Talk:David Gregory (journalist)

message: The Drudge transcript is clearly wrong. I've fixed it up a bit to match the audio and video clips I've seen. Should we still cite Drudge as the source? Should we even include the transcript? --Geedubber 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that notion. The article needs a professional workup of the material. Also, the content which clearly shows an unfavorable bias should either be removed or given context. We should never list defamatory statements about a person in the main section. - ICarriere 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imus Transcript 

message: This article is little more than a transcript of White House complaints about Gregory.  I'm going to work on expanding the serious info and removing some of the excess. Gamaliel 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: These do not generally fit Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, but they may be useful sources if someone wants to use them to improve the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources 

message: I noticed he is listed as Jewish in the tag line but I do not see any sources cited. Please cite a source for that or maybe it should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article in the Washingtonian How David Gregory Lost His Job. Last summer, Gregory was let go from his gig as host of "Meet the Press." Here's an inside look at his fall from the top—and what it says about the state of TV news. By Luke Mullins. Washingtonian, December 21, 2014 said that as part of NBC's effort to improve his on-air personality, their consultants said that it would make him seem friendlier if he revealed some of his personal life on-air, such as his Jewish religion. So it is relevant to the article. You should be able to find more discussion about his Jewishness in The Forward. --Nbauman (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish  

message: the info box set up was info box "celebrity" rather than info box "journalist" - I tried to clean that up but could not get it to display properly. could someone give that a try?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  info box set up 

message: *the following comment about the article has been moved from the article space-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Snow 

message: I did a fairly major edit on this page, mostly condensing the information. I strongly believe that each little blip in his career does not need its own sub-headline. I also deleted some information that I don't really believe added anything to the content of the article Kika chuck (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was promptly undone. Crap! Am I the only one who thinks all the subheadlines are stupid? Kika chuck (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Condense

message: :OK, admittedly, I'm not a regular wikipedia-er--I read it quite a lot, but rarely edit.  So I removed "potential" from "potential violation of DC Code ...", as the Attorney General has come out and said so.  UW Dawgs says the adjective is necessary because there's no police report, arrest or charge.  OtterSmith removes the "potential" again (pointing out, again, that this is what the Attorney General said) and then Dravecky changes "potential" to "apparent", with a note of "compromise".  What does "apparent" mean?  Google says: "1. Clearly visible or understood; obvious. 2. Seeming real or true, but not necessarily so."  I think "1." is close to my understanding, and I'm guessing "2." is close to UW Dawgs understanding.  So "apparent" is at least ambiguous and confusing, and I would also argue unnecessary.  I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts. 01:16 18 January 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.145 (talk)  
:: See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do you have a source for Gregory definitively breaking the 7-2506.01(b) (or another) statute? And before getting hung up on Wikipedia policy, stating that someone in fact broke a law without providing citations is potentially libelous. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The Attorney General's letter stated they were declining to prosecute the violation of the law that had occurred. Do we need to put the complete text of the letter into the article? htom (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found the document to which you are referring and added it as sourcing for the assertion. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The AG's letter claims the illegal to possess magazine has been given to the MPD by NBC. (Presumably this giving took place outside of Washington DC ....)htom (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of possession of high capacity magazine, again (based on January AG letter). 

message: People keep putting in "softening" language about Gregory's display of the magazine. Here, some snips of the letter where the Attorney General of Washington, DC, explains the law and violation that occurred:
: ...of the news program "Meet the Press" on Sunday December 23,2012. On that broadcast, during the course of an interview of a guest regarding firearms policy in the United States, the program host, David Gregory, exhibited on camera a large capacity ammunition feeding device ("magazine") in violation of D.C. law.
: ... The device in the host's possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C. It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to "possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm" or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a "magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition." Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000, or both.
: ... The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter,
: ...OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law,
: ... On the other hand, no specific intent is required for this violation, and ignorance of the law or even confusion about it is no defense. We therefore did not rely in making our judgment on the feeble and unsatisfactory efforts that NBC made to determine whether or not it was lawful to possess, display and broadcast this large capacity magazine as a means of fostering the public policy debate.
Someone should probably download the entire thing and store it away here for future references. htom (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snips from text of letter from AG to NBC  

message: I want all 500 and some employed government in Washington take a cut in pay.  
Work together. Stop all pay after they leave office!  Barbara  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.180 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CUT IN PAY 

message: Probably should be added to the page.  Numerous sources debunk his mistruth on the matter and he had to apologize:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/08/to-millionaire-tv-host-anybody-who-gets-a-paycheck-makes-more-than-200000/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/07/meet-the-press-david-gregory-falsely-claims-all/194751
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/07/1221897/-David-Gregory-lies-about-Medicare-tax-provision-of-the-ACA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/david-gregory-correction-apology-obamacare_n_3600462.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Gregory spread a falsehood about Medicare tax provision of the ACA 

message: I have a story about a murder in Forest Ms. I think you might remember it because you from time to time worked with the today show I used to watch you all the time I am not a writer wouldn't know the first step but I know you write and thought you might be able to help me get my story on paper I am the guy that helped break the case when the murderer broke in and attempted to murder the ex-wife and her other 3 children and I spoiled his plan but the next day the 12 year old boy we had been looking for was found burried in the back yard the today show did coverage on this story I laid in my hospital bed and watched  it after comming out of surgery please get to back to me if you could help me to put this into book form  you can contact me at Reggie0913@aol.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.162.174 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder In Forest Ms. 

message: I reworded one paragraph in the "High-capacity magazine display" section to improve the grammar and remove the wordiness and unnecessary legalese, including the quote and repeat of the criminal Code number which is already mentioned previously in the section. Another editor, UW Dawgs, reverted my changes completely, linking to a 2013 talk page discussion among a couple editors.
I kept exactly what was stated in the original version, but simply rewrote it to improve the presentation and add a link to Nathan's article. The "lawyerly speak" quote from the police chief's spokesperson isn't needed as there's nothing remarkable about it; it can simply be explained in our own wording. Also, alluding to the "7-2506.01(b)" legal lingo serves no purpose since it's already used in the first paragraph of the section. I also placed both sources at teh very end of the paragraph, rather than splitting them up, since they verify the entire paragraph and improves the appearance.
Old version:On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said her department has "completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the District’s Office of the Attorney General for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case." On January 11, 2013, Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan declared Gregory's action was in violation of 7-2506.01(b), but that he would not proceed with prosecution.
New version I changed it to:On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. police chief Cathy L. Lanier said her department had completed its investigation into the matter and referred it to the office of the District's attorney general to determine if Gregory would be prosecuted.  D.C. attorney general Irvin B. Nathan announced three days later that although Gregory had violated the law, no charges would be filed against him or any other NBC employees.
If any editors want to give their opinion as to which version they prefer, please comment.
Rowssusan (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-capacity magazine display 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Gregory (journalist). 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/20100816063826/http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=8575&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=&S=1 to http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=8575&SectionID=4&SubSectionID=&S=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429093839/http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/bush100/welcome.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/bush100/welcome.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified