Talk:David Shuster

Metamorphosis of David Shuster

David Shuster seems to have gone through some kind of metamorphosis which seems to be generating some controversy. On Fox news he was more of a straight up news reporter. As a MSNBC correspondent and substitute host, he has taken on the style of his opinion driven anchors which he reports for and substitutes for by injecting more of his opinions into his reporting. The article just now is beginning to touch on the controversy he is generating and doesn’t touch on the change in style of his reporting.--CSvBibra 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

David Schuster article

There is also an article on Shuster entitled "David Schuster"--it refers to the same person, and these need to be merged. G-my (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exceptionally slanted footnotes

I would be cautious about referencing quotes from decidedly biased web sites (ie, footnote (2) MSNBC's David Shuster: 'I Am Convinced That Karl Rove Will, In Fact, Be Indicted.' | NewsBusters.org ). While the quote itself may be accurate, it's source is subject to question.Their tag line is "Exposing Liberal Bias in the News" kind of gives pause to their credibility--Frank (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wik quotes MEDIAMATTERS.org, the MIRROR image of newsbusters, PROFUSELY. Why all of a sudden the bias sensitivity? Hmmm....68.40.123.217 (talk)

He did say that about Karl Rove. It's an irrefutable fact and proves he's an UNRELIABLE journalist. It SHOULD be part of his article, albeit in a controversies section. Whoops! I forgot, only NON-liberal TV personalities have any controversies. At least on Wikipedia! 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue?

I think there is some undue weight here. I am always in support of adding relevant and verifiable information, but David Shuster is not principally known for his controversial statements, but for his career as a journalist. I agree that such info should be included to a certain extent, but I would suggest separating the MSNBC section and merging the controversial statements from that with the Clinton info under a single section. Joshdboz (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jewish journalists

It seems to me if one feels that the category "Jewish journalist" is not valid because that category should not be used in Wikipedia, you should strive to get rid of the whole category rather that keep removing it from this particular article. If the argument was that it is not clear that David Shuster was 1) Jewish or 2) a journalist, then your approach would be correct.--CSvBibra (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article does not point out a person's religion or ethnicity with citations, they should not be added to a category it seems. Just my take. --Tom 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

It's sometimes been mentioned that he's not fair. He was also confronted on this by by John Ziegler. He didn't deny his claims, and seemed to have conceded his argument. Should these claims be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.155 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the article unless it can be referenced or footnoted with the source.--CSvBibra (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Teabagging

I'm concerned that this section isn't really all that notable. Yes, we've established that this occurred, but there's nothing in the section that discusses why it's significant. It sounds like he made a double-entendre, but there's nothing written in our article as to why it's significant. The section about the Chelsea Clinton is well sourced, showing in-depth coverage. The fight with Scarborough? The Trade Center pieces? Teabagging? Where is the depth of coverage for these sections? AniMate^talk 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The language Shuster used was not very encyclopedic which is why it is he received so much public attention for making such distasteful prepared comments on a self declared news program. Once the Drudge Report linked to an article on the subject, talk radio also followed up on the story. I think some language could be added to give context to why it is notable. --CSvBibra (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Language doesn't need to be added, actual analysis does. We have one link to Think Progress's blog and the other to a Fox News story that isn't there anymore. If this is notable, there should be some easy links to reliable sources discussing why it is notable. Can you find any? AniMate^talk 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I found many many articles on the subject, I will remove Fox and add some of them from the left, right and center.--CSvBibra (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

After removing some unreliable sources, I'm still not convinced that this is particularly notable. I'll let it stand, but the section is terribly written. I can see what he has stated, but as it is written all I can see are his statements. You need to craft the section to show why it is notable. Actually use the sources to explain why it is notable, not just that it occurred. Also, think long and hard about whether or not this will be notable in a year. It's certainly a relatively funny and timely aside, but when we look at the totality of Shuster's career, is this one on-air segment really and truly notable. AniMate^talk 21:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good article

I think this is a very good article and there are too few articles this well-balanced and journalistic on any major figures on Wiki. So kudos to all the good work that went into it. NaySay (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life -- child's name and DOB

The Personal life section included a statement of the exact date of birth and full name of Shuster's first child. This was completely unsourced. It had a ref with nothing in it but an alphanumerc tag, similar to tags used as ref names elsewhere. I trached the data to its first insertion in october 2013, and nothign but the tag was ever there. If the tag followed pattern it should have referred to a Washington Post article of June 2013, which is plausible, but the actual citation was not entered. In any case, I don't think this data is encyclopedic or relevant here. The full name and exact birth date of a child who is still a minor, indeed less than 5 at the moment, can easily be abused, and seem to have little relevance to the rest of the article. That Shuster and his wife had a child and the approximate date gives all the info needed by the reader, in my view. WP:BLPNAME says: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. ... names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." I think this applies here. DES ^(talk) 21:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Shuster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080216095059/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/shuster_suspended_for_pimped_out_comment_77059.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/shuster_suspended_for_pimped_out_comment_77059.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220004955/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/nm/20080214/tv_nm/msnbc_dc_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080214/tv_nm/msnbc_dc_1

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)