Talk:Jeff Kuhner

sorry for the misunderstanding

I removed this from the article:

In 2007, the New York Times labeled Kuhner purveyor of "the first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race" for publishing a factually-incorrect article about U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama, in which an anonymous writer for Insight claimed that Obama had attended a radical Islamic Madrassa school in Indonesia as a youth. The article also cited anonymous sources.

Because the article was quickly picked up and propagated by the United States mass media, Kuhner and Insight became notable not only as publisher and source of the debunked article, but also as an example of journalistic unreliability. Fox News was also brought further into the spotlight for running the web-based story without first verifying its claims.

According to the New York Times article,

To most journalists, the notion of anonymous reporters relying on anonymous sources is a red flag. "If you want to talk about a business model that is designed to manufacture mischief in large volume, that would be it," said Ralph Whitehead Jr., a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts. With so much anonymity, "How do we know that Insight magazine actually exists?” Professor Whitehead added. “It could be performance art."

Even though CNN has proven the Insight article be inaccurate, Kuhner maintains that it is "solid as solid can be".[1]

[edit] References

1. ^ "Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It’s False", New York Times, 29 January 2007. Retrieved on 2007-01-29.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_T._Kuhner"

This is a lot of information about one incident and takes up about 90% of the article. I didn't intend to "blank out" the article however. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try a compromise so there is a link to the incident's own article and only 50% of this article will be taken up by it. Please let me know how you think about it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

I've tagged the article as potentially non-notable. It was originally a coatrack for the "Obama-Madrassa" story. Now it just basically mentions that Kuhner is a guy with a job, with a couple of controversies mentioned. There is really no information about him as a person. Steve Dufour 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a stub, but it's not non-notable. First, the article notes that Kuhner is an editor and contributor to numerous publications. Second, it adheres to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Third, Kuhner has been the subject of articles in the NYT. This is a good reason for expansion, not deletion. Your close ties to the organizations behind Insight and Washington Times, as evidenced in your profile page, make your edits to these articles seem dubious. You should be careful as you attempt to water down these pages.Athene cunicularia 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But the articles which mention him only talk about the Obama-Madrassa story, almost nothing is said about Mr. Kuhner himself. BTW I removed a mention of him calling for a war against Iran. If he was truly notable this probably would have attracted some media attention. Steve Dufour 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course Mr. Kuhner is notable. A simple news.google.com archive search on his name should easily clear this up.

Jeff Kuhner in the News

Count the hits and review a quick sampling for "notability". riverguy42 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on getting more info into the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate it Steve, and I hope this article will NOT wind up looking like yet another in a series of recent efforts to "decontroversialize" or otherwise rehabilitate some of the more controversial Unification Church media related people or institutions. Media people and institutions are "built to be criticized" -- that's the only way to keep 'em honest, as you may know that the world of political speech provides virtually unlimited liscence to lie, smear etc. Meanwhile there is plenty of good stuff to say, for example about what appears to be Preston Moon's efforts to clean up some of News World Communications 'messier' stuff. To the extent that the UC is beginning to "clean house", this is good for all of us, Church Members or not.riverguy42 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jkuhner edits

I reverted the edits by Jkuhner. Not only were the edits largely uncited, but they were also self-serving and definitely affected NPOV. If these edits were made by Jeffrey Kuhner, he should know that Wikipedia strongly discourages editing your own entry; if you feel like you must do so, be very careful.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A justified step for the reasons given (also see WP:AUTO), but the Jkuhner version [1] can be mined for verifiable material, and should be. Andyvphil (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your last edit, which said

In January 2007, Insight erroneously reported that 2008 American Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama had been educated in a radical anti-American Muslim school while growing up in Indonesia.

This in inaccurate. The article actually reads:

Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case.

So the prior wording was correct. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Publishtruth and Jkuhner

At the Jeffrey T. Kuhner article, a user named Jkuhner edited the page. Shortly after this user was notifited about WP:Auto, a new user named User:Publishtruth joined and began to make similar edits. I have asked this editor to stop making edits until we can build a consensus on the articles. The editor is not making an effort to follow Wikipedia editing standards, and is merely adding information or making changes without regard to standards. Maybe it's time we should temporarily disable editing on this article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, this is a response written by Publishtruth on the Insight magazine article:

Dear Editors: I wish to apologize for the misunderstanding earlier. Both publishtruth and jkuhner were first-time users and did not know how Wikipedia works. We will respect the process and did not mean to disrupt the site; we thought we just had to keep loading the information until it got through. We will provide verifiable links in the next while to a great deal of information your readers need in order to form their own judgements on these vital matters. However, we will be on our guard to prevent the text from giving credence to many of the smears and distortions which have been propagated by both the liberal press and supporters of Hillary due to a blockbuster story which we produced which unveiled her use of investigative reporters in an attempt to dig up dirt on Obama and derail his campaign. We will not tolerate a biased representation of either Mr. Kuhner's name (he has an outstanding reputation) nor of Insight whose reporting has NOT been disproven. In fact, the debate has now reemerged with the piece published in the front page of the Washington Post this week which has caused an uproar among its editors (see Politico.com) because again the reporting on Obama appears to be driven not by facts but by a political agenda. I assure you Insight will be vindicated. And I repeat, we will be respectful of the process but are not going to accept being undermined if you persist in presenting information which attempts to smear us but does not give equal weight to our side of this vital story. What is at stake here are the very standards with which the press does its job and both CNN and The New York Times chose to cover up for Hillary rather than expose the truth. So just give us a fair representation and don't tilt the information in favor of the attacks against us. If you are even-handed, we are confident your readers will get the full story and will realize how right we are. Best wishes, publishtruth Dec. 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publishtruth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my response.

Just be cautious with your editing. It is now not only clear that your organization supports a specific, non-neutral point of view, but also that your organization intends to change the tone of these articles to support your non-neutral point of view. If you wish to make changes, please bear in mind that there are several people who actively monitor these articles, and that the content is judged by consensus, not your definition of "reputation" or "vindication. If you continue to make disruptive edits, your organization could be banned from editing Wikipedia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Response from JKuhner: Thank you for your observations. Now, how do we correct/update the information such as the information under employees? Also, the previous Insight Magazine (print edition) has nothing to do with this online publication.

As far as my bio, this information is correct so how does one get this information published? Thank you for the corrections you have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkuhner (talk • contribs) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What I would recommend would be to draft your edits here in the Talk page with input from the other people who watch this page. If you don't want it to be removed, make sure that any information you wish to include can be easily found in your citations. Your edits should also be in your own words, not taken directly from another website. Even your own biographical information must be cited, even if you personally know it to be true. You may also want to make small edits that improve other Wikipedia articles unrelated to you to get a feel for editing, and what is required. The problem is not that your information is not wanted here, it is just that there are standards and formatting that you should know about before drastically altering an article.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

JK, I see that you missed my response to you on the discussion page of your talk page. The most important part was: please read WP:AUTO. One problem I see with AC's response is that we can't really cite to a Wikipedia talk page or attribute JKuhner's writings there to Jeffrey T. Kuhner. However, if you put the bio you wrote on your own site it would serve two purposes: we could cite to it, and it would make what you say attributable to you. Btw, I take your point that you never said Obama had attended a madrassa (though you certainly seemed to imply that you believed from what you'd been told that he probably had). Did you know Ann Coulter never said John Edwards was a faggot? Same way you "said" Obama went to a madrassa, it turns out to be not quite true. Andyvphil (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama controversy

I'm not sure why this information can't be included on this page. Just because the information can be found elsewhere, doesn't seem like a good reason to keep it off of a page. The incident is partially what makes Kuhner notable because he was criticized for his editorial judgment by the mass media. However, the incident as it's described (below), to me, seems balanced and neutral.Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Main article: Media influence of anti-Obama whisper campaigns § Television and radio

In January 2007, Kuhner was criticized by the New York Times after Insight reported on a rumor that US presidential candidate Barack Obama was educated in a radical anti-American Muslim school while growing up in Indonesia. According to Insight, the opposition research war room of fellow-Democratic party candidate Hillary Clinton had propagated the rumor, but all elements of the rumor were denied by Senators Clinton and Obama.

Giving half the space in the article to one news story he published seems to me to be undue weight. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing the section doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it. Why not try to expand the article instead? The fact that the criticism surrounding the Obama article is central to Kuhner's notability makes it worth keeping. I think that it should be put back. Do you have any other reasons for removing it, other than that it's your personal opinion that the incident shouldn't be included in his article?Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is undue weight. He has had a career of many years and done many things. One half of his article should not be taken up by one story he published. If that is the only noteworthy thing about him then the whole article should be deleted. (Please note that when I took the paragraph out I added the fact that Insight is sometimes controversial. People can jump to Insight's article if they want to find out about the controversies. Also note that the NYT story about the Obama story is one of the three references so people can check that out if they like.) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that helps at all. This seems to me more like COI on your part. You should recuse yourself from editing articles about organizations owned by the the Unification Church, due to your close affiliation to them.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. I said that you should recuse yourself due to COI. I have filed a complaint against you for COI, and I have referred this article to an admin.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case all members of the Democratic Party should recuse themselves from editing articles about Senators Clinton and Obama. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On the second thought, please keep editing. Just remember to spell "Insight" right. "Kuhner" could be a little more difficult. Happy Holidays to all. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other users have chimed in at the COI. Perhaps if Steve will just be mindful of the distinction between (1) everyone's natural desire to promote their own ideas and (2) the pledge all Wikipedians take to describe both sides of all controversies fairly.

Many liberals and environmentalists create and edit articles at Wikipedia, and some are even admins. It takes a certain objectivity, even a willingness to write for the enemy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I will keep those things in mind. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Please do not use this article as a WP:COATRACK for Insight magazine's political storylines

Perhaps we should remove the "2008 election smear" from this article altogether, as it seems that any representation here at all is going to be controversial. WNDL42 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI,

"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats".

Recent reinforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned.

Coatrack articles can be born out of purposeful desire to promote a particular bias, or they can be born accidentally through unintended excessive focus on some part of the nominal subject.

Coatrack articles violate the core Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, this is a very serious problem that requires drastic measures. It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable.

I think that says it all... WNDL42 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And this diff establishes historical context that the subject of this article and at least two other accounts (that look like WP:MEATPUPPET accounts) have been attempting to use the article for just that purpose. WNDL42 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the information that you removed is part of an ongoing discussion. I'm not sure that everyone agrees that the information you removed is irrelevant to Kuhner's article. I know I don't. I agree that the article shouldn't be a coatrack, but I disagree that inclusion of the information necessarily makes the article negatively balanced.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Athene, I support your assessment, and your revert of my content deletion. Thanks for talking about it. I also left an explanation on your talk page. WNDL42 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the article to the last sourced version. Normally, it's considered poor practice to remove a sourced article, and replace it with an essentially unsourced one. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Call for assassination

Is it worth mentioning his call for the US to assassinate Assange in this article: KUHNER: Assassinate Assange - Web provocateur undermines war on terror?

92.235.221.104 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

could someone please clarify what the legal status of this is? In my understanding, it is against the law to incite someone to assassinate a third person, but IANAL. And how does this compare to the Salman Rushdie fatwah? Jasy jatere (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it reads more like a call for the government to approve his political stance than an call for an illegal act. It only becomes a legal issue, IMO, if someone tries to assassinate him.

Why isn't this in the article? It's well sourced and obviously relevant!--69.22.170.129 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the relevancy, and have spent the day moving around looking for links from the US diplomatic cable leaks. My desire is to highlight the hypocrisy of journalistic officials in attacking the free speech, and therefore I lack appropriate NPOV. A link to Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak would also make sence. (This is User:Bahb the Illuminated, on a public computer.)

Furthermore, I think that with the inclusion of this, the section on the Obama contoversy could be re-added, as it would no longer quite take up half the article. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Kuhner Jewish???

Is Kuhner Jewish??? Thanks to anybody that knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.131.144 (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he states frequently on his show that he is a devout Catholic.

must be printed somewhere - he says it often enough. 173.9.95.217 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RINO

how about something on the fact that he pretends to be far more conservative than he actually is? for all his ranting and raving about liberals, he is, in fact, clearly with them on a number of issues.

unlike other moderates, however, who openly accept this fact, he amps up the invective when someone points it out. i mean, he's no chris matthews, granted, but he's hardly a "conservative" by any means. 209.172.25.97 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Kuhner has COVID-19

https://news.yahoo.com/boston-radio-host-railed-against-203901928.html

Apparently there is a preliminary report that Jeff Kuhner as of december 2021 had COVID-19. 2601:640:C681:C260:6580:3C17:F39E:D30D (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

wife

wife Grace seems to be prominent in her own right. professor, author, started some PAC or think tank. i dunno if she's also appeared on radio/tv, but sounds likely.

maybe a little on her? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

broken english

should something be mentioned about his native language? i had assumed it is was french, tho the one time he said something in french it sounded as bad as his english. his croatian sounded much better, to be honest.

is it possible he was born to some sort of immigrant enclave within montreal, starting out in croatian schools or something? i don't understand having broken french AND english if he really is montreal-born. 209.172.23.33 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)