Talk:Jeff Kuhner

message: I removed this from the article:
:In 2007, the New York Times labeled Kuhner purveyor of "the first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race" for publishing a factually-incorrect article about U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama, in which an anonymous writer for Insight claimed that Obama had attended a radical Islamic Madrassa school in Indonesia as a youth. The article also cited anonymous sources.
:Because the article was quickly picked up and propagated by the United States mass media, Kuhner and Insight became notable not only as publisher and source of the debunked article, but also as an example of journalistic unreliability. Fox News was also brought further into the spotlight for running the web-based story without first verifying its claims.
:According to the New York Times article,
:To most journalists, the notion of anonymous reporters relying on anonymous sources is a red flag. "If you want to talk about a business model that is designed to manufacture mischief in large volume, that would be it," said Ralph Whitehead Jr., a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts. With so much anonymity, "How do we know that Insight magazine actually exists?” Professor Whitehead added. “It could be performance art."
:Even though CNN has proven the Insight article be inaccurate, Kuhner maintains that it is "solid as solid can be".[1]
:[edit] References
:1.	^ "Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It’s False", New York Times, 29 January 2007. Retrieved on 2007-01-29. 
:Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_T._Kuhner"
This is a lot of information about one incident and takes up about 90% of the article.  I didn't intend to "blank out" the article however. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to try a compromise so there is a link to the incident's own article and only 50% of this article will be taken up by it. Please let me know how you think about it. Thanks. Steve Dufour 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sorry for the misunderstanding

message: At the Jeffrey T. Kuhner article, a user named Jkuhner edited the page. Shortly after this user was notifited about WP:Auto, a new user named User:Publishtruth joined and began to make similar edits. I have asked this editor to stop making edits until we can build a consensus on the articles. The editor is not making an effort to follow Wikipedia editing standards, and is merely adding information or making changes without regard to standards. Maybe it's time we should temporarily disable editing on this article. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an FYI, this is a response written by Publishtruth on the Insight magazine article:
Dear Editors: I wish to apologize for the misunderstanding earlier. Both publishtruth and jkuhner were first-time users and did not know how Wikipedia works. We will respect the process and did not mean to disrupt the site; we thought we just had to keep loading the information until it got through. We will provide verifiable links in the next while to a great deal of information your readers need in order to form their own judgements on these vital matters. However, we will be on our guard to prevent the text from giving credence to many of the smears and distortions which have been propagated by both the liberal press and supporters of Hillary due to a blockbuster story which we produced which unveiled her use of investigative reporters in an attempt to dig up dirt on Obama and derail his campaign. We will not tolerate a biased representation of either Mr. Kuhner's name (he has an outstanding reputation) nor of Insight whose reporting has NOT been disproven. In fact, the debate has now reemerged with the piece published in the front page of the Washington Post this week which has caused an uproar among its editors (see Politico.com) because again the reporting on Obama appears to be driven not by facts but by a political agenda. I assure you Insight will be vindicated. And I repeat, we will be respectful of the process but are not going to accept being undermined if you persist in presenting information which attempts to smear us but does not give equal weight to our side of this vital story. What is at stake here are the very standards with which the press does its job and both CNN and The New York Times chose to cover up for Hillary rather than expose the truth. So just give us a fair representation and don't tilt the information in favor of the attacks against us. If you are even-handed, we are confident your readers will get the full story and will realize how right we are.  Best wishes, publishtruth Dec. 7, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publishtruth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be cautious with your editing. It is now not only clear that your organization supports a specific, non-neutral point of view, but also that your organization intends to change the tone of these articles to support your non-neutral point of view. If you wish to make changes, please bear in mind that there are several people who actively monitor these articles, and that the content is judged by consensus, not your definition of "reputation" or "vindication. If you continue to make disruptive edits, your organization could be banned from editing Wikipedia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What I would recommend would be to draft your edits here in the Talk page with input from the other people who watch this page. If you don't want it to be removed, make sure that any information you wish to include can be easily found in your citations. Your edits should also be in your own words, not taken directly from another website. Even your own biographical information must be cited, even if you personally know it to be true. You may also want to make small edits that improve other Wikipedia articles unrelated to you to get a feel for editing, and what is required. The problem is not that your information is not wanted here, it is just that there are standards and formatting that you should know about before drastically altering an article.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: JK, I see that you missed my response to you on the discussion page of your talk page. The most important part was: please read WP:AUTO. One problem I see with AC's response is that we can't really cite to a Wikipedia talk page or attribute JKuhner's writings there to Jeffrey T. Kuhner. However, if you put the bio you wrote on your own site it would serve two purposes: we could cite to it, and it would make what you say attributable to you. Btw, I take your point that you never said Obama had attended a madrassa (though you certainly seemed to imply that you believed from what you'd been told that he probably had). Did you know Ann Coulter never said John Edwards was a faggot? Same way you "said" Obama went to a madrassa, it turns out to be not quite true. Andyvphil (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Publishtruth and Jkuhner

message: I've reverted the article to the last sourced version. Normally, it's considered poor practice to remove a sourced article, and replace it with an essentially unsourced one. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: how about something on the fact that he pretends to be far more conservative than he actually is?  for all his ranting and raving about liberals, he is, in fact, clearly with them on a number of issues.
unlike other moderates, however, who openly accept this fact, he amps up the invective when someone points it out.  i mean, he's no chris matthews, granted, but he's hardly a "conservative" by any means.  209.172.25.97 (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RINO 

message: https://news.yahoo.com/boston-radio-host-railed-against-203901928.html
Apparently there is a preliminary report that Jeff Kuhner as of december 2021 had COVID-19. 2601:640:C681:C260:6580:3C17:F39E:D30D (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Kuhner has COVID-19

message: wife Grace seems to be prominent in her own right.  professor, author, started some PAC or think tank.  i dunno if she's also appeared on radio/tv, but sounds likely.
maybe a little on her?  173.9.95.217 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  wife 

message: should something be mentioned about his native language?  i had assumed it is was french, tho the one time he said something in french it sounded as bad as his english.  his croatian sounded much better, to be honest.
is it possible he was born to some sort of immigrant enclave within montreal, starting out in croatian schools or something?  i don't understand having broken french AND english if he really is montreal-born.  209.172.23.33 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken english