[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:RealClearPolitics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservative

[edit]

Are we aiming for 10 different uses of the term conservative or what? Not sure what caused this, but somebody needs to take a step back. Seriously. †TE†Talk 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dispute should be considered "resolved" as long as the introduction does not refer to the founders as "conservative." If the Human Events source is legit (it's not online), then it can stay in... but down in the body of the article, not in the opening. I think that's a fair compromise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I've emailed the Human Events article to TE a day or two ago, and I'll email it to any logged in editor who requests it if they have the "Enable email from other users" option enabled under Preferences. Gamaliel (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only addresses one of many issues. I understand the thought process behind using stands to reason or begs the question as rationale, but it doesn't allow for attaching contentious labels in the lead -- Even if true, albeit unverified. And it is unverified. Let us be clear about that. Only thing that's clear is these folks found a market and capitalized off it. Aside from that, other glaring problems are outdated sourcing, content and failure to move past the 2008 election cycle. †TE†Talk 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not clear at all. It's entirely verified, we've both read the article, and I'm not sure how you can find ambiguity in this source unless you're determined to read it that way. I don't know what your Daily Kos link has to do with this discussion at all. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again Gamaliel, I respect your personal opinion these folks have taken ownership of a political affiliation by interviewing with Human Events -- But in the world of wikipedia we have certain criteria which has not, and will not be met by your personal interpretations of a quote taken on good faith from a decade ago. Sorry. †TE†Talk 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gamaliel, please email me a copy of the Human Events article. Thanks. — goethean 19:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of it. †TE†Talk 19:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reading the article, it is quite amazing and bizarre that you think that the article does not establish that the site's founders are conservatives.
"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."
That's right between where they observe that (1) WMDs were found in Iraq, but that the evil mainstream media outlets like the NYT and WaPo covered up the story, and that (2) that the evil PC media like the LA Times "disingenuously" covered up a story about someone who attacked a army unit being Muslim.
The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable
It is very clear from the article is that they believe that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives, and that they have set out to correct the record. Any vaguely competent reading of the article leads to the conclusion that the site's founders are indeed political conservatives. This is a well-sourced statement that can be used in the article. — goethean 20:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as Goethean believes, it's quite clear the article shows the creators of RCP know that MSM is liberal. They have done a great job providing an alternative. Goethean and Gamaliel please explain how small your foundation can be among real men. †TE†Talk 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stay on the talk page unfortunately little girls outs wants war. †TE†Talk 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well calling me names will certainly change my mind. — goethean 20:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this took a turn towards immaturity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the source (thanks for the email Gamaliel), I agree with ThinkEnemies. It is WP:SYNTH to abstract "Founded by Conservatives" by using the statement "We have a frustration that all conservatives have." That's like saying a statement that "I have the same frustration that African Americans have about racism" infers that I myself am African American. It doesn't. Without a source that says something to the matter of "this organization was created by conservatives," you cannot say it is. You can speculate on their politics to the ends of the Earth, but we cannot make factual statements without a source that spells it out in those words.--v/r - TP 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you said "I have the same frustration that all African Americans have about racism," which is more analogous to the article text than your example, then your audience would probably assume that you are African American, and they would be justified in doing so. — goethean 14:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assume they might be justified in doing, but it wouldn't make them more or less factually correct and is still synthesizing a source. It's plain and simple, you cannot assume what words mean. WP:OR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Implying that the subject's use we "We face the same frustrations that all conservatives face" means they are a conservative is not directly supported. Directly supported would be "This organization was founded by conservatives." If you want to quote the subject and let the reader infer what they want, feel free. But using Wikipedia voice to say something that the source doesn't say isn't acceptable.--v/r - TP 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Wikipedians are allowed to (indeed, must) interpret texts in the same way that a typical competent reader would. — goethean 15:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can interpret, but you cannot infer. What you're doing is inferring. "Because he said this, thus he is that." You cannot do that.--v/r - TP 15:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if he had said "We have the same frustrations that other conservatives have."? — goethean 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with TParis too. I've read the article and have went through the other references that were discussed in prior Talk page discussions. The founders of RCP were definitely saying they are conservatives, and created the website to counter what they perceive as the liberal bias of the MSM. Also, USAToday listed the site as a conservative website. Just as they listed TPM as a left-leaning one. It is obvious, and stated in the article that has been linked to and passed around, that the founders are conservatives. In any case, long standing consensus is established to describe RCP as conservative, but consensus can change. Perhaps a RFC would be something editors who wish to change consensus should consider. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is obvious" is not a reliable source. You can say that USAToday calls the website conservative-leaning but again, you cannot say it was founded by conservatives. In fact, WP:BLP comes into play here because your calling two living people Conservatives without a source to back it up. Goethean - I was thinking the same thing earlier. If "All" had been "Other" then it would be much more clear cut that they consider themselves conservatives. Let's talk about a compromise here, DD2K has a USA Today source that calls it conservative leaning, there is already a Time source that says the same thing. I propose you move that line from the Time source and add the USA Today source and put in the lead "This website has been described as conservative leaning" or something to that effect.--v/r - TP 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. A simple reading of the cited text indicates that the speaker considers himself a conservative. — goethean 18:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation, in otherwords your original research and synthesis. I have been arguing this point for the better part of 5 years. It is about time it was fixed. Arzel (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I made a fair compromise, which is exactly what the source says and you've declined it. I propose we move to WP:DR and bring in an uninvolved editor.--v/r - TP 19:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened this up for DR here.--v/r - TP 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate ya'all not restoring it after protection expired and waiting for DR to commence, I'm disappointed it's taking so long.--v/r - TP 01:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came late to the party! The WP:DRN is already over.  :-) I noticed this discussion over there, and at first glance, it seemed like the final ruling by the disinterested third-party editor was unfair. The plain english reading of the bare sentence, to my mind, is that the founders themselves were conservatives. However... on further thought, I decided it was not in fact fully clear. So I have a couple questions for the folks that have been following this issue. First, what other avenues have been examined, when discussing whether the two founders were *personally* conservatives when the created RCP? This is distinct from that being the *reason* they created RCP, of course... but if that can be shown, using Reliable Sources, then the key quotation itself (which states that they are frustrated with the liberal bias in the existing media but merely implies without explicitly saying they *themselves* were conservatives) can be coupled with the still-yet-to-be-shown proof that at the time they considered themselves conservatives. Has anybody looked into their FEC donations of that era? What about comparing early news-reports, to later news-reports? Here is some stuff to get the ball rolling. I think the evidence shows they were *not* conservatives at the time the site was founded... but they were not liberals either, obviously. It seems they are beings from the second dimension, like John Stossel, rather than members of the one-dimensional liberal-left-conservative-right metaphor. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They also aim to balance political perspective. "One of the things we work very hard on is trying to maintain a centrist positioning," Bevan says.[1]
...analyses from the left-leaning New Republic may be paired with more conservative publications such as the Weekly Standard. The goal is "to give readers ideological diversity," Mr. McIntyre said. "...and give multiple sides to every story."[2]
“We’re not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side. A lot of these advertisers don’t want their brand associated with people who are perceived on the extreme of the right or left.”[3]
Over time, RCP has earned a reputation for fairness, pulling the best political news and analysis from across the web and the political spectrum.... pulling together the most important political news and opinion – and from all sides.[4]
June 6, 2001: ...offer a wide range of views... the best articles of the day... [5]
“A lot of people have come to know Real Clear Politics, but don’t know who John and I are,” Bevan says. “That’s deliberate... it’s been the key to our success"[6]
[2004].... The real junkies don't care about all this, of course--who these guys are, how and why and where they do it.[7]
By October 2007, they had not only inked a deal giving Forbes a 51% stake in the company...[8]
My October, 2004 profile of RCP founders Tom Bevan and John McIntyre... a mix of well-articulated views on the vital issues of the day... writers ranging across the ideological spectrum from liberal Roger Simon to conservative Robert Novak; and to views as diverse as "Bush's War Strategy Has Paid Big Dividends" (Manchester Union-Leader) and "A Failed Presidency" (The New Yorker).[9]
...[not dated] a wide range... are aggregated on the website, although many typically have a conservative slant.[10]
...[in 2007] formed a partnership with a conservative[citation needed] think tank, the Manhattan Institute.[11]
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a libertarian American think tank.... http://en.wikipedia.org , emphasis added , retrieved 2013
October 2004: He and Bevan have become pundits in their own right, both on the RCP Web log page, which reflects their center-right/libertarian leanings...[12]
June 6, 2001: The articles selected invariably demonstrate McIntyre and Bevan's political bent, about which they are unabashedly forthcoming. The Web site itself informs that "RealClearPolitics attempts to counterbalance the common liberal bias of the mainstream press by providing a more realistic look at the issues. Above all, we believe in freedom, personal responsibility, and the free market capitalist system..."[13]
June 6, 2001: "I'm not really a die-hard Republican because my interests are less on social issues, more on taxing and spending," explains McIntyre..."But I definitely don't want the government telling me what to do with my property..."[14]
October 2004: ... bemoaned the lack of a non-partisan Web site "for people like us," as Bevan put it. "People who live and breathe politics and the major issues of the day."[15]
June 6, 2001: says Bevan: "...Politics is so calculating, so staged. We try to unspin it."
That's probably the most indepth analysis on this topic to date. Thank you for the time and effort, 74.192.*.--v/r - TP 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The site was founded by conservatives and I think the vigorous protests you guys display is more evidence of that than anything else. In the revisions page someone said CNN was founded by a liberal but that's not on their wikipedia page. I think Ted Turner's political beliefs are common knowledge and generally, liberals do not care about being liberals because that's what they are. It's only conservatives that have pretend to be something else.

Fact 5 That said, I don't see why if they are Libertarians that shouldn't be in lead. Since everyone knows libertarians are just republicans who are ashamed of their peers. The libertarians we hear about at least, since there are at least two kinds of Libertarians. Left and Right. The founders are (as are all republican libertarians) right libertarians. Please examine what left libertarians are like -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism and compare it with right libertarians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_libertarianism, and let me know which you think the founders should be labeled as.

Facts 1 and 2 “We’re not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side. A lot of these advertisers don’t want their brand associated with people who are perceived on the extreme of the right or left." -

"achieving that goal means purposely downplaying their personal positions."

That reads as clear financial motive to hide the intentions of the founders and the site to me. As for achieving their goals, yes, it's often easier to push ideology when you can hide your personal positions. See Fair and Balanced.

Lads- it's clear to anyone with half a brain what the game is here. What exactly is the harm in labeling things what they are? This site is supposed to be about the truth, not the truth that helps your political beliefs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs)

It's not a political issue, it's a liability issue for Wikipedia. We cannot make claims about people without a source. In terms of people's religion, political affiliation, sexuality, ect we need a primary source. You can say "Group A said Person B is a Conservative" if the source says so, but you cannot say "Person B is a conservative" in Wikipedia voice without a primary source from that person. Otherwise, we are open to libel and defamation lawsuits.--v/r - TP 00:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Libel is a form of defamation, and neither word would apply to calling a website conservative. First off all, the information would have to be somehow highly insulting and disruptive of their business to even begin to qualify, and it's clear that the owners do not believe the term is insulting. Second, it would have to be proven false, and that would be impossible. Third, since it's a public organization and not a private individual, it would have to be proven false and malicious in nature, which is insane. Fourth, there would have to be some real monetary damage, and since it's business model is to be a site aimed at conservative voices it's clear there would be no damage. And the claim that you can't call someone conservative "without a primary source from that person" if just silly. All you need is any reliable source. When the strategy of a political organization is to pretend to be neutral while at the same time being clearly biased, all that needs to be done is for outside groups to recognize it and call them on it. This is like Fox News claiming to be "fair and balanced" and pretending to not be conservative. It's an attempt to deceive, and by using Wikipedia's voice to go along with that deception if to be biased in favor of supporting the deception. Wikipedia's NPOV rules demand that the sources calling this site conservative be included so as not to mislead the public. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and neither word would apply to calling a website conservative" Absolutely and I don't disagree. What I disagree with is calling the founders conservative without a better source. Right now, the sources are all other people calling the founders conservative or the founders saying they share some frustrations with conservatives. We need a primary source to call the founders conservative. I've no objections to calling the website conservative. Perhaps you should've actually read what has been said on the issue instead of your assumption.--v/r - TP 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call the site or the founders conversative, all the same arguments apply. It's clear that they are, and it's clear that it is, and I have now edited the article to make the lead more clear. DreamGuy (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is original research and synthesis to say "It's clear that they are". Either you have a source to make a statment about a living person or you don't. WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." (emphasis obviously mine) Just because no one has found one yet doesn't mean you can just move forward anyways. Per this dispute resolution, you are editing against consensus.--v/r - TP 20:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bad faith of these comments is palpable, starting with the deliberate omission of the word "all" that clearly made the statement inclusive of the speaker. To say that something that is clear is clear is not OR or synth. Jibal (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for real? Look, I don't know a lot about Wikipedia bureaucracy but I know BS when I smell it. There are conservative editors attempting to keep the 'conservative' label from appearing in the lede and they're using every formalistic roadblock possible. Is that right? So nothing short of the founders saying, "we are conservative" will do. This is crazy and embarrassing for Wikipedia. The section about the NYT in this discussion is hilarious. I've never, ever, in my entire life, heard a liberal deny that the NYT is liberal. There's no 5 year? 6 years? Well, no struggle on the the NYT wiki with liberal editors taking increasingly desperate positions to deny the obvious. Why is it so important to pretend that RCP is neutral? I mean, what is the PURPOSE of this fight? I know why liberals are here, I read something right wing wacky on RCP thought...man are they nutty conservatives? Checked the wiki page and thought the wording was sketchy, looked here and found the reason why. Anyway, give it a rest guys- you're not fooling anyone.

Nice to read something reasonable here -lifeform (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case we can just quote them. There's nothing controversial about saying that RealClearPolitics takes a conservative position - they describe their own mission as an attempt to "counterbalance the common liberal bias of the mainstream press". This isn't a case like eg. The Australian where the POV of the source is questionable - RealClearPolitics very much wears its right-wing position on its sleeve. (Note that this isn't incompatable with sometimes publishing stuff outside that view, hence it doesn't contradict the "publish things across the political spectrum" part.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right now the question is more: is conservative a "right enough" description for today's publication? About the previous repetition concern, it's normal since WP:LEAD is a summary of the article's body. As it's a defining aspect, it's WP:DUE as part of the lead description, but should usually be covered with greater depth in the body... —PaleoNeonate – 22:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a step back here. When RCP was inaugurated, being fair and balanced meant supporting free speech and allowing heterodoxy to be heard. Since 2016, Free Speech has become exclusively "right wing" and "conservative." Being anti-war, that as well has become "right wing" and "conservative," as has reporting straight facts in an era where major news outlets and social media outlets, even places like wikipedia support censorship and the idea that a narrative needs to be pushed, while not pushing that narrative means a "alt-right bias." None of that is accurate, not pushing a left wing bias isn't having a right wing bias, it's being a fair and balanced outlet. Not condemning everything Trump does isn't being pro-Trump, and condemning everything he does isn't honesty, it's partisan. A left wing bias is a left wing bias, not a lack of bias. RCP hasn't taken a conservative turn, they haven't become alt-right, they just are not pushing a left wing narrative, and that, especially on places like Wikipedia, is a form of original sin. Right now they, RCP, as I write this, are awarding their inaugural award for fighting censorship. Matt Taibbi, Jay Bhattacharya, and Miranda Devine are being honored at the award ceremony for pushing back against censorship. That, once upon a time, was a liberal position, and once upon a time the people being honored were considered liberal. It's all "conservative" now, by proxy, in most cases of the singular issue of being against censorship and in support of free speech. RCP didn't take a "conservative" position, they simply didn't pivot and go as authoritarian as the current left has, and that makes them look "conservative" in the eyes of the people who would support censorship to push their beliefs. 2601:246:5A83:D090:4180:9B2F:C72D:F57E (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass media is owned by enormous conglomerates: CNN, MSNBC, etc are subsidiaries of subsidiaries. They are not "leftist" -- they're aggressively capitalist enterprises, not socialist radicals calling for the end of capital and the dissolution of class. Their decision making is rooted in profit margins, and them choosing what to air or not air is not "authoritarian" or "censorship" any more than FOX or Newsmax not giving Hasan Piker an hour long prime time slot is authoritarian censorship. Additionally, FOX is a conservative network and was literally sued for almost a billion dollars for lying and "pushing a narrative." Are they "reporting straight facts?" They've been taken to court repeatedly for lying, they've claimed in court that their prime time shows are entertainment that no reasonable person would assume was factually accurate, but seemingly their audience doesn't care. It's almost as if reality is exactly the opposite of what you've described: that FOX, Newsmax, etc. have created an environment where their audience cares so little when the network is demonstrably proven to have lied to their faces, that they are free to push whatever narrative they want, regardless of how fabulistic, without any significant risk to revenue or loss of viewership, while older "liberal" media's profitability remains tethered to their audience trusting them as a reliable source, hence the lack of billion dollar lawsuits and public self-flagellation over erroneous reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whataboutitbuddy (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

overall cleanup

[edit]

Hey everyone, I think this article needs some overhaul. It reads like a series of one-paragraph blog posts from different authors. It comes across as disjointed and unorganized. I’d love to get some other people interested in helping me clean up and revamp this article. I read their website several times a week and am interested in it. Lmk if interested in helping me. Thanks --MaxineJP (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone here interested in a group effort to cleanup this article? I saw you guys are recently active on here, wondering if anyone is interested? @User:X-Editor, @User:Marquardtika, @User:Sofi89255, @User:Chetsford MaxineJP (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at RCP that much., so I'm not sure what I could do. X-Editor (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:MaxineJP. I agree that the article needs an overhaul. To me it reads like it was written a long time ago and then had random non-cohesive edits since then and doesn't really reflect the reality of where RCP is these days. In terms of working together, how would that look? Do you want people to volunteer for different sections or what? Beingafactoid (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Yeah, that is a good plan. I'm particularly interested in their polling, so I can take that section. I've been researching their poll averaging for the last two presidential elections. It's very interesting. Do you want to take on the history and overview parts? MaxineJP (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me look up some of the references that aren't valid with dead links? I can't find these online anywhere. What do we do if we can't validate these sources?
[8] "Obama's surge swamps Hillary" Herald Sun
[14] and [16] "Real Clear Politics Real Clear on its Growth, Mission" Chicago Tribune
[28] "Forbes Media Acquires Fifty-One Percent Stake in RealClearPolitics.com" Business Wire
- MaxineJP (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet Archive might help.[16] Just put the link there and see if it can find an old copy. Of course sources aren't invalid just because you can't access them online. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been mentioned before, but "although" should be avoided when comparing two sources (it risks WP:SYNTH, since you're turning one source into an answer or response to the other and forming a narrative that isn't present in either.) Additionally, I'm not sure it makes sense to highlight the 2012 piece in the lead given that it's comparatively out of date; but we definitely cannot present the NYT's piece and then use the 2012 piece as an "although" to that - not only is that possible synthesis, the synthesis is plainly inaccurate (ie. the 2012 piece can't reasonably be construed as an answer to the 2017 piece - in fact, it fits in with what the NYT piece describes in terms of RCP receiving praise early on and then turning sharply rightwards in 2016.) If we were going to link them it would have to be in other direction, ie. they received praise in 2012 but they changed direction in 2017 - that framing isn't SYNTH, since it's what the NYT piece says and isn't contradicted by the 2012 Chicago Times piece. I'm also not sure we should be attributing the NYT given that it's a non-opinion article and summarizes an entire section cited to multiple sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey there! I read through this, and this all makes sense. I appreciate you taking the time to explain what happened. I'm still a bit new to this, so I appreciate the guidance! MaxineJP (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political Orientation section

[edit]

The text in this section seems bogged down with quotes and detail. I'm condensing/summarizing, keeping in the main points. Lmk if any feedback or ideas. Thanks. MaxineJP (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealClearPolitics&oldid=1242349555"