Talk:Brian Ross (journalist)

Sourcing, yet again.

The "controversies" section is not only lacking any kind of source whatsoever--it has several typos. Is a website comment section really what we're considering a source these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.175.144 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

BIOGRAPHY OF BRIAN ROSS

Where is the bio on Brian Ross? Where & when was he born? Where did he go to school? Military service? college? sins? adultery? marriages, divorces? Where is the Bio??? (EnochBethany (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

Neutrality of this article

This biography accentuates his screwups and in my opinion is unbalanced. I am tagging for POV. I am not comfortable with removing or reducing the "controversies" section as it is substantive, but surely more can be put in the rest of the bio. Until then it is out of balance.CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Balance" is not an encyclopedia standard nor goal. We do not seek to create positive paragraphs to offset those that some interpret as negative. Mr. Ross has notability that derives largely from his negatives. He has, as every national journalist listed at Wikipedia does, a number of awards that are handed out in the thousands over the decades, but his headlines and the resulting controversies are derived from the errors which have captured the columns and talk shows of the nation. No one ever wrote a column or spent 15 minutes on national TV discussing his Polk award from Long Island U. It just is what it is.76.239.24.140 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that Ross is as so inept that a biographical article on him should dwell at such length on his screw-ups. He may be that bad, but I have my doubts and I think that the article on its face is not neutral. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your vague doubts have no role here and are an insufficient basis for applying a POV dispute tag. Please remove your unsubstantiated and improperly applied tag. I trust that your concerns are sincere and derive not from bias but a genuine desire to seek some sense of "balance", but please consider whether your tagging is misguided and inappropriate. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're assumption is that Brian Ross' career can be summed up as being over 50% a succession of blunders. That's absurd. The NPOV tag stays. I asked for help on the BLP noticeboard and meanwhile will see if I can find more to balance this out. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I made no assumption whatsoever. I see reliably sourced and notable events - you however see the same reliably sourced and notable events and yet feel the need to conjure up out of thin air an alternate reality in which the yin of the known is "balanced" by some unknown yang that must in your estimation be out there somewhere. You are engaging now in a text-book case of bias. You have a view, unsupported by the facts, that you and you alone are demanding be placed in the article. The strangest thing is that you can not even articulate what these "balanced" unknowns are. You are starting with a view and offering vague doubts and "beliefs" to support it. Please reconsider your tag, it appears at this point to be little more than the Wiki equivalent of a US Senator's Senate hold in which someone can throw a spanner in the works without ever having to support ones actions with substance. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that while your suspicions certainly sound valid, User:CheeseStakeholder, you need to back them up with some research. The gaffes that this page refers to are major—affecting the 2004 presidential election, affecting the decision to go to war with Iraq, causing some really major pain for Toyota as a result of an admitted falsehood. It may be that there's more to his career than this, but these are important incidents and very definitely notable, and may well be the most significant things he's done in his life, sad though that would be to say. Abhayakara (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. I just haven't had time to chronicle his career. I just think that an article largely composed of criticism is on its face not neutral, unless you're dealing with an axe murderer. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Axe murderers don't help convince entire countries to go to war on the basis of factual errors in reporting. I think it'd be great if we could talk about some of the good investigative reporting Ross has done, but if we can't find anything like that, I don't think the current state of the article is self-evidently unbalanced. My main complaint about it is that there are too many headings—one for each incident. This does seem to add inappropriate emphasis. Abhayakara (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that he's had more than his share of major issues. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Major Scoops

Article list's as a "major scoop" Mr. Ross's report that the US Government was monitoring the telephone connections used by reporters from various media outlets like the New York Times amongst others. Is there any secondary source that substantiates the allegation or any award or official recognition that this was, indeed, a major scoop? Did the New York Times or others pick up and run with this story? I don't see a basis for it being categorized a "major scoop" absent either official recognition or wider acceptance by his major media peers.76.239.24.140 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I will shortly be removing the link to Mr. Ross's report claiming that the US government was monitoring the communications of reporters for the New York Times and other major national media. There are no mentions of this claim found elsewhere made by his peers and the claim of significance is not found in any secondary source. It appears to be a singular report untouched by competing professionals. It lacks any of the hallmarks of a scoop, it was not "first" - it was "only".

It was not repeated by others, followed up on nor expanded by others, and it received no awards or outside recognition.76.239.24.140 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to underscore my concern and sharpen the focus, my objection is to the notability of the mention. It has no place in the article at all. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the para.76.239.24.140 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Controversies"

The "Controversies" section is a random laundry list of non-encyclopedic content. Any relevant content should all be folded into the narrative section. The MOS argues against such stand alone "Controversy" sections, particularly for BLP items. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Which items are not, in your opinion, encyclopedic? And why?76.239.24.140 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Which do you feel can be appropriately incorporated into the narrative overview of his life/career? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are unable to articulate a substantive reason for the tag - then it has no place in the article and should be removed as inappropriate. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I did articulate a reason and will do so again: "'CONTROVERSY' SECTIONS ARE BAD BOTH FROM A MANUAL OF STYLE VIEW AND FROM WIKIPEDIA POLICIES INCLUDING WP:BLP AND WP:NPOV". -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right that it would be good to weave the controversies into the article. However, there isn't much article into which to weave them. I guess they could be intertwined with the major scoops; this might neutralize things somewhat and satisfy 76.239.24.140's concern that the story about government monitoring of phones isn't a "scoop." We can just report them all as stories and talk about how they came out. "Major scoops" seems like puffery anyway. "Notable news reports" or something like that might make a better head.

RPOD You shout, but need not to. Your first comment here in this area of the discussion objected to some vague concern about "non-encyclopedic content" and threw out some jargon and acronyms as if they spoke for themselves. Your second, an attempt to deflect, and your third a return to acronym but dropping the objection to the earlier unspecified "non-encyclopedic content". There is no prohibition to the long used "Controversy" headings. They exist widely and are easily found in articles about living journalists. Your general statement as to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is easily rebutted, there exists no such prohibition against such usage - especially here, in articles relating to journalists.76.239.24.140 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable news reports

This section of the article contains a paragraph discussing a report Mr. Ross made that Pakistan was offering a safe-harbor to bin-Laden. There are no references supporting it's notability, no peers picked up on the story, no awards, nothing. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable doesn't mean the same thing in an article that it means of an article.

I have taken a stab at unifying all the stories into a single edit section. Several edits occurred while I was working on this, so despite some careful review, it's quite possible I muffed something up; if so, please don't assume this was intentional. Abhayakara (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We have no secondary source to establish that the report is notable, let alone factual..or even accepted by his peers. It has no place here.76.239.24.140 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert of notable news report edit

Maybe I shouldn't have reorganized and fixed in the same edit, but I think my recent edit improved the article, and I'd appreciate it if we could discuss it rather than having an edit war. In general, it's poor style to have a heading per paragraph, so from a style perspective the reverted version is less good than the version that was reverted.

New wholesale re-write just doesn't work. We should retain the style of the long standing article, and the style used elsewhere such as here:[[1]], here:[[2]] and here:[[3]].76.239.24.140 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a rewrite—it's a reorganization according to what I proposed earlier on the talk page. The text is largely the same. If you don't like it, please explain why. Removing a criticism section and weaving the text together is correct according to WP:MOS which is why I did it. Before responding, I think we both ought to take a break from this. I wasn't trying to upset anyone or step on anyone's toes with these edits, and I'm sure your intentions are good as well, but this discussion is getting a bit fast and furious. Abhayakara (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

at first glance, i will say that [4] looks like a great step in the right direction. The section heading might be "News career" or something and weave in elements of who he is working for if he is not freelance. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I still think the article leans too heavily in the direction of controversies and needs to be more balanced. I'm going to see what I can do when I have time. I agree that what's in the controversies section now needs to be weaved in and at present seems to be mainly notable and adequately referenced. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The article, historically and in its current long held form follow the convention of that of his peers. It also follows the MOS by being clear, organized and legible. Efforts to obfuscate and muddy to further any goal of blurring the factually correct and well-sourced major elements of his career do nothing to further the mission of the encyclopedia and are misguided. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

neither "its always been in bad shape" nor "other articles are in bad shape" are good reasons to keep this one in bad shape. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have a pretty solid rough consensus to change the article. I'm going to fold 76's recent change into the version prior to the revert and see what happens. Abhayakara (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

RPOD, I said the article was, "clear, organized and legible." and followed "the convention of that of his peers." - as such, I find it reprehensible and ignorant for you to quote me as saying, "its always been in bad shape" or "other articles are in bad shape". Nothing that I said could in any way, shape or form be misconstrued as even alluding to such a thing. At this point you appear to be holding an imaginary debate in your head, one in which you write all points of view, and coincidentally always apparently come out right. Get a grip.76.239.24.140 (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RPoD was paraphrasing. I realize that this sudden influx of new edits is stressful for you as a long-time editor of the article, but please don't take it personally—we're all trying to achieve the same thing here: a better wikipedia article. Abhayakara (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I said, ""clear, organized and legible." and that the article format followed "the convention of that of his peers." - he quoted, ""its always been in bad shape". That is decidedly NOT "paraphrasing" by any stretch of the imagination. It was a pathetic and ignorant attempt to introduce a straw man, and I was to give it form. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If writing in something other than bullet points is too complex for you, you may wish to check out [[5]]. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

{EC}First you ignorantly misquote me, then a childish attempt at insult? Pathetic. You may wish to reflect on Wikipedia's long held rules for civility and societies norms for intellectual honesty. You are severely lacking in both departments. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I should probably butt out of this, but apparently I'm not good at that. What I mean by paraphrase is that the article was in fact in bad shape before, both in my opinion and RPoD's. But you wanted to keep it the way it was. So it's not that RPoD was saying that you thought the article was in bad shape, but rather that you were saying you wanted to keep it the way it was, which in RPoD's opinion (and mine) was bad shape. The other point is just basic Wikipedia policy: you can't justify the brokenness of one article by comparing it to another broken article. I realize that you don't think it was broken, but we did. The point is simply that that line of reasoning isn't valid—if you want to justify the condition of an article, your argument has to refer to that article, and not to some other article. Abhayakara (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent re-write

Article now lacks clarity and is unintelligible. All introduced because some want Mr. Ross's history to be muddied in some misguided attempt to introduce neutrality. Mr. Ross's article was a chronicle of those elements of his career that have been found notable by reliable sources. On balance it appears that the article renders his career in an unfavorable light. This is neither the fault of Wiki editors - nor is it our place to "correct". Destroying readability in order to accomplish mis-guided and inappropriate editorial goals does a disservice to the encyclopedia and our readers. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What possible reason could exist for leaving the Bachman controversy out as a stand-alone? This was bigger somehow to all else? Seriously?76.239.24.140 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think writing for WP:NPOV is "misguided", particularly in content about a living person, then you need to quit editing now. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is following the reliable secondary sources - it DOES NOT mean embellishing, obfuscating, hiding or manipulating the article to even the reported history of the BLP individual. You are seriously misunderstanding the role of wiki contributor. Neutrality is a method for building, it relates to how we construct, it is not the outcome but the inputs. Neutrality allows, demands really -that the chips have to fall where they must. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV includes, but is not limited to, not giving disproportionate emphasis on any one aspect of the subject. BLP emphasizes that point even more strongly. You have that here in spades, considering that this is a journalist of considerable reputation who is 64 years old. It also contains rampant recentism. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear: I couldn't disagree more about the rewrite. It was a very good job. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You make a claim, unsupported by reliable secondary sources, that the article gives "disproportionate emphasis" to some vague and unspecified "aspect" of the subject. The article merely chronicles those notable events as referenced by reliable secondary sources. Your effort to paint a false picture of the subject by manipulating the notable events of his career is biased and not the role of a wiki editor. 76.239.24.140 (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, nothing was removed during the rewrite. Anything that was in the article prior to the rewrite is still there—really it's more accurate to call it a reorg than a rewrite. So the only difference is the presentation, which is now linear rather than episodic. The Bachman episode is still where it was because I couldn't figure out what to do with it—I agree that it's out of place as it is now. If you have an idea for what to do with it, you should boldly edit. Remember that articles are a process, not a series of discrete finished results. Abhayakara (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this the Brian Ross who is married to Ann Curry of NBC's Today show???

Is this the Brian Ross who is married to Ann Curry of NBC's Today show??? If anybody knows, can they please put it in the article? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias on page

I noticed that the page reads like a rather pro-Ross piece, talking disproportionately about his awards and not mentioning his various controversies. Since this doesn't line up with the above about his controversies, I looked at the edit history and it seems User:BPURD did some extensive editing in February to make Ross look good.108.85.148.69 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brian Ross (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120814182043/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/page/412-past-dupont-award-winners/594 to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/page/412-past-dupont-award-winners/594
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408082004/http://gawker.com:80/5401562/how-abc-news-brian-ross-cooked-his-hasan-contacted-al-qaeda-scoop to http://gawker.com/5401562/how-abc-news-brian-ross-cooked-his-hasan-contacted-al-qaeda-scoop
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319152709/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/page/412/4 to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/page/412/4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Restricted from covering Donald Trump due to biased and misleading reporting

ABC News president James Goldston restricts Brian Ross , one of the network's chief investigative reporters, from cover stories related to President Trump.

References