Talk:Journalistic scandal/Archive 1

New entries

I have added a great number of legitimate journalism scandals, starting with Walter Duranty in the 1930s, to others from the Associated Press, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times, and elsewhere. I am in the process of adding more, such as the aforementioned "Monkeyfishing" article that ran in Slate.

--User:Lord Zoltar 1 Mar 2005

Sky News

I've removed the Rupert Murdoch's part from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News. He does not have any direct involvement in the running of the channel. He runs a company that owns part of BSkyB; the network is not his as such.

Article title

I moved this to journalistic fraud, since that phrase is grammatically correct, whereas journalism fraud is not. Perhaps more importantly, the latter phrase doesn't seem to be used much except on Wikipedia. --Delirium 04:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

This would be better called "journalism scandals," that's how people would look it up. Maurreen 10:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Janet Cooke

The Janet Cooke entry needs a bit of clarification. She confessed that the "Jimmy" of her articles was a fabrication. She claimed that he was a composite of several real individuals, but I do not believe that the Post ombudsman was ever able to verify that she ever had any contact with any real child heroin addicts. This should be checked against the ombudsman's article in the Post which appeared shortly after she was stripped of the Pulitzer. 19:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I checked and updated: Cooke never met any real youth addicts -- she had heard about "Jimmy" but could not find him, so she created him. Also added more about how she was first exposed. --User:Lord Zoltar 17:28, 1 Mar 2006

Fraud / Scandal

The CNN section is not necessarily fraud. It is not "fraud" to withhold stories, but it is fraud to fabricate stories. Removing and replacing here for discussion:

CNN (2003)

In the April 11, 2003 edition of the New York Times, CNN chief news executive, Eason Jordan, wrote that CNN had suppressed information about atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime against its own people in order to protect CNN staff stationed in Baghdad.

• New York Times: The News We Kept To Ourselves

--Admbws 17:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is not necessarily fraud could still fall under scandal. --Rj 00:05, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am considering putting it back up. CNN is in the business of sharing information, and advertises itself as a beacon of truth (the "without fear or favor" from the NYT). Withholding stories from the public, when you have pledged not to do so, is very much fraud. --User:Lord Zoltar 1 Mar 2006

Al-jazeera / Iraqi spies

Additionally, there is not a lot of evidence to back up the claim the Iraqi spies did infiltrate the Al Jazeera television network, or held any position where they could significantly affect reporting - stating so. I would recommend this for removal if no further evidence appears. --Admbws 17:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Al-jazeera speculation removed

The latest edit removed a section with the summary "al-jazeera speculation removed". I do not understand why this was removed, but I also don't know whether it's proper to restore it. Does anyone have more information?

Acegikmo1 06:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hoax

Despite the disclaimer, this doesn't belong here. If someone wants to preserve it somewhere, then how about a page like Famous hoaxes.

=== Orson Welles (1938) ===

In 1938 Orson Welles broadcast a radio adaptation of the science fiction story The War of the Worlds, causing panic as many mistook the fictionalized account of a Martian invasion of the United States to be an actual event. Strictly speaking, though, Welles' broadcast more properly qualifies as a hoax rather than an instance of journalism fraud.

-- Viajero 11:03, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Such a Wikipedia entry does exist in the Hoax article, specifically the section other hoaxes. Interestingly, the Orson Welles hoax is listed there as "possibly the most famous media hoax of all time." ProfessorPaul 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Add

other stuff u need to add:

the thing with that british dude, about the poison gas the US army was using in vietnam or something. tailwind scandal? something like that. peter arnett was reading cue cards and he got fired.

another thing was the time 60 minutes didnt air some tobacco story or something

a minor one documented in Harry Wu's books, one of them, was about when a reporter made video of graves of people killed by the chinese govt, but it was actually the wrong graves or something.

im sure there are a million of these. good page. good article.

Mike Barnicle

There is a stub for the columnist Mike Barnicle, how is a link created to it?Scranton 01:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Entry for Mike Barnicle added by User:Alkivar on Dec 16, 2004.

---

Why do so many of the instances of fraud involve liberal/left-wing reportage vs. so few of a conservative/right-wing reportage? Just curious, actually. 68.77.93.174 13:33, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And why are they all US (with one exception), and one piece of what I presume is black propaganda - the Al-Jazeera (2003) entry. I wonder if they retracted it later - the image that the independent arab media is a front for the "bad guys" sticks however. Secretlondon 13:38, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry but that accusation is false. There is a very LARGE section on Brit James Forlong (noticeably larger than the rest). Any other major scandals have simply not made it there yet. Alkivar 01:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monkey fishing?

Anyone still remember the monkey fishing hoax by Jay Forman of Slate.com? -- Toytoy June 30, 2005 03:28 (UTC)

• Yep. Brilliant. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 30, 2005 03:44 (UTC)

Fake "GI rape" photographs (2004)

Added new data. Seems to be lots of new allegations coming up.

However, recent reports suggest the rapes may in fact have been real, but only taken down and labelled as "fakes" to avoid a scandal. Other sources implicate US intelligence officers or Israeli Mossad agents (in collaboration with key members of the Jewish porn industry). Human rights investigations have also recorded victims testinomies that are credible.

Starting this paragraph with 'However' implies a paradox of whether being in this section is a contradiction. This segment refers to ambiguous sources and has no valid citations. Most Wiki articles seem over-cited however this segment seems to violate NPOV standards by not listing credible sources. Using lines like 'recent reports suggest' and 'Other sources implicate', without citing, or even naming such sources seems like an innapropriate way of inserting conjecture, into an already heated subject, under the guise of third party suggestion.--Jgreat 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Jgreat

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE BIGOTRY OF THIS PORTION

The sentence reading "(o)ther sources implicate US intelligence officers or Israeli Mossad agents (in collaboration with key members of the Jewish porn industry)" is clearly hate speech. What, pray tell, is the Jewish porn industry? Who is alleged to be involved and who is making the allegations? This sort of bogus disinformation is clearly rooted in bigotry and does not belong in this forum.

Adam Holland 18:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Rigoberta Menchú should not be in this page

Iven if you call her case an "antropological fraud", Menchú is not well located in this page of journalism fraud. It is not fair with her--an indian woman, not american, not journalist, and, plus, a victim of a civil war--to be compare with the people that appears in this page. Plus, her book is based actually in her interviews with Elisabeth Burgos an antropologist from Venezuela. The book was primarly a "testimonio", not journalism, and both Menchú and Burgos are implicated in the so-called "fraud". The problem with Menchú book is not one of journalism true, but in any case antropological, historical and comunitarian true. There are, therefore, a serie of problems with Menchú not present in the other cases.

That may be your point of view. Whether or not it was meant to be a true account or historical fiction, it was presented as one. I hardly think it's "not fair" to question the veracity of the autobiography of a person who won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for her account, which was presented as a true autobiography. Whether actual fraud was committed or, as you suggest, it is merely a cultural misunderstanding, there can be no denying that fraud was perpetrated in this instance. Saying otherwise is merely apologizing for that fact. It's POV, and it doesn't belong here. - Guido del Confuso 09:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

David Stoll recognizes that Menchu´s account is basically true. Her family actually suffered the atrocities, murders and tortures from the goverment forces. She is not in the same position that a journalist of, say, The New York Times that comit fraud. What Stoll seems to discuss is the ideological use of Menchú by the leftwing organizations. That discussion is not new, and begun when her testimonio was included in Stanford canon of mandatory readings. But, again, she does not belong to this page about Journalism Scandals. Maybe would be better to put the debate regarding the veracity of her testimonio on a page about Antropological truth or something like that.

UPDATE (3 March 2006): I have moved Menchu to this page and off of the Wikipedia entry. What Menchu did was in fact fraud, but it was clearly not journalistic fraud, as is the focus of this entry. Menchu's entry is no more appropriate here than the fabrications of James Frey's "Million Little Pieces" book. If there is an article on book fraud or researh fraud or anthropological fraud, Menchu's tale would best go there. -- Lord Zoltar

Rigoberta Menchú (1999)

In 1983, Guatemalan activist Rigoberta Menchú published an account of her country's bloody civil war called I, Rigoberta Menchú. In 1992 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Several years later anthropologist David Stoll conducted a series of interviews with Menchú's former acquaintances for a follow-up book. During this time he discovered that much of her account was fabricated. Specifically, Menchú was not self-taught (she received a middle-school education) and the land dispute in which her father was killed was with family members, not the government.

• Salon.com: Rigoberta Menchú meets the press
• Salon.com: I, Rigoberta Menchú, liar

Revert

is very VERY VERY VERY angry,,! revert: 14:13, 24 February 2006 by User:Alkivar, and the "REASON" is "Reverted edits by Off! (talk) to last version by Alkivar". I can not be bold in updating pages, edit reverts with strange reasons is Wikipedia' tactic --Off! 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

New York Times Abu Ghraib photos (2006)

While this matter sems to have involved some mistaken reporting, and even sloppy editing, how does it qualify as a scandal? -Will Beback 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

US focus

I think this page should be renamed "Journalism scandals in the United States". ¶ 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be completely focused on american media outlets, or at least only sources known in the US. It should be moved so that other pages can be started for other countries/localities (expanding this article would not be advisable as it is already over the recommended page size. --DDG 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Gropegate and MEChA NPOV

who had ties to the radical Latino group MEChA.

Labeling MEChA "radical" is not WP:NPOV. Suggest that this simply say "who had been a member of the Chicano student group MEChA" or something similiarly neutral. --Kynn 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Stewart, The Boston Globe (2005)

I'm moving this here as it's uncited and I can't find any coverage of it. If this controversy wasn't covered in a reliable source, this this is original research. Please cite before putting back in. - Aagtbdfoua 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the spring of 2005, the Boston Globe ran a story describing the events of a seal hunt near Halifax, Nova Scotia that took place on April 12, 2005. The article described the specific number of boats involved in the hunt and graphically described the killing of seals and the protests that accompanied it. The reality is that weather had delayed the hunt, which had not even begun by April 13, the day the story had been filed, and was rescheduled to start, at the earliest, on April 15, three days after Ms. Stewart (who had worked for the New York Times for a decade previous) "described" the events of said hunt. As there was no hunt to describe, the story was obviously fabricated. As of yet, Ms. Stewart has not commented on filing this story describing events that never occurred.

I moved this back on to the page with citations from several newspapers that covered the scandal and Stewart's dismissal. --User:Lord Zoltar 09:20, 22 January 2007(UTC)

Journalism scandals in the USA

I'll move the article. The world outside the USA exists and is quite large.Xx236 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

James Forlong, Sky News (2003)

As a beginning move, I have removed the James Forlong Sky News entry because it deals with a journalism scandal in the UK. I am pasting it below in case it needs to be re-inserted in the future. --User:Lord Zoltar 16:15, 18 January 2007(UTC)

In April of 2003 the Sky News Network carried a report from James Forlong aboard the British nuclear submarine HMS Splendid purportedly showing a live firing of a cruise missile, at sea in the Persian Gulf, during the Iraq war. The report included scenes of the crew members giving instructions related to the launch of the missile and included a sequence in which a crew member pressed a large red button marked with the word "FIRE" and accompanied by a sequence of a missile breaking the surface of the water and launching into the air. The report was a fabrication, with the crew acting along for the benefit of the cameras. The Sky News team did not accompany the submarine when it left port and the scenes were actually recorded whilst the vessel was docked. The shot of the missile breaking the surface has been obtained from stock footage.

The faked report was revealed because a BBC film crew did accompany the vessel to sea. The BBC crew filmed a real cruise missile launch for the BBC TV series Fighting the War. The BBC footage showed how, with modern computerised launching systems, a missile is not launched by pressing a red button but is actually launched with a left mouse click. The BBC passed the information onto The Guardian newspaper who broke the story on July 18, 2003.

James Forlong was suspended from Sky News pending an investigation [1]. In October of 2003, he was found dead by his wife after committing suicide by hanging. In December, Sky News was fined £50,000 by the Independent Television Commission for breaching accuracy regulations.

• Sky fined £50,000 over war report (BBC News - December 16, 2003)

Lack of attribution addressed

I have taken further steps to increase this section's quality by adding attributions and citations to three sections without them. I have added links to back up the sections about Stephen Dunphy, Bob Wisehart and Jim Van Vliet. I will fix the remainder as time allows.

--User:Lord Zoltar 16:40, 18 January 2007(UTC)

Attributions added to entries for Janet Cooke, Dateline NBC's "Waiting to Explode," and Nada Behziz. --User:Lord Zoltar 00:30, 19 January 2007(UTC)

Two entries removed

Barry Schweid

I have removed the "scandal" of the AP's Barry Schweid reporting a speech before it was given. It is unattributed, and I have searched Google and other search engines and have not found any mention of it. I have placed it here in the event that someone can actually prove that this happened. And if it did, in my opinion it hardly merits as a scandal. --User:Lord Zoltar 23:50, 18 January 2007(UTC)

On April 11, 2005, the Associated Press reported that John Bolton, nominee for ambassador of the United States to the United Nations had said "that the world body had 'gone off track' at times but that he was committed to its mission". This article was filed more than an hour before the beginning of the hearing session at which Mr. Bolton allegedly made these remarks.

Consumer Reports

I have likewise removed the entry on a faulty "Consumer Reports" investigation into child car seats. Once again, we have an unattributed entry, and it does not in my opinion qualify as a journalism scandal as defined at the top of the entry. A third-party testing the seats at a higher rate of speed, apparently without the magazine's knowledge, does not qualify as an intentional effort by the writers to skew the truth.

Asked for an RFC

I asked for an RFC on this page. It's one or two editors POV. Just because something happened doesn't make it a scandal. And 90% of this list is from a RW POV. Where is Robert Novak, and Judith Miller and Steven Hayes?

One example. The 'fake hostage'. Yes it happened. Only a RW blog called it a 'scandal' and the Military said they were 'looking into it' so they were fooled too. Who clains this? "The hoax, which ran on the heels of Memogate at CBS, further sullied the media's reputation for poor fact-checking, because United States Central Command had not reported any soldiers missing at the time. " Only a blog that can't be used and the POV writer. I removed it, and this whole section should be removed unless a MSM link calls it a 'scandal'. Bmedley Sutler 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: RFC is at: WP:RFC/Politics - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Writing in response to the RFC and a request to review this article:

In general I'd support the above comment. The risk of non-neutral or non-notable item listing is quite a concern. The questions "what, exactly, makes a scandal" and "which cases are scandals" are quite important in this context. The specific question to ask is, "a scandal according to whom?", and there is a very considerable danger of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS being a problem for an article like this. For example, in this article's criteria, is it sufficient that any source considers it a "scandal"? (There are some media sources who will label every second event a "scandal", and many political commentators who will use the term rather freely too. In many cases the status of some event as a "scandal" is unclear, or may be disputed.)

There is also a problem that this article is mostly a list of events that have been called scandals, instead of an encyclopedic article about journalism scandals. That's a fairly serious concern although not mentioned in the RFC. There is so much that can be said encyclopedically about journalism scandals, but in fact when the list is stripped out, almost nothing is said about them except a basic one paragraph definition. Obvious discussion that could make up a balanced article:

• The idea
• Use of the term - who uses it, and what purposes it has been used for
• "Scandal creating" as a political (or other) tool
• Changes in journalism working methods which have perhaps led to these
• How scandals have impacted the media and the social landscape, and how journalism has responded.
• The impact of the "individual as reporter" generation (bloggers etc) and the impact of blogs and Web 2.0 etc on journalism scandals.
• A section on "national perspectives" with a short summary per country.

Editors here may well wish to split the article in two. I think it would help to consider an article on journalism scandals that covers the idea, how the term is used, responses of the media etc ("Journalism scandal"), vs. an article ("List of purported United States journalism scandals"?) that lists the scandals in each one country. This will also allow the main article to have a balanced section covering all countries, without growing to an unhelpful length. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am mostly concerned by the level at which 'stupid and unethical' becomes a scandal. For example, some of the listings are about falsified sources, followed by discovery, swift apology, termination of job, and moving on. that hardly seems like a scandal. On the other hand, we have Jayson Blair, the CBS memo, or the entire Plame story, in which media softballing, backroom dealings, and so on it far more likely a scandal. Scale, duration of falsehoods being perpetrated, recognition of offender all contribute to the situation. Others, I note have a more 'scandalous' appearance based on consequences and such, like theguy who hung himself after being busted, and whose paper was fine 50,000 (units of currency, think it was britain). that's got more consequences than just being reprimanded as a rookie. Every bad act by the MSM isn't a scandal, even if the MSM itself likes to hype it up that way in a hugely COI based game of "Gotcha!" (finally, I removed from the article one instance of WP:COATRACK, which laso read like some sort of Gotcha. ThuranX 06:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Political scandals are usually based on "stupid and unethical", purely journalistic scandals should be those involving gross violation of voluntary ethics alone: where this is largely incidental to an entry, it should probably be removed to Political scandal or any number of other Scandal pages. Criteria for inclusion here should be spelled out in a well-written lead which will hopefully come out of this RfC. The charateristics section hits the right notes but would be better used as the basis for the lead. Definitions need only be RS to published codes of conduct, laws and regulations; maybe even based on them. Journalism ethics and standards isn't much help, unfortunately, as it needs an injection of much the same discipline.

The nature and scope of investigative journalism always does provoke a disproportionate amount of negative RW backlash; this apparent imbalance doesn't invalidate an entry here any more than it justifies one. I agree that things like reliably reported(!) admissions of guilt are important, validating events and count highly, and controversies, especially regarding "unsolved" allegations, should probably be removed on sight.

Other than that I'm moved to compliment the great suggestions by User:FT2 above. Internationalising the article, while certainly a worthwhile and noble aim, would be quite a bit of work.. but without that, this article will always appear to be a US split-out from a (currently non-existent) parent. I'd support any decision to redirect the list here to List of US journalism scandals or whatever, re-write the page per FT2's suggestions and use the resulting criteria to pull the weeds from the US list. The task then is to move on and develop similar lists for other regions. mikaul^talk 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the very good comments! Who makes the edits now? Bmedley Sutler 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you leave it a few days more to allow less active editors to come to the fore, then (if all are in agreement) split out the list of US scandals, maybe leaving one or two as examples along with some from other part of the world. Then write up a decent lead section and maybe add in sections per FT2, but as & when the info is there, and once there is a consensus on all this, interested editors should just dive on in. mikaul^talk 12:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Writing in response to the RFC:

I agree on one main point -- perhaps the use of the term "scandal" is a bit far-reaching for many of these. While I personally have added a number of the entries on this page, I also have removed many of them because they were either much ado about nothing or the author/s could not link to any attributions (the one common thing about scandals is that people talk about them a lot).

Likewise, many of these matters, scandal or not, do fall into the description at the introduction of the site -- all of these matters, some a lot more than others, bring the integrity of journalism into question, be they board-room-level malfeasance as in the Killian documents, or reporters and editors not doing their due diligence, such as the GI Joe doll incident.

I think the simplest solution here is to re-name the article something that removes the word "scandal" and more accurately reflects it as a list of things that have cast dark shadows on journalistic integrity. A re-write of the introduction to reflect the same is also likely in order.

I for one don't like the idea of separating the "scandals" from everything else on a different entry. Like the original poster stated, what constitutes a scandal? Do we set a minimum anout of links before it can be called such? It sounds like a nightmare.

As for the idea of "internationalizing" the list, I oppose the idea. The CW here some time ago was that listing scandals worldwide would be a headache of monumental proportions, and a move began (as you can see in the earlier comments) to re-tool the article for journalism scandals in the U.S.

It also would be a good idea, as the original commenter pointed out, to add Judith Miller, Robert Novak and the like. But let's be careful not to introduce balance for balance's sake. Let's face it -- if a majority of journalists lean left, which is supported by poll after poll after poll, scandals and goofs will invariably follow. Most bankers and investors lean right, hence a dearth of LW POV banking scandals.

User:Lord Zoltar 19:11, 13 August 2007(UTC)

It seems that your actions are quite a bit of the problem with this article. For one instance, you edited the part on Greg Mitchell. It is 'OR' and sourced to a blog, and talks about the blogs reaction to this 'scandal'. 1) Blogs aren't allowed. 2) If it was only talked about on blogs its not a scandal anyway. This article for a long long time was never more than a right wing 'hit piece' ignoring things like Novak, Judith Miller and Jeff Gannon in a open desire to frame the 'liberal media'. It is a disgrace and the desire to re-name it now that the 'journalistic integrity' of this article has been proved 100% empty will be resisted by editors who don't have an 'agenda'. Bmedley Sutler 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And you have no political 'agenda'? Got anymore 'Fox News' hit-pieces coming? Those who who live in glass houses should not throw stones.Badbrad101 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to have a back-and-forth argument on this; it wouldn't result in anything productive. We can argue politics all day -- looking at your profile, it seems your political worldview is just as myopic.

I will defer to whatever decisions the editors make when this article is reviewed.

User:Lord Zoltar 22:30, 13 August 2007(UTC)

China

Would this be the appropriate place to mention the journalist in China who faked the cardboard in the food or something like that? T Rex | talk 09:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Part I: This section needs to be deleted. I don't see how this is a scandal? Did his unethical past in any way affect his opinion on this subject (Scott Beauchamp)? Anyone with more than a year in the military (or combat experience) can see what Beauchamp says sounds fishy... and that includes Matt Sanchez. (and Matt Sanchez has the benefit of actually BEING in IRAQ).

What you have to show is that the Weekly Standard somehow hid Sanchez's past and that somehow changes the story where it would not have otherwise. More importantly, Sanchez is a known person in the Milblogging community... and they know about his past. So why exactly did the Weekly Standard have to declare something that was already known? They did not use Matt Sanchez as a source because of his outstanding moral character... they used him as a source because he is an ex-marine, with combat experience, who happens to be on the ground blogging from where the controversy was happening. Oh yea, and he also turned out to be right.

Part II: This section needs to be replaced with one about "Scott Thomas" Beauchamp's "Baghdad Diaries". For many reasons. 1. Army has found nothing to corroborate his stories. 2. He did not go through the proper military channels for media disclosure 3. It was not disclosed that he was married to one of The New Republic's staffers [2] 4. TNR has been involved in scandals involving "fake news" before (see this page) 5. PVT Scott Thomas Beauchamp was writing about graphic war crimes commited by his fellow soldiers on his blog months BEFORE they went to Iraq [3] and of how he would "Return to America a writer" [4] and his service would "give credibility" to everything he did [5] plus how he was there "just to write a book" [6] . 6. The maker of the Bradley Fighting vehicle claimed to have been used to "hunt" dogs says that his stories are questionable. He also gave examples of TNR's poor fact checking as a severe case of "Don't ask question's you don't want answers to" and how TNR claimed that they had verified PVT Beauchamps claims with them... when in fact they had not. [7] 7. I don't know how to cite it... but I have a myspace message from a soldier in his platoon who, a month or so ago, challenged him about his writing... he quotes PVT Beauchamp as saying "Just because it didn't happen to us, doesn't mean it didn't happen." Can you cite eyewitnesses? how does that work?Badbrad101 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. We cna't go and track down the real story on our own. The sources we should use for this article are those that talk about the scandals or otherwise review the problem with the journalism. It's not our job to prove that someone made reporting errors, just to summarize the findings of others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So that goes back to my original point... why is this piece about Matt Sanchez here anyway and what qualifies as a "Scandal"? "Reporting errors are one thing, but "faking news" to further your journalistic career is another. This is dissapointing as you basically say "We don't care about the truth... only that someone has published it. Well TNR published "Scott Thomas" and he was completely full of crap. But... it was published so it has credibility (anybody see why those in the Military are upset about this guy yet?)Badbrad101 11:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bradbrad101 wrote: "Beauchamp was writing about graphic war crimes commited by his fellow soldiers" Graphic war crimes? What? I can only say 'Wow, Just Wow!" ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can "wow" all you like, but I would call a blog post that is a first person account of your chain of command ordering the killing of an Iraqi child being a blog post about a "War Crime". In his post, after the "killing" he says they have to go "they are handing out bibles" in the market early tomorrow morning. (note: we don't hand out bibles in Iraq, in fact we are discouraged from even bringing religous material to Iraq.) Considering his unit had not even deployed yet when he wrote it is significant... but only if you care about the truth.Badbrad101 11:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Gannon

I've restored Phil Sandifer's version of the Jeff Gannon affair. Firstly removing it outright isn't appropriate because this affair did lead to Julie Davis, chairwoman of the Senate press gallery's executive committee, reporting that Guckert (who had used the Gannon name to report from the press gallery) could not demonstrate any separation between Talon News and GOPUSA, a Republican consulting group. User:Sdth's rewrite, with the edit summary "using NPOV language", appears somewhat partisan because it focuses inappropriately on "liberal bloggers" rather than the executive committee. It also attempts to weasel away the escort connection. but this appears to be well established [8]. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously very biased in your opinion if you think Phil Sandifer's version is more objectve. His version is extremely biased, and states several things as fact, when IN FACT, they are unproven allegations. Additionally, NO attempt was made to "weasel" away anything. None of this information has been proven. The accusations mostly come from extreme leftists with an agenda. --Sdth 15:32 CST, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the word "alleged" back to "found" in the current version. There is no serious dispute over the fact that Gannon had White House press access through a small partisan website known as "Talon News". --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I put in a new version with more and better sources. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I took off several entries

Blogs are not allowed on Wikipedia, usually, but especially a 'partisan blog' used as the only source for a claim. Thus I took off Adnan Hajj, and Greg Mitchell (E&P) and another blog used as a source. If you find some real sources these sections could maybe added back in. Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 23:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-write

Much of this article is not written in NPOV style. Its more like someones POV blog. Here is an example "Rick Bragg, The New York Times (2003) The New York Times newsroom, already rubbed raw by the Jayson Blair scandal and the abrasive style of editor Howell Raines, erupted in anger again" This is not allowable. Will somone please re-write this and the rest of the many POV stylings of this article? Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I added new article

I added an article on Joseph A. Cafasso, Fox News, 2002. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not NPOV" RFC

Someone inappropriately added an RFC tag to the front page, but the section it refers to doesn't exist here. The RFC tag belongs on the talk page, and is commented out immediately below this comment if whoever added it wishes to do so appropriately. THF 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)