Talk:Breitbart (website)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Blogging (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 

RfC[edit]

NAC: There is a consensus (11 No, 5 Yes) against retention of the story about the story. (That is, do not include the account of the incorrect publication of the Krugman bankruptcty story.) The consensus is sufficiently strong that WP:STATUSQUO does not apply. The comments about editing of the RFC also do not appear to have affected the outcome of the RFC. The story about the story can be removed from the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the content below regarding the Krugman bankruptcy story be included preserved in this article

Paul Krugman "bankruptcy" hoax from Boston.com[edit]
On March 11, 2013, Breitbart.com posted that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman had declared personal bankruptcy citing a Boston.com article.[46] Boston.com's finance section syndicated the story from content provider financialcontent.com, which picked it up from an Austria-based business blog, Prudent Investor, which in turn picked up the content from Format, an Austrian magazine, which had erroneously used a story from satiric news blog The Daily Currant.[47] The story was removed shortly afterwards.[48][49][50][51][52]

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(modified by 174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

Survey[edit]

  • No running a story that was wrongly run by other reliable sources is not notable or controversial. There are plenty of things to blame Bereitbart for, this isn't one of them. further, its undue relative to the rest of the article at any length. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If only that was what happened; but it didn't -- it was not wrongly run by any reliable source. It was created as a satire piece by The Daily Currant; repeated by Format (magazine) as a satire piece; then blogger (non-RS) Prudent Investor repeated the satire as a news story to automated news aggregators -- one of which linked the story into Boston.com under a "Prudent Investor" byline, "without approval or review from either Boston.com or the Globe." The "blame" heaped upon Breitbart is twofold: for running such an implausible story without fact-checking it, and after pillorying other news sources for doing the same thing. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No No sufficient nexus to Breitbart, as the same claims could be added to Boston.com and every other user of the syndicated story as well, with far stronger rationales. The use of "hoax" implies deliberate falsification by a source, and there is no reason or basis to assert Breitbart used it or intended it as a "hoax" ("An act intended to deceive or trick." is a common definition). Lastly this is a matter for editorial discretion, and I do not suggest that there is a consensus for inclusion. Collect (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The same claim can not be applied to Boston.com (see above note to Gaijin42), and I see no reliable sources running it. The article was indeed created as a hoax, as a deliberate falsification, and then Breitbart repeated it as if it were an accurate news story -- I don't think anyone is asserting that Breitbart thought it was a hoax when they published it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No Undue Weight. Similar situations have occurred with the same source and have not resulted in the same WP emphasis. If Breitbart had been first in line for linking the false story it would be a different story. The fact that the actual first in line received no WP focus tells us that it really was not that big of a deal. Arzel (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The first in line with an opportunity to apply editorial oversight was the non-RS blogger Prudent Investor, followed by Breitbart. Both failed to do so, and it would not be undue at all if it were noted at both locations (but you'll have to create an article first for Prudent Investor). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Inappropriately constructed RfC -- since the content has been in the article for a long time, the proper question is whether there is a consensus for its removal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's been covered by multiple relatively-neutral reliable sources, some of which specifically connected it to Breitbart's history and reputation. We can argue about whether or not they're right to do so, but I don't think it's unreasonable for these sources to conclude that Breitbart's history of poor fact-checking and the fact that this dealt with someone they consider an ideological opponent makes it more notable than it otherwise would be (and more notable than when boston.com automatically reposted it.) If you disagree with the conclusion that eg. The Atlantic came to regarding the noteworthiness of this event, the answer is to find sources that argue against that view and to put them in the article, not to say "I don't personally feel this is noteworthy, and I feel these RSes were wrong to cover it in relation to Breitbart specifically" and then remove it from the article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Some of these sources apparently mis-thought that Breitbart was the actual and original source of the misinformation as an RS. Thus editorial comments seemingly based on that belief may be being given UNDUE weight here, as this is not given any weight whatsoever in the Boston.com article. As sources clearly indicate that the problem arose at that site, the place for this material should be there. Collect (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, of the seven sources, five go into detail about the origin; one is a screen shot; and one is a NYT article published months later that states "Last year, the company republished as news a satirical false article saying that Paul Krugman, a Nobel-winning economist and a columnist for The New York Times, had filed for personal bankruptcy."- MrX 03:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Like Nomo, I'm not sure that there's a specific reason to remove it. It happened, it got extensive coverage on Google News, and it seems as though the coverage is even continuing into mid-2014 (this article in the SMH, for example; more available on Google News). However, this analysis of the hoax is completely undue, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of Breitbart, the ostensible topic of this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Inappropriately constructed RfC As noted WP:STATUSQUO applies here. There is also no evidence that the sources used for this section "apparently mis-thought that Breitbart was the actual and original source of the misinformation". Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No The controversies section is already way too long makes it look like an attack article on Breitbart, specially when articles on other sites have no "criticism" or controversies section like The Guardian implying that they're never wrong Loganmac (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The 'controversy' content is less than similar content at New York Times, so your reasoning based on "other sites" is unpersuasive. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No as per User:Gaijin42. DOCUMENTERROR 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Per Gaijin42, who argued "the story was wrongly run by other reliable sources"? That argument has since been refuted, so care to revise your comment? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No - Collect nailed it. AtsmeConsult 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closer The !votes above arguing for improperly formed WP:STATUSQUO evaluation of the RFC are only relevant if the result of this RFC is no consensus. If there is a clear yes or no answer, "should X be included" or "should X be removed" are equally valid.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No - WP:UNDUE and not significant. It's not even notable on the Boston.com article and they are the source for the erroneous report. --DHeyward (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, Boston.com is not the source for the erroneous report, nor did it post an erroneous story. Time to re-read the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Boston.com was the apparent and acknowledged syndicator of the story. And you should note specifically that Boston.com did post the "erroneous story." I suggest you look at the screen shot of Boston.com where that story was prominently shown before saying that screen shot does not exist <g>. Collect (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Boston.com was neither the apparent nor acknowledged syndicator of the story. Boston.com specifically did not post the erroneous story. If you'll review the reliable sources and the screenshot more closely, you'll see the outrageous story was from a non-RS blogger using the handle "Prudent Investor", not Boston.com. The link to that story is no more a product of Boston.com than the pop-up links to weight-loss pills; neither should be used as the bases for a "news" story. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - the content is not undue and can be included, but not as incorrectly written at the start of this RfC. The header is misleading (the 'hoax' was neither from Boston.com nor Breitbart); the Format magazine didn't "erroneously use" the article, it properly noted it as satire; Boston.com didn't "syndicate it from...", it was bylined to a blogger. Perhaps the above objections citing "undue" would disappear if the content were better written to convey its significance to Breitbart.com as conveyed by reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No The inclusion of the misreporting about Paul Krugman's bankruptcy is undue. From the paragraph it is clear that this is just one of a long line of media outlets that got suckered by this hoax article. Its inclusion here is unwarranted and undue. None of the other media articles inlcude this incident. This may belong on the article of the original hoax creator, it certainly doesn't deserve inlusion here. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • From the incorrectly written paragraph, you mean? Name just one reliable source who got suckered by a hoax article. Certainly not Boston.com; they didn't post it, didn't authorize it, didn't fact check it or review it. It was linked to their website by a third-party without their authorization. I'm very interested in seeing this long line of outlets you say got suckered; I'm guessing there will not be a reliable source among them. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Xenophrenic Does the Washington Post falling for a Twitter hoax count? [1] How about the NY Daily News falling for a parody? [2] How about AP and multiple others including Reuters falling for a hoax? [3] Breitbart even had a few opps to expose others falling for hoaxes [4]. Here's a short list of others including the NYTimes: [5]. AtsmeConsult 20:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
        • No, none of those count as "one of a long line of media outlets that got suckered by this hoax article." Breitbart was the only one. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
          • You said Name just one reliable source who got suckered by a hoax article. I named several, so your response comes as no surprise. It appears you have run out of substantive argument. AtsmeConsult 01:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
            • No, that's not what I said. Look again, please, at what I actually said, not just the snippet you quoted. There is a word for the misrepresentation you are attempting. Capitalismojo said "this is just one of a long line of media outlets that got suckered by this hoax article", and I challenged him to name just one who got so suckered. He has not done so. Neither have you. If you are still confused, just let me know and I'll see if I can help. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. It is a disservice to the readers of this article, who come here seeking information on Breitbart, to elide a major instance of it getting a story completely wrong. Breitbart is a website with a long and well-documented history of getting stories badly wrong. It is frankly shameful that Wikipedia editors want to hide this fact from the readers of this article. — goethean 20:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • NO A mention of a news website that got something wrong, OH MY! How shocking! But more importantly, SO WHAT!? This is not worthy of an RfC or the waste of people-time that's already taken place. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So what? Well, since you asked, this RfC is not about a news website getting something wrong. That does indeed happen all the time; corrections are issued, no big deal. But that's not what happened here. That's not what all the cited references are crowing about in this matter. The poorly written content quoted at the start of this RfC, however, does not clearly describe the matter at all, so your confusion is understandable. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove or substantially rewrite. There is no justification evident for having this paragraph included in § Reception. Specifically, there is no indication that there was any reception—they posted this story, it came from here and here and here, and they removed it. As written, it’s a non-event. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    I agree that it is a non-event as written, and misleadingly inaccurate as well. Perhaps editing it to convey what the reliable sources say will alleviate some of the concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    Probably, yes. Much of the discussion here appears to be about what the sources say and the paragraph in question does not, rather than what the paragraph does say. So the RFC was asking entirely the wrong question. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, obviously Blogs are notoriously unreliable, right wing propaganda conspiracy blogs even more so. Don't forget, Wikipedia seeks to be encyclopedic, and if there are ever any actual High School or College students using the page for research, we don't want to feed them unevidenced nonsense. Wikipedia attempts to utilize legitimate references and citations which is one reason why using Fox News is depreciated. Damotclese (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - Several solid sources (Slate, MMA, New York Times, Business Insider, MSNBC, The Atlantic, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Salon) seem to suggest a substantial story, so I say it's silly to suppress such stuff. Policy (WP:WEIGHT) requires that we include content in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. In this case we have at least nine sources, compared with two available sources for the Mike Flynn content; one available source for the Breitbart Sports launch content; and zero available sources for the Lingospot search engine content. - MrX 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No - I agree with Collect that Breitbart's connection to this story is cursory at best. They are one organization in a long line of others that also circulated the false story; the story surrounding the "hoax" seems to be most related to Boston.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FacultiesIntact (talkcontribs)

Discussion[edit]

Specifically, where the origination of the story is specifically not from Breitbart but from the generally accepted reliable source "boston.com", is the ascription of the story using the word "hoax" properly made to Breitbart, or ought it more properly be in the Boston.com article? Is there a consensus of editors here that this section belongs or is necessary for the Breitbart article? Collect (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Our article, which closely follows the sources, documents the provenance of the hoax. Breitbart, in their effort to attack Krugman, jumped the shark. End of story.- MrX 03:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
And you make clear that the aim here is to deride Breitbart, facts be damned. All well and good, I suppose, but nor precisely how encyclopedias are supposed to vet claims. Collect (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
WaPo: No editorial oversight, sure. Editorial impact? Absolutely: The Prudent Investor posting on Krugman made its way through the Financial Content feed and onto Boston.com. Once there, it sucked in all the juices of integrity and credibility stored up over the decades by the Boston Globe. So people believed the posting that indicated Krugman had gone bankrupt. [6]
MediaMatters (second story) [7] The bogus story that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy appeared on Boston.com, the sister website of The Boston Globe, through a third-party content provider that posts content without editorial approval and provides such content to more than 200 web outlets.
BusinessInsider [8] A satirical item published last week purporting that economist Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy has spread to Boston.com and the conservative website Breitbart this morning.
[9] Earlier this month we learned from Viv Bernstein, writing in the New York Times, that several years’ worth of stories about stock-car driver Tia Norfleet—including those in such august publications as the Washington Post, ESPN, AOL Fanhouse and the Huffington Post—have been factually inaccurate, repeating false but checkable claims by Norfleet about her accomplishments in NASCAR. Around the same time, a satirical story in the Daily Currant about economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declaring personal bankruptcy was picked up as real news by several websites, including the mendacious right-wing site Breitbart.com, yes, but also including Boston.com, the website affiliated with the Boston Globe, one of America’s great newspapers.
IBTimes [10] Yet another Chinese news outlet has fallen victim to satirical news reporting. According to China’s 21st Century Business Herald, a Guangzhou-based magazine, famed economist and Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman, has declared bankruptcy
And yet you only seek to attribute the story in the Breitbart article - and not in the others? Seems a bit POV-ish, I fear. Add it to the other RS sources which ran the story ... and add the Norfleet hoax to WaPo and HuffPo etc. Collect (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be accompanied by an explanation of where the information originated. I am also wondering if the various sections under Controversies should be updated? For example, the Shirley Sherrod section leaves readers dangling. I'd also like to see more balance in this article because the Controversies section far outweighs the rest of the article - WP:UNDUE. See The Washington Post, Media_Matters_for_America, The Huffington Post, the latter of which Breitbart was one of the founders. Why no mention? The lede is pretty weak, too. AtsmeConsult 20:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an excessively detailed history of the hoax. I can't even imagine why it would be this detailed. Why not just say, "Breitbart ran a hoax article that had been picked up by several other sources, ultimately traced to a satire website"? One concise sentence, and you're all done. Sheesh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thus ignoring the central role of boston.com? An interesting proposal indeed, but a rather cart-before-horse solution. Boston.com was the primary "culprit" and this was even picked up in China -- from Boston.com. Collect (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This isn't an article about Boston.com, the hoax, or the history of the hoax. It's an article about Breitbart. The history is completely irrelevant to Breitbart.com. If it is kept, it needs to be severely edited down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Question - since an article is supposed to summarize the topic comprehensively, why does this article look more like a WP:LIST? AtsmeConsult 12:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Whether this is featured on the Boston.com Wikipeida page is not relevant to the content of the Breibart Wikipedia page. Anyone who feels it should be featured on the Boston.com Wikipedia page should have that discussion on the relevant talk page. This is clearly well sourced information as regards the Breibart Wikipedia page and should remain. Megajeffzilla (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. It's a question of weight and balance. This is not a significant Breitbart event at all as they just repreated information from a reliable news outlet. If AP gets a story wrong, we don't malign every paper that ran the AP story, we attribute to AP. --21:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. Breitbart repeated information from a blogger (not meeting Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source), and did so without first verifying the story, despite the premise of the story being ridiculous. If the story was sourced to AP (or even Boston.com), then you might have an argument to make. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • where the origination of the story is specifically not from Breitbart but from the generally accepted reliable source "boston.com"...

But it wasn't. A link to the satire piece, with the byline to Prudent Investor, was placed on Boston.com "without approval or review from either Boston.com or the Globe."

"The story didn't originate with the Globe or Boston.com. It was an automatic feed deep in the website. We asked (financialcontent.com) to give us more information as to how this story got added to their financial news feed. We're trying to find out more about what happened, and reevaluating our relationship with the vendor."

—Ellen Clegg, Boston Globe.

It should be clarified however, as noted above, that Breitbart.com was not itself perpetrating a 'hoax', but printing what it assumed and hoped was a true news story. Also, it would be reasonable to introduce a 'criticism' to the Boston.com (or Boston Globe) article about the problems associated with using embedded 3rd-party bylined feeds on a news website, but such a criticism doesn't negate the information about Breitbart.com in this matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really not worth mentioning - it was bycatch from the Boston Globe who committed the greater sin. Is there a wikilink to connect the two stories, and giving credit where credit is due? Conner screwed-up by believing the Globe was a RS that fact-checked - bzzzzt - goes to show us that what we may think is a trusted reliable source may not be. Remember the big "V" in verifiability. Corroborate the story with other sources, particularly in an encyclopedic article. WP is not supposed to look like a sensationalized news site. AtsmeConsult 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Wildly incorrect. You and I must be reading completely different reliable sources. (See These appended Updates and this step-by-step breakdown and this Boston exec explanation.) The Globe had nothing to do with this event. Conner screwed up by 1) failing to fact-check a story from Prudent Investor, and 2) trying to attribute it to Boston.com. It was never on the Boston.com website -- there was only a link in a framed external feed clearly marked as belonging to a self-published blogger called Prudent Investor. Of course Boston Globe is a reliable source, and yes, the stories they post are fact-checked. Likewise the news stories posted by Boston.com; fact-checked. Breitbart.com didn't fact-check what they posted. The reason Breitbart.com and this event is mentioned by all the reliable sources, and hence in this Wikipedia article, is because Breitbart.com contends that it conveys actual news. Bzzzzt. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
See Medialite's take on it. I don't like being thought of as "wildly incorrect". [11] AtsmeConsult 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Following your link, I didn't find Mediaite's take on it, but did find a commentary piece (more concerned with conveying an opinion rather than fact) by their columnist Christopher. The lack of factual thoroughness in that piece is evident; the failure to mention that the Format article notes the story is satire is just one example. But even as an opinion piece, Christopher still concludes "Breitbart.com is guilty of posting a dubious story at their own already-dubious website", which is what this discussion is about. As a separate matter, Christopher additionally says news organizations that allow unchecked, unreviewed links (like this 'story' from Prudent Investor) to be placed on their sites deserve even more criticism (and I agree, but that doesn't change anything about Breitbart.com). Boston.com didn't post the story, didn't review the story, and didn't even know a link to it had been inserted on their site until readers contacted them. Unlike the situation with Breitbart.com. Clearer now? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Heres a screenshot of the story on Boston.com. [12] It didn't appear on their "homepage", but it absolutely 100% appeared on a branded boston.com page. The only indicator that it isn't boston.com content is the byline, which is pretty subtle. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It not only doesn't appear on their "homepage", but also isn't present on their site. That's a screenshot of the linked story, and there is nothing subtle about source of it. The key difference between viewing that story through the Boston.com website and the Breitbart.com website is that the former was a link placed automatically, without human intervention or review, while the latter was consciously posted by a living editor with complete disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. Should the Boston.com article (or the Boston Globe article as its parent) have content about 3rd-party electronic feeds and the potential problems they can cause? Sure; but that is a separate matter entirely. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"The post about Paul Krugman was an automatic feed on a partner website called financialcontent.com. And Boston.com uses them to provide stock and other financial data on an automatic feed. So we worked to get it taken down as soon as we heard about it from readers early this morning. The story didn't originate with the Globe or Boston.com. It was an automatic feed deep in the website. We asked (the site) to give us more information as to how this story got added to their financial news feed."

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Your assertion is that at no time could you go to a URL at boston.com and see this story? They put up a syndicated feed. That doesn't mean it wasn't on their site. If it wasn't on their site, what does "worked to get it taken down" mean? What does "deep in the website" mean? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No; that is not my assertion. Of course Boston.com used 3rd-party feeds (Stock data; Advertising; etc.) which displayed various content while a viewer was looking at a Boston.com URL. Such content is not generated by Boston.com; it's not hosted on the Boston.com website; it certainly shouldn't be used as the basis for a news story "credited" to Boston.com. If an ad feed were to suddenly start popping up pornographic images instead of ads for diet pills and car insurance, or if a stock data feed were to start popping up satirical news stories instead of closing market numbers, I think "worked to get it taken down" becomes self-explanatory, doesn't it? You can see how these 3rd-party links and widgets are integrated into news sites, but we are straying far from the matter at hand.
The matter here is that Breitbart.com lambasted the "lamestream media" (WaPo) for being so blinded by angry partisanship that they would carelessly print satire as news without fact-checking it; then just a few weeks later Breitbart.com goes and prints satire (from the very same site!) as if it were news without fact-checking it. Trying to equate Boston.com with Breitbart.com in this instance is a red herring, and not an applicable argument here. Breitbart.com editors consciously chose to not verify an outrageous story. Not so with Boston.com. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - when was the question changed? This RfC needs to be declared null & void. You don't change the original question after the RfC has begun - you ADD an ALTERNATE. The editors can either SUPPORT THE ALTERNATE, or not. AtsmeConsult 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • [13]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed just today in the link provided by hipocrite, by an anonip. While perhaps we should revert the change, I don't think it invalidates the RFC, its mainly just a rewording to clarify the statusquo, and does not change the meaning of the RFC or what anyone's !vote means. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just saw that, Gaijin, thank you. I'll strike thru the null & void part. AtsmeConsult 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tell me again why the ridicule (criticism) of Breitbart is so important to include in the article when the Boston Globe is just as guilty, yet nothing is mentioned about it there? [14] I also don't see any mention in the "perceived flawless and reliable" Washington Post regarding their embarrassing Sarah Palin hoax reprint, realizing it's only related because it, too, is a blunder. [15] How is this attack on Breitbart as a reliable source not argumentum ad hominem, and clearly POV when you consider the sources claimed to bed so reliable have done the same thing if not worse, including the NYTimes? Sure looks like there may be a little political bias at play here. Suggested compromise - to the editors who support the inclusion of the Krugman paragraph in Breitbart - will you agree to add the same criticism to the Boston Globe first, and then also add the Palin hoax in the Washington Post? That will surely demonstrate your NPOV, which certainly seems like a fair and neutral compromise, and then we can use similar phrasing to include the Krugman paragraph in Breitbart. AtsmeConsult 17:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The Globe story was automated aggregation. The Breitbart story was touched by a human. Further, other stuff exists. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

partner of Boston.com[edit]

"Wemple reported that Boston Globe editor Brian McGrory said this incident is curious because "the idea that we'd have a partner on our site is actually news to me."" [16]

[17] "Breitbart.com has since taken down its item. Boston.com, which aggregated the item from Prudent Investor, a financial blog, has not."

Boston.com does view the content provider as a "partner". Collect (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Collect. Thank you for providing those two quotes from those two sources. If you'll now read those sources more carefully, you'll discover that 1) McGrory was not referring to Prudent Investor when he expressed surprise at the claim that Boston.com would have a partner, and 2) the "aggregated the item from Prudent Investor" error was corrected further down in that same Politico article (look for the words UPDATE (2:30AM):). The only "partner" both of your sources refer to is FinancialContent.com, and the sources make clear that it did not "obtained the satirical content from The Daily Currant" as the incorrect text you reinstated asserts. It's an understandable oversight, with the updated information being way down at the bottom and all.
My concern is that our readers not be left with the misconception that Boston.com was responsible for the link to the false story appearing on its financial page — it wasn't, as the more recent reliable sources made clear. Not addressed by your comment here (or the edit summary), however, was your complete removal of the other incident of Daily Currant satire being repeated as news (The WaPo story) -- it's covered even in the very sources to which you just linked, but it was removed. I'll assume that, too, was just an oversight and not intentional, and replace it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Boston.com gets revenue as a result of it posting the material. Boston.com left it visible until well afyer Breibart removed the article. WaPo specifically said Boston.com was to blame. If a story is on your website and you leave it up even after being told it is wrong, you have done nothing wrong at all? Really? Cheers -- but the reliable sources clearly blame Boston.com here. Collect (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I know nothing of how Boston.com receives revenue, nor did I see that mentioned in any of the sources. Nor do I see where "Boston.com left it visible" in any sources, although I do believe the Breitbart posting did come down before the link at Boston.com. If you could direct me to the source behind your assertions, I would appreciate it greatly. In the meantime, I'll leave your most recent edits to that content as is. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read the sources then. And the Editor of the Globe specifically referred to "Prudent Investor" as a "partner" in case that elided your notice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I read the sources before I posted my comment, Collect, so my statement stands. I'll ask you one more time to please supply reliably sourced proof of where "the Editor of the Globe specifically referred to "Prudent Investor" as a 'partner'". Just cut & paste it. Right here. Otherwise I'll be correcting your most recent edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

[18] One of the feeds that pulls in the Prudent Investor is knit together by a California company named Financial Content, which delivers stock quotes and financial information and news to its clients’ websites. And one of those clients is Boston.com, a portal that presents content from the Boston Globe.

[19] Breitbart.com took down their post, and Boston.com still has their version online (as of this posting):

[20] "The post about Paul Krugman was an automatic feed on a partner website called financialcontent.com. And Boston.com uses them to provide stock and other financial data on an automatic feed.

[21] A content-providing ‘partner’ to Boston.com has left the Boston Globe looking embarrassed after it published a false report that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had filed for personal bankruptcy.

So "partner" is thoroughly vetted, and the fact that boston.comhad it stil up after Breitbart yanked the story is clearly also vetted. Collect (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

On the above 4 links, please note:
(1) This source indicates it is FinancialContent.com that partners with "Prudent Investor", which disproves your claim. It does not say Boston.com partners with "Prudent Investor".
(2) This source indicates that the story was taken down from Breitbart, but not yet from Boston -- it does not convey that Boston.com was intentionally keeping it up (and in fact, it would have disappeared much sooner if it were actually on the Boston.com website, instead of linked through a 3rd-party aggregate feed).
(3) This source says the partner is FinancialContent.com, not "Prudent Investor", which disproves your claim.
(4) This Boston Magazine source does, incorrectly, mention "Prudent Investor" as a "partner" -- perhaps that is the source of your confusion? That source's error in reporting has already been directly refuted by the 1st and 3rd sources immediately above; by the editor of Boston.com and the Executive editor of the Boston Globe, and by the rest of the sources already cited in our article.
So yes, "partner" is thoroghly vetted, and it's not "Prudent Investor" as you have claimed, and the fact that the 3rd-party feed story was still briefly visible at Boston.com after Breitbart quietly pulled their reporting is common knowledge. I trust you'll have no objection to my editing of that section to convey the facts from our reliable sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"Prudent Investor" is clearly a "blogname" used by the company - your assertion that they are somehow distinct fails. Your claim that Boston Magazine is "wrong" - fails. I did not assert boston.com was "deliberately keeping it up" only that Breitbart took the story down before boston.com did -- which you doubted. I gave you the proof. See also [22] to show that the partnership involves "monetization", [23] "Using our domain masking technology, our financial pages integrate silently and deeply into your site,where they become indistinguishable from your own content to users and search engines." etc. "FinancialContent" provided "monetization" services and deep connections so no one will know or be able to find out that you are not creating the material yourself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Almost correct; let me finish catching you up. "Prudent Investor" is indeed a blog & blogger's name (or handle). You'll see I referred to them above as "blogger (non-RS) Prudent Investor" at least as far back as 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC). So far, so good? My assertion that the "Prudent Investor" blogger and FinancialContent.com are distinct does not "fail", as you claim. (Prudent Investor) and (FinancialContent.com) and (Boston.com) are three distinct, separate entities. Boston.com and FinancialContent.com had an association whereby FinancialContent.com would display content on Boston.com's financial page ("seamlessly" through an automatic feed). FinancialContent.com would obtain this content from many sources, including "Prudent Investor". Boston.com had no association with "Prudent Investor", and never "partnered" with them, as you asserted above. You should know this since I see you linking to financialcontent.com pages on how they do things, just as I linked to them as long ago as 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Boston.com's only association/partnership was with FinancialContent.com. Which brings us to your denial that Boston Magazine is wrong when it mistakenly said "Prudent Investor" is a "partner" of Boston.com. I don't need to explain to you that just because an otherwise reliable source said something, that doesn't make it accurate; you said as much just the other day in a noticeboard comment. For your edification:
Financialcontent.com had picked up the item from an Austria-based business blog, Prudent Investor, without any editorial review of its own, according to financialcontent.com CEO Wing Yu. "We are a technology company, we don't have an editorial desk," Yu explained. "There is an RSS feed that we parse from each content provider. We have categorized [Prudent Investor] as a business content provider and the content is syndicated along with the byline." YU said Prudent Investor is one of more than 400 content providers that financialcontent.com draws on for news and data, which it then forwards to some 200 news outlets such as Boston.com, as well as others owned by McClatchy, Media News Group and AOL. The Prudent Investor website is based in Vienna, Austria, and run by Toni Straka, who describes himself on the blog as "an INDEPENDENT Certified Financial Analyst..."
Boston.com has no association with (and no partnership with) Prudent Investor, or the other 400 sources FinancialContent.com draws from; FC is the middleman. Boston Magazine made an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, when it described PI as a partner just because it saw the byline on the article. Fortunately for us, your mistaken belief that the blogger is a "partner" with Boston.com wasn't part of your recent additions to our article, so let's move on to the next item.
You: I did not assert boston.com was "deliberately keeping it up" only that Breitbart took the story down before boston.com did -- which you doubted.
You have that backwards. Me: I do believe the Breitbart posting did come down before the link at Boston.com, something I've never doubted.
It was you who said: Boston.com left it visible until well afyer Breibart removed the article. WaPo specifically said Boston.com was to blame. If a story is on your website and you leave it up even after being told it is wrong, you have done nothing wrong at all? Really?
That underlined part sure smells to me like you were asserting that Boston.com was intentionally keeping it up after being told it was wrong. If you'd like to scroll back up and edit your statement to say the opposite, be my guest. The fact is, according to the very sources you recently cited, Boston.com worked as quickly as they could to get FinancialContent.com to remove the satirical piece as soon as they were made aware of it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:TE Collect (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reclassify its ideology?[edit]

Breitbart seems to lately have moved away from mainstream conservatism and is now advocating neoreactionary and manosphere ideas, such as imposing a cap on the number of women allowed to study science and technology.

It isn't that long ago that most conservatives would have objected to any form of gender and/or race-based affirmative action as a form of reverse discrimination. Yet Breitbart is now openly advocating these very policies, albeit from the other end. "Reverse reverse discrimination", maybe?

I suspect their hiring Milo Yiannopoulos, who is also among other things a GamerGate supporter, might have had something to do with it. In any event, Breitbart doesn't seem to represent the conservatism of William F. Buckley anymore. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? Political classifications are often controversial, and 'conservative' covers a wide ground; the breadth of labels like that means that they will sometimes encompass contradictory views or opposing wings. Going for a more specific identification (or taking the implicit stance that the positions you mentioned are definitely not conservative) probably requires high-quality sources discussing the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)