Talk:Mike Duffy

The meaning of this paragraph

On the morning of the vote for the 2004 federal election, he reported on an alleged arrangement whereby former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent would resign his Ottawa Centre seat to force a by-election should the current NDP leader Jack Layton fail to be elected in his Toronto riding.

It's hard to grasp the meaning of this. Was it true? Is it notable? 206.191.33.99 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that Duffy said it? Yes. Is it true that such an arrangement actually existed? Nobody knows but Broadbent and Layton; they've both denied it. Is a possible attempt by a journalist to influence the election result in Ottawa Centre by reporting an unconfirmed rumour that "if you vote for this guy he might resign tomorrow" notable? You tell me. Bearcat 19:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense in the artcle. Since there's no proof he wa right or wrong. should be left out as too ambiguous.206.191.33.161 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Took out Duffy being asked about Bouchard's "death". Hardly reflects on him. Unless there's more balance, the other embarassing anecdotes should be dropped. WP:BIO is involved. Stompin' Tom 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Duffy picture

Could there be a worse picture of Duffy? Surely someone could find a picture that actually looks like him. I'm taking this one off. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Duffy at Trudeau funeral

User GoodDay deleted the Trudeau funeral incident as "vandalism", saying the incident "never happened". The explanation of the original edit provides the URL of a Globe and Mail story of 2 October 2000 that relates the incident precisely as described and adds a lengthy quotation from the senior VP of CTV News saying that both he and Duffy had felt compelled to apologise for the incident. The original edit should have used the proper attribution style, but in the absence of a countervailing claim, the reason for deletion remains highly questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.68.124 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This was big news, there are probably several sources that have detailed accounting of him accosting Margaret Trudeau to say "Hey Wasn't This the Day Your Son Died Too". 96.246.59.188 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Journalism Ethics Controversy

I have removed unsourced allegations because they appear to violate biography of living persons policy. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We have some serious BLP violations happening here. Request page protect. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to discuss why there's an edit war shaping up here. It appears there may be some POV pushing, but there may also be legitimate issues. Pls. discuss before making changes. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason you decided to remove an entire section that was complete with valid legitimate sourcing? Just wondering. Maldaen (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the editor who removed that info, but the source was hardly legitimate per WP:SPS, and the information that was removed appears to be unecessary per WP:UNDUE: we strive for balance as much as possible, but WP:BLP trumps just about everything. freshacconci talktalk 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the original entry which attempted to conform with the BLP policies, before it turned into a name-calling edit war. Clearly it is important to this bio to document this controversy, which is part of what he will be remembered for. Being accused of bias on the air by guests is unusual, but having his ethics questioned in print by professional journalists like Don Martin ("A Dion gaffe that shows Harper's mean streak" National Post, October 09, 2008, 9:34 PM ), Andrew Potter ("Mike Duffy is a despicable human being", Macleans web site, October 9th, 2008 at 8:13 pm) and Kady O'Malley is certainly notable. So what is an acceptable way to document the effects of his unorthodox journalism on the election and on the parliamentary crisis? Wait for the results of the multiple investigations of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council? Simply quote and refer to the videos without comment? Quote bloggers who don't like him? Bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no controversy? 99.240.241.93 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest waiting for, as you say, the results of the alleged multiple investigations by the Broadcast Standards Council is a good place to start. And, yes, if you are going to quote opinion pieces of bloggers who don't like Duffy and the way he interviewed people, you'll need to add material from the bloggers who do like the way Duffy worked. First, though, you should start a Wikipedia account. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just following up here: the BSC decision has long since past, and yet certain individuals continuously delete references to it. If you think that it gains too much play as a percentage of the article (an issue I actually agree with), would it not make more sense to add to the article, rather than repeatedly deleting factual and documented information? Deliberativedialogue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

See the "CBSC Ethics decision" section below, you may wish to comment there. Franamax (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is under constant attack by angry liberals

Duffy's career has been a long and distinguished one. During that time he has become one of PEI's favorite sons. Yet, the Wiki article on him paints him as a terrible person. The fact that his show is the highest rated political show in Canada stands as evidence of his integrity and character.

I see someone here calling for page protection. I would have to agree with that assessment. All day there has been a flurry of attacks on this page against Mr. Duffy and these attacks are baseless, ideological, and unfortunate. Duffy has long been considered one of the most fair and unbiased journalists in Canada. Given that most journalists are biased against the Conservatives (ex: the countless public complaints levied against the CBC for anti-Conservative bias, etc...), Duffy is known as one of a select few that give the Conservatives a fair shake. That has earned him high esteem in Conservative circles for being fair in an otherwise unfair group. Some are taking advantage of his appointment to the Senate of Canada as justification to belittle his entire career. This is a man who has worked for decades in journalism, broke countless stories, fought hard for journalistic freedoms (Re: Ralph Goodale threatens Mike Duffy to toe the Liberal Party's line), and is considered somewhat of a hero in his native Province of Prince Edward Island. It's blatantly unfair and ridiculous that a wiki article on him would only be 200 words long and 40% of that dedicated to pathetic attacks on the man.

This article should include more on his charitable works, more references to his impact in Canadian journalism, highlight his infamous interview with Liberal MP Ralph Goodale in which the latter threatened Duffy during a commercial break, and if the left-wingers so childishly feel that one simple interview with Elizabeth May (in which May lambasted Ottawa's best host out of inexperience and rudeness), why does the article not also include the heartwrenching interview around the same time period with MP Steven Fletcher in which Duffy breaks down into tears? In both instances he became red in the face and lost his words, yet only the negative story is highlighted by these ideological left wingers.

If an editor does not watch this page to remove neo-liberal points of view and attacks, it will remain patently false and bring wikipedia further into disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.46.253 (talk • contribs)

Take it easy. This page is being edited poorly by new editors from both sides of the issue. Wikipedia strives to be neutral and one key guideline deals with biographies of living persons. Also, this talk page should be used for comments that help improve the article, not partisan bickering. freshacconci talktalk 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a senator yet

The article says he became a senator Dec. 22. That is incorrect. He is not yet sworn in and does not assume office 'til then. For now he is a designate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.148.124 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This section is obsolete, he is a senator now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.199.231 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Current picture

It's pretty hideous. It really doesn't look like him. I've taken it down and will try to find a better one. Of course, if it's all we can get, well, we're stuck with it. I will ask his office. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw the edit summary and just had to have a look. That was pretty funny. I'm no fan of his, but yeah, we can do better than that. freshacconci talktalk 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

CBSC Ethics decision

I've had a try at writing this up in an acceptable way.[1] Ethics are certainly at the core of a journalism career so we can't just ignore this episode. At the same time it should not be given undue weight. Using a section heading, especially one claiming "Controversy", tends to add undue weight - unless it was a career-ending controversy. Especially for BLPs I believe the preferred method is to simply work "negative" info into the flow of text, which is what I've tried to do. I also trimmed some of the detail from previous versions so as to give just the essential facts. The CBSC decision is available for those interested in reading all the gory details. Hope this works out a little better. Franamax (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Senate expenses scandal main article

I have written the article Canadian Senate expenses scandal. Much of the information may be duplicated; editors might wish to review the two articles and condense coverage here, possibly moving information to the other article.Ienpw III (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"pro and con list" warning removal

As I could find no "pro and con list" in the section, I removed the warning. 66.225.168.181 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"political career" npov

I could find no obvious partisan points of view in early december 2013, so i deleted the NPOV announcement in "political career" 66.225.168.181 (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Puffster Nickname

Frank magazine used to refer to Duffy exclusively as "The Puffster" does anyone know who first coined this nickname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.13.0 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Article content may be evidence in court

Content and edit wars on wikipedia or similar articles may be recorded as evidence in the court trial: Duffy paid journalist to combat ‘trolls’ online, trial told. Canuckle (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't that read "Duffy Paid Trolls to Combat Journalists" 50.12.11.152 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)