Talk:Andrea Mitchell

message: Not much info on her career, just incidents. The background info isn'r enough. Please improve this article. thanks. -Alan
can anyone document when she had her face lifts? Kingturtle 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Header

message: What relevance is it to put it in the infobox?  It's not there for other TV journalists. Dogru144 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Did she succeed the late Tim Russert as NBC News Washington Bureau chief?  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Bureau 

message: This seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research. I am removing it and it can be restored when or if it gets sourced. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find sources but I didn't see the quote of what she originally said so it was left out. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy during Obama Campaign 

message: The claim: "After a June 18, 2012 segment on her show Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell came under criticism as having misrepresented..."
Fact: The source does NOT say Mitchell misrepresented anything, nor does it say that anyone made that claim. The source says, "MSNBC Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’". Discuss.- SummerPhD (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As there has been no response, I've fixed this to match what the sources actually say. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious - misrepresented

message: The claim: "Mitchell came under criticism
Fact: Four sources are given, clearly implying that Mitchell was widely criticized. The first three sources clearly single out MSNBC, NOT Mitchell. Of the numerous sources presented in the contentious history of this claimed controversy, that last source, Fox News, is the only source that clearly states Mitchell was criticized. All of the rest clearly hang this on MSNBC. The Politico source, one of the first ones ever cited in this section, specifically and directly exonerated Mitchell. After I pointed this out, that source was removed. In a fair and balanced kinda way. Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As there had been no response, I fixed this. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious - under criticism

message: I have suggested: ""MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire for a video the network had edited in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, briefly address the controversy the following day."
There still have not been any comments on this suggestion. Does it misrepresent any of the sources? Which ones and how? Is there any reliably sourced material about Mitchell missing? What and which sources present the material? Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus for your changes or interpretation.  Your calls for discussion after having deleted the section wholesale seem inconsistent.  In any case, you have read mine and Arzel's comments above.  I remind you the show is called Andrea Mitchell Reports and unless you find a reliable source saying she said she was misled her second-day clarification implies she takes full responsibility for her actions. Please update us when you find such a source. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new claim seems to say that what sources say the network did somehow applies to her because of the name of the show. Please discuss this in the two "Dubious" sections above. Additionally, please explain what you feel this section gets wrong or omits, citing sources for each issue. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: AM did not address the controversy, or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong.  She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment.  I am actually quite suprised that AM has not yet done a Mea Culpa on this since the deception is clear and she has yet to even note that what she did was wrong.  But then I suppose since Romney is a Republican there is little outcry from most of the media to even note just how blatently biased her report was.  Arzel (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That you believe "what she did was wrong", the "deception is clear", liberal bias in the media, etc. are all moot points with no relation whatsoever to what we should or should not include in this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not address my first two sentences regarding you previous comment, they are factual statements backed up by the sources and not my opinion.  Only the last sentence is my opinion, but c'mon, are you really defending her actions here?  I've not seen anyone in the media defend what she did, at most it has been ignored, but all that have commented on it have come to the same conclusion.  AM aired a deceptively edited video designed to make Romney look out of touch or like an imbecile, and she did not appologize or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong in the least.  Arzel (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "factual". Claim: "AM did not address the controversy". Fact: Yes, she did. Claim: "or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong." Fact: Reliable sources do not say that she did anything wrong. Claim: I did not address "She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment." Fact: What's to address? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested section content, still not discussed

message: The claim: "(Mitchell) laugh(ed) at him for the invented gaffe.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/msnbc-misquotes-romney-invents-wawa-gaffe.html"
Fact: The source cited does not say Mitchell "laughed at him". In fact, the source cited doesn't even mention laughter. The only thing this particular source says about Mitchell is, "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" There is nothing remotely related to what the source is cited for. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you are on about.  The reference is added to support the fact that the supposed gaffe was invented by the editing--not the fact that she laughed at the gaffe, which is evident from the primary source of the video and requires no separate source. Given the rewording by Canoe1967 I have removed the dubiouses.μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does not say or show that she laughed at Romney. While having her laugh "at Romney" supports your idea of her attacking him, it is not in the source. As you have not responded to the other two "dubious" tags (detailed above), should we assume you agree with the analysis presented there? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I've fixed your "fix" as the source does not say that anyone laughed at anyone. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: you remove Mitchell's alleged laughter -by the dubious claim that it doesn't even exist in her report or isn't worth noting- then you are removing her laughter from the context of Romney's being ridiculed (which was quite  apparently the solely desired effect of the clip). she even made reference to another oft smeared republican, GHWB. was this analogy necessary. why isn't this a howard dean "ahhhh" moment? don't many a failing politician have a memorable falling out? but denying our right to report laughter even happened.  just because it was retracted the next day unapologetically, or because one of the "neutral" sources did not make light of it in their recounting of events... you're saying it didn't happen? or though you know it did occur from the videos, you either won't acknowledge, or you decide it's non notable because one site failed to include it in their blurb summary of what took place? so... Romney's speech was worth Andrea pointing out as a classic gaffe at the time, but now that the facts are in, you become wary of us trying to interpret Andrea Mitchell's actual words and laughter for their desired effect? if so, you are inconsistent in your logic. this is what she did... mistake or deliberate, it did occur on (unedited) tape so own it. yes, I called it ironic because she wants to hold Rommey accountable for  supposedly recorded words that were quoted severely out of context, yet her recorded words are suddenly excused now, even though they achieved their desired effect.hykos (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You repeated refer to the "desired effect". None of the sources discuss Mitchell's intentions or desires. That you feel her motives are obvious is moot. Stick to the sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious - laughing at him for the invented gaffe

message: The source given for "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney" does not say she mocked anyone. The only thing Mitchell does in the source is "(suppose) that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious - mocked

message: It now turns out that Mitchell had virtually nothing to do with the clip. She played it, apparently unaware that it was out of context ("Mitchell...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."), laughed and, in response to accusations by "conservatives and media writers" later played the full clip. Much of the discussion here defending strongly worded edits (ironically taking words from sources out of context) has hinged on claims that Mistchell was or did this, that or the other thing. It now turns out the video did not originate on Andrea Mitchell Reports. It came from MSNBC's Way Too Early with Willie Geist. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't believe that for a second.  If she really had nothing to do with it then why has she yet to appologize or even acknowledge that it was misleading and done with the intent to make Romney look like an inbecile?  Her non-action speaks quite loudly.  Arzel (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your refusal to believe what a reliable source reports (that it did not originate with Andrea Mitchell Reports) and your unsourced claims regarding intent and what you feel the absence of evidence is evidence of are all moot points. We do not have reliable sources saying "She must appologize!" We do not have reliable sources saying that it was deliberately misleading. We do not have reliable sources saying that absence of evidence is evidence that she is the evil spawn of Satan intent on destroying all that is right and good with the world (a.k.a. Romney). What we have is a section that started out as a very poorly sourced attack on Mitchell for is now seems to be barely related to her in any way. She aired a clip from another show and "broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given (she) had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."- SummerPhD (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite Orwellian logic you are spinning here.  I suppose by next week it would have not even happened on her show and by the week after that not even on MSNBC.  Arzel (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea! I'll have to get the rest of the anti-Romney cabal together for a good old fashioned history editing party. After all, we can't let the record reflect that Michell aired a clip and understandably laughed at it. I'll head on down to the WaWas and use the touchtone keypads to order up some meatball subs with pickles. It'll be great! - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: On an unrelated question, why do you repeatedly say which is understandable with regards to AM comments?  Are supposedly neutral reporters supposed to bust into laughter when presented with something that they think makes the subject look like a moron?  I'll remember to look for those reports of Obama's gaffes by AM in the future.  Arzel (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not say it. The reliable source says it. Interesting fact: That source was originally tortured into supporting the outrageous BLP violation that was originally here. When I pointed out that the source said her reaction was "understandable" given what she had "been led to believe" that source was removed as "redundant" by your associate, Medeis/"μηδείς". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: SummerPhd, Believe what you want to about your sacred Mitchell.  No apology was made by her that I know of, so it is impossible for you to assume whether she deliberately manipulated the clip or if she was just that negligent in reporting the news. Either way, if she's not sorry she did it, she's probably sorry that she got caught. Let's stop protecting her with assumptions that she "allegedly" didn't know what she was doing.  It's only her job to know!  hykos (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You believe she deliberately manipulated a clip, gave it to the earlier show, then used it on her show? Wow, that's one busy woman! - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't see the irony? Andrea Mitchell wanted to point out someone's gaffe. The bigger gaffe is one which was manufactured by her, and her employer. You've never heard of guilt by association? You're giving her a free pass for some reason, but it is clear to me that she either had malicious intentions, or her employer did. either way, she shouldn't be reporting on the news because she has a responsibility and she doesn't fact check. This isn't her first controversy, either. You want to delete this section, but it is apparently her claim to fame.  If she weren't so controversial, I might not know who she is.hykos (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)I see that you think there is irony. What is truly ironic is the way you are creating facts to support your claim that Mitchell is being somehow dishonest. "Mitchell wanted..."? How do you know what she wanted? "...manufactured by her..."? None of the sources say anything of the sort. In fact, we know the clip came from another show entirely. "...she...had malicious intentions..."? This is an unsourced, libelous claim. "...she shouldn't be reporting the news because she doesn't fact check."? This one is hilarious! You expect ONE PERSON to fact check all of the news that fits into that show? Really? "...this section...is apparently her claim to fame."? Yeah, I'm sure. That's why we have so many independent reliable sources about her that predate this "controversy" that barely involves her. "If she weren't so controversial, I wouldn't know who she is." You might need to get out of the house more. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't expect Mitchell to be at every single stump speech or to digest all its material correctly all the time. But since (redacted WP:BLP violation), and since she is getting paid to interpret speeches, and decides (redacted WP:BLP violation), she is liable for her mistake. I like to hold people accountable for their words. this section is staying. it would be no different from fox news making up false claims and their reputation getting called out on it all the time, or a talk show making up statistics. I get so mad when I see these obvious misrepresentation of fact. you do not need to give her a free pass just because she wears her agenda on her sleeve which attracts more negative attention than you would like, or because she even ran a retraction. she got caught! of course she did a retraction. it's called damage control. and the more damage control you singularly do on her wikipedia page, the more you make it look like a cover up. That's why I said I don't know who she is otherwise. it is the only thing marking her relevance right now. Maybe I have to get out of the house more like you said so that I can expose myself to more (redacted WP:BLP violation). i certainly don't want to be that guy that edits a wikipedia page 25 times in one day just to make myself feel like I'm the only one who's right around here. wiki is supposed to be a neutral consensus, and you are running it like it's your own. that is not what it is intended for. let's report the whole truth, and not give her or msnbc the benefit of the doubt. this is a repeat offense for both parties, and if you think it wasn't deliberate, then you are giving her way too much leeway.hykos (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review our policy on biographies of living persons. Your repeated unsourced contentious claims are a problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't redact all my claims. All I said was, in theory, that I might not want to "expose myself to (redacted WP:BLP violation)" I did not have to pretend (redacted WP:BLP violation), but nevertheless is true. when you cited the Biographies of Living Persons, are you referring to the neutral point of view? please be specific... i have read the whole policy and do not understand which details you are correctly adhering to that I am not.hykos (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not redact all of your claims. I redacted your unsourced contentious claims regarding a living person. "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLP This is policy, applies to articles as well as "talk" pages and is not open to discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Entire section is dubious

message: The claim: "The edited clip was made to appear as though Romney was amazed by fairly standard technology at a local Wawa convenience store."
Fact: Changing this from "The edited clip made it appear..." inserts the idea that this was the intent of those who edited the clip. None of the sources support this idea. Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your logical interpretation of what the intent was of those who edited the clip? Whether intended deliberately or delivered carelessly or some combination of the two may be dubious to you but it must be one or the other.  Mitchell makes clear enough what her own intentions are.  Andrea Mitchell called this Romney's "supermarket scanner moment" and laughs at Romney's projected stumbling over technology and uses the metaphor to compare to GHWB.   Romney was not talking about supermarkets nor scanners, but that does not matter to Mitchell, who herself appears more out of touch with reality than her made-up version of Romney.  The clip was verifiably edited (see multiple sources) and in doing so they projected an entirely different message than the original speech. How could this happen to a viable and resourceful news organization unless by intention?  Many failed politicians can have memorable downfalls. She uses GHWB as her perfect example. (Republicans look dumb on camera. She didn't say it, but inferred.) Now, next time media quotes someone out of context and gets caught doing so, it will be compared to Andrea Mitchell's Report. Perhaps that's not the reputation she wants, but she deserves it and must own it. She is not noticed for much else lately, so it is fitting that her own self inflicted controversies be included as part of her bio. hykos (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "interpretation of (her) intent" is just great, but has no place in this article. We do not have any way of knowing what she intended and your interpretation is simply not relevant. You've decided that it MUST be either deliberate or careless. That you can think of no other explanation is moot. Your ideas of her "projection", what matters to her, "inferred" (ironically, you inferred that she implied it), what she "deserves", etc. are all your opinions. They do not belong in an excyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious - "was made to appear"

message: It seems the old one was deleted from commons. I went through flickr and this was the best I could find. I did crop it to make it fit the infobox better. The flickr user had cropped it before that from a larger image. Feel free to overwrite the file in commons if anyone finds a better one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: Andrea Mitchell is NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. Richard Engel is NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent. Is there a difference? Does anyone know?74.69.8.195 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Chief Foreign Correspondent is out in the field - he is their lead overseas correspondent, working from wherever the news is.  Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent analyzes foreign affairs, usually from home base. Tvoz/talk 19:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andrea Mitchell. 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/20131203001021/http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680 to http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680
*Added  tag to http://nrhs.nred.org/site_res_view_folder.aspx?id=f48013ee-45f7-4e7b-a618-7cdecf8ecaac
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why doesn’t nato put sanctions on Belarus 174.252.130.104 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belarus: question