a NPOV tag.