Jump to content

Talk:Soledad O'Brien

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

Stephen Colbert

[edit]
  • Why is there any entire section pertaining to references to Soledad O'Brien on the Colbert Report? The existance of that entire heading implies that the Colbert Report is more important that it really is. I guess some of the editors of this article really value the Colbert Report. Sounds pretty slanted to me. Bulljive 07 November, 2006
  • Not sure if this used to be an entire section, but even now as a sentence at the end of the article it seemed very out of place. Doesn't seem to be encylopedic content. croll 11:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

[edit]

Does this section need to be here at all? So, some republican talking heads think she leans a little bit too far left? SHOCKING! We could have an entire wiki page dedicated to crap one person has said about someone else. Particularly someone who is a paragon of journalism, in a time when proper journalism seems all but defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.20.4 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sensationalism

[edit]
  • Is there a way to talk about, to identify her, or her employer CNN's, current bent on reporting towards sensationalism? Here she challenges a pacifist parent whose son was beheaded by Al Quaeda to feel happy about an Al Quaeda being killed: [1] "MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that. (Watch Berg compare Zarqawi to President Bush -- 1:44) (PP) I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence. O'BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I'm surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way. BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air. O'BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'? BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?"
No, Wikipedia, is not your soapbox. -- Jibal (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Article

[edit]
  • Yeah it seems backwards. Kind of annoying actually. Her reporting background should be chronological and not jump all over the place.
  • In accord with WP:Bold, I took a stab at redrafting this in chronological order. As I did so, it looks like there are some inconsistencies in the timeline. It's also a bit ugly, but one step closer to being cleaned up. Also, she has since been transferred (or removed) from the anchor's chair and is now a special correspondence of some sort. Article on this appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. croll 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting Career

[edit]
  • I'm almost positive that Soledad O'Brien was a cohost on Beyond 2000 (science and tech show), however I couldn't find a definite answer in my research. User:199.77.144.99
  • I can confirm that she was on the Discovery Channel TV show Beyond 2000 as a CO-Host back in the mid 90s (circa 1994-1995) with Henry Tennanbaum. At that Time the Discovery Channel was airing two different future technology shows, one was beyond 2000 and I cannot remember the name of the other one, but I remember what the host looked like of it (middle aged, light colored hair). --70.126.236.103 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She was the "Sun Microsystems Infogal" on the show "Next Step." I added this fact to the article. --Howdybob 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--70.126.236.103 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I remember correctly, Soledad was an 'anchor' on "Channel One", a news program that was shown in my high school (Ben Lomond, Ogden, UT) in 1989 or 1990 or so. It was strange and new, because Channel One paid for TVs to be installed in our classrooms. For five or ten minutes, they would broadcast some news and ads. The TVs were paid for by Channel One's advertizers such as Mountain Dew soda pop, and Gillete Sensor razors. At the time, it sparked debate about whether or not it was OK to let advertizers have this kind of access to our public schools, regardless of any educational side effect. More than anything else, whenever I see Soledad give a news report, I think of this controversy and have a hard time listening to whatever else she is reporting on right now. But I can't confirm the channel one thing. This is so important to the history of Soledad, we must add it, but I don't have date details or better facts, just my memory. I have no idea if channel one still exists, or if it went under. Auja 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) acefrahm.com[reply]
  • There was also "Beyond Tomorrow," which was essentially the same thing as "Beyond 2000". However, I guess I could be getting confused with the "Know Zone."
  • Am I mistaken in remembering Soledad as an anchor on a CNET news show sometime in the mid 90s? Am I mixing that up with another tech show?
  • Sorry -- not sure if this will properly identify me, or if I am adding a comment incorrectly. Soledad was also on CNET TV o USA Network when it first launched (c. 1990-1992?) before the website, wasn't she? 67.170.107.99 14:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took out a duplicative reference to the "Know Zone" and updated to reflect the news reports that she has lost her current slot to Kiran Chetry (with a cite).KD Tries Again 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Anything notable happen on Soledad's show recently? Earlier shows of hers had 2008 political controversy around inaccuracy and/or bias and that is published but any recent 2012 items? Seems to be taboo for some reason or perhaps nobody bothered to add content...actually somebody DID step up but rather than make thoughtful improvements somehow it's easier for other editors to just delete. Funny how when breitbart.com is the reference, that can be blocked because of the reference itself, but when CNN is the reference THEN the content is the issue. It's fine to disagree with opinions but nobody is entitled to their own facts or blocking verified facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.231.123 (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is there a more skilled Wikipedian who can verify the dead link notation, and reference to that page in web archive? Thank you. AndersW (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

It would be nice to have completion dates, & cet, for education, eg,

  • graduated from Smithtown High School East 1984?
  • entered Radcliffe College 1984, class of 1988?
  • AB Harvard College 2000?

Thank you. AndersW (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Husband's name

[edit]

Is Mr Raymond Bradford or Bradley? AndersW (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the husband's birth year incorrect? It states 1995, which would make him 13 and make Soledad a pedophile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.252.220 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi all,

Reference #6 linking to Hispanic Magazine is dead and needs to be replaced by http://web.archive.org/web/20060103192542/http://www.hispaniconline.com/magazine/2005/June/CoverStory/index.html but I don't know how to do it. Can someone else help?

Best, Conor (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book

[edit]

Doesn't she have a book coming out?

98.245.148.9 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 February 2012

[edit]

I work with Soledad and we'd like to update her Wiki page a bit. Most of it is great, but in the TV Career section can we please update it to say the following. This is her official CNN bio.

(NOTE - I deleted from here a large cut and copy paste of the subject CNN bio - imo , such a large post was or could be in good faith, perceived as a Copyright violation - Youreallycan 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)) Nastassiabrown (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we can't add this - there are copyright issues with just posting it here in completeness like this - We are looking for independent WP:RS to add content - if you present some I can look at them for you - we can use her CNN bio for small specific additions but only with care, as it is a WP:PRIMARY Youreallycan 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. I will add things in bit by bit, to avoid any infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastassiabrown (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cool - please provide a link to the web address so users can investigate - regards - Youreallycan 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading or Confusing Criticism

[edit]

Would someone read this and tell me exactly WTH this is supposed to convey?

  • Criticism - 2012 - First Sentence

Accused of using Democratic Party talking points by former Governor of New Hampshire John Sununu, a Republican, during an interview with Sununu.

Seems a little recursive in the way the wording is typed, to me at least. Goldbishop (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't dramatically restructure it, but I added more detail for context. The criticism of O'Brien is largely coming from Fox News and other conservative attackers. I personally didn't see anything wrong with what she did, but it's not my job to make judgments. I added the parts about what induced Sununu to claim O'Brien should put on Obama bumper sticker on her head (her citation of generally non-partisan sources which indicated that the Affordable Care Act would extend the life of Medicare, and distinguishing this from the Ryan plan). I also noted that in the incident where she was looking at a liberal blog article, she made a single quotation from the article. I personally would actually remove the latter because there's nothing wrong with looking at an article, be it liberal or conservative. It's the job of journalists to question people, so it makes sense that she would look at a liberal article when she has a conservative person to talk to. Nonetheless, I'm biased, so I didn't remove anything, just added context.

15 August 2012, editor (not Goldbishop).

I've removed it for now. For one thing, the wording is unbalanced, and the sources are not reliable. The article might need to be temporarily protected against drive-by edits. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transparently leftist bias on Wikipedia... AGAIN.

[edit]

Absolutely NO MENTION of her ridiculous exchange with Joel Pollack when she was literally parroting nonsense she didn't understand from her producer about "critical race theory", which was really a watershed moment after which more scrutiny was placed on her to further document her blatant leftist/pro-Democratic bias. From what I recall, there was a subsequent edit-war which took place on the Wikipedia article for this "critical race theory" (essentially a neo-Marxist narrative of history), presumably by Soledad O'Brien's supporters and/or co-workers. A serious edit of this article is in order. Bobinisrael (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transparently rightist biased trolling... AGAIN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you can't address anything I said, and instead prefer to respond to my legitimate and articulate criticism with a worthless one-liner. Unfortunately for you, I will edit the article to include Soledad O'Brien's humiliation at the hands of Joel Pollack. Bobinisrael (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, trolling. As for 'articulate' that is a matter of opinion - If you actually think there are problems with an article, say why without insulting the subject of the article and previous contributors - or do you have any evidence that Soledad O'Brien's co-workers have edited this article? =And while you are at it provide sources to back up your other assertions. Incidentally, I see you refer to things you 'recall' which took place earlier on Wikipedia. I don't suppose you'd care to let us know what name you were editing under at the time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy :) Bobinisrael (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. "Soledad O'Brien's humiliation at the hands of Joel Pollack". So much for NPOV. After a cursory glance, I'm curious how many of the sources used in the 'righting' of this will stand as reliable. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am free to speak candidly in the talk page, am I not? I used NPOV throughout my entire contribution on the main page of the article, which was predictably vandalised cia complete deletion from AndyTheGrump. All of the sources I used are completely legitimate. Good luck contesting ANY of the facts drawn from those sources. Bobinisrael (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what they are cited for? Not many, I'd think - they mostly seem to be conservative blogs. Then again, given Bobinisrael's self-confessed statements regarding intentionally editing against WP:NPOV policy (and WP:BLP, which applies on talk pages too), I doubt that he's going to be here long to defend it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are all legitimate sources, but of course since they dissent from the leftist narratives you are committed to championing on Wikipedia, you blatantly vandalised the article by deleting the entire new section I composed. Perhaps you should create another "joe job" account in order to try again to silence me, because you won't win this one.Bobinisrael (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Bobinisrael's blatant disregard for policy has been raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Soledad O'Brien. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump has vandalised the article, and completely deleted an edit I used many reliable sources. Assuming he's a tenured Wikipedian, he should know better. Just more good faith, apparently.Bobinisrael (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalism. The sources are not uniformly acceptable, and are no more neutral than is the intent to use them. They raise real WP:BLP issues. As well, the above accusation of Mr. Grump's using a sockpuppet won't help matters. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please substantiate that claim. All you're doing is invoking a Wikipedia policy without giving a specific example from the sources I provided explaining how they violate this policy. BE SPECIFIC - tell us which part of which article I sourced are unacceptable and why. If you can't do it, then the paragraph will remain. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% pure vandalism. The sources are absolutely acceptable, and the facts are not in dispute. Apparently, if a source isn't the NYT or BBC (probably two bastions of objectivity, in your mind), it's suspect. This is EXACTLY the bias I've come here to combat on Wikipedia. If you delete the section again I will escalate the issue.Bobinisrael (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is 100% pure ignorance - see WP:VANDAL. And WP:BRD. And WP:RS. And WP:BLP. And WP:NPOV. And then seek psychiatric help... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All you're doing is throwing around Wikipedia acronyms. What you still haven't done, and what you and I know you won't do, is provide SPECIFIC examples of how the articles I've cited in the paragraph violate any of these policies. For all the effort you spent pursuing me and vandalising this article, it's revealing that you cannot do what you're being requested to do. You're silencing dissent because it is sourced with some conservative news outlets, rather than specifically challenging the facts or the analysis. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have adhered to all of those Wikipedia policies. You saying something isn't reliable or neutral doesn't make it so. You, on the other hand, are committed to vandalism. If you have a specific grievance with a specific component of an article, go ahead and express your grievance. Otherwise, it's vandalism, pure and simple. Anyways, I've escalated this issue.Bobinisrael (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you clearly have shit for brains, I'm no longer the slightest bit interested in discussing anything with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, the important thing to remember here is that sources that disagree with the left are NEVER valid sources on Wikipedia. 68.115.176.124 (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing to remember is that right wingers are dishonest slime. -- Jibal (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have we overdone the treacle in the 'Honors and recognitions' section?

[edit]

Having successfully fought off the 'OMG leftist bias!' troll above, to avoid filling the 'Criticism' section with trivia regarding Ms O'Brien's apparent lack of familiarity with the finer points of (allegedly) Marxist sociological theory, I wonder whether it might be time to remove some of the praise-trivia too. I dare say it matters to the Delta Sigma Theta sorority that she's a member, but does it matter to the rest of us? Likewise, do we need to list speeches she's given to student bodies and the like? As for the awards she's been given, are they all actually significant?

Incidentally, I've just spotted an obvious copyvio in the section - the paragraph on the Goodermote Humanitarian Award is a straight copy-and-paste from the source, which I'll have to paraphrase. Contributors should know better than this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are weak or nonexistent or the content is trivial, please do clean both the honors and criticism sections. Of course no consensus is required for standard housekeeping, but given recent circumstances it doesn't hurt to overdo the transparency. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the criticism section, removing an excess of cites and removing a lot of the play-by-play and direct quotes. Next I'll go over the 'honors' section. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on whether keynote and commencement speeches, and being named in annual magazine lists merit inclusion? For someone else a couple of these would help to establish notability, but they're not so important here. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should mention the Delta Sigma Theta sorority, we mention Greek letter societies for other U.S. figures. TFD (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that 'otherstuff' type arguments are particularly helpful here. Then again, as a Brit, I'm not overly-familiar with just how significant these societies actually are in the U.S. context. Do we have third-party sources which suggest that in this case O'Brien's membership of Delta Sigma Theta is of any note? As it was, there didn't seem to be any source at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered in The Root[2] and other alternative publications. As an active organization with 300,000 African American women members, it seems worth mentioning that O'Brien was given honorary membership. TFD (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - Criticism sections are frowned upon

[edit]

Per various policies, "Criticism" sections are frowned upon. Content should woven through the article in the chronologically appropriate places. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding wikipedia policy. They are frowned upon but not banned, meaning they are not appropriate for everyone but are for some. She is controversial in a way that others in her field are not. She recieves lots of criticim. Its a noticable aspect of her fame. People like say...Brian Lamb or Jim Lerher are not controversial and do not recieve large amounts of criticism. She does. it should stay in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your response above seems to indicate that you believe that "frowned upon" means "I can safely ignore this as though it didn't exist". No, frowned upon means "don't do it unless you have a really good reason". You have not provided a sufficient reason, except your personal belief that she's somehow more controversial than other television personalities. Your personal belief is an insufficient rationale for breaking with expectations. What you should do is to weave the criticism into where it belongs in the narrative in other places. The article should contain notable criticism such that it doesn't represent an undue portion of the article, but the criticism should not be segregated into its own section. --Jayron32 14:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't have a strong opinion about the content of this specific article (I dropped by looking for info on the subject) I would agree that Ignore All Rules sometimes makes good sense. An article on Morton Downey Junior (for instance), who gained notoriety as a controversial late-night talk-show host, might best be structured to incorporate a de facto criticism section, as criticisms make up a large portion of the subject's notability. Staying within the boundaries of Biographies of Living Persons may actually be easier if it is made clear in the body of the article that the validity of the criticisms taken as a body may be a point of discussion. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soledad O'Brien. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNS

[edit]

I stumbled upon this page and am fundamentally distressed at the CNS used here. The amount of effort it took to add these would have been much better focused on actually paraphrasing and adding citations. I think this is a biased and bizarre approach to clean up a page that obviously needs a lot of help. I am going to try to stabilize the page and improve it to make it more reflective of both her career and the quality of other articles about women on Wikipedia. I mean, I'm just really flabbergasted at the state of this article. Please be kind and bear with me while I work to fix the article. Thanks in advance. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ;To Do [reply]

To follow up, I did a massive scrub and added a ton of content. It's definitely not perfect but it's in better shape than it was. Only concern is that it seems like some of the information is pulling from http://soledadobrien.info/, possibly, and if so needs to be paraphrased. I don't have any more time to focus on doing more to this page. So if an editor wants to go through that website and compare and contrast and paraphrase and/or find better original sources -- which there seem to be a ton of, actually, then go for it.
But my main concern that the article was not neutral in places, and had the awful cns formatting, which I've not seen used so extensively, that's fixed. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also just want to mention that this article is pretty extensive, but for someone who has been working in the industry for such a long time -- and at major TV networks, I think that this page merits the depth that's here. Her career sections could actually be further developed, but for the rest, I think someone of her career who was a man, this would be fine. So.... :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soledad_O%27Brien&oldid=1195374794"