This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
It seems like this page is entirely devoted to some kind of investigation into Kenneth Tomlinson's activities at PBS. Most of the writing in the article seems highly POV, especially the sentence with the citation leading to Newshounds. Newshounds is such a POV source that I was surprised to find it linked in a wikipedia article. While one may claim that it is only cited to show the kind of accusations being aimed at Tomlinson, it would be better to use a source that is so entirely biased that they could not be trusted to investigate any issue in a NPOV manner. --lborchardt 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.137.30 (talk)
oh boy, now he gone and done it. running a horse racing operation out of his office. not too smart, kenny boy. [1]
Accusation of Tomlinson turning PBS into a Fox-like right wing network: http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/25/kenneth_tomlinson_wants_pbs_to_get_foxed.php
& another:
http://prorev.com/2006/11/ken-tomlinson-fails-to-make-it-past.htm
"When he uses terms like "fair and balanced" in talking about what PBS should be, it is understandably seen as code guaranteed to evoke charges of the "Foxification" of PBS and raise alarm bells with liberals and moderates, as well as with viewers who just don't care about a political agenda at all."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA621465.html?display=Opinion
Cronos1 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There has been another attempt to remove the 'Foxification' charge. This was a charge levelled at KT; it is relevant to the article regardless of whether the charge itself is accurate. If someone wishes to cite KT supporters or other critics who reject the 'Foxification' charge, that would be appropriate, but charge should remain. The WSJ editorial board is well known for being 'conservative', this aspect of the statement should remain. Cronos1 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
One of two things needs to happen. The sentence with the FOX statement needs to be changed, because it's confusing. From my viewpoint, it sounds as if the charge is simply being made that Fox is right wing, not that critics claim it's right wing. So, it either needs to be rewritten to clarify that or it needs to be removed, especially considering the source is Newshounds- a far left blog, which I think is safe to assume doesn't fit as a legit source.
I removed this text:
As it violates Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources- Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Reviewing Newshounds about page shows that they are in fact a group blog.
Additionally, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" I believe newshounds, which may be a great and valuable blog, meets the criteria of Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources, particularly as it relates to a living person, as they are primarily a blog of opinion.
Further, from my reading of the newshounds blog posting, and the transcr.ipt from a Fox news piece it includes, I cannot find how it in any way substantiates the statement that there were accusations that "he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda".
Finally, the content reverted stated that PBS had balanced content before Thomlinson's tenure. This is a matter of significant dispute.
Before this material is re-added, please address these issues.
Thanks! Packetmonger (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether you agree that Newshounds makes a compelling case is not important (nor is it important that someone thinks they do make a compelling arguement), what is important is that they are saying so in criticism of Tomlinson.
Finally, your POV that PBS was biased doesn't reflect the polling of PBS viewers at the point of history we are discussing, it doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means that you are introducing POV.Cronos1 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The close friendship element of the sentence is meaningless without the second half. Given that the page mentions that Mr Rove and Thomlinson are close friends three times, a simple statement that Mr Rove and Thomlinson are close friends, for a third time, with no other context is meaningless in this section. I will remove this element of the sentence again, as it is meaningless without the second part.
My reading of the past discussion on this matter is that you did not respond to the points made by other editors- you stated their points were meaningless because the section only states that "the public" believed something. I won't go into all the reasons this is a false argument, but will say that it is an argument that has been clearly answered in the guidelines for biographies of living people and other places.
As best I can tell, your point in Whether you agree that Newshounds makes a compelling case is not important (nor is it important that someone thinks they do make a compelling arguement), what is important is that they are saying so in criticism of Tomlinson. is that the blog is not being cited as a source on the article subject, but rather to show that critics have said negative things (I seem to have a difficult time parsing your sentences for meaning, so I am clarifying that this is how I am interpreting your sentence. This is a clear example of why Wikipedia policy does not allow single or group blogs, particularly opinion related ones, to be sources in a Biography of a Living person. You have not refuted (and I don't think you will be able to) that Newshounds is a group blog, or that it is an opinion blog. I have made no comment on whether newshounds makes a compelling case or not- I am reserving judgement on that because I believe that issue is pointless- it cannot be used as a source in this article per Wikipedia policy. Living people who are well known enough to have Biographies on Wikipedia are likely to have blogs written about them that express unusual views. That is but one reason they are not allowed.
Even if Newshounds were an appropriate source for this article, the article linked does not meaningfully support the statement you are making, unless I missed it when I read it. The title of the blog says foxification, and the first sentence says it, but none of the content discusses the subject- it merely quotes a (ironically, Fox) transcript showing that there was debate over what shows should not be on the air at PBS and whether KT was introducing bias. Then it goes on to note that Fox didn't quote Bill Moyers. Regardless of the validity of the source itself, the blog entry does not significantly support the statement made in the article.
If you can find better sources for this charge, then we can discuss whether this should be included- I will want to review Wikipedia policy to make sure it is appropriate and use common sense, but I am inclined to think that if there is evidence that there was widespread concern over the "foxification" of PBS it should be included- though, as stated previously, the article needs a significant amount of work reorganizing and cleaning it up. I have merely started with the most innocuous of edits and removing content that is improperly sourced and for which I cannot find other sources via trivial searching.
You are incorrect in stating that I am introducing POV wrt PBS bias. I never said anything revealing a POV on this subject, and certainly introduced no POV into the article. I said that the statement in the article demonstrated POV- that PBS was unbiased prior to KT. This is a point of contention and reflects POV. The sentence is not neutral. Again, the point is moot unless the citation is improved. If that is done, then I will make/propose appropriate changes to the section to make it more neutral-POV. Packetmonger (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
“Cronos1, I will be removing this one more time, based on the reasons above.”
Reasons which have already been explained to you are invalid. I will give you an example. Supposed Mr. Tomlinson’s friends have a blog that claims that he is the “best horse-owner in the USA”. It would be a violation of living persons biographies to write ‘Mr. Tomlinson is the best horse-owner in the USA’, it is not a violation to write ‘Mr. Tomlinson’s supporters say he is the best horse-owner in the USA.’ because the subject of the comment in the article is not Mr. Tomlinson but Mr. Tomlinson’s supporters. The same thing applies here, but we are talking about his critics.
“I will report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.”
I have already invited you to do so.
“To answer your points (and you have not answered any of mine to date, so before you re-add, I think you should do so).”
Not sure if this sentence fragment is supposed to mean something, but the parenthetical comments are not true.
“The close friendship element of the sentence is meaningless without the second half. “
I have re-read the article and agree that this reference comp’d to the other two seems unnecessary (not sure but this may have been the first mention). I did not write this originally, so do not know if original editor would have a problem, but I would accept ‘His critics have made accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda similar to FOX television.[7]’
“I have made no comment on whether newshounds makes a compelling case or not”
Maybe I am having trouble parsing meaning from your writing…“I cannot find how it in any way substantiates the statement that there were accusations that "he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda".
“You are incorrect in stating that I am introducing POV wrt PBS bias. I never said anything revealing a POV on this subject”
It’s really not worth talking about in the context of this sentence. I’m not going to revert, but will consider how to represent the opinions of Tomlinson’s critics. The reason this statement is needed in the article is to provide clarity to the position of KT and his critics. The reader can decide if KT or his critics are wrong. The IG’s findings that KT appears to violated Federal Law and CPB rules is followed up by two sentences where KT makes counter-charges and defends himself. On one hand, I’m not too sure that’s necessary. I mean, how many pages would you give John Hinckley to refute his verdict? On the other hand, I think it gives a more complete picture which is what including the opinions (stated as opinions, not fact) of KT’s critics provides.Cronos1 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
References
I think most people would agree that this page needs some work.
A quick read through revealed significant POV- the lead implies that Thomlinson may still be under investigation and makes no mention of whether or how those investigations were resolved. The article contains several- perhaps many- unsourced and/or vague allegations (which may be true, I have no idea) such as that he hired lobbyists, that "the public" has had concerns about his bias, there are multiple mentions of a close and long friendship with Karl Rove, but I can find only one reference in one article that states that the two are friends, and no mention of the time of their friendship. The page states that Karl Rove helped Thomlinson get his position but provides no reference. An unlinked, undescribed New York Times article is used as a source, but since I cannot find the article, I have no way to evaluate the content. Mr Rove is described as President Bushes "Chief Advisor"- this is an opinion that has been contradicted by both Mr Bush and Mr Rove, and Mr Rove never (that I can find) held that title. This is not an innocuous error, it is intended to skew the view of the reader.
The page states that Tomlinson "pursued aggressive policies of adding conservative viewpoint" but provides no citation or justification for this statement. Additionally, the WSJ editorial board is described as Conservative, yet the program that the WSJ editorial board replaced- Bill Moyers- is not described as Liberal. If it is appropriate to call the WSJ editorial board Conservative (and it may well be), it is certainly appropriate to describe Bill Moyers, and his productions, as Liberal. The page leaves the impression that a non-biased show was replaced with a dramatically biased show. Having seen both shows, this is not a reasonable impression to give.
I understand that much of the controversy around Tomlinson revolved around charges raised against him, yet it is also reasonable to describe those making the charges. In many cases, a blog- which may well be describing things accurately- that has a distinct bias is cited. Certainly it is accurate that the charge was made that he was trying to create a FOX News like Right-Wing Bias. However, it is entirely appropriate to make it clear that those stating this were themselves strongly biased. Additionally, the page gives the appearance that PBS was not biased, and that the allegation made was that Tomlinson created bias- "and accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda similar to FOX television." The accusation made was that PBS was balanced and that Tomlinson tried to change that. There is strong controversy over whether PBS was at the time, or currently is, balanced.
I have made no edits to the page yet, but I want to raise these issues for discussion before beginning to work on cleaning it up.
I have no particular inclination towards Tomlinson or the Bush administration, but I do think biographies of people currently alive should reflect facts and note the sources/biases of criticisms of them. There are definitely facts, and criticisms in this article, but they need to be documented and their sources should be described when making strong accusations and not being well known journalistic organizations. Packetmonger (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have have provided citations for the items you identify as unsourced...assume that the citations got separated in the editing process over the years. Regarding your other objections..."The page states that Tomlinson "pursued aggressive policies of adding conservative viewpoint" but provides no citation or justification for this statement."
You’ll need to explain what you mean buy this…I believe Tomlinson himself would describe his actions as aggressive…certainly many of the cited sources do, & when you do things without informing the board, I would think that would have to be considered aggressive…
"Additionally, the WSJ editorial board is described as Conservative, yet the program that the WSJ editorial board replaced- Bill Moyers- is not described as Liberal. If it is appropriate to call the WSJ editorial board Conservative (and it may well be), it is certainly appropriate to describe Bill Moyers, and his productions, as Liberal. The page leaves the impression that a non-biased show was replaced with a dramatically biased show. Having seen both shows, this is not a reasonable impression to give."
The WSJ editorial board is well known as conservative, but regardless, the Broadcast Chief Violated Laws, Inquiry Finds source specifically describes it thusly. KT’s views on the “bias” of PBS have already been mentioned, but if you want to explore that subject greater, feel free. By eliminating “conservative” you are leaving the impression that a biased show was replaced with a unbiased show. Having seen both shows, this is not a reasonable impression to give.
"Additionally, the page gives the appearance that PBS was not biased, and that the allegation made was that Tomlinson created bias- "and accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right-wing agenda similar to FOX television." The accusation made was that PBS was balanced and that Tomlinson tried to change that. There is strong controversy over whether PBS was at the time, or currently is, balanced."
Boy this really depends on your POV, pbs viewers do not feel it is biased. Conservatives do. Not sure that this could be considered strong or that the minority viewpoint deserves the weight you seem to want to give it or that in doing so you stray into POV territory. I’m sure you could make a case that there are members of the public that think PBS is too conservative.Cronos1 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I moved this section of the talk page to the bottom where more recent discussions are typically placed. Packetmonger (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
References
I removed the tag at the top of the discussion page saying this was a religion-related page. Packetmonger (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I made the following changes:
It is important that the article include that KT denied wrongdoing, and make it clear no formal action was taken in the CPB case and that no criminal investigation or charges resulted from the State Department IG report. We should also include that his resignation from the CPB was immediately after the board was given the IG's report. This information should be in the lead.Packetmonger (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I reverted my own changes as I forgot to include descriptions on the intermediate changes.Packetmonger (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Here on this talk page I would like to say that I think the current design of the article is pretty fair seeming. When I have time I will try to add a few more printed sources. Although my own experiences would be considered "Original research" & therefore not valid, i have worked & volunteered at my local PBS station for over 25 years. Been a viewer for about 40 years. The current (soon to retire) general manager is Republican, as is about 2/5ths of the staff & volunteers. The demographic of this stations broadcast membership is about 50 percent republican / conservative. Over the years I have seen political analysis programs that POV'ed the breadth of political spectrum's. From William F. Buckley's classic show, & the McLaughlin Group, to the Washington week in review type programs... Public Broadcasting always seemed to be stretching to be fair to the wide Spectrum of viewpoints. Remember that when in its early days it presented viewpoints critical of the Vietnam War, A Democratic administration was in power. (Bill Moyers was even a political operative of that administration. ) & while most "Commercial broadcast venues" didn't show much interest in the Subject, Public Broadcasting was doing stories on the plights of returned Veterans & their struggles. I would argue that there is indeed roughly a 50% conservative viewership of PBS, (Estimate from membership response) AND- (Don't be a 'hater ' on my POV Bias here) they are INTELLIGENT conservatives. (I truthfully believe there IS such a thing.) & They grumble sometimes about a viewpoint like Moyers, but they feel in general that the network IS balanced. There was genuine concern at this station (Including among republican staff) about some of the things that KT was doing during his tenure, KT sounds like a perhaps genuinely nice person in private life... but thoroughly ethically challenged for most of his Public Sector work. I think this article generally reflects that. Hey what can I say, I really liked the "Readers Digest" , in spite of the occasional 'conservative slant' of "Humor- In Uniform"! Im Just sayin... 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)