Talk:David S. Broder/Archive 1

Archive 1

College degree

The University of Chicago calls a bachelor of arts degree an A.B., rather than today’s usual B.A. The A.B. stands for the Latin "artium baccalaureus." Chicago’s diplomas—including the names of the graduate and of the University president— were originally printed in Latin. When the language on the diplomas was changed to the vernacular— thus, bachelor of arts—the abbreviation was kept the same.

Natasha Jog?

There is a comment about the Indian NDTV journalist Natasha Jog on this post. What is its significance?

Rv of Broder defends Bush edits

I have reversed "the Broder defends Bush and criticizes Dems" because I believe this crosses the POV border line. Hey, I'm no fan of Bush, have worked on campaigns against him as an Dem activist, but this is Wiki. Broder as a pundit is a critic of both. He just tends to support whoever is in power. Maybe this section needs reworking with more references of Broder's centrist pov and its ramifications

The way the previous edit stood it makes it seem like Broder is a Bush lackey, and what I've seeen of Broder this is just demostrably 100% not true (see: Meet the Press, etc). Also no reference was provided. Luigibob 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But he is a Bush lackey. Deceglie 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Booman Tribune

Deleted. While well worded, it's anonymous, and as such, not worthy of an encyclopeia. Period! I did think about it for a long time, however. Oooops! Luigibob 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of criticism section

I've removed this articles criticism section for a couple of reasons:

1. Undue Weight - this is a tenet of our NPOV policies. The criticism of Broder clearly comes from a fringe - even the quoted media matters article starts off by saying how everyone regards him as the best journalist in the business.[1] The question is - how much of a fringe position is this and what weight should we give it? Clearly, the criticism section as it currently stands is far too much since it takes up about half as much space as the section on his career.
2. WP:NPOV - serious POV problems with the first paragraph
3. Possible conflict of interest issues - I really don't like that a User:Owillis is editing a paragraph with a link to Oliver Willis' blog - needs more investigating. GabrielF 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that 50 Senators just jointly sent a letter to the Washington Post criticizing Broder, I don't think you can claim that's a fringe position any more. Broder may once have been regarded as the best journalist in the business, but that was a long time ago.Unlearned hand 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone believe any public figure, let alone a columnist with a four-decade career, should not have gotten criticism at some point? Broder was recently dressed down by half of the US Senate for his utterly unfair and baseless criticism of Harry Reid. Wikipedia reports that Frank Rich has been criticized (FWIW) by Bill O'Reilly. Which fact is more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Moreover, the entire entry is as milquetoast as one can get. No hint is given of what sort of ideas earned him a Pulitzer in 1973. Yes, this is my POV, but the glowing accolades seem to come from those for whom he spoke (i.e. the DC punditocracy) when he said of Bill Clinton, "He came in here and he trashed the place, and it's not his place." [2] Personally, when a columnist is rebuked by half the Senate, I find that more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, even if it had happened to be the half of the Senate I disagree with, than the ranting of one right-wing gasbag.Yak99 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)yak99

I didn't realize that 50 senators signed onto the letter. That is significant. I think we should have a couple of sentences about that letter and then a sentence about the Media Matters article - I don't like that a Media Matters employee is editing a criticism section with a link to his own blog post and another Media Matters column. GabrielF 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Reid story is too recent, and too much still-in-play, to put in this article (we might as well see how the Reid story turns out; if Reid steps down next week, I expect Brock will get a lot more quiet about this). And the "fifty senators signing on" thing I think is meaningless--of course all the Democratic senators will sign a letter saying "we think our leader is lovely and charming", no matter what they may say in private. OTOH, this isn't the first time the center-left Broder has ticked off people to his left (I believe he did it in the Lewinski matter, too). I could see having a section noting his general politics, and his willingness to harshly criticize both Democrats and Republicans--which tends to piss off the Democrats more, because, hey, we Republicans are used to getting criticized in the Washington Post. -- Narsil 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's so meaningless that it's never happened before. I think this unprecedented criticism needs to be addressed, just because it's so unusual. David "President Bush is poised for a comeback" Broder is little more than a somnambulant right-wing mouthpiece these days, but the fact that his recent work has been so ridiculous as to get him called out by half the Senate is notable simply because of his status as the "dean" of Washington punditry.Unlearned hand 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"It's never happened before"--you mean, senators have never before complained about a columnist who criticized a member of their party? I think you're mistaken about that. In any event, too recent, too ephemeral. Nobody will be talking about this a week from now. -- Narsil 18:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism that was removed was weakly sourced. This has clearly received attention outside of blogs, though. Caucus letterEditor & PublisherNY Sun editorialKathleen Parker columnLas Vegas SunE&P again One wishes to avoid recentism, but it really is unusual for an entire legislative caucus to criticize a journalist known (at least in the past) for his even-handedness and overall honesty.--Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor and Publisher is a very good source since its a newspaper trade journal, much better than Media Matters. I am okay with adding a couple of sentence that summarize the controversy and citing E&P, however I'd rather do it in the body of the article and not as a separate "criticism" section. GabrielF 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag, February 2008

ID 12.47.123.121, registered to the Washington Post, has tagged the article for POV. Not having contributed to this article, I will say that to my untrained eye he or she may have a point. But tagging an article serves little purpose if you do not also indicate on the talk page why you are tagging it (see template:NPOV). Elphion (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As such I am removing tag. I see little, if anything, that is controversial. It's quite a simple bio and needs to be expanded. Luigibob (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Content Corrections and Accuracy.

There are inaccuracies on this David S. Broder page that require corrections to improve usefulness and accuracy. Verifiability is of utmost importance. Any corrections, minor or major will be substantiated with citations to sources, external or within Wikipedia. Bluestarfish88 (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious about reformatting the "High Broderism" as more of a definition rather than cite a blogger. Any thoughts on this?

Bluestarfish88 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)