Talk:Insight on the News

message: The following overview was removed, I think it's essential for journalistic context:
"Journalistic analysis of the Insight story began by examining the first sentence of the report, which asked the loaded question of whether the "American people were ready" for a candidate who was "educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" The second sentence alleged "This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama." No basis was found for Insight's question and allegation, and throughout the ensuing controversy Insight steadfastly refused to present evidence or qualify it's sources."
This is an absolutely 100% spot on overview of the "essence" of every journalistic critique. I can see no good reason for taking it out. let's discuss any issues with the presentation here. WNDL42 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove it, since I'm giving you your head to write in as "loaded" a fashion as you desire. Which is what you've done. Andyvphil (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed the paragraph. For one thing it was uncited.  For another it was basically repeating what the paragraph before it just said. The article on Obama's campaign and the one on him himself give the basic information on his school days in Indonesia.  That is where people who want to find out about him will go.  This article should be about Insight.  Just the basic facts about the story given one time should be enough, and then of course the opinions of RS's about it. I also put back the link to Insight's story itself. I think that if we don't do that people would feel it is unfair.  Redddogg (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Redddogg, I did a copyedit instead of a revert. I think I addressed your above concerns...how does it look to you now? WNDL42 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is much better now. Redddogg (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Whew...thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalistic POV overview removed...please discuss here 

message: Hey. I saw that there was a pending request for a third opinion on this page. 3O is meant for articles that only have two active editors, and since there are more than five users active on here, I've removed the request. If you guys need further help, I'd recommend opening an WP:RFC. If there's anything else I can do to help, please message me. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: In the specific case of Insight, and in the context of Insight's history, describing the ownership chain is essential from a journalism standpoint. Unification Church ownership is (as demonstrated elsewhere) indeed the single MOST notable thing about Insight. WNDL42 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating ownership in the lead 

message: I just changed the opening of the Obama/Clinton section.  I thought it was better to just say what it was about in the opening sentence rather than repeat what Insight said. Sorry that I pushed save before finishing my edit summary comment. Redddogg (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent change to Obama section

message: The source given for the information about Brock does not mention Insight at all. The article about Hill was published in the American Spectator.  Why should he have a section in this article? Redddogg (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try taking the section out and see what happens. It seems a bit coat-racky to me since Brock's notable stories were not published in Insight. Redddogg (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: David Brock

message: I took out:
=== CIA leak scandal === 
On February 5, 2004, Insight teamed up with News World's sister company United Press International to publish the first anonymously sourced reports from "Federal Law Enforcement officials" of "hard evidence" against Vice President Dick Cheney's staffers John Hannah and Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the guilty parties in "Plamegate". Hannah subsequently testified, and Libby was convicted. Questions about who the "Federal Law Enforcement officials" were, and what "hard evidence" might have existed at the time of the scoop have fueled wide speculation that Libby was chosen as a "fall guy" Google News Search - Libby "Fall Guy" to take the rap for higher-ups in the Bush Administration, with speculation focused primarily on Cheney. Some journalists and bloggers commented that if a media outlet were needed to set up Libby for the fall, Insight would have been a logical first choice.Google News Search - Libby Hannah Plame Leak
The only references were to the story itself and to two Google searches. Borock (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed

message: On February 5, 2004, Insight teamed up with News World's sister company United Press International to publish the first anonymously sourced reports from "Federal Law Enforcement officials" of "hard evidence" against Vice President Dick Cheney's staffers John Hannah and Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the guilty parties in "Plamegate". Hannah subsequently testified, and Libby was convicted. Questions about who the "Federal Law Enforcement officials" were, and what "hard evidence" might have existed at the time of the scoop have fueled wide speculation that Libby was chosen as a "fall guy" Google News Search - Libby "Fall Guy" to take the rap for higher-ups in the Bush Administration, with speculation focused primarily on Cheney. Some journalists and bloggers commented that if a media outlet were needed to set up Libby for the fall, Insight would have been a logical first choice.Google News Search - Libby Hannah Plame Leak
The only references were to the story itself and to two Google searches. Borock (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA leak scandal 

message: The problem with removing all reference to "madrassa" in the perjorative "extremist" sense is that merely saying Obama went to an "Islamic school" can hardly be described as "another attack" by Clinton! I've put in the first line of the article in italics (you can't beat a quote):
On January 17, 2007, Insight published a story that claimed the campaign staff of presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton had leaked a report to Insight falsely claiming that Senator Barack Obama had attended a solely-Islamic school during his childhood in Indonesia. Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background Insight January 11, 2007. The article began, "Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" In the American political climate of the time, the word "madrassa" (which means only 'school') was often used in a pejoritive sense that suggested Islamic extremism. Soon after Insight's story, CNN reporter John Vause visited State Elementary School Menteng 01, which Obama had attended for one year after attending a Roman Catholic school for three,  and found that each student received two hours of religious instruction per week in his or her own faith.
He was told, "This is a public school. We don't focus on religion." Interviews by Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press found that students of all faiths have been welcome there since before Obama's attendance.  In July 2007, Insight published a column which repeated the allegations and predicted more alleged Clinton attacks on Obama.Washington Watch: Obama's fund-raising record reveals weakness of Hillary's campaign Insight July 2, 2007 "As Insight has reported, Hillary established a team of investigators whose goal was to attempt to discredit Obama by investigating his Muslim background. In the backlash that resulted from our expose, she has learned to be more circumspect in the use of nasty little tricks. But, if we know Hillary–and we do–she will descend into the gutter once again. Obama will have to be on guard and must find creative ways to outpace her on the campaign trail as he has on the money trail."
As publications such as the NYT since apologised over their negative use of "madrassa" I assume it's fair to place it in the climate at the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "solely-Islamic school" was recently changed to just "madrassa". I've changed this to "so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary  (Insight's words)", which is another direct quote. Insight didn't falsely claim he went to merely a 'madrassa' - as in literal terms it just means 'school', he actually did! Insight claimed he went to a Muslim seminary. The direct quote here should clear it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamic school" is not an attack in itself. 

message: According to policy it's better if an artice does not have a controversy section. I will go ahead and merge the items there into the body of the article and see how people like that. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Insight on the News. 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/20101116024343/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/09/politics/washingtonpost/main6379181.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/09/politics/washingtonpost/main6379181.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517100058/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070124-1317-obama-2008.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070124-1317-obama-2008.html
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) 22:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insight on the News. 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/20080704190311/http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/news/pressroom/college_guides/insight.htm to http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/news/pressroom/college_guides/insight.htm
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) 06:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified