Talk:NPR/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Criticism needs rewording

I just came here and read this article for the first time, and it is overtly biased. And I'm not talking about leftist or rightist bias, I'm talking about pro-NPR bias. The criticism sections for BOTH the liberal-bias and conservative-bias sections start RIGHT IN on defending NPR before even bothering to state or cite the actual criticisms! Offering defenses for NPR without giving any time or coverage to what the critics themselves say is bias, pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

THe section that covers accusations of liberal bias needs to be rewritten with less bias. Combat52 6 March 2007

You hardly need to be a "rightist" to conclude that NPR is biased and liberal. NPR always tilts its reports in favor of kneejerk liberal ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please...NPR "rightist"!? You must be dreaming...or smoking too much crack. NPR is MOSTLY funded by corporate underwriters, and NOT by the Feds. You must be another right-wing shill with time on their hands...sitting at home with a bottle of wine...trolling your fav know...

Please! Neo-cons, Palin-worshippers, Bush-lovers, and Christian fundamentalists wishing to throw the USA back to the good old 1650s: NPR stands for "National Public REPUBLICAN"...not "radio"! And stop whining about the "liberul media"! THere is no "librul media" in the USA! How can you have liberal ANYTHING in a country which is entirely owned by large, privatized mullitnationals!? You can't. So please stop hallucinating, and smoke less crack. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For instance? 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how it was on March 6th, but on July 25th there are elements of the "criticism" section that seem POV. "Criticism from the right allege that the network tailors its content to the preferences of an audience drawn from a liberal "educated elite." Maybe it's just me, but this unreferenced, uncited sentence is an unfair portrayal, firstly, of the right's criticism of NPR, and secondly, that there is some suggestion that the right is undereducated, or anti-education. It may be the authors personal belief that the right is both anti-education and/or uneducated, and while evidence may suggest otherwise, it still has no place in this article. That educated elite is in quotes would suggest that it is a quotation or commonly made sentiment amongst the American Right, which it is not, and if this is a straight quotation, then it should be referenced. If the quotations were removed, and the word eduated were removed, it wouldn't read as POV as it does now. One section of Criticism also has it's reference in a ridiculously POV piece published by the Socialist Worker, which is filled with half-truths and innaccurate representations of the American media. Finally, the PIPA study has been heavily criticized for what it considers myths (specifically, the link between Al Qaeda and Pre-Invasion Iraq) and the sorts of questions that it asked. For instance, had similar contravercial or semi-mythical questions been asked regarding NPR listeners -- but those myths that chiefly pervade the left -- it is likely that the numbers would bare out similarly. Essentially, the U. Maryland PIPA study has a lot of challenges surrounding it
I would make these changes, but I do not want to get into an edit war with somebody who does believe that the right is undereducated, that The Socialist Worker is a NPOV publication, and/or that the PIPA study did not have some underlying agenda. Mike Murray 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but I think you're selling the Wikipedia community short in your second paragraph. If you have changes you think are appropriate to make the article more NPOV, I would hope you would make them. If the sources are completely unreliable or there's no source, scrap the material. If the source is just somewhat biased, try to balance out the article accordingly. --Evil1987 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, where is the reference to a Socialist Worker piece? I can't seem to find that.--Evil1987 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing FAIR as a source of what is or is not liberal bias insofar as NPR is concerned makes no sense since FAIR itself is a "progressive" (another name for liberal) left learning organization. This must be cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that in the entire critical section, two liberal groups are used as sources - the sources themselves are even more biased than NPR, and proudly so! In fact, simply calling them 'progressive' is biased. XINOPH | TALK 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The groups describe themselves as progressive, as cited in their respective articles. —EqualRights (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation 07/26

Just moved some of the archived section up to the top here so I can better follow the discussion and comment. David L Rattigan 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are now two issues under consideration:

  1. The NPR survey and whether it should be included
  2. External links and whether they should be included

My thoughts on these are as follows:

  1. There does not seem to be any question whether the survey can remain. It is a verifiable source from an academic institute (PIPA). The only evidence presented against it has been on the basis of Wikipedia:Original research, ie there has still been no verifiable source presented that argues against the survey. Formulating original arguments against contravenes policy.
  2. The discussion above seems to have clarified what constitutes an acceptable source, ie it was agreed that the Anti-Defamation League criticisms were acceptable. This seems to have been to everyone's satisfaction.

When folks return from the hiatus, it would be good if we could get some consensus on the following:

The PIPA survey stays unless:
a verifiable source is presented (not OR) to demonstrate why it does not belong (then it can be removed)
a verifiable source is included in the article itself to challenge it.

What has emerged from this mediation for me so far is that

  1. The PIPA survey, whether or not you agree with it or not, is a verifiable source that belongs in the article
  2. All attempts to remove or challenge it have been original research

Fair enough? David L Rattigan 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me.--RattBoy 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you don't even need OR to challenge the survey. The survey contradicts itself. It states that while there's "some evidence" for some meetings between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "correct" answer is "no contact whatsoever". Or as Inigo Montoya said, "I do not think that means what chu think that means." AFAIK, there's no wikipedia policy against quoting a source accurately. Wkerney 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you conclude that the "correct" answer for the survey is "no contact whatsoever"? I do not see how you construe that is protrayed as the "correct" answer in the survey. In the section discussing the perceived relationship between Iraq and al-Quaeda, the report states Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” -- this in relation to what is described as . In a separate section addressing whether clear evidence of such a link had been found, at the time of the report, no such evidence had been found. So, what was your point again? Oh, something about quoting a source accurately. Yes, it would be nice if you would do so. olderwiser 20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you're someone different, I'll copy and paste the quote again. Quote: Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” Just 7% chose the option, “There was no connection at all.” Since the war has ended this perception has been essentially unchanged. Despite the fact that no evidence of any links has been found, the percentages choosing each position have remained statistically constant, varying only within a few percentage points. (Source: page 5) The contradiction is obvious: it claims there was indeed, quote, "some evidence" at the time for one of the "wrong" answers, but then went ahead and claimed, quote, "no evidence" has been found. I'm curious to see how that could at all be condensed into the kind of summary that we currently have on the page. Wkerney 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that the writers of this report don't consider "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" to be "links". The survey is primarily concerned with the 35% of respondents who believed "Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks", and the astonishing 22% who believed "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks." Those are the "links" this survey is speaking about. In any case, this entire discussion is irrelevant according to the opinion of the mediator. --Ideogram 10:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A mediator holds no special authority to determine either the content of an article or to restrain discussion on a public talk page. Other options are available if a more controlled environment is needed. However, I think I largely agree with Ideogram's interpretation of the quote. The report is attempting to examine somewhat subtle differences. The text quoted by Wkerney straddles two paragraphs. The first portion is the end of a discussion examining other polls which offered only simple binary options. The question in the PIPA poll attempted to gauge the relative strength of opinions regarding the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The next portion quoted by Wkerney begins a new paragraphs discuss the stability of responses over time, despite no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The response "a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials" in context of the entire section is not contradictory with the statement that there was no evidence of any links. olderwiser 12:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Bkonrad. As mediator, I am here to enable discussion, but I don't have any authority other than what others in the mediation allow me. In any case, the discussion really is irrelevant, but not because of my opinion - but because of Wikipedia:Original research. I've been trying to move the mediation forward by getting a consensus on this, and most people seem to have agreed, even if the discussion keeps somehow slipping back into formulating arguments for and against. It's just not what Wikipedia is about. We don't need a genius to come along and make great arguments, because no matter how convincing the arguments, they will still be OR. What we've been trying to get all along is some sources, which it seems someone has finally done below. Yay! David L Rattigan 14:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend what I said as any slight against you. I had been responding to Wkerney's claim that OR wasn't needed because the survey contradicted itself. In any case, I agree that things are moving in a better direction now with specific sources criticizing the survey. I still stand by a point I made long ago that the report is really inconsequential for encyclopedic coverage of NPR. IMO it adds little to the article aside from inciting controversy. olderwiser 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No worries; didn't take it as a slight in the, um, slightest. :) David L Rattigan 09:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fox Controversies

The PIPA study debate is elsewhere on wikipedia as well. It's possible we might just want to link to the Fox Controversies page for readers who want to read more about it. ("However, the findings of this survey are disputed by some, as noted here")

Here's the quote in question:

Many conservatives have criticized the PIPA poll. Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll". [16] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap". [17] James Taranto, editor of, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda." [18] According to two sources, although not confirmable on the PIPA site, PIPA issued a clarification on Oct. 17, 2003 in response to the misuse of the poll's findings, and to criticisms spawned by that misuse. The reports say that PIPA stated that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks," and that PIPA also noted that the results of the poll were intended to show correlation, not causation. [19][20].

You can dig up those references here: (Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias) Wkerney 09:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, without passing judgment on whether Coulter and O'Reilly would know journalism or fact if it walked up to them, whispered in their ears "Hi! I'm fact-based journalism—pleased to meet you!", and bit them on their collective as2, yours looks like a very constructive contribution. It would be better if there were an academic study challenging the PIPA poll, but referring to prominent conservatives' criticism of the poll is quite reasonable.--RattBoy 12:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. David L Rattigan 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have a long list of sources that combat the PIPA study on its very foundations, per the terms of the medation agreement, can we now agree to place this information into the criticism section of the article? - MSTCrow 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I'd like to see those sources. The only objections to the PIPA study are wholly partisan. Partisan criticisms will need to establish that they're relevant and notable within the terms of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV first. FeloniousMonk 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think a paragraph such as the one quoted above from the Fox Controversies article would be fine. David L Rattigan 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps someone could write a paragraph containing criticisms of the PIPA poll, and post it here, then we all could discuss it and get some consensus before putting it in the article. David L Rattigan 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how are clearly biased comments from partisan pundits like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and James Taranto relevant to this article? Coulter's comments "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and "hoax poll" and Bill O'Reilly's "absolute crap" are hardly legitimate criticisms of a scholarly and technical study published in Political Science Quarterly. FeloniousMonk 18:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The quotes don't need to be academically relevant. They may not be good arguments, but surely coming from conservative pundits as famous as Coulter and O'Reilly, the criticisms are of some historical and sociological interest, no? David L Rattigan 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We can't put their views in just because they're famous pundits, they have to actually be *relevant*. As the PIPA study is currently presented, their criticisms are just not relevant. FeloniousMonk 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. "Punditry" =/= "expertise". What gives their words any more weight than the proprietor of Joe Blow's Bitchin' Blog or Crazy Guy with Sandwich Board on 5th Avenue, other than appearing on TV? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following paragraph:

A 2003 study, by the polling firm Knowledge Networks and the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets, including cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media. In particular, 80% of Fox News viewers held one of three common misperceptions about the Iraq War; only 23% of NPR listeners and PBS viewers were similarly misinformed.[15], [16] The poll has been criticized by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and James Taranto.

Ideogram 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's, O'Reilly's, and Taranto's comments are just that comments, not criticisms. I've yet to see a legitimate reason for why such comments are actually relevant here. Lot's of conservative pundits have made many more equally biased and self-serving comments about NPR itself... Are they relevant? Should we include them as well? FeloniousMonk 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We're trying to compromise here. I'm sure MSTCrow and Wkerney are going to blast me for reducing the mention to a single sentence. --Ideogram 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. I simply think the reference should not go in unchallenged when the entire poll is a fraud. Even just a reference to the Fox Controversies page would be enough, in my opinion. Wkerney 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Fraud? Hmm, have you contacted the local DA's office or the University of Maryland with your evidence so charges can be filed? Or, maybe, you ought to consider the actual meanings of words you use. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much bias as it is relevance or standing to make their comments. The undue-weight provisions regarding balance still apply, and throwing in their comments to provide a false eqivalency would be wrong. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not our job to judge the relevance. The fact is they made the statements, and they are notable people. --Ideogram 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly it is. Read WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's not get confused here as to what their inclusion signifies. It does not mean their opinions are correct. It does not mean that the article gives equal weight to the survey and to the pundits. That the quotes are politically charged and biased should be obvious to anyone reading it; while it does not make the point that the survey is wrong, it does make the point that the survey angered some (very famous) conservative pundits who disagreed with it. Is that not worth noting? David L Rattigan 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it depends on how you phrase it. "The poll has been criticized by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and James Taranto" implies they said something substantive, something more than outraged bluster. "Conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and James Taranto were outraged by the conclusions" would be more accurate, unless they've actually said something that actually rebuts any points in the study. PIPA's own clarification, if it actually exists from a reliable source, seems much more on point. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The poll was patent nonsense, and it compromises the neutrality of the article. The paragraph should be removed. Longshot1980 14:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Patent nonsense" has an actual meaning other than as a random insult phrase. Care to offer the slightest indication that you're using it correctly? --Calton | Talk 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You give no reason for your opinion, nor for the NPOV tag that you unilaterally affixed to the article. I respectfully suggest that the NPOV tag be removed unless you can give verifiable sources for your POV.--RattBoy 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an article about NPR, not about Fox News. The perceptions of Fox viewers are not relevant. IMO, labeling Fox viewers "misinformed" is a plain violation of NPOV. Let's not use this article as an excuse to nurse a grudge against Fox! I recommend removing the sentence: "In particular, 80% of Fox News viewers held one of three common misperceptions about the Iraq War; only 23% of NPR listeners /PBS viewers were similarly misinformed." --Herb West 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
So when you say "I recommend," you mean that you're going to unilaterally do it, right? I applaud you for a creative use of the term.
If you'd read the Talk Archive, you'd understand that this criticism has been addressed. I'll save you the trouble of clicking your mouse a couple of times: in Archive 2, it says "Contrasting NPR's audience with that of Fox News might appear to be a gratuitous slam at the latter, but that's not the intention. The poll found NPR/PBS at one end of the spectrum, and Fox at the other. The gross disparity between the news consumers' overall knowledge about key current events is relevant and encyclopedic."--RattBoy 10:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The perceptions of Fox viewers regarding the Iraq War is clearly not relevant to an article about NPR. That's fairly obvious. --Herb West 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Herb about this, and if you look into the archive where Rattboy pulled his quote from, I disagreed there as well. The criticism wasn't really "addressed" there so much as that we agreed to disagree about the relevance. olderwiser 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the criticism was "addressed." Maybe you didn't agree with my reasoning, but the criticism was answered—a synonym for "addressed." Perhaps it's time for those who feel that the invocation of the name, "Fox News," in an NPR article is somehow inappropriate, to step up and contribute: what verbiage would you support to put the survey into context? The survey has quantitative data on the consumers of various news outlets and faux news outlets. How would you summarize the report?--RattBoy 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, your dismissive tone implied that it had been resolved and that Herb West was somehow remiss for raising the issue again. As I said before, the entire survey could be omitted with no real harm to the encyclopedic quality of the article. The survey did not directly evaluate the quality of the news reported by the networks, but only examined one aspect of how well-informed listeners/viewers of the networks were about a controversial and politically charged issue. While it is an interesting data point, it is also just a little misleading to present this limited study as as if it were conclusive evidence of anything. It is, in my opinion, rather tangential to the presentation of encyclopedic information about NPR. olderwiser 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If there was a "dismissive tone" on my part, it was in response to Herb's unilateral editing out of a sentence which had been discussed, without checking to see if there'd been any discussion of it, and to his saying "I recommend…" and immediately taking the action which he "recommended." That struck me as disingenuous. If he were recommending a change, he should have submitted it to discussion prior to implementing the change. (Edit added for clarification by RattBoy, 9/13/06)
So, in order to be encyclopedic, you'd recommend removing an "interesting data point" which is quantitative and verifiable—while leaving in the broad, sweeping generalizations made by people with a political agenda? (See, for e.g., the previous sentence in the article: "In 2003, some critics accused NPR of being duplicitously pro invasion of Iraq."—no numbers, nothing objective, just unsubstantiated opinion.) How bizarre.
Other than removing the entire paragraph, I take it that you have no constructive suggestions about how to improve the sentence. Pity. I was hoping we could make progress here.--RattBoy 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I said nothing about retaining other unsourced commentary. My point is that the survey is 1) entirely tangential to the article; and 2) requires careful qualification so as not to misrepresent what the study actually meant. The study was NOT focused on NPR or the quality of its news. That it found NPR listeners tended to be better informed than other networks about a fairly limited, rather controversial and politically charged issue is somewhat interesting, but as far as using it to draw any broader conlusions regarding NPR specifically would require other studies and analyses. Mentioning that study in this article, even when carefully worded and qualified, represents an implicit assertion that NPR is somehow better than the other networks. Now, I happen to agree that NPR is at present among the highest quality news sources available. But that is not what the study was about. Using this limted study to draw conclusions that are not explicit in the study itself is tantamount to original research. For example, the curent version of the article claims the study showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets, including cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media. Is this really what the study showed? At best, one could state that the study showed NPR listeners were better informed about those specific aspects of the Iraq invasion which the study examined.
To reiterate, I don't feel the study is particularly relevant to this article. If the only rationale for including it is as a rebuttal of other unsourced or poorly sourced criticisms, then remove both. olderwiser 12:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, BK, for giving a clear and reasoned rebuttal to my argument. I've come to expect no less from you.
It won't surprise you that I found your response not entirely convincing.
By far the most important news topic of the year 2003 was the Bicentennial of Ohio's statehood American Invasion of Iraq.[1] With respect to that news item, which dominated the news, analysis, and commentary for the entire year, three issues were discussed, dissected, and dissembled: Iraq's pursuit/ possession of WMDs, Iraq's connection with al Qaeda and 9/11, and the rest of the world's opinion of the US government's pursuit of the war. Objectively factual answers were available for the central questions concerning all three of those topics. So why, in Hume's name, would those issues not be appropriate for a survey which would assess the public's understanding of current events vis-a-vis their consumption of media outlets?
I grant that the Iraq War is/was controversial, and that invoking its reality may invite the occasional reversion by those who question some of the facts referenced in the survey; however, facts are facts. It is unencyclopedic to flinch from reporting facts merely because they are controversial.
Finally: does the survey say something relevant about NPR? I still contend that it does. While the survey does not address cause-n-effect, it gives strong evidence that the NPR/PBS audience is better informed than those who get their information from CBS, CNN, or…you-know-who. Whether public broadcasting better informs viewers/listeners, or whether better informed viewers/listeners naturally gravitate to public broadcasting, the survey cannot say. But it is a strong indication of quality, in any interpretation.
Wikipedia is full of partisan or opinionated reporting of subjective assertions in a "he-said, she-said" manner. Here, we have the rare opportunity to present an objective study—and I'm bemused that you'd rather see it simply ignored.--RattBoy 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My primary objection to using it in this article is that it is essentially a misrepresentation of what the study was about. The study was NOT about NPR. It was NOT even directly about determining whether the listeners of one news service were better informed than another (that was only an incidental observation). As with many such studies, selectively quoting can misrepresent what the survey was designed to analyze. It is misleading and tantamount to OR to state, as the article currently does, that the study showed that those who get their news and information from public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) are better informed than those whose information comes from other media outlets, including cable and broadcast TV networks and the print media. Sorry, but that is a misrepresentation of the study. While you suggest that this is a "rare opportunity to present an objective study" -- that is in fact at odds with what the article actually says. olderwiser 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it is OR, as the statement gives two references which interpret the survey that way. However, if you believe that the current terminology does misrepresent the study, I invite you to make a constructive suggestion toward rewording the paragraph.--RattBoy 10:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Rattboy, I support removing the irrelevant reference to Fox News viewers and their perceptions. To that end I support removing the last sentence of the article. For guidance, I have looked at the entry of each other news network (other than Fox) included in the PIPA survey: NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and CNN. Of these 5 entries none make reference to the PIPA survey nor to the perceptions of Fox News viewers. --Herb West 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Herb, I'm looking for constructive suggestions for reporting the quantitative results of the survey without offending Fox News consumers. Do you have any such suggestions?--RattBoy 08:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA has such a low opinion of NPR that they must be at least attempting to do a good job. However, I am seeing a gradual subtle shift in NPR using words to describe Hezzbollah, etc - ie terrorists - that must be helping the funding problem. The funders - corporations, ethic groups ( gotta be prudent here ) eventually get their way - then we can have a new NPR and they can finally go commericail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:59, August 10, 2006

I'm sorry, is there an English translation of that comment available? --Calton | Talk 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems more likely that NPR listeners are better informed than Fox News viewers about some issues. Without seeing the details of the study, I don't think we can conclude from that they are better informed about most issues. (PS: I often listen to NPR and have never seen Fox News, I was very well informed about Iraq from prior knowledge of world affairs.)

That said, I did listen to an NPR show that had 3 guests to discuss the 2008 Presidential Primaries. All 3 admitted that they were supporting Obama. I also heard an NPR program about affirmative action (On Point). For balance they invited 3 guests, all of whom supported it and none who opposed it.Bostoner (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing mediation

There has been no activity here for over a month. I will close the case; if anyone objects I can reopen it. --Ideogram 02:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


There should be some mention on the demographics of NPR's audience -- Who listens to its programming? Any statistics or published research out there on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Robert Conley as founder?

There's been a mini-edit-war going on lately, with Jimborus (Talk | contribs) deleting text which said that Robert Conley was the "founder" of NPR. One of his edits was summarized by claiming that "Robert Conley (was not the) founder. He was only the first anchor and he did not last in that role." In response, Emerson7 (Talk | contribs) has twice reverted Jimborus' edits, once admonishing "rv unsourced edits. please do not delete date without providing citation." (That's a bit bemusing, as I can't see that Emerson7 has provided a citation which supports the view that Conley was the founder.)

I haven't found a reliable source which says that Conley was a founder. See three typical links, [2][3] [4], which resulted from Googling "'Robert Conley' NPR". None supports Emerson7's viewpoint, as far as I can tell. (Perhaps Googling "'Robert Conley' NPR founder" would be more enlightening. When I have a moment…) It seems that the burden of proof here is on Emerson7. If s/he can't find a citation which supports his/her POV, the "founder" language should be removed.--HughGRex 10:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

my entire point is that if there is a specific claim, that claim must be supported. jimborus makes a specific, unsupported claim, and deletes information based on that unsupported claim. it's my belief that it is protocol is to place a {{Fact}} tag for challenged data....not delete them. his first removal was completely without comment, and just taking a look at his user page, calls his neutrality into question. --emerson7 | Talk 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the specific claim that is wholely unsupported is that Conley was the founder. It is entirely appropriate to remove unsourced information that one has reason to believe is incorrect -- it is the responsibility of those who want to add such information, once it is challenged, to provide a reliable source for it. olderwiser 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
NB, here are some sources about NPRs early days, not one of which mentions Conley as founder, only as the first announcer/host for ATC. olderwiser 00:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC), am i understanding you to say that i can go into any wiki article, select any statement, declare it untrue, and delete that statement without comment or anything? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emerson7 (talkcontribs) 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
woops! thanks hagarman. --emerson7 | Talk 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you do so frequently without any basis, other editors might no longer assume good faith of your edits and start treating you more like a troll or vandal. If you honestly have some basis for thinking that a particular unsourced assertion is incorrect, then go ahead and remove the statement. If you simply are uncertain about a relatively innocuous statement, there is {{tl:cn}} and similar tags. olderwiser 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I might add that, while any editor has latitude to remove a statement that s/he believes to be untrue, such latitude is very limited if the statement is backed up by a reliable source. (I wouldn't remove a relevant, properly sourced statement unless I found a counter-citation which refuted it.) If the statement does not have a citation (as in this instance), it's fully appropriate to remove it.--HughGRex 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NPR Bias Whitewash

The so-called 'Independent' bodies that evaluated NPR all have liberal biases themselves.

How childish and cowardly that NPR (and this article) can't just be honest about their biases.

Facts (about these 'independent bias evaluators'):

'Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting'-- Is a Liberal Watchdog Group

'UCLA' Is a far-Left dominated academic institution

University of Missouri: Ditto

So WHAT REAL, truly independent analysis of NPR reporting has occured? NONE! 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm…FAIR criticized NPR from the left's perspective. Criticism has come from both the right and the left, as is evident from careful reading of the article. Your criticism of UCLA and the University of Missouri is barely worthy of comment, since you give no source for your claim that they're "far-Left" institutions.--HughGRex 10:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FAIR, being a self-described "progressive" organization doesn't qualify as being a neutral evaluating party-- therefore it's motives are suspect. FAIR could just as easily be helping NPR to cover it's tracks. It certainly has a motive for aiding a political ally.

Your comments dismissing the overwhelming liberal bias at those Universities are about as compelling as the Vaticans case against Gallileo that led to his house arrest: arrogant dismissal of the obvious. 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way-- I have good friends who listen faithfully to NPR. I respect them because they are honest people. And they tell me they love NPR because "It's a professional Left-oriented news source." That's much better than lying about it-- which is disturbing and creepy. 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is odd is that the study by UCLA and UMC concludes that NPR on par with Newsweek, TIME, and US News and World Report. Yet, at Newsweek's article you read, "Newsweek is generally considered the most liberal of the three major newsweeklies, an assertion supported in a recent UCLA study on media point of view." So one study by UCLA says that NPR is as balanced as 3 periodicals, while another study concludes that one of the three periodicals is the most liberal... Isn't that inconsistent? -Atamasama 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And they tell me they love NPR because "It's a professional Left-oriented news source." Then it's either that your "friends" are yanking your chain or that they don't exist at all - no one actually talks like that. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not very thorough logic there. What that really reveals is that a number of other news outlets also have a Left-bias. No surprise there. With the exception of of FOX (clear Right-bias), most of the other major electronic outlets are dominated at the executive level by former 60's Leftists.

The fact that there has been a Left-wave in electronic media (with the exception of FOX) in the last 20 years could honestly be called generational. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Telling me you know what my friends said / didn't say when you have never met them is intellectually pathetic. Consider: Ideology erodes rational thought. Any kind of ideology, Leftist or Rightist. 05:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Offering the option that "your 'friends' are yanking your chain" was actually being kind to you, since it assumed you were telling the truth and not -- as I actually suspect -- it's a complete pile of bovine excrement you made up. This being based on the fact that the statement is nonsense on its face, that no one sincerely talks that way.
Consider: Ideology erodes rational thought. Any kind of ideology, Leftist or Rightist. Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle: your whole "argument" is nothing BUT ideology, no matter what coating of pseudo-intellectual rhetoric you put on it.
But unless you actually have some actual suggestions for actually improving THIS article, you're in the wrong place: USENET is that-a-way. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You are saying a lot about yourself by what you post.

1) Nasty personal attacks. Hallmark of a bully and someone without a lot of intellectual confidence.

2) Accusing people of lying based on observed generalities rather than facts. Hallmark trait of a malignant narcissist (adult bully of the socially manipulative variety).

Sean7phil 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I offered the "lying" explanation as an alternative to "completely gullible" explanation, since I know complete bullshit when I read it. Kind of like your made-up "hallmark trait" amateur psychoanalysis. Or can you point me to the part of the DSM-IV that covers it?
So was there an actual point to your sputtering, or have you mistaken Wikipedia for {[Free Republic]]? --Calton | Talk 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This article serves as a prime example of why Wikipedia is not to be trusted when it comes to politicized and controversial subjects. -- (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NPR v. RIAA webcasting conflict

I'm thinking that there should be a section dedicated to the royalty conflict between NPR and the RIAA. NPR is posing this as a major issue towards their future and I believe it is important that it at least be mentioned. Greg 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Public radio programs not affiliated with NPR

what an odd section. it's like having a section in the General Motors article called "Automobiles not made by GM." --emerson7 | Talk 04:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the list - it's there because people FREQUENTLY confuse ALL U.S. public-radio programs with NPR. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if you need evidence of that, try:
  • Google News search for "'This American Life' [a Chiacgo Public radio/PRI show] +NPR". Note the many references to "NPR's This American Life".
  • Google News search for "Keillor [host of the Minnesota Public Radio/APM show "A Prairie Home Companion] +NPR". Note the many references to "NPR's A Prairie Home Companion".
It doesn't matter when you click the above links, the mix-ups WILL be there, I guarantee it. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Calton -- there is considerable confusion about this. olderwiser 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm definitely confused. Some of the most high-profile programming on public radio stations has been omitted from this list. I know there is a distinction between PRI, NPR, and other producers, but it should be clearly described in the article. The most high profile shows (A Prairie Home Companion, Car Talk) should be listed and their production credits should be explained so people know why they're omitted from this article.

The list of non-NPR public radio shows needs to be prominently displayed in hopes that uneducated conservatives might realize that they are mistaken. If there really were a liberal bias to NPR, the demographics show that NPR listeners earn more money than the conservative opponents of public radio. Therefore, NPR listeners are probably paying more tax dollar to fund the war in Iraq, the imprisonment of alleged terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, "Creation Science" in public schools, etc. than those conservatives are forced to pay for "liberal-biased" public radio.

additional sourcing needed

Both the funding and criticism sections has more than a few potentially controversial facts that are uncited. Rather than use {{fact}} tags for every single uncited claim (which would look disruptive), I placed general tags. The article lacks general sources, but even if it didn't, controversial facts need to be specifically cited with footnoting or Harvard referencing. I'll do a bit of hunting for reliable, independent verification of the facts that are uncited, but if I or another cannot do so after a reasonable amount of time passed, I will be removing unverified assertions. Thank you, VanTucky (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been quite some time since then, so I have removed several sections of unverified accusations and statistical claims. VanTucky (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Added section for NPR's censoring of Outrage documentary

On Wednesday, May 13th, 2009, I added a section covering NPR's censoring the Outrage documentary movie on closeted gay politicians. This section does have two references. Allyn (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not particularly notable for a general encyclopedic article about the organization. Creating a whole new section for something that is recentism and is mentioned in a few blogs is undue weight. If it actually turns into a big issue for NPR, we can revisit it, but that doesn't look likely. Also, the language was highly POV. You can't flatly state that they engaged in "censorship." That's opinion, not fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It's very relevant and highly notable. If you have an issue with the way it's worded, fix that issue, not just totally remove it. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Rather than just saying "I like it" can you describe why you feel this is highly notable? What is your evidence for such? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say I like it.. don't put words in my mouth. I said it's valid and sourced content. As for evidence, pick one. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources, nor do they establish notability. Google search results of a bunch of blogs, even less so. This addition has multiple problems, not the least of which is that, while it is relevant to the film in question, it really isn't notable to an article about NPR, and certainly not deserving of its own section. Beyond this, it is written terribly. You can't state opinion as fact, particularly using inflammatory language like "censored." And finally, it is sourced only to a couple of blogs. You would need several reliable third-party sources, to even consider including it. Please don't add this material again without addressing these concerns here and making an attempt at consensus. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually some blogs are completely reliable, out of tens of thousands of Ghits its a rather reasonable that many can be found that meet our sourcing guidelines. The rest remains rewriting but seriously the entire section needs to migrated into the regular article. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First source instances in that Google search:

  • is a reliable source.. it's a newspaper, not some kid's little blog home on
  • is a reliable source.. he's a radio host and reporter for SIRIUS OutQ.
  • is a reliable source.. it's part of the Logo (TV channel) news department.
  • is a reliable source.. it's a Hollywood news site.
  • is a reliable source.. should be obvious, it's a well known magazine
  • is a reliable source.. surprise! another magazine!

Shall I continue? And don't even talk about consensus. Did you get consensus to remove it? Benji, feel free to rewrite the content, but the sources and relevancy is painfully obvious. Either way, it's going back in the article. Either with your re-write or my re-vert. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Loonymonkey about this matter. This is a topic for the Outrage article, not this one. It simply hasn't been proven to be significant enough in the history of the organization (see recentism, undue weight, etc.) to be covered here. Were it part of a larger trend of hypocrisy or bias in covering gay issues, it would deserve a mention as an example of that trend, but relatively minor incidents shouldn't be covered at this level. Every news organization is going to have individual stories that cause controversy every year, and most of them aren't significant enough to receive coverage in a historical overview of the work of that organization. Gamaliel (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also agree with Benjiboi and Gamaliel. Including this would be an example of undue weight to a relatively minor incident. One incident is not evidence of concerted and sustained bias. olderwiser 12:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the section back in, however, I removed the apparently imflamatary word 'censored' and replaced it with alteration without permission. This, I, hope is more factual and less offensive. I apologize for my original wording of the article. Allyn (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added an additional reference to a major media outlet (Village Voice) on this topic. I hope this assuages the concern expressed here that there is not enough major media reference to this topic. Allyn (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have removed the word "censorship". The news coverage calls it exactly that, so it's not POV. It's sourced. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 02:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've changed "censored" to "edited". If we want to say that some have called it censorship then we should attribute that point of view. But we shouldn't say so without attribution because it is an opinion.   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

I know that some have accused NPR of being anti-Israel, but there is an interesting article here that tries to show that the it has also supported Israel a few times. [5] ADM (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NPR Popularity Statement

The article's statement "from 2002–2008 they were the second and third most popular radio programs in the country," regarding Morning Edition and All Things Considered, contains a link to a page about the country's most popular programs. Nowhere does that page mention either of these programs or NPR. It's hard to imagine they could have completely fallen off the list of most popular programs in a year or less.

The references provided for the statement are secondary sources that make the assertion without support. While, as a diehard NPR listener, I can easily believe that these shows rather than Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are # 2 and 3 behind Limbaugh, I'd like to see more solid evidence. (Perhaps someone bombed the "most popular shows" page so that it's all Faux, all the time?)

Javelina13 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate averages

Under Production facilities and listenership, I removed a claim that the average listener is male and college educated. This is a misuse of the term average. Average is used only for quantities, like height or age. An either/or category such as male or college education cannot be averaged. The citation requires registration to see it, so I don't know the numbers, but a correct description of listeners would be something like "57% male, 62% college educated. You can't average sex - you're either male or female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBul (talkcontribs) 18:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To Bkonrad, Onorem

At the top of the Reliable Sources guideline page, it says the guideline "is best treated with common sense." It is simply common sense that when it comes to information published by Google, Google itself is the most reliable source. It's preposterous to claim otherwise, unless you suspect Google is lying about its own content.

If you want to discuss the merits of including Google result counts in the article, we can have that discussion. But, how can I put this kindly, you'll be doing yourselves a big favor when you stop claiming that Google itself is not a reliable source for Google result counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPS Pilot (talkcontribs) 20:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here for what is wrong with your addition. If you revert again, this will be sent to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --OnoremDil 21:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose if you would like to argue that a google search is a reliable source for its own results, I'd have a hard time disputing it. It's still original research for you to pick and choose terms to search for and then post the results in the way you're trying to. --OnoremDil 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Google results are not "published" in any meaningful sense with regards to WP:Reliable sources. There is no editorial oversight and whatever controls Google might have on the content are indeterminate at best. Google search counts are not something that can be cited to document anything other than at a particular point in time, a particular user got a particular count for a particular string (the exact count of which would be almost guaranteed to be unreproducible by others and to change very rapidly). Such ephemera is nearly useless as a citation in a Wikipedia article. olderwiser 22:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow Show used as Source

"Patent evidence shows that FOX News and their corresponents have a history of making remarks hostile to Islam and Muslims"...The footnote (#47) listed beside this comment indicates that the source the author used as the progressive, and often dishonest, Rachel Maddow Show. This sentence should be removed until the author can find a better source of verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the exact Maddow quote so let the chips fall where they be.--Wlmg (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Repost from editor's talk page:

I've read the transcript again. There is already a discussion about the Maddow reference on the article's talk page so I will not address it here anymore. The problem arises is Maddow a reliable secondary source? Her program consists of her playing "gotcha clips" followed by her snarky remarks. Her commentary on the issue was, "Beyond menacing brown and black people out to get you, though, it‘s worth pointing out today, because of today‘s news, that FOX News in particular has also focused on another target: the scary Muslims that are out to get you. That has been a FOX News specialty for a long time now." and at the end of the clip section, "FOX News hosts and contributors there." No one is disputing the anti-muslim stuff on Fox news, but as the discussion on the talk page says there has to be a better source than Maddow's opinionated little quips for it. If the Maddow quote were in the article how do you think it would play out? Because that's the secondary source. Note well that Maddow does not single out any individual Fox commentator so to say she did in the article space would be original research. --Wlmg (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)--Wlmg (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tax money spent on NPR

The cost to the tax payers should be noted on the funding. It mentions less tax dollars spent but how much??? Dtmckay (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

National Public Radio changes its name to NPR

Hi everyone, I'm Andy Carvin, and I run the social media desk at NPR. In 2009 we changed our name from National Public Radio to just NPR, so we're no longer using the old name, except in a historical context. Would it be possible to move the content of the page to NPR, and have National Public Radio, and other pages redirect to it? Thanks.... Acarvin (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Feel free to re-request in the future, especially pending an official announcement. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

National Public RadioNPR — New name, no longer stands for "National Public Radio".| Relisting billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Not yet. To quote the WashPost article, dated yesterday, and used to source the edit noting the new name, NPR hasn't formally announced the change. Furthermore, it is still controversial; let us see if it is ever announced, if Congress lets it stand, and - most important - if it catches on in English-speaking sources independent of the organization. For more, see WP:MOSTM. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose At the moment this appears to be a matter of styling and aspiration. The citation certainly doesn't corroborate that the name has actually changed, just that the organisation has changed its preferred style. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Please see the previous comment I posted just above this discussion topic; I work at NPR and we've been rebranding the name for many months, which is why I put in the original request to change the page name to NPR last March. We've already removed references to National Public Radio on our website's about page and elsewhere on the site. Please let me know if you need anything more official from us and I'll ask our communications office about it. Acarvin (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Not yet. Wikipedia has to lag the NPR marketing department. It will be months if not years before this change should be locked in. For now, just use redirects to make sure people get to where they're going, and then mention the naming debate in the actual article. Ocaasi (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Regardless of an official announcement, I think the organization is much more commonly referred to as "NPR", and I don't see any explanation above of why we should put the utmost importance on the "official" name (nor do I see any part of WP:MOSTM that's relevant here, except perhaps the bit about Wikipedia acting "regardless of the preference of the trademark owner", which again suggests that the official name is not what matters). I've seen "not yet" votes used in other discussions when it's not yet firm that the name of the topic is changing, but in this case everybody already calls it NPR anyway. Propaniac (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: As noted above, the official name is not all that relevant in terms of Wikipedia official policy on article titles. The claims that it's much more commonly referred to as NPR and that everybody calls it NPR are however very relevant. Evidence? No vote from me as yet. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the link to the official name guideline. While I can't provide easy evidence that everybody calls it NPR, I can ask this: does anyone think it's not much more commonly referred to as NPR? I would bet anything I own on the fact that more people say "NPR" in any given day/hour/minute than "National Public Radio." It seems quite analogous to the BBC, the article for which is located at BBC and not British Broadcasting Corporation. Propaniac (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
        • You can ask this, but it seems to me it's speculation and not a justification for moving the article. Andrewa (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
          • If everybody overwhelmingly calls it NPR, the article should be moved, yes? So in the discussion about whether to move it, if nobody suggests that it is not the case that everybody calls it NPR, that indicates to me it should be moved. As you pointed out, the oppose votes all seem to be based on the misunderstanding that we should use the official name regardless of what name is commonly used. I also genuinely don't know what kind of evidence you expect to be given (and I certainly don't care enough to put myself out to satisfy unrealistic demands), because news sources don't seem very reliable in this case (since they will tend to spell out the acronym's meaning, until they were recently asked not to). A Google search for NPR gets 23.7 million hits vs. 1.8 million for "National Public Radio," if you find that helpful. Propaniac (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The opening sentence seems wrong to me. "NPR, formerly National Public Radio,[1][2]" Nothing in the articles cited says NPR is not stil National Public Radio (see also the discussion above about moving). In fact, it sys it HASN'T officially changed the name as I read the article. Kdammers (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bold text How much federal tax dollars are given annually to NPR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FOX News on Nina Totenberg

Given that the FOX News article cited was published immediately after Williams's firing and that Williams is employed by FOX, it is reasonable to demand a second source from a mainstream outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talkcontribs) 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll add a LA Times reference Drrll (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If Totenberg made the comments, the origional transcript should be available. If not, the transcrpits lack of availablity should be noted.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the original transcript is available only through a paid subscription to the Federal News Service. The comments can be also confirmed through a Boston Globe column about 7 years ago. Drrll (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't note the absence of a source. That would violate WP:NOR.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Without the transcript, we do not know the exact context for her comments. Some editors have even indicated the comments were made off the cuff into a mic that she thought was off. That is very different from what Williams did on air during a televised converstation. In short, we really do not know exactly what happened without the transcript. Therefore, I move that the Totenberg section be DELETED until the transcript is made available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talkcontribs) 07:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not very different. She made the comments on air during a televised show. Just like there has been reporting on what Williams said, there has been reporting on what Totenberg said. The full context of her remarks can be seen at . Drrll (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it IS very different, but not for the reasons that S trinitrotoluene puts forth. Ms Totenberg was strongly suggesting that great harm should befall Jesse Helms or his progeny. Mr. Williams wasn't wishing harm on anyone. He was merely describing his visceral reaction to getting on the same plane with people who strongly self-identify as Muslims. As I see it, Totenberg's comments were vastly more malicious. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
"Ms Totenberg was strongly suggesting that great harm should befall Jesse Helms or his progeny." Maybe. Maybe not. Jesse Helms actions likely lead to the deaths of many, many, many people who were infected with HIV. She could have been suggesting that it would be fitting for Helms to die of AIDS because of Congressional record. Without the full transcript, we just don't know.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see below.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This section violates WP:UNDUE insofar that it merely reflects a particular current event that has yet to be considered relevant or notable in the long term (See: WP:NTEMP). For these reasons, I am removing the section. Treefingers1206 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Juan Williams section does not violate WP:NTEMP because his dual role as NPR contributer and FOX commentator has been an ongoing issue within NPR (by their CEO's admission) and the media community in general. It has also played a serious role in the "debate" over the "neutrality" of FOX. It does not violate WP:UNDUE for similar reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talkcontribs) 07:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This section did not violate WP:UNDUE It was a major controversy listed in AP’s top 5 news stories. Therefore I am undoing Treefingers 1206 revision Grahamboat (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better idea. None of the three "controversies" listed directly relate to NPR the company. NPR itself did not make the comments; the seperate commentators did. Two of them made the comments on other networks. Instead, it appears that conservatives object to Williams being fired for his comments while Totenberg and others were not. I would suggest summarizing this section and moving it to the conservative critique of NPR section above and noting whom got fired and whom did not. Those who want more details can look up the pages of the individuals in question.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

All three of them do relate to NPR--to how NPR handled the blowback from the controversial remarks. Putting it in the conservative critique section would be WP:OR. None of the sources but Fox are conservative and Fox is considered a reliable source for news on WP. Drrll (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Not OR. The alleged hypocracy is in a number of right-wing blogs. This is an actual conservative complaint lodged against NPR. If the issue is the "blowback", then there should be more discussion of the blow back. As it stands most of the comments relate to the incidents themselves making it guilt by association.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FOX news's parade of anti-Islamic rhetoric -- clearly on display in the Maddow Show clip -- is the exact behavior that NPR's policies find odeous. Williams was warned by NPR to disassociate himself (or limit his association with) FOX to avoid situations that would led to violating NPR policies. FOX can be Islamophobic is they want. The Maddow clip proves it with clear evidence. However, if you want to work at NPR, you can't act like they do at FOX.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If the showing of a clip was good enough to state as a fact that something is true, then WP could be filled with examples of supposed facts when Rush Limbaugh or the Media Research Center shows clips. Drrll (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The question revoles around FOX's editorial choices regarding how stories and commentary related to Islam are presented. NPR objects to their reporters engaging in behaviors that FOX approves of. Therefore, the nature of their reporting is germane to the article. Clips of FOX news reporters espousing Islamophobic statements establishes that NPR's concerns were justified. NPR told Williams that engaging in "FOX-like" behavior was unacceptible, and warned their reporters to distance themselves. FOX's comments do not prove that Muslims are "this, that, or the other." It does prove that FOX is Islamophobic. It all meta.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The standard for stating as fact in WP that a contentious statement like "Fox is Islamophobic" is true is very high. At the least, you need several high-quality sources stating that as a fact, rather than an opinion-monger like Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh stating something as fact. Drrll (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
FOX itself prove it with its own programs. Maddow played the clips without comment. The compilation speaks for itself. Why not go and watch for yourself? 10/21/2010, article one. --S trinitrotoluene (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I went to the show archives, but they just had up to 10/20. Saying Fox News is Islamophobic is like me adding to the NPR article that it is Christophobic. There are plenty of clips from NPR that would support that notion, but I can't say that without extraordinary sourcing. Drrll (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The October 21 episode was last night! It will not be archived until after the October 22 episode airs.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The other two comment sections seem only to exist to draw a comparison with the latest "controversey". This is POV pushing of an agenda, especially given the comparative size of the subsections. Either refer to these in the subsection about Juan, or simply lump them all together in a general paragraph. Personally I don't think these represent long term notability, and seem only to serve to spin the current controversy. I don't care what Fox News or Rachel Maddox says. This is wikipedia, not a political forum. They way it is formatted now is clearly designed to make a political point rather than represent information in encyclopedic format. Can we please try to rise above using wiki to push political agendas?Jbower47 (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree as to Totenberg and Montgestgue. However, the information regarding FOX's Islamophobia is key to establishing NPR's rationale for warning its employees to limit their association with FOX. NPR has specific policies that run directly counter to NPR's. Williams violated those policies, and it led to is ouster. If Williams had violated other parts of NPR's policies, FOX's comments would be beside the point. Maddow only highlighted why NPR was justified in issuing their warning.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, you may not personally care what Maddow says; however, your opinion does not negate her credibility as source and her ablility to cite examples of Islamophobia transmitted by FOX itself. She didn't force FOX contributers to make those comments; FOX did it of their own accord.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to have the 3 in separate subsections, since it is the Controversies section. There's no reason why other controversy subsections can't be added. I wouldn't, however, object if the 3 controversies were mentioned in the same subsection. Drrll (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The line “Later, she apologized publicly to Williams for the comment” infers the she apologized directly to Williams. She did not.Grahamboat (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Rachel Maddow has no credbility unless birthers and 9/11 truthers do. She lies consitantly on her show.Nbaka is a joke (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the evidence? How does that impact the validity of the FOX clips within the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talkcontribs) 19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maddow's clips were the equivilent ofd a cut and paste, MSNBC can not be considered a legitimate source.Basil rock (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Will Mara Liasson be NPRs Next Purge Victim?

Apparently she is too moderate for the new NPR.

See discussion area on Mara Liasson Wikipedia page. (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source, see WP:CIRCULAR. aprock (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting using that as a source, but thought it would be a good place to start working from to get citations. There are useful leads there in that discussion along those lines. (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Liasson is ideologically impure after all... (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maddow, FOX, NPR, and Juan Williams

First, this issue was settled between user Wlmg, who is an official reviewer. Quoting Wlmg: "No one is disputing the anti-muslim stuff on Fox news." FOX News has made Islamophobic statements in the past; Maddow only took those quotes as clips and packaged them into montage. Direct quotes from FOX make the assertion that FOX does not make Islamophobic statements indefensible. To willfully suppress those facts violates NPOV.

Second, understanding that the culture a FOX is different from that at NPR is a key point in this story. Williams was warned that "O’Reilly is a professional provocateur and to be careful." The FOX clips show that NPR was justified in their concerns. Once Williams engaged in that behavior himself, he was fired.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

First, you are flat out wrong to state that Wlmg settled it. Second, the Maddow montage might be interesting but it is NOT about Juan Williams or NPR and this article is about NPR and the section we are discussing is about Juan Williams and NPR. Third, if is notable then it needs to be added to the FOX News article. And finally, to add it in when it is NOT even a part of the story line of Williams and NPR is original research. In sum, the Maddow stuff violates NPOV and no original research.--InaMaka (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Go back and re-read. 1 FOX engages in Islamophobic rhetoric as evidenced by FOX clips on Maddow. 2 Williams was warned of FOX'x Islamophobia by NPR management. 3 Williams ignored NPR's warning and participated in Islamophobic comments himself. Closed circle. All of this issues are interconnected. Also, this is your third UNDO.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like textbook WP:Synthesis to me. You can't connect multiple different issues together and say they're all related unless a specific source explicitly states that they are connected. I'm going to go take a look at the article now and see if there is an OR/SYN problem here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That addition is definitely and undeniably synthesis. What Rachel Maddow did or did not do has no clear connection to the Williams firing. If you have a source that explicitly connects them, it may be possible to add...but...the truth is that this section is already too long as it is. I don't have the ability or time to do it, but Williams firing, while it seems important now, is not so important in the long detailed history of NPR to deserve so much space or sourcing in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Not synthesis. To be synthesis, there must be A + B implys C. But there is no C made by me. NPR's editors made the conclusion that FOX makes comments to provoke. Maddow's clips illustrate provoking comments made by FOX. I don't draw any conclusions regarding those to facts. The reader is allowed to do that. I only cite two different sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talkcontribs) 13:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
InaMaka's mostly right on this one -- the Maddow stuff may be interesting, and present a point, but it really doesn't belong as part of this article. It would best be placed in an article such as Juan Williams firing controversy if it existed (and such an article probably shouldn't be created, since it's got notability problems right from the start). However, it's not original research -- it doesn't belong because the subject is Fox News or the Juan Willams controversy, not NPR per se. (Undue weight could also enter into this as well.) Original research would be attempting to draw conclusions from the montage that weren't stated in it.
In any case, S, please stop putting it in until and unless a consensus is reached here that it should go in -- and please note that both of you are treading on thin 3RR ice now. Content disputes won't be solved by endless reverting. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Striking out the above comment by me. InaMaka's still mostly right about this, but Qwyrxian's synthesis analysis makes more sense than mine. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been some new edits to the Juan WIlliams section not discussed here. Some seem fine, some a bit POV, and some don't seem to follow well:
1) On October 20, 2010, NPR terminated Senior News Analyst Juan Williams's independent contract[47] over comments which were referred to as "inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR" after years of comments in which NPR found unseemly for a journalist. News reports indicate that this is in reference to remarks he made on the Fox News Channel where he concurred with statements suggesting that the United States was facing a "Muslim dilemma"...
The second sentence does not reflect the sourced assertions of the first, i.e. that the firing was not just based just on the "muslim" comments, but on years of similar incidences. Perhaps the second sentence should be altered to read "NPR took action after the latest incident in which..." or something similar, to correspond with the pattern cited in the first sentence.
2) "O'Reilly has accused NPR of its bias in firing Williams as being a result of billionnaire liberal activist George Soros giving the organization $1,800,000.00 to promote his views. [54]"
I question the relevance and notability of this bit, and its inclusion smacks a bit of POV. The language is inflammatory and serves a political agenda. Even though it's not being presented as fact, but as a report of what someone said, I think it potentially levels these accusations vicariously. I'm not sure this is encyclopedic content.
I haven't edited either occurrence, I'd like to see what the rest of you think.Jbower47 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In addition to 2) above, I'm not sure the reference even supports the claim being made. O'Reilly mentions the Foundations grant, but never explicitly states that the two events are linked. He seems to be using it as another way to mock NPR. Here is the text: "A few days ago, NPR accepted $1.8 million from far-left bomb-thrower George Soros. That in itself is a disgrace because NPR also takes taxpayer money. Now the National Public Radio crew is in bed with the radical Soros? Talk about a lack of standards." It doesn't go on to relate this to the Williams situation in the way the reference is made.Jbower47 (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no proof of Islamicphobic statements by Fox. This is just propganda spread by Maddow a hate monger of no credibility and CAIR a support of islamic terrorism.Basil rock (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Juan Williams was Ideologically Impure, So is Mara Liasson

Should we include a section on ideological purification under the current management? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed "Soros" grant section

The article referenced did not support the content of the section. George Soros is not mentioned in the article. The grant is from, not "through", the Foundation. I removed the reference to Soros, and referenced the Foundation directly. I'm sure the original was just oversight, and not political POV, but the original content did not match the reference it cited, and has been corrected. Jbower47 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The funding was by Soros through his foundation. The NYT reference dances around the issue. This reference by former Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz makes clear that the funding was by Soros: "yesterday was the day that NPR announced a new grant—$1.8 million from liberal philanthropist George Soros to hire 100 new reporters. " Also, another reference from the NYT: "Soros has also given NPR $1.8 million to hire more local political reporters" Drrll (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
George Soros is the chairman of the organization. See their website. (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the Wikipedia page on the Foundation lists Soros as the founder.C76 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this section. The funding accounts for 1% of NPR revenues, and there are many larger sources of funding which are not mentioned. This appears to only be included for OR/SYNTH/POV reasons. aprock (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I put the section back in. The funding accounts for about the same proportion of NPR's revenues as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If the funding section is incomplete, the problem won't be corrected by deleting information. C76 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The direct and indirect funding that NPR gets from CPB is much more relevant that of any particular grant. Currently it amounts to roughly 5.5%, and in the past has been much much higher. Cherry picking a particular grant source is clearly UNDUE, and appears to be an effort to insert POV content. aprock (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reading my mind. (WP:GOODFAITH) It's a big grant, and it was just in the news. Why are you so determined to keep it out? C76 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not a question of determination, it's a question of policies. Wikipedia is not a news source, and it's not the editor's job to pick and choose which grants to highlight based on personal whim. aprock (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia isn't a news source, but the fact that it was in the news indicates that it is noteworthy. Certainly current events are fair game for Wikipedia articles. You say that other grants are more significant than the OSF grant? Let's see some facts. What are the more significant grants that are being ignored? C76 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I would agree the section on the grant should stay. However, the deliberate mention of Soros is political POV, and still isn't supported by citation (not mentioned in the link given). How about the compromise of keeping the section on the grant, but leaving the contents as is, currently (mentions foundation with link it, where all the potential information about the foundation is available). I have made this edit to the existing text (removing Soros). Unless there is some NPOV relevancy to specifically calling out Soros, then I think this should stand.Jbower47 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it's tenable to mention the grant without Soros. Soros IS the Open Society Foundations. The URL for the Open Society Foundations is (oops: I meant .org, not .com), for crying out loud. It's easy enough to add an external citation (for example), but the connection is already on the linked Wikipedia page. Isn't another Wikipedia page acceptable? C76 (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like Fox News or other Wikipedia pages, here's another citation. C76 (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it's tenable to suggest the grant is from Soros (the original text), or how it's relevant to single him out. It's not how foundations are usually referred to. We don't refer to the Sierra Club as John Muir's Sierra Club. The link you posted does not relate to the grant, and it indicates exactly what we've been getting at...Soros is not sum and substance of the Foundation. If he was the sole member, that would be one thing. He's not. He is the founder and acting chairman of a group consisting of a large number of staff and offices. Additionally, adding him in serves political POV without providing anything of relevancy to the article. And to restate what I mentioned above, the full information on the organization is available at the wiki page for the organization. There's no reason to single out a detail about the organization unless one is trying to draw emphasis on that detail. Since Soros' name seems to be bandied about as a "guilt-by-association" tactic by some political leanings in public forums, and since adding his name adds nothing to the article, NPOV is better served by simply referencing the Foundation. Why just pull out the detail about the founder? Why is that any more relevant than, say, where their headquarters are? Or who their president is? The emphasis on this particular detail is for an agenda, something that does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. I'd suggest that the current compromise stand (as written). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbower47 (talkcontribs) 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This reference by former Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz makes clear that the funding was by Soros: "yesterday was the day that NPR announced a new grant—$1.8 million from liberal philanthropist George Soros to hire 100 new reporters. " Also, another reference from the NYT: "Soros has also given NPR $1.8 million to hire more local political reporters." Drrll (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Both references are opinion pieces (the first a blog, and the second an opinion piece that refers to the article already cited. The author opines that it is from Soros, but the article he cites specifically states it is not.) The fact remains that the money did not come from Soros directly. It was a grant from the Foundation. I feel the current source is more credible. Stating the grant was from Soros is factually wrong. Regardless, pushing to include Soros serves POV, not NPOV and offers nothing for the article. This is not a discussion of the Foundations, it's a discussion of NPR. Jbower47 (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Kurtz is a respected and well-known media analyst, reporting for many years on the media for the Washington Post and hosting a media analysis TV program on CNN. He's role at the Daily Beast is as a journalist and media analyst. That's the point of the NYT reference in his article, pointing out that it omitted the obvious ("didn’t even mention Soros’ liberal views"). The NYT reference does not "specifically state it is not" from Soros--it omits mention of Soros. Drrll (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't know what role Soros had in awarding the grant, so we can't say that Soros awarded the grant. However, it is Soros's money being awarded (according to the organization, Soros is their sole funder). The article should simply say that Soros founded the foundation and leave it at that. C76 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I added back that Soros gave the grant, based on two news sources, NOT opinion sources. There are 2 additional non-opinion news sources that I didn't add that also say that it was Soros that gave the grant to NPR. The grant to NPR was announced the same week that Soros quite publicly announced a grant to Media Matters for America, also given through the same Open Society vehicle. aprock reverted the addition. Drrll (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The CNN source does not discuss the grant. Linking the source's mention of Soros with the grant is SYNTH. The Fox News article makes it clear that the Open Society Foundation is the entity administering the grant. The details of their funding can be found in the article about the foundation. The Fox News article does not make it clear who is getting the donation. It might also be worthwhile to remember "WP is not obligated to use whatever material these sources put out." aprock (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The CNN source does discuss the grant, though it may not use the magic word "grant." Both sources make it clear that it is Soros making the grant donation to NPR, as do two additional sources:
  • CNN: KURTZ: "Should National Public Radio this week -- terrible timing -- have accepted almost $2 million from the left-wing philanthropist George Soros to hire 100 reporters? Doesn't that reinforce the stereotype that the right loves to throw around about NPR that it's a left-leaning operation?"
  • "Juan Williams may be gone from National Public Radio's line-up of commentators, but billionaire liberal icon George Soros has donated $1.8 million to hire 100 new reporters for 50 of its member stations."
  • Fox News Channel: Fox Special Report with Bret Baier, October 22, JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: "At the same time, Mara Liasson, NPR's national political correspondent and a long-time FOX News contributor also came under attack from Media Matters, the liberal media watchdog group that critiques FOX News more or less full-time and which, like NPR itself, receives funding from liberal billionaire George Soros."
  • CNN: The Situation Room, October 22, BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "But NPR's private donors are also inviting criticism. George Soros just gave a $1.8 million grant last week, the stated purpose, hiring more state and local reporters. But Soros is politically active billionaire who mostly gives to causes on the left. And while an NPR spokeswoman said donors don't affect their editorial content, Soros' contribution adds fuel to the fire for critics who call the broadcaster leftist."
Drrll (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I read the sources, and they are ambiguous and imprecise about the details. There are better sources, with more complete details. It seems like you're going to extraordinary lengths to find sources which confuse the facts. The CNN source is an interview, not news reporting. The Fox News source does not say that Soros donated the funds to NPR, which is correct since he funds the OSF, not NPR. The OSF is a multinational foundation that promotes democratic governance. OSF and Soros are two different entities, and while he funds the OSF, George Soros is not involved in the day-to-day management of the Open Society Foundations [6] There are certainly more details which one might consider including about the OSF, but instead of doing that here, a link to the appropriate article is included which covers those facts in better detail. aprock (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that reliable sources state that Soros made the contribution, and WP goes by reliable sources. Of the 4 sources, the CNN source by Brian Todd is the clearest about Soros giving the grant to NPR. That Soros may not involved in much of the "day-to-day management" does not mean that he isn't involved in the decisions about grants. From this press release, it is quite clear that he is very involved in decision-making about grants. Drrll (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, reliable sources say all kinds of things about OSF, which is why there is a separate article about it. aprock (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
But we're not just talking about what goes into the OSF article--we're talking about OSF-related material that goes into this article as it pertains to NPR. And according to reliable sources, Soros made the OSF grant to NPR. Drrll (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a situation (as discussed above) where some sources are ambiguous and imprecise. In a situation such as that, it's better to use sources which are clear and straightforward. Those sources which are clear all agree that it is an OSF grant. aprock (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The sources you refer to are incomplete in their description of the grant. Yes, it is an OSF grant, but it was Soros who gave the grant ("George Soros just gave a $1.8 million grant last week"). It should be mentioned that way unless you have a reliable source that refutes that contention. Drrll (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not how sourcing works. The source you quote here is an interview, and is not reporting on the news event. That's a fine source for the interviewee, but not for news events. That the NYT source refutes that. As does the OSF website. aprock (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The source I most recently quoted is not an interview, but a reporting segment (see . I also think that the first CNN reference I used with Kurtz is OK as a source, since his role is as a reporter, not as a Larry King-like interviewer (I would like to see specific WP policy quoted where questioning by a reporter is deemed not a reliable source). Please quote the part of the NYT source that refutes that Soros gave the OSF grant (I don't see how the OSF website could be considered a reliable source, except for its own WP article). Drrll (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that George Soros did not give a grant, it's difficult to view that transcript as reliable. aprock (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, what's the specific quote from a reliable source that states that Soros did not give the grant? Soros himself said of his OSF grant to Media Matters for America, "I have now decided to support the organization." His role in the grant couldn't have been stated any clearer. Drrll (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to find a source for things which did not happen. Things which do not happen are generally not reported. For example, you will find no reliable source that says "The earth did no explode last Wednesday". I'll also note that this article is about NPR, not Media Matters. At this point I'm done with this conversation. If you have a further issue with sourcing, I suggest you take it to WP:RSN. aprock (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
(Realizing you won't respond to this) You're awfully sure that Soros didn't give the grant, even though there are multiple reliable news sources that say that he did, and there are no reliable sources that contradict this. My point about the Media Matters OSF grant was that it clearly demonstrates that, despite any disclaimers on the OSF website that he's not involved in day-to-day management, Soros plays a very active role in making the OSF grants. Since multiple reliable sources state that Soros gave the money to NPR, I don't see the point in going to WP:RSN. Drrll (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Unless you can come up with better sourcing for the Soros mention, I'll be removing the mention in due course. aprock (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The source I used is probably the best of the four I mentioned earlier since it specifically mentions that Soros gave a grant to NPR (I could use all 4 sources, but that seems like overkill). It is straight reporting from a CNN correspondent, not some right-wing source. You can't disqualify reliable sources just because they don't agree with your idea of what's true. Drrll (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in all your googling, you've managed to find one transcript where a commentator says something which disagrees with more detailed sources. This looks like a clear case of WP:SYN, searching and searching for a source that agrees with the facts as you'd like them to be. aprock (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, if the NYT source or another source refutes the reporting (not commentary) that Soros gave the OSF grant, then by all means show that by quoting the relevant parts. Drrll (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the NYT source does refute that. From the first sentence: "NPR has received a $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundations..." aprock (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've removed the Soros claim. Insertion of this material appears to be an attempt to insert a particular viewpoint which is not at all represented by reliable sources. Per WP:UNDUE the views of tiny minorities should not be included, and I have removed it. aprock (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That NYT's quote does not refute the reporting that Soros gave the OSF grant. The two facts are hardly mutually exclusive. Given that there are 2 CNN sources, 1 Fox News source, and 1 source that indicate that Soros gave the money to NPR, the true "views of tiny minorities" is the NYT's piece that omits (but does not refute) Soros' role. What do others who may be following this discussion think? Drrll (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It certainly does refute it. You have only one source that says "Soros gave 1.8 billion to NPR" in passing, none of the others say that. That you say they do is WP:SYNTH. This really is a sourcing issue. All but one of the sources you've provided do not support the text you wish to insert. If you're dead set on saying that Soros gave the money to NPR, you're going to have to find some reliable source which is reporting on the grant in something more substantial than a passing manner which details that fact. So far, all you've found are ambiguous and minor mentions in some small set of selected articles. By all means, present a spectrum of news stories from the WSJ, the NYT, the Washington time, the Washington Examiner, the New York Post, The Weekly Standard, etc, which say that it was Soros who gave NPR the money. aprock (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Three of the four sources I listed above do indicate that Soros gave $1.8 million /"almost $2 million" to NPR (the Fox News Channel source just says that Soros supports NPR). There is no threshold in Wikipedia policy for sources mentioning a fact "in passing" or mentioning in depth for them to be acceptable. There are other opinion and analysis pieces that state this as fact, but I want to stick with straight news stories. Instead of continuing to revert each other, how about we come up with text that we can both live with--text that both mentions that Soros gave NPR money (as 3 of the sources indicate) and that the donation came in the form of an OSF grant (as the NYT source indicates). Drrll (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
So you say. I've read the sources, and that's not what the sources say. With respect to wikipedia policy, please see WP:DUE. I'm happy to include any content which is represented by reliable sources, as opposed to any WP:SYNTH. aprock (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Is it a violation of WP:UNDUE to mention that George Soros contributed to NPR? Information about this Open Society Foundation grant is already included in the article, but an editor has insisted that Soros not be mentioned. Three reliable sources attribute the donation to Soros specifically (CNN's Howard Kurtz, CNN's Brian Todd, and as opposed to just OSF generically (as is done in a New York Times article). The sources are listed in the subsection just above this one. Drrll (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course Soros should be mentioned his foundation is just a front. We should put Soros involvement in the forefront.

There seems to be a movement on Wikipedia to hide George Soros involvement of radical causes.Basil rock (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source which indicates his foundation is a front, then that should certainly be included in the article on the OSF. With respect to reliable sourcing, only one of the cited sources (not three) say that Soros gave the money to NPR. Given that this is a singular view that does not agree with all the other reliable sources, inclusion would certainly violate WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources sometimes get things wrong, and in the case where none but one of the source make this incorrect claim, inclusion is hardly justifiable. aprock (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No, three sources say that Soros gave this money to NPR (Kurtz: "Should National Public Radio this week -- terrible timing -- have accepted almost $2 million from the left-wing philanthropist George Soros to hire 100 reporters?"; "Juan Williams may be gone from National Public Radio's line-up of commentators, but billionaire liberal icon George Soros has donated $1.8 million to hire 100 new reporters for 50 of its member stations."; Todd: "But NPR's private donors are also inviting criticism. George Soros just gave a $1.8 million grant last week, the stated purpose, hiring more state and local reporters.") The NYT source does not contradict the fact that Soros gave the OSF grant to NPR and Soros has publicly admitted to giving another OSF grant (to Media Matters for America). Drrll (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
What's happening here is that you're synthesizing content. Neither the first or the second source mention the grant, only the third source says that the OSF grant is a Soros grant. This is exactly the problem with using sources which only mention the topic in passing, there are too many synthesis problems. aprock (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, you appear to be quoting editorials. Opinion pieces are NEVER used for factual material. They can establish the opinions of their authors, but not stated facts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
No, if you would follow the links you would see that all 3 references are straight news--2 from CNN reporters / anchors. Drrll (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No, talking heads roundtable shows are opinion, not news. And the NYT article doesn't even mention Soros. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In the one out of three straight news references you are referring to, Kurtz's role is anchor/reporter, not talking head as is clear from the transcript of the show and his CNN bio. Drrll (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to note that I have no connection to this article or any of the related articles or topics, I stumbled upon this discussion while browsing the rfc listings after a night filled with turkey dinner and pumpkin pies. That being said I think the appropriate way to reference is to not reference George Soros by name unless it can be proven that he gave the grant himself, rather it should just be mentioned that the the organization gave the donation. If someone really wants to find out who runs the organization than they can easily click the link otherwise it does give undue weight to one member (This isn't Jimmy Wales's Wikipedia after all) and could definitely be construed as being a POV push. I also believe that this is in-line with how other organizations are presented where the organization is named and if a reader clicks through to that organization's Wikipedia page then they can see who runs it, who funds it, etc... Just my two wiki-cents, hopefully an extra view was helpful. Cat-five - talk 06:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)