User talk:Tycoon24/Archive PJTV

Since practically all the turnout figures quoted by PJTV are much higher, you will need to either back those figures up with reliable sources, or indicate in the article that PJTV supported the event and their figures are much higher than other more neutral sources. At least Silver's figures are given per-event and backed up by local news organisations in most cases (and even those are being claimed as too high on 538.com's discussion page). Black Kite 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you using to suggest PJTV "practically" inflates the turnout numbers? Considering PJTV is one of the few news sources to cover the event, PJTV is probably one of the best sources to use. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they are inflating the figures, but since they're a partisan source (as they promoted the event) and their figures are much higher than those reported in neutral sources, this would have to be noted if their figures were included in the article. Black Kite 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still making assumptions, such as "they promoted the event." They covered the event, they didn't promote it. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Black Kite 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the same partisan argument that Fox News promoted the event, or that these protests were somehow organized by the GOP. This is an event covered by few media sources, Fox News and PJTV took advantage of it and covered it. Which makes me believe MSNBC in this case is actually a poor source. If a media source refused to cover the event, how are they supposed to come up with "truthful" numbers? I think you are missing the point, the source PJTV is a valid one because they covered the events from start to finish. Of all the sources to use, PJTV is likely the most accurate. OBVIOUSLY, nobody -- not a single source -- will ever come up with the 100% most accurate turnout result that you are looking for. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that an organization that encourages its viewers to join a protest would certainly not be the first place that one would look to for accurate figures, as they obviously have a vested interest in the figure being higher. I would say the most accurate figures would probably come from more localized media. Black Kite 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your notion is correct, local media sources should be more accurate; however, in many cases, local media refused to cover the events too. Thus, PJTV allowed for "Citizen Reporters" to cover the event. No matter where you get the estimates in turnout numbers, they are just that, estimates. You are arguing a moot point. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If PJTV is relying on participants in the events to estimate the figures at their own events then the figure is even more unreliable. The fact that PJTV is not an unbiased source needs to be noted. Black Kite 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tycoon24, I am trying to understand how you know that PJTV used information from citizen reporters to populate their numbers. Also, I'd like to point out that there are errors in these numbers - go take a look at "Top Events" and then check the number for NYC. Not 11,000 - but 1,100. But the 11,000 appears to be rolled over into the 600K number for the total. This is the problem when you use an unverified source.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are not coming from the Citizen Reporters, the numbers are coming from other sources to PJTV. But I'd argue that citizens and media who attended the events are more likely to be accurate than liberal media sources who refused to cover the events but find value in "estimating" the attendance numbers. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why the fivethirtyeight.com figure should in theory be the most accurate, as it's aggregated from local news sources (and each entry links to the local news story, too). Black Kite 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source to Pajamas Media "About" Web site. Having been around since 2004, they qualify as a reliable source and do not exist simply to promote the tea party events. This media source has existed for some time now. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No - you removed the important sentence, inserted information irrelevant to the article, and did it with a misleading edit summary as well ([1]). This is becoming disruptive now. Please do not remove that section again (or remove the entire PJTV section). Thankyou. Black Kite 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are wrong. I added a relevant source, it says what you are saying but with factual quotes. Tycoon24 (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Archive Talk on PJTV. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]