Talk:Mika Brzezinski/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political Bias

Mika is incredibly vain, pampered, and astoundingly biased. Of course, that just enables her to fit in well with other "neutral" journalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.138 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things are clear by the claim that Mika is bias: One being, that the person (Unsigned) who made the statement knows nothing about her work in journalism, and second, that they are clearly one of those who when facts and prospective are presented, and those facts and prospective invariably shed a negative light on their ideology, they cry foul Statements such as the one above, should be confined to half baked right wing blogs, as they have no place in any educated venue Cosand (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your love for Mika is touching. Sort of. When did Morning Joe become an educated venue? I watched some of it today and it's still the same bunch of laughing hyenas it was yesterday, and etc. etc. Don't fault the 1st poster for not knowing about her work in journalism since, not knowing the meaning of the word, she doesn't know about her work in journalism either. Her most notable work are the faces she makes on camera and the grunts and harumphs off camera.

Pic

Doesn't do her justice.

There's a much better shot of her at http://zeitgeist.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/29/249575.aspx 201.220.15.66 01:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Alan

Mika's refusal

Bravo Mika for refusing to air yet more schlock about the Hilton Hooker. Shame on your editor for keeping at you and shame on her parents for allowing both their daughter to be a fool and the media to exploit it. No one said the rich have taste. They inherited their money so they don't even have brains. I hope I live to see the day that major media returns to the news instead of trying to be the National Inquirer. But when Rupert et al. own all media they don't differentiate do they. Shame on them too. Bravo Mika, we need more folks like you and Keith Olberman. Gary amosGary amos 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We need more journalists in the world to do exactly what she did! Excellent job. thumbs down to her co-hosts on the show who gave her such a hard time. Dwenaus 01:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

isn't the phrase "Mika ultimately proves that there are credible journalists out there." a bit much?

I recommend to wait a couple hours (days) with the part of article about her resulas to read news about Paris Hilton, because the situation seems like it is fake. Trying to use the lighter improperly looks weird, and the camera zoom at paper shredder looks like it was prepared before. (Jakas1 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)).

• • The incident was obviously, blatantly, 100 percent, plainly staged. Utterly, completely staged. Fake. Made up. Staged. The fact that it was widely reported by the stagers and other media shills means nothing, if anything it only goes to prove even more how staged it was. If people are too naive, gullible, and TV-addled to figure out what is fantasy from what is the truth, then they deserve to be conned into oblivion. Mika was mocking people who were yearning for real news. MSNBC was mocking you. GE was mocking you. All of the corporate media continue to mock you with trivial B.S. So enjoy being conned. If they payed me millions of dollars to lie and mock average Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccer Mom, I would do it with glee, for such types deserve it all.

Hyper_individualist@yahoo.com --76.83.249.234 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton was released from an LA County Jail, not prison. 65.31.214.82 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's been plenty of non-trivial news coverage of this incident and MSNBC itself has posted a story about it, so I think we can say it is a genuine incident. However it's worth doing a little research to see if there's been any fall-out from this event. Is she still on the show? 68.146.8.46 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the article - the Paris Hilton incident had been deleted. I believe it belongs here, as it was a notable event.--Uffep (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Useless name trivia

If her name is Brzezinski, then why include a silly statement like "In Polish her name is written Brzezińska" which is obviously false - do a google search. Don't you really mean, that had she been raised in Poland her name would have been "Brzezińska." But then what relevance that has to the article. Why inject a Polish grammar lesson into someone's biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.175.154 (talk • contribs) 03:52, July 4, 2007

You're not the only one who finds that kind of bizarre. I got so involved in editing other parts of the article that I never went back and took that out. It's about to disappear... Cgingold 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I, happened to see this piece, and thought it unprofessional grandstanding especially since it immediately followed NBC's unsucessful attempt to secure the Hilton post jail interview. She should know better, but that appears to be the unfortunate direction of "journalism" today. Incredibly I trust Wikpedia contributors more than talking heads. They have become a joke on a par with used car salesmen as far as professionalism goes. IMHO.Tongva 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Political Bias - Continued

I agree that She frequently displays a bias and condescending manner. If fact. understanding the bias of individual news journalist is what I frequently use wikipedia. In this case and as her entry stands, The information is not sufficient to assist in developing an opinion on that topic. A standardized method of displaying the bias of all journalist would be a useful wiki tool.

The statement I made at the top of the page is worthy of paraphrasing here:

Those who would make the false claim that Mika is bias: clearly know nothing about her work in journalism, and second, that they are clearly one of those who when facts and prospective are presented, and those facts and prospective invariably shed a negative light on their ideology, they cry foul . Such faux accusations and tired rhetoric, is best confined to the angry ultra right wing photosphere, or daytime AM talk radio, namely those shows which broadcast at times when most people with legitimate opinions to offer, are at work, as opposed to sitting home on hold , waiting to have a carefully screened 30 second back patting session with one of several demonstratively biased talk radio hosts Cosand (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You can paraphrase it all you like. Her bias isn't trivial, it isn't slight and the claim isn't false no matter how many time you choose to paraphrase yourself in one giant circular self-congratulory reference. Her father was a campaign advisor to Barack Obama and likely will serve in his administration in some capacity. How often did she make that qualification? Uhhhh.....like never! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.241.14 (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost your contention that her father was a "campaign advisor to Barack Obama" is totally false and fabricated. The claim of "Media bias" has always been a mainstay in the arsenal of right wing distractions and alibis, and is in fact, demonstratively false the overwhelming majority of the time. In the case,it is not only demonstratively false, it borders on the absurd. If you are going to make such comments, I might suggest you actually wiggle out of bed early some morning and watch and listen to her, as opposed to cherry picking, taking liberties with context, airing false findings, and parroting faux accusations you read in the right wing fringe media, or heard on talk radio. Also, did you not know her brother worked as a paid staffer for John McCain's presidentail bid, or did you just figure it wasn't worth mentioning ? Cosand (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I recently saw on the Morning Joe yearly recap episode or whatever a clip where Mika incorrectly refers to her father as an adviser to Obama, but her father immediately corrects her stating he is simply an Obama supporter. So the source for that is actually Mika, but it was refuted on air. Sorry I have no link for that, but I hope it helps give some direction to that statement. 70.118.67.17 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

   Same poster as above here, I found the clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf_107215z0 the exchange I mentioned is right when Dr Brzezinski comes in. 70.118.67.17 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If she misstated her dad's affiliation, fair enough. I didnt realize that she had. That however , has nothing to do with accusations of a lack of objectivity as a journalist. The endless whineing of far right leaning individuals about media bias is baseless, and becomes more grating and pathetic as it compounds. In the case of Ms Brzezinski, it borders on the absurd Cosand (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mugged

Washington Times reports that she was mugged outside her hotel in DC. Significant enough to include? Kelly ^hi! 14:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Czech?

If her father is Polish and her mother is Swiss, where is the Czech ancestry? Just wondering if there is information that I'm missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.42.235 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC) her mothers father was czech de de de

Her mother has an obviously Czech surname, and Mika has described herself on air as being half Czech. Calling her ethnically Swiss because her mother was born in Switzerland is misleading; by that logic, people would become ethnically "American" by being born in the US. If, for example, Bob's mother's family was ethnically Hungarian, and they moved to England, and Bob's mother was born there, and then she moved to the US, where Bob was born, would the family be transformed from ethnically Hungarian to ethnically English because of the stopover? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this site, her mother was born to Czech parents in Switzerland. Again, her mother is no more ethnically Swiss than, for example, Jerry Springer is ethnically English. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC Live 9 AM Anchor

I don't believe Mika is a regular host at 9 AM anymore, I think because she and Joe do a radio show in the morning now. Tamron Hall and Contessa Brewer usually hold the 9 AM slot now. My googlefu is weak however and I can't find a source for this on msnbc.com 70.118.67.17 (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Real Americans"

user:RafaelRGarcia removed the line "She has continued her support for Palin even after her resignation saying Palin represented the views of 'real Americans,'" which was supported by this link. I reverted. The link supports the quotation given, and Raf's edit summary ("npov, and rm untrue statement - brze has repeatedly said palin wasn't qualified on morning joe") doesn't survive scrutiny. WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia reflect no opinion of the subjects of its articles, not that the subjects themselves can't have opinions or that we can't report their opinions. The statement is an assertion of opinion, so that Raf disagrees with it is quite different to its being "untrue" (we have any number of articles reporting that the subject has said things that an editor might feel are untrue, but that's not a basis for selective censorship). And a vague, general, unsourced assertion that Brzezinski "has repeatedly said palin wasn't qualified" is wholly inadequate as a basis to remove a directly-sourced contradictory statement. If this line is to be removed, it should be removed for better reasons than thinly-veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gates

An anonymous IP account added the claim that "On July 24, 2009, Brzezinski made ill advised remarks regarding the racist arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates. Guests, including Harold Ford Jr, were quick to criticise her." Removal wasn't a difficult call. Describing the remarks as "ill advised" violates WP:NPOV and may violate WP:OR. WP:BLP requires a "neutral, encyclopedic tone" and commands that "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I accordingly removed it.

The same anonymous editor reverted, adding a citation to "Daily Kos," a blog. Daily Kos as a source was discussd and rejected recently at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and that's not too surprising given that WP:RS limits reliable sources to "credible published materials with a reliable publication process" whose "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If any blog meets those criteria, Daily Kos certainly doesn't. WP:SPS bars the use of blogs as sources, also, with exceptions not relevant here, and WP:BLP explicitly forbids "us[ing] ... blogs ... as sources for material about a living person." Since BLP also requires that "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," emphasis added, and a contentious claim resting purely on a source disallowed by the same policy is inherently "poorly sourced," I have accordingly removed the claim again.

Lastly, the three-revert rule does not apply to my removal of such material, see WP:GRAPEVINE, but it does apply to adding it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I re-removed this after a revert by another user. Agreed, this is poorly-sourced blog material and the content of the blurb was definitely NPOV. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

...and I readded it. Saying the source is of "dubious value" and then saying it is "not an argument about Daily Kos as a whole being a RS", is just downright hypocritical. There is no BLP here. The source is RS, as Daily Kos is used by CNN, MSNBC, and even the right leaning Fox News. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The source is a blog on the Daily Kos site. Please read WP:BLP on the subject of blogs. And I don't even know how to respond to "There is no BLP here." (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "ill advised" and "racist" from the statement to make it more "Neutral". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source (which Daily Kos isn't), the claim has to stay out, phrased within NPOV or not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Founding Father" section

An IP keeps on adding a section to this article about a comment which Brzezinski supposedly said on the "Morning Joe" talk show. [1] The source of this is a partisan blog and its sole purpose is to turn this encyclopedia article into a political forum. Again, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which adheres to NPOV standards not a venue for people to voice their political views by "attacking the opposition" (see WP:NOT). There are plenty of other venues on the internet to do this but Wikipedia is not one of them. This content will continue to be reverted.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Journalist

Anon 24.240.79.153 (talk · contribs) has begun an edit war to remove Brzezinksi's designation as a journalist. If one simply reads the article it is obvious that she has been and continues to be a journalist. Being a TV host does not preclude her title as journalist, and "journalist" is a broader description that encompasses most of her professional activities. Unless there is a consensus here otherwise, her occupation should be described as journalist. Cresix (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the "edit war". I was unaware of the talk page, and thought having comments associated with the edit was sufficient. I see now (and agree) that's not the case, and this talk page is more appropriate for these types of disagreements. She is most well known for her work on Morning Joe where she is obviously a partisan host (do you disagree with this point)? Maybe she WAS a journalist and currently fills in for journalist-like activities every now and then, but that doesn't change what she is most well known for. I don't think I'm coming way out of left field here - it seems like a reasonable request that the very first sentence of her article not describe her as a journalist (which implies neutrality) when in fact she is not. 24.240.79.153 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"TV host" is a narrower description. "Journalist" is broader and covers most of her activities. The hosts of many shows, such as Face the Nation, Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, etc etc are journalists; "TV host" and "journalist" are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes they overlap significantly. Jay Leno is a TV host who is not a journalist. David Gregory is a TV host who is a journalist. So is Brzezinksi. That descriptor remains unless there is a consensus here to change it. BTW, I do disagree that she is a "partisan" host. I don't consider any of the hosts on that show "partisan"; they sometimes disagree, but that does not make them partisan. In an event, that is a subjective impression and should not be the basis in this article for removing her primary job descriptor. Cresix (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that it is reasonable to include both terms in the article lead ("journalist and television show host"). But the infobox should be very brief and thus should have only the more inclusive descriptor, television journalist. Cresix (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's fair, although to split hairs I would prefer "television host and journalist". If we agree, who makes the change? You or I? 24.240.79.153 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if there are other editors who weigh in. Cresix (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Cresix (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Unflattering Photo in Article

Is that really her picture? She doesn't look like that on TV. I think the picture is doctored to make her look 20 years older than she really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.3.21 (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Purposely selecting a very unflattering or unattractive photo of the subject of a Wikipedia article is a common tactic used by those who wish to inject their biases into that article. Given the many public domain pictures available of Mika Brzezinski there is certainly reason to suspect that may have happened here. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:5D05:3784:5E84:5988 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Guest and Joe slowly found me a capable news reader" should be "Geist and Joe"?

Her co-host is "Geist". "Guest" seems like an autocorrect error. I don't know, though, because the reference link is dead. Bobagem (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Anti-obesity activist"?

I can't find any support in the article, or on the internet, for the inclusion in the list of anti-obesity activists. Bobagem (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. https://www.amazon.com/Obsessed-Americas-Food-Addiction-Own/dp/1602862346 Bobagem (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Benešová ?

The article claims "Benešová" to be Brzezinski's mother's maiden name. This is not supported by the article about her mother. I do understand that in Chech language states her last name might have been constructed that way, but Ms Benes was born in Switzerland and educated there and in the United States. She is an American citizen. Her name is this not subject to Chech rules, neither legally nor grammatically. Barring good arguments to the contrary, I will therefore change the references to her name as stated in Wikipedia, Emilie Benes. Wefa (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mika Brzezinski. 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/20110718024959/http://www.weinsteinbooks.com/catalog/search/mika%20brzezinski to http://www.weinsteinbooks.com/catalog/search/mika%20brzezinski

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump? Twitter? Where's the battle that the world knows about, but not Wikipedua, apparently?

Just this.

The tweets are mentioned in the Careers section. This stupidness doesn't deserve any further mention. sikander (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Polish

She's not Polish by any means, she's an American with some Polish heritage and should be described as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.73.137.107 (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments on mind control

I noticed that Brzezinski's controversial remarks in February are absent from the article, which certainly are notable enough to be included in this biography. I'm struggling to find a heading and language that maintains neutrality and isn't sensationalized, so I'm welcome to some input. Here's a proposal, just a rough draft of course:

• == Mind control gaffe ==

On the Morning Joe show aired on February 22, 2017, Brzezinski accused President Trump of "trying to make up his own facts" and expressed concerns that he has the ability to "control exactly what people think." Brzezinski then followed up with, "And that, that is our job," in reference to the media. Brzezinski attempted to clarify her remarks later in the day on Twitter, stating, "Today I said it's the media's job to keep President Trump from making up his own facts, NOT that it's our job to control what people think."

I think this length is about right for the notability of the comments, but it may be better to provide more context of the conservative media reaction. Thoughts?

Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems utterly trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

personal life in lede for Mika, but not for fiancee?

I noticed today that the lede of Mika's article mentions that she is engaged to Joe Scarborough. But the lede of Joe's article says nothing of the engagement to Mika, leaving that to the "Personal Life" section. Is there a reason that Mika's engagement to Joe is notable in a way that Joe's engagement to Mika isn't? Nitsua60 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that's absolutely noteworthy enough for the lead. Feel free to add this piece of information if you so choose. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. That information probably got into the lede when it was breaking news. This engagement is not a fundamental aspect of either person's life story. I would move it to the "Personal life" section.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Marital infidelity

I noticed how there's no mention in either article of the fact that they cheated together on their previous spouses which led to their respective divorces, clearing the way for their engagement.

I'm thinking if either of them were named Trump or if they co-hosted a show on Fox these articles might read a bit differently. Eegorr (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that Presidential family infidelity is more noteworthy than media celebrity infidelity. If this marital history has been reported in reliable sources, you may add it to both parties' articles, while avoiding undue emphasis, maintaining WP:NPOV, and using inline citations.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Religion?

What is her religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.151.117 (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is pretty horrible. There must be a better one available. This is a slander level bad picture for a living person... There is a previous comment in the archives as well. At the very least, make the second picture the first one. This is the type of picture you expect from the front page of a tabloid. 76.168.4.212 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)