Jump to content

Talk:Ainsley Earhardt

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.161.117.162 (talk) at 18:22, 1 October 2020 (→incoherent sentence: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

"During her time at FOX New Channel she has covered major news events including the war in Iraq, Pope Benedict’s visit to the United States and the 2008 presidential election."

Considering that her "coverage" of these events consisted almost solely of reading headlines off a TelePrompTer in the studio and not any actual reporting from the field (nor even any actual interviews with newsmakers), I'm not sure if this sentence should stand as is. I'll leave it to more experience hands here to debate and decide if that dubious sentence should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaS70 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unsigned person, that's pretty much what all reporters do, isn't it? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, or even worse. We could name names. She is doing great and continue to rise. -- AstroU (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born in 1980?

Unless she was 14 when she graduated from High School (May 1995), the age listed in this article may be inaccurate. Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was born in 1978 [1] Krejaton (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Krejaton[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://people.famouswhy.com/ainsley_earhardt/#biography

Improving this article...

I'm sure the article could be improved (albiet it is already pretty good), but not with Liberal media, please. Their negativity for her should go unnoticed, without even wasting time reading. -- AstroU (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a PR piece

This article appears to be unbalanced, excessively praising of it's subject, and highly biased. Editorial adjectives are used excessively to lionize the subject, and I question its neutrality. This issue has been raised on previous occasions and overruled--was this in large part due to Fox New's influence on this piece? Alanrobts (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree more. It really seems odd that any sort of Encyclopedic content would involve the subject calling themselves fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:537F:DB8E:9D96:97A2:1932:1572 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Japan

This expression of ignorance and/or sloppy speech/thinking is the thing the individual is most noted for now. It certainly belongs in the article if there was a question about even keeping it if this site isn't a resume advert venue. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-removal of RS content about her punditry

This edit removed pretty much any substantive text in the article about her punditry on a show watched by millions, including the President of the US.[1] The text fleshes out what her worldviews are, and this is all reliably sourced as far as I can tell. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The section on Fox News is slanted. Instead of "Fox News," it ought to be called "Gaffes, inaccuracies, and support for Trump". It's fine if the section includes those three things, but that can't be all it consists of. There is also a problem with the tone; it is not encyclopedic. The section has been tagged. SunCrow (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Much of the content could stay, albeit rewritten a little bit. I think the section needs have some additional details about her career at Fox. I believe that I've seen something about her hosting a show on the Fox Nation service. I may add that and some other details in the coming days when I have time. Popfox3 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

incoherent sentence

"After Trump ordered the assassination of a top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general, Qasem Soleimani, and cited what it said was intelligence that necessitated the assassination, Earhardt defended the administration against requests that the administration show the intelligence."

What "it" said???216.161.117.162 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ainsley_Earhardt&oldid=981337648"