Talk:Diane Rehm

Personal History

Ms. Rehm stated on the air 8/14/06 that her father is Egyptian, and her mother is Lebanese. Don't know where the Turkish father information came from - unless he was an Egyptian Turk - not beyond the realm of possibility, I suppose.

Sign your posts. I heard that broadcast, and I'm pretty sure she said her father was Lebanese and her mother was Egyptian (the latter jibes with the article as well). Still doesn't explain the Turkish reference, and neither does the citation, which implies that both parents were Turks. Anyone have a better citation? Also, should there be mention of her rather startling story of child abuse, or is that now considered so-bizarre-that-it-can't-possibly-be-true? And her professional history only covers her career as a journalist; I'm pretty sure she was a fashion model before that. Clearly this needs some work. Stubbify? Canonblack 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Her book indicates that both were from Turkey (by some accounts, from the same town). At some point, her mother moved to Egypt with her parents. PacificBoy 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

She was *diagnosed* with spasmodic dysphonia in 1998, but she had the symptoms (the voice problems) for years before that.

The newsmax article makes refrence to a sexual molestation. Is that a fact? What are the wikipedia policies dealing with such sensitive matters?

Who did she molest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.23 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/daily/rehm0823.htm <--about a third of the way down. Do such matters belong on her page?

I consider myself to be molsted by her after having to listen to her all the way to work. I was in a car pool and the driver had this lady on and it was worse than someone running their fingernails down the chaulk board. I had not heard of her and asked who this old hag was. I thought maybe it was a public access project whre they wre letting old people from the nursing home take turns on the radio, but this dude told me that she was a regular on NPR and that he liked her. I said, yeah, and the NEA also gives government funded grants to "art" projects where they put a cross in urine and hand out $50 bills and their "freedom of expression." Since it is public raido and they get tax payer money, they ought to yank the old goat off in favor of someone who is better. She is a waste of the public air waves. If this were a company, then that would be a business decision and they are allowed business judgement, but for puplic radio, "bad is bad" and "ugly is ugly." You know how they say someone has a "face for radio"? This means they are ugly, but on the radio no one sees this and judges them by their voice. Well, Diane Rehm as a "voice for the internet!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.23 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was in the Washington Post, so it's a fact? What was it like being in the room? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.172 (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Highly Respected

Ms. Rehm is one of the few people in the broadcasting business for whom I have the utmost respect. I have listened to her over the years and she has spoken with people from all over the politcal spectrum. Her shows are repeatedly thoughtful, thorough, and civil. Other journalists have a lot to learn from this extraordinary professional.littlrk 2/8/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.237.118 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Voice Problems

At first impression, Diane Rehm's frail, faltering voice makes for poor radio, a medium in which clarity and enunciation are valued (or at least they were when I was studying broadcasting.) Have any other radio personalities overcome similar problems? It might make an interesting "sidebar." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.6.208 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this page wondering the exact same thing. Diane is BRUTAL to listen to. If there's some third-party coverage of how utterly hard she is to listen to, it should definitely be included in this article. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; in fact, I came here to see if there was anything on it. Garrison Keillor has a section on his distinctive voice; why not Diane Rehm?  — SheeEttin {T/C} 05:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Diane's voice is addressed in the article, and has been since 2005. She has Spasmodic Dysphonia. --Ddawn23 (talk) 07:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not a fact that Rehm's voice sounds bad. Indeed, her voice could easily be called mellifluous. Any discussion of her voice should remain neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.65.88 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, her voice sucked before she had the spasmodic thing. She is and was unlistenable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.172 (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so when did she get the 'spasmodic thing'? Or do you just mean that her voice sucked before the diagnosis? --Ddawn23 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you all get it. Her voice is terrible. She is an old hag and they let her stay on because of her liberal views, but she is a laughing stock. I was listening to NPR the other day and I thought it was a joke or parody. Then when it kept on, I thought the studio had been taken over by terrorists and they had put their pet goat at the microphone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.23 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally have never been bothered by any of this. I think it may be related to how I always pay attention to the content of the Conversation instead of to her voice.

Seems as if her unique medical situation leading to voice problems should be mentioned in the article. Casey (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

anonymous reverts of the "liberal" label

In recent months the "liberal" label in the opening paragraph has been reverted. I added the "liberal" label to see how long it would take someone to revert it as kind of a joke. I wasn't surprised to see an anonymous poster take it down a few days later. I was however surprised that someone else had added the liberal label in the exact same spot a few months ago, and similarly it was anonymously removed. I did a little searching and found this report that seems to confirm the liberal label: According to the Frederick W. Mann, "of 46 guests on Rehm's program, "liberal" viewpoints outnumbered "conservative" viewpoints by 22 to 5" Source: http://www.npr.org/documents/2005/jun/cpb_pdfs/rehm.summary.pdf Of course there is a Washington Post (known liberal newspaper) disputing the report. I think it's kind of funny how folks that are so obviously partisan and their surrogates/lackeys find it so difficult to see the liberal bias. For example, look at the the June 1 2004 Diane Rehm show. General Zinni was interviewed and had a list of complaints about the Iraq invasion. Diane Rehm "failed to ask any obvious questions reflecting the opposing view." That's typical of what I've heard the times I have listened. If you're going to be partisan and unbalanced, at least have the courage to come right out and say "this show represents a certain viewpoint, not unbiased balanced journalism". Cynic783 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section is a disgrace. Does she really claim to be unbiased and unpartisan? Or is she just denying allegations without any rebuttal arguments? Her Thursday edition talked about making a national insurance plan for healthcare, and there wasn't a single guest on there that exposed the dangers of that, or that even talked NEGATIVELY about the plan at all. That's not really responsible journalism... but I guess when the organizations that hand out awards are on board with all your views, it's not too difficult to win graces with them and get all sorts of bogus awards and nominations. (68.206.254.62 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

How come no liberals go after Diane Rehm for being biased? Food for thought. It's hard to identify media bias when you're agree with what's being said (76.79.9.129 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Diane Rehm's show is tantamount to the inverse of Rush Limbaugh's show... instead of being totally conservative, it's totally liberal. Her show, when dealing with topics like healthcare, etc.... it's a bunch of yesmen agreeing with each other. It's a worthless waste of space waves. Quimbero (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooookay... I'm fairly conservative and I like her show. She can be pretty brutal towards liberals when they don't answer her questions openly and directly, just like she is with conservatives. However, you people are missing the point of the show. She gets in some big-wigs from high-profile institutions, businesses, and departments of the government to come in an answer questions about their views on modern issues. Her guests are biased because they are expressing their opinions about current events, just like the show is billed.

... and of course she gets more democrats than republicans on the show. Republicans are so stupidly antagonistic towards NPR it is hard to imagine them wanting to give a NPR host the time of day.

She is a wonderful journalist who gets her guests to talk about a topic, stay on topic, and speak frankly about the topic. I adore her show, even with the typical obvious leftist slant of her guests. Unless she self identifies as a liberal I think the point is moot. Her show is not billed as having a particular slant, any bias it might portray comes from the bias the guests-of-the-day (who many times strike me as more centrist than left). Jmclark (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that she is a leftist liberal, but claims to be unbiased. That is the worst kind. Rush Limbaugh is straight forward, you know where he is coming from. We know where Dian Rehm comes from also, but the point of it is that she lies about that and all the liberals drink that Kool-Aid. She is an old dried out old sad sack of a hag and it is the typical NPR do loop with wasting our tax dollars on perpetuating their position of power and viewpoint, all on the public dime.

I've never seen her show billed as being unbiased. It's a call in show, conservative listeners get on all the time and if they manage to squeeze in a question with their rant at whomever the guest is, she'll make them answer it. Given her guest selection it seems obvious that she herself has a liberal bias but as far as the program goes it's really a shining example of having guests on and letting them (and pressing them to) respond to questions. Who else has had the Clintons, Cheney, Obama, Powell, McCain and Ron Paul on their show? Personal bias does not mean that the show is not a good example of civil discourse on the radio.98.145.158.42 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Controversy" section is largely off topic, also non-neutral to some degree...

"Controversy" section spends a lot of text describing off topic details of the study itself in a way that suggests much (non-neutral) concern for how wrong the study was in many ways. Talking about how the study was bad is non-neutral and off-topic.

Simply stating that the study was critical of her and (not "but") that others were critical of the study (citing them) is the proper way to approach this.

108.7.162.35 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is more of a heavily slanted puff piece than a neutral article. There are no contrasting opinions regarding her work, and no challenges to the fawning assertions made. And no mention of her education- or lack thereof. Rehm has no education beyond her high school diploma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mje (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to have mention of her list of jews question to Bernie Sanders, it literally just happened today and wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm thinking of reverting that one. Popish Plot (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do. It is highly covered in the media. You haven't provided any reason for the revert that you contemplate other than you want to and that is not a reason.--ML (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason is Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Current events especially concerning BLP are not supposed to be here. Who knows if it is really notable. Need time to find out. Popish Plot (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This incident was widely covered. It could use tightening, but I think the remedy here is to find sources for a section on the reception of her work. Not to remove a much-discussed incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

When you say much discussed incident, yes it was much discussed, for one day. How do we know it will be more than that? Much discussed things for one day typically aren't notable enough to be in wiki articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball I have a feeling that this will become a non issue. I assume you have a feeling it will become a big issue? Who is correct? We should err on the side of caution, besides making a crystal ball prediction, we can wait and see. I say let's revisit this issue in say a week. Thoughts? Popish Plot (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTTEMPORARY. It was a big story yesterday. New coverage in lots of papers today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

read that: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." Popish Plot (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders section

I just removed a long section about a single question Diane Rehm asked Sen. Bernie Sanders. Although the question was discussed a bit in the media, there was nothing in the section that indicated it's significance, given that Ms. Rehm has interviewed thousands of people over her career. Fitnr 02:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like the section then edit it, but do not remove a whole section of notable, reliably sourced information.--ML (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

How about, as a compromise, still include the information, but make it less long, right now two big paragraphs on this incident, makes it seem like this was the biggest moment in Rehm's life. That is undue weight. Popish Plot (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to expand on other source-able aspects of her career. However, as far as I can tell, her notability centers on her role as a significant player in inside-the-Beltway media. It is Rehm's job to have her facts straight, not accept a classic anti-Semitic canard as though it was a fact. This is like George Allen (U.S. politician)'s "macaca", it doesn't just go away.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it will be like macaca moment but maybe it will go away, that is a prediction aka original research. George Allen was the politician making a foolish comment but Riem is a largely unknown radio host, so different situation. Sanders likely gets a lot of stupid questions as he is talking to the press a lot due to running for president.

I would add that contrary to User:Fitnr's recent edit summary, it was not a "single question." Rehm started off with a statement, not a question, and persisted four times in the face of repeated denials from Sanders.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MPBoyfriend. It was not one question and she did not just "ask a question" that is a falsehood after the fact. She went into the interview assuming that Sen. Sanders was a dual citizen. She did not ask at all. She argued with the man. She assumed and he denied and then she continued on arguing with Sen. Sanders. Sanders knows if he is a dual citizen or not and yet she tried to tell him what he was more than one time. Also, Fitnr has been falsely arguing that it is interview has no "significance". Wrong. I don't think it is merely picking on Rehm for "one question" when commentators from all sides of the spectrum (both conservatives and liberals have agreed) have been critical of her false claim and her arguing with Sen. Sanders. The moment was an embarrassment for her and it should not be whitewashed out of the article.--ML (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Wrong" that it has no significance. This is the crux. I disagree. Well I am not saying no significance but it has only a tiny significance. And it is current events and this is a BLP. I am saying though let's compromise and just cut down the 2 huge paragraphs. Maybe I am wrong, let's discuss. What other sources are mentioning this? Popish Plot (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to: "What other sources are mentioning this?", The Times of Israel has a good article describing the response of Jewish-American groups: "Even a cursory glance of the source of this rumor should have been enough to prevent Rehm’s question, a variety of Jewish groups have said. 'This goes well beyond poor journalistic judgment,' the B’nai B’rith organization said in a statement. 'We’ve seen this dual loyalty issue come up again and again.' The Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology from NPR for the statement. 'It is appalling that in today’s age, a longtime Jewish elected official would face implications that he splits his loyalty between the United States and Israel for no other reason that his religion,” the National Jewish Democratic Council chairman Greg Rosenbaum said Wednesday.'" Jewish groups slam radio host for Sanders’s ‘Israeli’ accusation. CNN has a detailed account of Rehm's explanation of how she came to use the false information. How Diane Rehm came to accuse Bernie Sanders of being Israeli citizen. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

On a different matter, I would recommend moving this section to The Diane Rehm Show article as the interview happened on the show and the commentary/explanations also involve other people producing the show. Same recommendation for the "Corporation for Public Broadcasting report" section, for the same reasons. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this might turn out to be similar to theories saying Obama was a citizen of Kenya, despite there also being no evidence of that. No evidence of Bernie Sanders having Israeli Citizenship, but he's jewish so people assume that? I notice that rumor was started by the Hillary campaign back then, who is running against Bernie this time. Coincidence? Well no need for me to speculate but I do see why this is important. I doubt it goes away, maybe it is a minor issue for Bernie but I see why it is a big issue for Diane Rehm, I see why this will follow her for rest of her career as a major mistake. Thanks for those links that explained more. Popish Plot (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed "Arab-American" from lede

Rehm is only rarely so described. Note that, for example, Helen Thomas is simply described as "American".E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Helen Thomas article mentions how she said she didn't identify as arab American. This Diehm article has a quote saying her family were arabs. I suppose let's just include their quotes on the family life but no need to identify them as arab American or not, since no reliable sources say. Popish Plot (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it should not be in lede.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Federalist source and anti-semitism

I mostly agree with MavarickLittle's recent revert [1] of over-reliance on the Federalist source. However, I have to wonder about the revert of the section title. A lot of sources are talking about anti-semitism in relation to that interview. This leads me to think that the pre-revert section header "Bernie Sanders interview and allegations of anti-Semitism" was the best header for that section.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I restored the new title for the section.--ML (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's perfect, it makes it seem like she was alleging that Bernie is anti-Semitic. Sure you can read the paragraph but why have a confusing title in the first place if there's no need? Popish Plot (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I just re-read the title after reading this comment. You have a point about its confusion. There has to be a better title for the section.--ML (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Right to die

"The Washington Post describes Rehm as a leading voice in the right to die debate."

On which side? ---Dagme (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus first please

Two sections have been removed from this article without consensus. Please discuss and obtain consensus before removing:

• Right to die
• Allegations of anti-Semitism and the Bernie Sanders interview

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Bernie Sanders interview

There is currently a discussion regarding the redirect Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm, which redirects to a section in this article which is in dispute. You may be interested in participating in the discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)