Talk:John Stossel/Archive 1

message: John Stossel REALLY looks like Freddie Mercury with thicker hair.
July 28, 2006 -- The first line says Stossel is a "journalist" for ABC, but that title normally denotes some level of objectivity.  While he may have been more of a standard correspondent early in his career, I think it would be more fair to call him a "journalist/activist" or "reporter/activist" or something to that effect.
IS he jewish? if so I think it should be added to his page! -------- 16th March, 2006
:: Dude! What?! Do we do this with EVERY person: state their religeon? No, so that if he's Jewish, this is somehow *special*. What this is is a form of latent anti-Semitism. 216.203.27.99 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freddie Mercury

message: Down to earth/uninformed style?
Jonabbey 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snark 

message: On July 26th, Soliscjw added an NPOV tag right above the "Criticisms" Section so that there would be a note that "the neutrality of this section is disputed." I'm not sure that this tag is really necessary. Two word choices in the original "Criticisms" section were considered problematic by Soliscjw and others: one was the use of "right-wing," which I replaced with "conservative," and one was the phrase "global warming denialism," which someone else replaced with the phrase "global warming skepticism."
Both Soliscjw and I would like a better replacement for the last-mentioned phrase, but I don't think that that, by itself, warrants an NPOV tag. Unless there are other issues people want to to discuss in this section, I vote we remove the tag on or about August 13. Dicksonlaprade 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary (?) NPOV tag above Criticism Section 

message: It has been removed I do not know if there was a reason behind it or is it the work of a vandle. I did not want to revert the section if there was a valad reason behind removing it.--Soliscjw 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it as soon as I saw it because, in my opinion, to remove something like that without so much as an edit summary indicates such poor editing or, more likely, outright vandalism, that the appropriate reaction is "revert first, ask questions later." Lawyer2b 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there some thing wrong with the section early career? 

message: For no apparent reason, the ENTIRE three-paragraph "Criticisms" section has been removed and replaced with this: "Since the late 1990s, Stossel's journalism has become increasingly criticized by groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters for America for alleged innaccuracies and misrepresentation. Stossel himself states that there were no intentional innaccuracies and believes that his political views have drawn the ire and aggression of the 'liberal left'. It should be noted that the attacks on Stossel coincided with his political shift from liberalism to libertarianism. [citation needed]"
If you remove three paragraphs of material which is supported by over twenty citations without so much as a how-do-you-do on the discussions page and replace it with a vapid paragraph which provides no information whatsoever on criticisms of John Stossel--a paragraph which, moreover, is not even supported by a single citation--then perhaps Wikipedia is not the right forum for you. I am, of course, reinstating the inappropriately deleted material today. I have no problem with people updating or tidying up this material (as many have done already), of course, but I see no plausible reason to Stalinize the "Criticisms" section to make Stossel appear to be a put-upon saint when the truth is actually much more complex. I trust that this will not result in an idiotic edit war. Dicksonlaprade 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There is a strange problem with the last paragraph of this section which wants fixing, but I am going to leave this section alone for at least a week. If someone else would like to fix the problem without deleting everything in sight, please feel free. Dicksonlaprade 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section should stay since Stossel does have critics who make good points. I have added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph pointing out the politically-oriented nature of many of his critics. It is telling that the criticism section is the longest section of the article: The Stossel-haters are out in force. JHP 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that most of the criticism section should stay; however, I have (for now at least) removed the section on 'price gourging' since it did not actually mention any specific criticisms of his opinion--it merely stated what his opinion is. --69.139.102.138 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate deletion of "criticisms" section 

message: *Videos of Schults hitting John Stossel 
::We already had that video (as well as others) in the external links section, but it was removed on November 26, 2006 due to "suspected copy-vio or otherwise inappropriate links per WP:EL & WP:C".  -- JHP 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested sources

message: The line about thanking John Stossel for not having an entry might not be true. The closest thing I can find is him saying on the Montell Williams Show back in 2004 that "I won so many Emmys one year, someone thanked me for not having an entry in his category." That's really it. He repeated it in his book, Give Me A Break: "One year I got so many Emmys, another winner thanked me in his acceptance speech 'for not having an entry in this category.'"  No idea if it's true or not. --Ali'i 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again on the Hannity and Colmes in 2004 (Feb. 18): "I used to win so many Emmys that people would thank me for not having an entry in their category." --Ali'i 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest, then, that it be "qualified" by simply naming the source.  Something like, "According to Stossel...." or "In his book, Give Me A Break, Stossel claims..." :-) Lawyer2b 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed - Awards 

message: Three weeks after The New York Times' original article which broke the news about Stossel's incorrect pesticide test claim, The New York Times followed up with another article that defended him. Regarding Stossel's 20/20 report on organic food, The Times wrote:
:Most of it reflected conventional wisdom among scientists: organic food has no nutritional advantages and poses a greater risk of bacterial contamination because it is grown in manure.
:He also reported that pesticides are not a danger in either kind of produce, which is not controversial either. The Food and Drug Administration regularly tests produce and finds pesticide residues in both organic and regular produce that are well below dangerous levels.
Investor's Business Daily defended Stossel by saying:
:Was Stossel "lying to the American people," as Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook has declared?
:No. The scientists who conducted the tests reported to the show's producer, not to Stossel. They tested for the presence of both the bacterium E. coli and for pesticide residues. But the residue tests were strictly on chicken, not produce.
:One needn't possess Einstein's brain to see how information from tester to producer to reporter could get lost.
:Further, had Stossel simply stated "there are" tests instead of "our tests," he would have been absolutely correct.
Steven Milloy (a questionable source in my opinion, but no more questionable than Media Matters) wrote the following for Fox News (another questionable source):
:In its January 1998 article titled "Greener Greens (The truth about organic food)," Consumer Reports reported a survey of pesticide residues on produce: "One-fourth of our organic samples had traces of pesticides, compared to 55 percent of the green-labeled samples and 77 percent of the unlabeled conventional samples... Our tests show that ‘organic’ doesn't necessarily mean ‘pesticide free’."
:Most importantly, however, pesticide residues found in food, whether organic or not, are virtually always well-within levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency — and the EPA standards are set many hundreds of times below levels at which noticeable effects may be observed in laboratory animals.
:...Stossel erred. But his message is correct — organic foods are not safer than non-organic foods based on pesticide residues.
In addition, Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media—which are conservative versions of Media Matters for America and FAIR—defend Stossel's organic food report here, here, and here. As deeply-partisan media watchdogs, MRC and AIM are every bit as unreliable and biased as Media Matters and FAIR. However, if progressive media watchdogs are being used to criticize Stossel, it should be fair to use conservative media watchdogs to defend him. 
Media Research Center wrote:
:Actually, Stossel’s report was well-crafted, and correct in all of its key assertions. MediaNomics went to the videotape, and found that the wrong comments about pesticides were just two sentences in a report that lasted nearly ten minutes. Stossel’s main point -- that consumers are buying expensive organic foods because they mistakenly believe they are more nutritious -- was amply documented and hasn’t been contradicted by any of his critics.
Accuracy in Media wrote:
:Dr. Bruce Ames, the renowned biochemist who developed a simple test to determine which chemicals cause cancer, revealed years ago that residues of man-made pesticides on fruits and vegetables are insignificant in comparison with the carcinogenic chemicals produced by the plants themselves.
A final point: this Wikipedia article states the following as criticism of Stossel, "Later scientific research supported the opposite conclusion, which makes organic produce a more attractive option for consumers who are concerned about such residues." Later scientific research? Shouldn't Stossel's reporting be based on the scientific knowledge at the time of the report? Are journalists really expected to be able to predict the future?
--JHP 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points Morphh (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense against "Criticism of his reporting on pesticides"

message: In parts of the article that refer to organizations critical of Stossel, people have periodically changed the word "progressive" to the word "liberal". Both of these terms cause problems because their definitions have shifted over time. I recommend we keep the word "progressive" for two reasons: First, these groups call themselves "progressive". Second, self-identified "progressives" tend to be left of self-identified "liberals".
In its self-description, FAIR writes, "As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates..." Media Matters for America describes itself as, "...a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center..."
Since these organizations self-identify as "progressive" and since that self-identification distinquishes them from more mainstream liberals, I think it is best to accept their self-description. --JHP 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that "liberal" has become a negative term, so they are changing their name to "progressive" as it has less negative connotation.  So, when I see someone change liberal to progressive - I quickly think such - Trying to make it sound better by using a less known and positive term.  Odd thing is, progressive use to mean communist.  Liberal use to mean capitalist (and still does in the rest of the world).  Funny how politics changes these labels to fit their needs.  Morphh  (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And before progressive meant communist, Teddy Roosevelt--a Republican--was considered progressive. "Progressive" implies progress. (Is a return to 19th century farming techniques really progress?) "Liberal" and "Libertarian" imply liberty (free speech, free enterprise, free trade, etc). "Conservative" implies cautiousness or resistance to change. When referring to Russian and Chinese politicians, the communists are the conservatives because they want to conserve the old communist system. --JHP 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol - that's funny. politics is an odd game. :-)  Morphh  (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Progressive" vs "liberal" 

message: Was John a stutterer?  If so, how did he overcome his speech impediment?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.31.93 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 May 2006 
:Yes. He overcame it by attending an intensive, three week program that retrained him to pronounce troublesome words. This information can be found in his book, Give Me A Break. MafiaCapo 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - we should include this information as part of his background.  He discusses it in his book.  Morphh  (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stossel's Stuttering

message: :Image:JohnStossel.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:JohnStossel.gif

message: I think this section needs to be retitled and integrated. See NPOV article structure. Morphh  (talk) 0:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Every criticisms section is idiotic and tends to attract trolls and idiots (this article especially). When you integrate the criticism, it isn't as obvious that a bunch of loons edited it. ;) --Rotten 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise and criticism

message: Andyvphil makes an accurate point, which I think others may miss, when he points out that the term "interest group" does not carry the automatic connotation of an actual organization, the way that "pressure group" does.   In the US, at least, while the two terms can be used synonymously, the term "interest group" can also carry a more amorphous meaning, that of a group of persons who ostensibly share some common interests because of some shared heritage or set of beliefs.  "African Americans", "lesbians", "housewives", and "college students", can all compromise "interest groups" in this vague sense.  Many of the members of such groups may well belong to "interest groups" in the other sense, that is, of an organization that promotes a set of beliefs, but many others do not.  
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the term "pressure group" does carry for some hypersensitives an inherently pejorative connotation (for some people, I've learned, facts are not admissible if the facts are not "nice").
Accordingly, I'm going to change the language to refer to "advocacy group", which I believe meets the objections that Andyvphil had to using "interest group" (as an advocacy group is more clearly an organization) and it also does not strike most people as a negative term either.  Unschool 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm basically fine with any term for this.  The biggest plus in my mind for "interest group" is that it's where we have the relevant article.  I don't really see "pressure group" as pejorative, though, so I don't much care which of the three terms we use. Croctotheface 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, then, Croctotheface, I guess you're not a hypersensitive!  Some people think that public discourse should be made without any "pressure" (utter fairy tale nonsense, of course) and thus if their pet organization is so named, think that their motives and/or methods are being impugned.  Anyway, I only changed it because one editor had already removed the term "pressure group", and in their edit summary, wrote "removed POV", or words to that effect. Unschool 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it was two editors. My next iteration was going to be "lobbying group", but "advocacy group" is good. The second kneejerk revert also undid my correction of the unsourced statement that OISM is funded by GCM, [personal attack removed] Andyvphil 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chill out.  Remember, no personal attacks. 24.184.68.234 05:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. [personal attack removed] Andyvphil 07:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no reason to make it personal.  The goal of discussion pages is to work collaboratively to reach a consensus about improving the article.  Calling me a hypocrite is not the least bit productive in approaching that goal.  If you want, make a request for comment and invite editors who are not involved in the dispute to weigh in.  Croctotheface 07:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest group vs. Pressure group 

message: This talk page takes forever to load.  I propose archiving all threads begun before the end of July 2007.  That's the first 22 threads, through "Interest group vs. Pressure group" but not including "WP:WEIGHT" or thereafter.
I would just be bold and do it, but this page has been so contentious that I thought it would be more prudent to float the suggestion first. JamesMLane t c 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Morphh  (talk) 18:58, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Me, too. Andyvphil 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Me, too. I thought of proposing this two weeks ago when I archived my talk page for the very first time, but I thought "I'll wait until we settle this little issue regarding the criticisms section, first." Little did I know... --JHP 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Substituted at 20:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment