Talk:David Gregory (journalist)

Untitled

Well, I wrote the temp page, just for fun. My first try. Most info from bio at Leading Authorities. http://www.leadingauthorities.com/search/biography.htm?s=17527. There is an image here but I was not sure about copyright infringement. http://www.carlcoxphoto.com/images/David%20Gregory.jpg

• Temp page has replaced the main article. RedWolf 03:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's remarkable that even the MRC named him best White House correspondent; I didn't know that. What a brave journalist, despite what some would say. -Amit

Imus Transcript

The Drudge transcript is clearly wrong. I've fixed it up a bit to match the audio and video clips I've seen. Should we still cite Drudge as the source? Should we even include the transcript? --Geedubber 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Found full audio of the phone call here. will fix transcript later tonight.--Geedubber 01:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is biased. needs to be wikified

I would agree with that notion. The article needs a professional workup of the material. Also, the content which clearly shows an unfavorable bias should either be removed or given context. We should never list defamatory statements about a person in the main section. - ICarriere 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gregory's Rather Clear Bias is Quite Important to any Fair Article

Because Gregory claims to be a neutral journalist, it then becomes important to point out the many instances in which Gregory has been very clearly biased ideologically. Were Gregory the host of an opinion show such as "Countdown," his on-camera appearances would clearly fall into the category of leftist opinion. But Gregory is doing what so many journalists do, pretending to be neutral while actually having quite an obvious ideational tilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely surprising to me that this page doesn't make some acknowledgement of David Gregory's tone and approach on Meet the Press, as I feel it is a huge break from the previous host. It may be a function of how much more frequently accusations of liberal media bias come out, but there is a stark contrast in the tone he uses and the frequency in which he cuts off Democrat versus Republican guests. On the June 17, 2012 episode, the way he makes David Plouffe vigorously defend Obama's agenda and holds the President accountable for the well-being of the entire economy is clearly antagonistic. There is very little acknowledgement of Plouffe's statements on Romney's record in Massachusetts or on the Moody reports cited by David that articulates how Romney's economic plan will plunge the US further into recession. However, his later interview with John McCain flows much more like a session on collaborating about the flaws of the Obama agenda and gives him a very open and interrupted opportunity to clarify why he attacked Romney during the 2008 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.8.241 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Provide evidence. Gregory, on numerous occasions, has gone after people on the left. To this day, I still believe the guy is somewhere around center-right. Also, the fact that he asked a question about how Bush is failing does not make him bias. Almost 3 out of every 4 people disapprove of the current President. If he was giving a constantly favorable opinion that would automatically make him bias toward a very small portion of the population.

POV

This article is little more than a transcript of White House complaints about Gregory. I'm going to work on expanding the serious info and removing some of the excess. Gamaliel 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure of this criticism. When I read this article I did not feel that Gregory having disputes with the White House necessarily reflected poorly upon him, he is a journalist after all. The complaints from the White House about Gregory are of the ad hominem variety and therefore, not that convincing. Also, if the conservative media watchdog gives him an award and now the Bush administration hates him, then one could argue that he is doing his job. So, in the end, I still felt able to make up my own mind on the subject. Moomot 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that some of this stuff needs to be removed. Fully half of the article is given over to some of the more "contentious" elements in Gregory's career, i.e. the confrontation with W., the argument with McClellan, and the Imus incident. This kind of thing is really more in the nature of a footnote, or maybe a link; it doesn't deserve to be half the article -- is this Wikipedia or is this Wonkette? 68.93.120.212 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)From the original author of the temp page, who is still too lazy to sign up for an actual account.

Instead of removing it, why not add more positive items to balance out the POV? I hate it when Wiki takes things out. I depend on Wiki to give me a starting point for research, and knowing more about any subject, positive, neutral, or negative, makes my job much easier.66.8.139.9 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of this article is critical of Gregory. The opposite case can be made and should be made. See, e.g., http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070604&s=roth060607 (The New Republic TV, David Gregory's Greatest Fights by Zachary Roth) and http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070604&s=roth060407 (The New Republic, King David: How a pompous reporter saved the press corps by Zachary Roth). --PubliusPresent 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Last night on Conan O'Brien's show, David Gregory stated his height as 6'5". They were talking about this thing he calls a "dream sack" that he sleeps in while in hotels (apparently he's afraid of the hotel sheets) and said something to the effect of, "It's particularly hard to find one when you're 6'5"". I corrected this last night, but someone has changed it back to 6'6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.244.157 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources

These do not generally fit Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, but they may be useful sources if someone wants to use them to improve the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

potential sources

• MSNBC: After Cheney's Shooting Incident, Time to Unload: Episode Triggers a Fusillade of Wisecracks, And a Withering Blast From White House Press, By Mark Leibovich Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 14, 2006; Page C01
• Transcript of Q&A with Karl Rove, June 22, on Hardball
• "U.S. Justification for Waging War on Saddam Still Haunts White House"
• "Tucker Carlson Replaced on MSNBC"
• David Gregory on his faith

Jewish

I noticed he is listed as Jewish in the tag line but I do not see any sources cited. Please cite a source for that or maybe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

When Tim Russert died, he said on air that according to his religion, which is Judaism, ... 130.64.70.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

The citation given for him having a Jewish upbringing has nothing of the sort in the article, it is a false attribution and should be removed.

info box set up

the info box set up was info box "celebrity" rather than info box "journalist" - I tried to clean that up but could not get it to display properly. could someone give that a try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony Snow

• the following comment about the article has been moved from the article space-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the incident in December, 2006, it is not true that Tony Snow did not answer Gregory's question. Snow clearly stated the report in question was not a rejection of the President's policies. The resultant controversy erupted because Snow stated Gregory was framing the report in a partisan fashion. The video of the press conference is widely available. Snow does answer Gregory's question and any claim to the contrary is misleading.

comment is from this edit

Condense

I did a fairly major edit on this page, mostly condensing the information. I strongly believe that each little blip in his career does not need its own sub-headline. I also deleted some information that I don't really believe added anything to the content of the article Kika chuck (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Which was promptly undone. Crap! Am I the only one who thinks all the subheadlines are stupid? Kika chuck (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source for my previous edit on Mr Gregory's violation od DC Gun Laws.

DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition..”

I think we all know that the edit was accurate. Since the policy only applies to unsourced comments the comment needs ot be reinstated. Removing it again would be an act of vandalism as this is obviously relevant to his "Meet the press" career:

Someone w/ the right privildeges please add the below ( or something like it):

"On a recent show, Mr Gregory broke the Districts Gun laws by possessing a 30 round magazine. He even admitted to it in his description and showed it on national TV as a prop in his discussion with Mr. LaPierre. As of this writing he has not been arrested or charged" ^26

To add for references: 26. DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf

Palmerwmd (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: It <is> a little weird locking the article.. though citing the policy of no unreferenced writing about legal problems of living persons.. This very act of locking it takes away this posters ability to add the reference in the first place... pretty weird... 03:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerwmd (talk • contribs)

• First, welcome to Wikipedia. The article is only "locked" in the sense that unregistered or brand-new editors will be unable to edit it for a few days after a spate of anonymous editors added unsourced allegations of criminal activity to the biography of a living person. And just quoting D.C. law is not a sufficient source. You'll need to find discussion of this alleged act in a reliable third-party source before it can be added here because Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research. - Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. : ) Would it be sufficent if i linked a vid to him holding it during the show, which we know is in DC? It is common knowledge that they are illegal in DC and the law, the primary reference that exists, is a matter of public record and can also be quoted. It is also of tremendous interest because of his position on the matter that banning them would make people safer implicitly because then they would be absent. yet he himself proved that in DC ,where its banned you can easily get it, as would any crinimal (which he now may be). The irony of this is too delicous to hold back no matter which side of the debate you are on.

Palmerwmd (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that would not be sufficient.

First: For anything someone says, simply linking to the source does not show the statement is anything of significance. We would need secondary reliable sources discussing the comment. Otherwise, articles on public figures (e.g. any president within the past 40 years) would be overrun with quotes that various editors felt were important.

Next: You comparing what he said with another source (the law in question) is synthesis: His statement + the law = your interpretation that he broke the law.

Finally: As this is a biography of a living person, controversial claims MUST be supported by coverage in reliable sources. You certainly cannot accuse a living person of a crime without citing a reliable source that makes that claim.

The simple version: Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about a subject. You don't have a source saying what you are trying to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source that mentions Gregory's violation of D.C. gun laws:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/25/D-C-Police-Investigating-NBC-s-Gregory-For-Violations-of-Gun-Banning-Laws

And here's a reliable source that says the private school that he sends his children to employs 11 armed guards. These are not secret service agents to protect Obama's kids - instead, they are regular employees that the school had long before Obama ever became President:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

The reason that both of these are notable enough for inclusion is because they show that Gregory is a gun control hypocrite.

Larry Craig has an entire article devoted to his gay sex hypocrisy. Gregory at least deserves one sentence about each of these two things in his article.

Gh82xc56 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more reliable sources on Gregory's alleged violation of D.C. gun law. The newsbusters link also accuses him of hypocrisy for opposing armed guards in schools while simultaneously sending his own children to a private school with 11 armed guards:

• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/25/washington-d-c-police-investigating-whether-nbc-moderator-violated-law/
• http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274515-police-investigating-nbcs-david-gregory-for-displaying-illegal-gun-clip-on-air
• http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/cops-probe-nbc-gregory-on-gun-clip-85481.html
• http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-petition-press-charges-against-david-gregory-breaking-dc-gun-laws_691989.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253134/D-C-police-investigate-NBCs-David-Gregory-broke-city-laws-brandished-magazine-clip-live-broadcast.html
• http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/23/gregory-mtp-likely-broke-dc-law-hypocritically-mocked-nras-armed-guards-

Gh82xc56 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

So, a few right wing blogs and a few articles reporting that right wing blogs are reporting something, plus commentary from anonymous Twitter users courtesy the Daily Mail, report that the D.C. police are investigating something they saw on TV. I can read the follow-up sentence ("Ultimately, no charges were filed.") from here. Perhaps it will rise to notable enough for inclusion in a BLP should actual charges be filed. (Not every single random thing that gets mentioned in the press is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.) - Dravecky (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

CNN is not right wing or reporting what right wingers said. The CNN article states, "Washington Metropolitan Police Department is investigating whether NBC’s David Gregory violated D.C. gun laws when he displayed what he described as a 30 round magazine as part of an interview during Sunday’s 'Meet the Press.'" It does not say "... according to right wing sources."

The Hill is a very reliable source.

Here are more reliable sources on this:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Report-Police-question-NBC-host-over-gun-4145290.php

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dc-police-investigating-nbcs-david-gregory-for-possible-gun-law-violation/

http://www.wtop.com/109/3171388/Did-David-Gregory-violate-DC-gun-law

http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-wayne-lapierre-meet-the-press-david-gregory-2012-12

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/23/david-gregory-presses-nras-wayne-lapierre-may-have-violated-dc-law/

Gh82xc56 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • I know you're (apparently) new to Wikipedia and it's exciting to see the several new editors who have (apparently) come aboard in the last few days just to edit on this specific topic but not everything that the press writes about makes it into a living person's encyclopedia article. I could show you a dozen solid news sources for what Mitt Romney had for breakfast on almost every day in October 2012 but I guarantee you there will not be a "Mitt Romney's October 2012 breakfasts" article or section in any article related to him or the recent campaign. Police investigate things all the time. When charges are filed, then it may rise to worthy inclusion of this biography of a living person. - Dravecky (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention this latest bit: [1]. "An official from the D.C. police told a member of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that David Gregory COULD display a high capacity magazine [...] 'Meet the Press' may have gotten 2 different answers from law enforcement." I wouldn't necessarily consider TMZ a great source, but in this case, that's even more reason to just wait for more information. Other media are picking up the TMZ report now as well. It may have been against DC gun laws, but it's certainly BLP without the proper context...e.g., did Gregory willfully violate the law as initial reports stated? Doesn't seem notable unless he's actually charged with something, in any case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The original objection by Dravecky was "You'll need to find discussion of this alleged act in a reliable third-party source before it can be added here because Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research."

So, in response to that, here's one of the most reliable sources of all - Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/26/usa-people-gregory-idUSL1E8NQ3M020121226

Gh82xc56 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)