Talk:ProPublica

message: "Independent", as in "ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that will produce investigative journalism in the public interest" sounds like it comes from a press release written by the organization.Buellering (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the lede to: ProPublica is a non-profit corporation based in Manhattan, New York. It describes itself as an independent non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest kevinp2 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word "independent" to describe ProPublica  

message: The German Wikipedia article about ProPublica claims that ProPublica is a typical example of "Funding Journalism". There is even a whole article describing the model of "Funding Journalism", claiming that (loosely translated) The term Funding Journalism (also called journalism funded by donations) describes the work of independent NGOs whose journalists research elaborate background stories primarily about politics and economics.. 
Is this term really commonly used in the English language to describe ProPublica? Is the term at all used to describe journalism that is funded by donations? I've googled and only found the term Funding Journalism in articles talking about funding journalism in general, but never articles that use the term "Funding Journalism" to describe ProPublica, or journalism financed by donations. --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a term that we use in English to describe organizations like ours. More commonly we are referred to as "journalism nonprofits" Celrae (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Funding Journalism"? 

message: Article needs to present ProPublica's part in the 2013 IRS scandal.  As it stands now, editor "ProPubPR" added material favorable to ProPublica and making it appear it was only accidentally involved and not actively part of a major governmental assault on privacy and the First Amendment that resulted in the firing of the IRS Acting Commissioner, etc. Lawfare (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certainly RS accounts that discuss ProPublica's connection. It should be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no reliable sources which describe ProPublica as being "actively part of a major governmental assault on privacy." There are reliable sources which describe it receiving documents it should not have, but there is no evidence to suggest that there was any wrongful intent on the part of ProPublica. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I took Lawfare to mean that they didn't just return the improper materials, they published. That seems active participation. The rest of that phrasing seems not right for this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They did publish some of them, but that wording suggests that ProPublica maliciously requested documents it should not have, or wrongfully colluded with persons inside the IRS to gather improper materials. There is no evidence for either accusation. So far as we know, ProPublica made a legitimate public records request from the IRS. Somehow, documents that should not have been released as part of that request were released to ProPublica. There is no evidence either way, as to whether that was an unintentional oversight or a malicious act. It may have violated the Privacy Act for the IRS to release the documents, but it was not illegal for ProPublica to possess or publish the documents — the Privacy Act applies only to government employees and entities. Once in its possession, ProPublica had a First Amendment right to publish that data. One might argue the journalistic ethics, but in no way can that be neutrally described as "actively part of a major governmental assault on privacy." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Only if the article notes that ProPublica's reporting was inaccurate, and that the IRS "scandal" was debunked. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to present ProPublica's part in IRS scandal 

message: I work on the business team at ProPublica. As you probably know, Facebook (and YouTube) have recently begun displaying Wikipedia pages on their platforms, and when I saw our information presented in this context, I noticed that the organizational information on the ProPublica page is quite out of date. We provide lots of transparency about our organization on our own website, and I'd love to have our page here reflect the latest info about our organization. Among the factual information that needs updating: our staff size is now more than 75 reporters, our funding information is out of date, and our board list is out of date. Given that Facebook and YouTube want these pages to help people assess our credibility, it would be helpful to have accurate info for people wanting to learn more about us. Perhaps Somedifferentstuff or AmeliaMN or NorthBySouthBaranof would be interested? I noticed that you have made substantive updates to our page recently.
Celrae (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational info out of date: would editors review and update? 

message: ProPublica’s Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh should be added.  It has attracted media attention from multiple sources. Permansson1 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be discussing this on talk instead of edit warring, not in addition to edit warring. The only source you've included is ProPublica themselves. What "media attention" has this attracted? Is it from reliable sources? Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kavanaugh Nomination 

message: /proʊˈpʌblɪkə/
: 
Every time I here some news broadcaster pronounce this name the way it appears above I am startled by what seems like a mispronuncuation. This pronunciation seems bizarre. And why is the link to the article about Schwarzenegger's response cited in support of the pronunciation? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Is ProPublica -> The Daily Digest pro CCP? Alien4 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you reword this? A bit unclear what you're trying to question. Couruu (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indipendent?