Jump to content

Talk:Norah O'Donnell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Something needs to be added about her right-of-center bias in her reports. For instance, her interview of "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan was very biased for President Bush but seemed to smear the left-wing position. - concerned conservative

Who would write a criticism about someone unless they had a problem with what that person was saying or doing? I love Norah, but you don't see me posting in her bio about how wonderful I think she is. Criticisms (and praises) are for blogs not bios. Just the facts ma'am! (Sgt. Joseph Friday LAPD)

I agree, when I first came across this article, it had a small Bio section with a HUGE Criticism section. Editing and removing it didn't work...and so...in an effort to be fair, I figured that what constitutes one person's "Criticisms" must therefore constitute another person's "Praise". So I took the entire Criticism section, reworded it and labeled it as Praise to reflect the opposing view. So in all fairness...the entry can't have one without the other. Remove em both...fine...but not one without the other. And I agree "Just the facts"...but unfortunetly, many Wiki editors seem to believe that their opinions/criticisms are facts. They will just respond back "It is a fact that Norah is biased towards the White House" *sigh* Jeravicious 01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently much of Wikipedia is edited and written by people on the "Left" who for some reason believe that adding their own "opinions" and "criticisms" of people, journalists, events which don't line up with their own agendas is to be considered "Fact" and therefore is worth being detailed here......Interesting. Can you just imagine having an Encyclopedia Britannica full of "opinions"??? What is my proof of this?? Why, you only need to read the articles about FOX News, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, etc, etc...and yet for some reason...there is little to no criticism of MSNBC, Jon Stewart, Democrats, Al-Jazeera, etc.

Here is what is going to happen....The Leftys will add criticism and opinions where they see fit, and the Rightys will do the same. Then it will be left up to the "editors" to delete where they see fit....I'm gonna guess they're Leftys also. And in the end....Wikipedia will get the same criticisms as all other biased outlets.

What news media person can't be accused of one bias or another? I.E.:Everyone on MSNBC marginalized John Edwards not just Norah. As news people go she seems rather likeable with a fairly sincere smile and laugh. I love her too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that most of you even realized how biased you really are....NEWS FLASH: Your opinions and critiques are NOT Factual nor are they News.

Bravo!!!....Bravo!!!.....

Piece of advice...leave in the Facts and leave out for biased criticisms. Help us all out.


I wonder when this media whore is going to get her own page on mediamatters? 68.110.199.122 22:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah. I got the latest controversial remark documented.

Nice work on that. 68.110.199.122 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This external links sections seems to violate NPOV. Suggest adding some opposing viewpoints. Also in the biographical section it might be worth mentioning that her father is a retired 1-star general.

why were the criticisms deleted? they were fair critcisms. she called people who are opposed to the iraq war "extremists" when she hosted hardball. I don't understand why that was deleted. [Previous unsigned comment by anonymous IP 65.40.140.37]

The criticisms were in a section called "Controversy". There is nothing controvertial about a guest host or panelist expressing a personal opinion on a political talk show, even opinions that a majority of people might disagree with. I think the criticism section is far too long relative to the rest of the article. The article might appropriately quote her making comments supportive of the president to demonstrate her political leanings, but the extensive critiques of these statements don't belong in this article. Readers should decide for themselves if her opinions are "controversial". --דוד ♣ D Monack 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Ok, so how about we say something like "Some people on the left believe that O'Donnell is biased towards the White House or at the very least misinformed when she gives her opinion on various political issues. They cite instances where O'Donnell made generalizations and opinions which were supportive of the President but were not necessarily supported by the facts." Sounds good to me.



I think this paragraph: "Some people on the left believe that O'Donnell is biased towards the White House or at the very least misinformed when she gives her opinion on various political issues. They cite instances where O'Donnell made generalizations and opinions which were supportive of the President but were not necessarily supported by the facts."

Ought to be revised, as the poster seems to be mixing up Norah's style of playing 'devil's advocate' with her supporting the White House. I've seen her reporting on a regular basis for several years, and, it seems to me that in acutallity, she's leans pretty heaviliy to the left and should be careful about letting her opinion leak out. FWIW

I was not certain if I need to annotate my comments or not or if poster information is automagically inserted. Apologies.

Criticism removed

Why is criticism of O'Donnell removed? It seems legitimate that criticism of a news anchor who should be unbiased is documented when she isn't. Someone seems to think that Wikipedia is run by Fox News (We Report, We Decide). If you have a concern that this criticism is unfounded, let's disccus it here, but I think that legitimate criticism of the behavior of a woman who is supposedly an unbiased journalist is legitimate content. Please respect the will of Wikipedia users if you have such strong feelings about the illegitimacy of criticism of a news anchor. Also, I guess that means that any criticism of FAUX news is unwarranted because it is so unbiased. Ha ha, that is a funny joke, funny funny funny. -Wikitoddia 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone referred to the link I added, Crooks & Liars, as a left-wing smear site. This is not true. C&L posts audio, video, and some commentary of politicians themselves. It doesn't edit the footage. If anyone is smearing on Crooks and Liars, it is the politicians who don't realize how callous they sound. In addition, Wikipedia (quite reasonably) requires verifiable claims. This video link is verifiable evidence of the section I wrote about the manner in which O'Donnell interviewed Sheehan. Just because someone doesn't like it being presented doesn't negate it as evidence of disdain. ~----

Ok I Changed the section and think everyone should be happy

I took out a lot of the "evidence" and just documented the controversy itself rather than the substance. Wiki is not the place to debate O'donnell's so-called bias, but just to document that a debate does exist, to give broad sketches of it, and provide people with the proper links to find out for themselves. Wikitod...the concern here is that many people are tough in interviews and when people don't like it, on the left or the right, everyone screams bias. Arguably, by that logic, we could include a charge of bias section in every single reporter's wiki entry. I'm not saying we shouldn't include such sections, but they shouldn't take up the whole entry or else every news wiki entry will become a back and forth left wing/right wing blog. I think my changes (which people can tweak) are appropriate and give a broad idea of the debate out there, which is arguably worth documenting, since we are discussing it, although in my personal oppinion, I don't think this section should be included at all. I think this represents a compromise. 70.30.160.154 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the hostility which she Norah O'Donnell shows toward Cindy Sheehan is different from most journalists' points of view. Sheehan is not a threatening person or certainly shouldn't seem that way and for O'Donnell to be so abrupt with her seems to me evidence of extreme bias. If a journalist working for a big conglomerate is so hostile to a relatively powerless woman, it reflects poorly on her and seems to me noteworthy. Do you think O'Donnell would be so rude to a Senator or to Bill Gates? And Cindy Sheehan lost a son in Iraq, and yet she's still as composed as ever under O'Donnell's cynical, dismissive, (and short-sighted) interviewing. And your note that some say Sheehan invited such treatment? So if a guest on any interview show is disrespectful, it's warranted for the host to be disrespectful to them? So two wrongs DO make a right. Ahhhh. C'mon, that's a really spurious claim. Not only that, but that's a new argument to me. I don't think there's much room for a compromise here. To me, bias in an MSNBC anchor is news. I appreciate your attempt but I think it falls well short. -Wikitoddia 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan has become a public figure with a political agenda by choice. It's the media's job to scrutinize what she says. It is O'Donnell's job to be "cynical". O'Donnell gives politicians, including U.S. senators, the same treatment. I don't know if she has ever interviewed Bill Gates but I believe he'd get the same treatment. Having a dead son, as tragic as that is, doesn't make you immune from criticism if you make yourself a public figure. Sheehan is appearing on TV because of her outspoken views and influence, not because of her son's death. O'Donnell would be negligent as a journalist if she didn't challenge her. If her stance is substantially different from other journalists' (I don't think it is), then that'd be noteworthy and would reflect poorly on the profession of journalism, not on O'Donnell. --dm (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikitodd, you're being very political. Accusations of bias are facts, and that's what my revision gives - the fact that the accusation exists. Your revision seems to try to prove that there is bias. We all know as human beings all newscasters might let their biases slip into their news. But proving such bias is better left to groups like "media matters." "Proof of bias" is the point of view problem. Many people would argue that the nature of the show is confrontational and that O'Donnell's playing devil's advocate as she should. I said, "those on the right" would claim that Sheehan invited such an aggressive interview. Would you even dispute that right wingers would argue that? I've seen such posts on the net. Aren't those as valid as DU posts? If we're going to have a section about what blog posters think, then we can add both sides. Secondly, your claim that Sheehan is not threatening or innocuous as you said before is a point of view. Just because she has a nice demenour, doesn't mean that her ideas aren't objectionable to some. My revision states the controversy and the accusations from both sides without needing to go into the evidence. If we go into evidence, should I be allowed to provide evidence of O'Donnell being fair at other times, or harsh to someone on the right, in order to prove an anti-right bias? You see what I'm saying? Wiki will become a blog if we all that. I'm making the changes back. They document the controversy sufficiently. If you want, add a link to the interview so people can see for themselves. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia, not a place to vent. Speaking honestly, the version you support is horribly written and very POV. It purports to document the controvery, then argues againt O'Donnell and for Sheehan. That's not your job! In essence, what your version does it to state as fact that O'Donnell is biased. That's not a fact! That's a point of view. For example, your line "reciting statements and claims which seemed illogical and unrepresentative of the beliefs of Americans." - is way off when it comes to wiki standards. By the way, todd, is your contention that interviewers have to be respectful and not question anyone? Isn't that what got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. So what your saying is that two wrongs do make a right. I.e. because the MSM has been easy on the right, it should be easy on the left?? It seems that's precisely what you're saying. Some people see Sheehan as nothing more that a sweet mother who lost a son; some see her as someone with radical views using her son in order to vocalize those views. It's our job to document that rift in point of view...not to say that one is right.70.30.160.154 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop It

Stop putting criticisms anywhere in here. Criticisms are just opinions trying to be passed off as fact. Just state facts and let the reader conclude if that person is or isn't, "whatever".

Example:

Hitler: Criticism:

Hitler was seen by his loyal generals as being too slow in ordering the "Final Solution".

See how retarded that is! Now stop it. Here endeth the lesson!

This unsigned "lesson" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation, we are to "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." Therefore, reporting notable opinions about O'Donnell (and other controversial people) is proper.
In its current state, this article is laughable. It deprives the reader of considerable information about the praise and criticism that have been directed at O'Donnell. For controversial public figures, there's often more criticism than praise. My quick impression of this article, without going through the history in detail, is that the criticism was reported to at least some extent, and was then suppressed by the right-wingers who believe that any comment critical of the establishment is Bolshie drivel that must be expunged. At any rate, regardless of the culpability, the fact is that the removal of criticism is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy, despite the arrogant self-assuredness of the above unsigned "lesson". JamesMLane t c 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As it is, this article has under 'controversies' an incident which is described to maker her look like she had a prejudice toward Gov. Palin when O'Donnell is well-known to have an anti-Democratic bias. This entire 'controversies' section should be removed as tranaparently an effort at propaganda. Deedeebee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

"Controversies?"

  • Everything, from the question mark in the header to the section's contents seems kinda biased to me especially whole "remark was unchallenged" thing. Palin was certaintly linking Obama to terrorists and implying that he was one himself, even if she didn't outright say "He's a terrorist you betcha!" --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't share you interpretation. Pointing out Obama's link to a known former terrorist organization member, Bill Ayers, is not at all the same as calling Obama himself a terrorist, but rather a way of attempting to show flaws in his judgment by pointing to who he chose to associate with. The controversial nature of O'Donnell's question was that it falsely represented what Palin had said.
Concerning the question mark in the subheading, it is, if anything, a way of some editor to question whether there is actually any controversy here at all in the first place. Sarnalios (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Sarn, she didn't say Palin called him a terrorist- Norah asked if she had. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see where you're going with this. O'Donnell clearly made that statement and its premise went unchallenged. By phrasing her question that way, she made the false assertion that Palin called Obama a terrorist and then challenged her guests to refute that assertion. They did not. If she had asked "Obama is a terrorist, isn't he?", it would've been equally clear that it was not just an question but an controversial assertion masquerading as a question. It's her job to have her facts straight. Sarnalios (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
While sourced, the section's references are a video of the conservative activist John Ziegler, and a link to NewsBusters, part of MRC. To put this into perspective, consider: a section presents a critique of a conservative, citing only Media Matters and NewsHounds.us. NewsHounds and Media Matters are liberal, and NewsBusters and John Ziegler are conservative -- they all have their respective biases, and their inclusion presents POV issues and as such does likely not benefit the role of Wikipedia as a neutral information source.
The critique of O'Donnell is more of a talking point than anything else - Palin did indeed consistently remark that then-Senator Obama was 'palling around with terrorists' - despite that being factually incorrect. There's an entire article regarding the controversy: Bill Ayers presidential election controversy.
Whilst the answer to O'Donnell's question was technically 'no', it was just that -- a question.
I think we should remove this section soon.
--Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would add that this section pushes one point of view and does not discuss the opposing view. I don't think it adds substantially to the article, and would note that the remark that initiated the analysis was one sentence, and may have been rephrased had it been repeated (e.g., 'Didn't [Gov. Palin] call him someone who pals around with terrorists'. People say a lot off-the-cuff, and it may not represent their full view. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it. It doesn't have references from reputable media sources and thus there is no evidence of a real controversy. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that the sources in this section were not good enough for inclusion. The issue that I addressed here was the unregistered user's claim that saying that a person is someone who is linked to a terrorist is the same as implying that the person is himself a terrorist. It is clearly not, for reasons that I've already stated. Sarnalios (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The sidebar omits mention of the twins. It only mentions her last child. Deedeebee (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity Removed From The Infobox

Please take a look at these two links: Bobby Jindal Ethnicity and Question: Infobox -- And Rew 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section needs work.

Exact quotes are available for what O'Donnell said in places where this section instead uses politically biased interpretations of what she said. The slurs should be replaced with the exact quotes, and interpretation left to the reader, or else the section should be removed.

Xanthian (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Early_Show should be added.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 14:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Norah O'Donnell. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Norah O'Donnell. 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:

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) 12:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly used clip, of Norah O'Donnell asking Paul Manafort, (from 01:57 to 02:11), by late night talk shows Colbert, Corden, Fallon, Kimmel, Maher, and Meyers:

  • CBS This Morning (27 July 2016). "Campaign chair denies financial relationship between Trump and Russia". CBS News.
  • CBS This Morning (27 July 2016). "Campaign chair denies financial relationship between Trump and Russia". CBS News – via YouTube.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Content error under "Life and Early Career"

The first sentence in this section reads (in part): "the daughter of Francis O'Donnell, a doctor and commander in the US Army". This is factually wrong. "commander" is not a rank in the US Army, it is a rank in the US Navy. So, either he was in the Navy or he held some other rank. I do not know what the correct information would be but this cannot be correct. Here is the official US Army site with ranks: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrufener (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.army.mil/ranks/
@Jrufener 75.169.189.199 (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Truck Driving

I delivered the US Mail between Waco, TX and Killeen, TX for a private contractor in an 18 wheeler. It was a split shift. I slept in the sleeper until I picked up the afternoon mail and drove it back to Waco. As a man I can do #1 in a bottle but I have to keep half my clothes to run inside the truck stop to do #2. I liked driving the truck but loving that way is not for me. I had no formal training just OJT and I took the road test and got my license. I still have my Class A CDL with Passenger, School bus and tanker enforcements. I drive a trash truck for the City of Waco now.

Thank you,

Robert Cagle 75.22.191.219 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Stance

I like Nora’s reporting style ; however I am distracted by her stance. It seems her body stance is turned to the left while she faces the camera directly. Is the way she stands because she is a woman? Men anchors don’t do this. 64.72.121.198 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nora

Did not see you a few weeks ago with short hair giving the news thanks 2600:6C40:7B00:DDC:954C:7C15:2B5A:F1A3 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norah_O%27Donnell/Archive_1&oldid=1174768700"