Talk:Melanie Morgan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Her Conservative Politics

Or, maybe someone could mention how those who are trashing her reputation, without factual basis, are just to the left of Mao on the same political spectrum. It seems to me that defining the politics of those with whom one disagrees as "extremist," without providing examples of that extremism, is intellectually dishonest if the accuser fails to define their own politics in contrast, and in some kind of detail, so that the reader can decide for themselves who is what.

--annoyedman 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe you could stop trying to cover for her, and recognize that the article already provides examples of her extremism. Redxiv 08:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What extremism? That's simply your subjective point of view. 76.21.45.13 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think MM just provided her own evidence to a very broad audience how much of a wildwoman she is on PBS's Lehrer Report on May 8. You go girl--poster child for how extreme and out of tune your whole movement is! Not a shred of depth and no willingness to engage in a respectful debate. The old tactic of interrupt and intimidate--tired, old shock-jock stuff (yawn). Honey, PBS ain't Fox--sorry. Your opponent was unshakable and owned you!138.88.122.120 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Melanie Morgan

This statement by Melanie Morgan was originally in the article space. I have placed it here.

I am dismayed to see that your left-wing bloggers are deliberately distorting the facts about my biography.

I am NOT Pauline Freidman, nor was I born in Beverly Hills, California, nor was I born in 1948.I have NEVER called for the assassination of Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else. Even the most cursory of Internet checks would reveal this information to be false.

I am Melanie R. Morgan, born in Kansas City, Missouri in 1956.

I am a talk-show host for KSFO Radio in San Francisco,Chairman of Move America Forward, a non-orofit 501(c)3 located in Sacramento, California. My on-air discussion of Nancy Pelosi was in context about her targeting the President of the United States and other Republicans with political hate speech. My response was that I am going to target Nancy Pelosi for an accurate representation of her TRUE political views, history, and Ms. Pelosi's political history in a BOOK that I am planning to write.

Please correct immediately.

Melanie Morgan

I have made the appropriate corrections to the article. I will seek to take action to mark this as an article of concern as regards biography of a Living Person. Capitalistroadster 19:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Right Honorable Ms. Morgan is apparently under the impression that this is a "blog." Like Frank Luntz, she's free to redefine words and phrases as they suit her. Thus her redefinition of "Hate speech," presented without examples. Can't wait to read the <capitals>BOOK</capitals>.

I put a synopsis of her defense of her "put a bullet through (Pelosi's) eyes" emanation into the article. The intrepid surfer can judge for him/herself.--HughGRex 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

There's an NPOV tag on the page. I just went through the article and it seems more or less okay. Any objection to my removing the tag? If so, let's get a discussion started on the problem areas. Dylan 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

After two months of no objection to your question, I've removed the tag.--HughGRex 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

This is not really about the article, but I think her comments are a perfect example of hypocrisy. Rapper Eminem was investigated by the Secret Service becausehis line "I'd Rather see the President Dead" in an unrealeased song that was leaked to the internet, but Morgan made a direct threat (intended or not) on the Speaker of the House and it was completely brushed over SirChuckB 05:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Prove it with a citation to a reliable source. Which you can't. Baseless accusations don't fly on Wikipedia, boyo.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. [1]

Wahay! Looks like a reference to me. --Lancastria 14:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters is an OPINION website, NOT a news site. It's piss-poor as a reference, as they do not have the credibility or accountability of a legitimate news source (e.g. New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, Fox News, etc etc).

Votevets.org Controversy

Once again, we see Keith Olbermann's OPINION popping up in encycolpeia entries. Is it relevant if he thinks Morgan was a "worst person" on a particular day? Do we see negative opinions about Olbermann (and I can site several) appearing on his page? No. Such opinions do not belong...just like Olbermann's opinion doesn't belong on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated Melanie's Activity

We have some huge problems here.

1. Media Matters is a biased left-wing smear machine. Almost all of the references ARE Media Matters. Who the hell did this? Talk about a smear.
2. There's a lack of opposing opinions on here.
3. There does seem to be an attempt to smear Melanie in this article.

I'll be adding sourced information only.Matt Sanchez (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected Page Request Explanation

{{editprotected|Matt Sanchez}}

I recently made several sourced and precise edits to Morgan's article. Those edits were changed back, please advise Matt Sanchez (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

N Template not applicable. The {{editprotected}} template must be accompanied by a specific description of an edit request. Sandstein (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MELANIE WON APTRA AWARD FOR JOURNALISM

Opinions are overshadowing facts. Melanie won an important award and it should be noted in her article.

+R-8 BEST SPECIAL PROGRAM “Voices of Soldiers” Mark Williams, Holly Williams, Melanie Morgan and Jay Allen KFBK-AM, Sacramento & KSFO AM.

• "Associated Press Television and Radio Association". Retrieved 2007-12-20.

Made the ref visible -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This information and the accompanying reference already appear in the article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision

Media Matters is not a reliable source. They are an ideological driven media smear website and not a credible source. They are quite unbalanced. Melanie polemics need another source. Matt Sanchez (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this could have been worded much better there is referencing issue for users utilizing media matters should be aware. They are considered lefty-leaning or a bit unbias although I personally have seem them provide references for their work. If an editor wishes to use their material they should follow or search for the original source material that Media Matters quotes rather than just Meda Matters themselves whenever possible. If not it might be wise to state that "Media matters asserts ...". Benjiboi 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Firing is not POV. Firing is succinct and everyone knows what it means.

Resolved. Reference has been added to support use of the word "fired". Benjiboi 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the word fired is POV. Saying she was released from her contract is obtuse, oblique, and a euphemism. I am placing fired back in there. This is an encyclopedia, the sources say she was fired, please do not revert. 72.222.181.186 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjoboi reverted this change. This is twice Benjiboi has reverted the change, but he won't discuss this change on the talk page. Please Benjiboi, discuss this on the talk page. The facts are this: the source and other soruces describe her as being fired. The wikipedia definition of fired redirects to termination of employment which describes accurately what happened to her. Removing "fired" is a POV edit. Not discussing your actions on the talk page violated wikipedia somethign assume good faith. KSFO's statement is a euphemism and is not an encyclopedic statement. Please don't revert. Do you have some sort of attachment to this article? Perhaps you ahve a POV agenda that you would like to discuss here? My suggestion is that there are lots and lots of Wiki articles, perhaps if you ahve an undisclosed agenda, you should consider recusing yourself from writing further on this article. Thanks. 72.222.181.186 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of having an "undisclosed agenda", or make hints in that direction. See WP:CIVIL. Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The source you cited included the word "canned" in the title but no, did not say she was fired. I've added another reference which states she was. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people and neutrality as we are writing an encyclopedia and we should be dispassionate as well as accurate. This is the first the subject has been brought up by you on the article's talk and as such is this first I'm addressing it. Had you asked here first I'd be willing to bet any number of folks would have agreed to adding such a statement if it were properly sourced. Benjiboi 19:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The news media is saying she was fired. She says she was fired. Sounds to me like some right winger here wants to soften it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.19.246 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been noted, the article has been amended with a reference that states she was fired and the article will reflect that she was indeed fired. Benjiboi 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

jim Lehere piece

Resolved. As an encyclopedia, we rely on reliable sources, what is published and documented. If you want to introduce a source that disputes what is stated in the article then post it here for other editors to review. Benjiboi 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the jim Lehere piece it seemed muddled and did not convey why Morgan was banned at the time from pbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.90.233.67 (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted those changes as well. It's not neutral to suggest that Morgan was banned for interrupting the other speaker although they may be partially true. It's more correct that each of them interrupted each other and although possibly unneeded I wouldn't object to that being added. Also you changed a quote to suggest she was banned when the quote suggested that both would be as would any other guest on the show who behaved as they did. Benjiboi 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjii I am reverting your edits.

I watched again the 11 minute video Morgan interuppted Soltz 5 times, soltz zero.

Morgans' own website said she was banned from Jim Lehrer and Soltz was not banned. I think the whole paragraph could be re-written.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.90.233.67 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we go with the sources on this. You also reverted my entire edit thus combining two references into one, please be more careful. Please find sources to speak towards your assertions and do not alter quotes to your interpretation. Benjiboi 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me Morgans' own website is not a source?

The video of them on pbs is not a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.90.233.67 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

NewsHour quote

Here is the full statement from Linda Winslow, Executive Producer:

Last night the NewsHour attempted to help our viewers understand why the members of Congress are having so much difficulty arriving at a decision regarding the way forward in Iraq. We believe the intensity of the pressure being exerted on Democrats and Republicans by the "wings" of their respective parties is having an impact on those who are looking for some sort of compromise position. We decided to let representatives of those wings explain their positions, hoping they would participate in a dialogue with us and each other. As our guests demonstrated, however, that was a forlorn hope and the result was a lot of heat, but very little light.

Since neither guest was in the studio with Judy Woodruff, there wasn't much she could do to prevent them from interrupting one another, short of saying — as she did at least three times — "please let him/her finish his/her point". The NewsHour style is to ask pointed questions politely; we expect our guests to subscribe to the same rules. Since the program is produced live, we can't do much to eliminate rude guests from your television screen once the segment has begun; what we can do is guarantee you will never see that person on our program again. [2] (bottom of page)

Notice that neither Morgan nor Soltz is mentioned as being more rude than the other. We can't quote Winslow as saying Morgan was banned when that isn't unambiguously what she said. Evil saltine (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Will change IP until you add correct information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.216.90 (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)