Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

New addition

An IP is adding information to this article which is not fully supported by the claimed source (the source doesn't speak of "propaganda" or Wikipedia at all, for instance.) The IP has also removed info sourced to Forbes.com, which seems like a reliable source. The rotating IP needs to get consensus for their change instead of edit warring. Yobol (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom continues to demonstrate malice and reckless disregard by not only coloring the biography page and removing fair material, but by removing material regarding fair discussion from the talk page.

Biased Wiki Editing

The stand-alone sentence, "In July 2012, Attkisson's reporting on vaccines was characterized as spreading "anti-vaccine misinformation" and "anti-science" by Steven Salzberg," is entirely inappropriate for a biography of a living person and violates the neutral point of view policy, specifically undue weight:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

This claim about Sharyl Attkisson's focus on vaccines comes from a linked article that connects her with an outbreak of whooping cough with absolutely no credulity. The only credit we seem to take into account for including this reference is that the author is a reliable source. Unfortunately, his material isn't and has no solid ground after reading the piece. Even more damaging to the credibility of the source is it's own source.

This is a recent, isolated criticism by a minority, turned into a single sentence on Wikipedia without context or care for Neutral Point of View. I open this conversation for why it should be included, but I note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the issue that I have with the line is based solely on policy and has nothing to do with the global conversation about vaccination political camps. The burden of evidence is on those who wish inclusion for contentious material in BLPs. Keegan (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is NOT a blanket for removing any content critical of a living person's actions/misactions/errors. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the specific way in which this violates WP:UNDUE; the position that Attkisson appears to be promoting (vaccines are dangerous/may cause autism) is clearly the minority (actually fringe minority) opinion in the medical community. That her reporting promotes such a view is also not a minority, as it has been thus described by others such as Seth Mnookin here , Media Matters here, and Paul Offit in his book and appears to be the mainstream opinion (to the extent there exists one). Do you have a reliable source that says her vaccine reporting isn't anti-vaccine or praises it, from outside the anti-vaccine movement?

Also, you seem to have declared this source as unreliable based merely on the fact that you disagree with the assessment of the author and how he arrived to it, Salzman. This would seem to fly in the face of how we determine the reliability of sources here on Wikipedia. While I agree that we cannot connect Attkisson directly to the cases of whooping cough, neither the source nor our mention here in this Wikipedia article does so, so using that as an argument against this source seems to be a non sequitur. The consensus on WP:BLPN appearss to be that it is a reliable source, however, so I'm not sure we even have to go over this ground again. So far, I see no convincing argument that this material shouldn't be placed back in. I also agree with the comment above regarding the use of WP:BLP. Yobol (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"While I agree that we cannot connect Attkisson directly to the cases of whooping cough, neither the source nor our mention here in this Wikipedia article does so, so using that as an argument against this source seems to be a non sequitur." Right, that column had absolutely no evidence of connection of Attkisson's news reports to any detrimental effect, nor does it, aside from accusations, make her a supporter of the anti-vaccination crowd. It's just innuendo. What you have found here is the one source on the web that you could include that qualifies as a RS and taken it out of context to label someone on Wikipedia with a single sentence. This is highly inappropriate and a highly irresponsible way to treat a biography, and again is fundamentally not neutral. At all. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it out of context? The author specifically describes her position as anti-science and anti-vaccine, "The media has been complicit in spreading some of anti-vaccine misinformation. Sometimes it comes straight from the media itself, such as the credulous, anti-science, anti-vax CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson." No context removed. The commentary regarding Attkisson was regarding her reporting as part of the media promoting anti-vaccination. Neither the source, nor does the proposed text, tie Attkisson to the Whooping cough or any "detrimental effect", so again, this is a non sequitur as no one is arguing that position. Please stay on topic and stop arguing against straw man arguments. Yobol (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On topic? This is far off topic to my exact point. You, Yobol, wish to inject a theory that you agree with that The Media® is anti-vaccination. Can I go into a different article and write a sentence about "The liberal media thinks that..." or "Media wants you to believe..." No, I cannot. Your editing this article has a very visible POV, and it is clear that your position is in no way to support a neutral biography of Sharyl Attkisson, but to make sure that and idea that you support is placed into the article. That is more conflict of interest than if she edited the article herself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for us drop one sentence into biographies because it relates to our promotion of a particular self POV. It is your position that is a red herring, because it gets people to focus on a single issue rather than the overall tone, comprehension, and accuracy in presenting a biography. Keegan (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keegan can you come back to the specific content article content that you originally claimed was UNDUE becuase it was from only one source. We now have multiple sources supporting the analysis of Attkissons coverage of the issue and so at this point it is seeming that it is UNDUE to NOT include those criticisms in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also suggest Keegan should follow our behavioral guidelines by commenting on the content, not the contributor as well. If Keegan feels I have a true conflict of interest, they can certainly take this up on WP:COIN, but I would prefer to stay on content in resolving this dispute. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A sentence or two seems proportionate for a minority position, and RedPen correctly notes that BLP specifically allows minority opinions from reliable sources. On the other hand, is it too tiny a minority (isolated criticism) or too trivial an issue at all (overall significance) for the article topic? I dispute Keegan's assertion that we should base our decision on the underlying sources the cited ref uses--we now have an expert that appears to endorse the position himself by re-reporting it, highlighting it as an example of his own position, without criticism or substantial counter-evidence for that source. It's the reliability of the source we cite (the usual expert-opinion or other WP:RS requirements as usual) that matters. If our medical expert wants to write in support of nonsense or fringe rather than mainstream (note, I am not making judgement about the case at hand) or base his position on a bunch of poor sources, well then that makes the nonsense or fringe more notable and worthy of inclusion because now an expert apparently agrees with it. That's exactly how secondary sourcing works: because we are not experts, rely on those who are to help highlight what is significant or a notable example of...whatever. What's left to decide I think is whether this particular reliable source really is endorsing the position that Attkisson is a notable example of this position on vaccines--nobody seems to dispute that Salzberg is generally qualified to statements that carry weight per RS or that the media portrayal of vaccines and inter-related social issues are notable. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One sentence + one source + recent news = Undue weight. I am not reading any argument here relative to why it should be included in her biography in such a manner. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

are you suggesting that we remove all other content from this article that has only one source as it would also then be UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

i dont think there is even evidence that the criticism of her reporting on vaccines is a minority position. the criticism seems pretty well be the prevailing scientific view of such coverage, although I dont know that the criticism has been widely applied specifically to her. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence that her occasionally reporting on vaccines gives her a position whatsoever, or how it merits inclusion in her Wikipedia biography aside from the fact that a few editors just seem to really, really want it in the article about her without explanation for motive for the overall good of her biography but as yet another platform to talk about the vaccine issues. Unsuitable for Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is Seth Mnookin specifically commenting on her general pattern of reporting on this topic. He appears to be well-regarded for his coverage of the public-health aspects of vaccination, so his writing about it would be a WP:RS expert-opinion. Now it's not just one voice holding her up as an example, and it's not just one story of hers in this area (or one study she just happened to be the one to cover) that drew attention. DMacks (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) her anti-vaccine blog gives her an anti-vaccine position. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The mention in the source is very trivial and passing; I rather think we'll have to cut it. Unless someone can come up with some firmer or more in depth dicussion of her vaccine views. --02:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Other than the conjecture of biased and/or conflicted editors, there is no evidence that Attkisson has any anti-vaccine views at all. The term "anti-vaccine" is an agreed-upon propagandist phrase which the vaccine industry and its surrogates apply to anyone who examines vaccine safety, in an attempt to halt independent investigation of vaccine safety scientific questions. It's as inflammatory and misleading of a label as calling someone who is "pro-choice" -- "pro-murder." Merely reporting on vaccine safety issues -- even if the pharmaceutical industry and its surrogates don't like it -- is no more "anti-vaccine" than reporting on Firestone tire safety issues is "anti-tire," or reporting on Congressional corruption is "anti-Congress," or reporting on a dangerous drug is "anti-medicine," or reporting on a charity scandal is "anti-charity." In fact, one could easily make the argument that reporting which results in discussions regarding make vaccines safer is in fact pro vaccine, not anti vaccine. Extreme caution should be used in allowing propagandists or anyone else to perpetuate a potentially false, libellous label regarding a living person who has, in fact, not expressed a position or viewpoint. Simply because many propagandists/bloggers can be found making the same false claims does not make them true (especially when they all come from those on one side in the debate, and do not include the equally vehement opposing views from others in the debate who believe the same reporting is responsible, fair and conducive to a safe vaccination program). At least one of the sources (Dr. Offit) who is mentioned above by those who wish to have a one-sided opinion blog cited in an out-of-context fashion on the bio has been successfully sued for libel regarding his vaccine-related statements at least once in the past, and has already been the subject of a high profile correction regarding false statements he specifically made about Attkisson in the past. Referring to him and others connected to the vaccine industry as though they are "experts" who should be highly regarded, while many opinions to the contrary are disregarded, is unfair. Those who wish to falsely label this reporter as "anti-vaccine" recklessly ignore or disregard quotes from Attkisson's stories such as:

“Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective, and that they have not found a link to any deaths. They also say illnesses reported after vaccinations may not have been caused by the shot, and that Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with 'half the average' reported serious adverse events.”

“Vaccines have saved countless lives, nearly eradicating horrible, deadly and disfiguring diseases that once threatened many Americans.”

“In 1994, the government's Immunization Advisory Committee recommended routine vaccination against hepatitis B virus. It was a widely welcomed strategy to fight a serious and sometimes deadly disease. The CDC currently recommends vaccination for 'all infants, beginning at birth,' people under age 19, and at-risk adults.”

Those who wish to characterize the reporter or reporting as taking a personal position are simply factually incorrect.

As to the writer above who said nobody has disputed that Salzberg is generally qualified to make his statements: consider it disputed, now. Salzberg is called a "computer scientist" in one article, does not know Attkisson personally, mischaracterizes her reporting as stated above, fails to disclose his (and his institution's) own industry financial ties and relationships, and -- most notably -- blames Attkisson in an article on a topic (whooping cough) on which she has never published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.29 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Those who wish to characterize the reporter or reporting as taking a personal position are simply factually incorrect." Important point to consider. Keegan (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That one has some bits of correct information does not mean that there are not significant parts / an overall slant that are better and more appropriately characterized as "spreading misinformation". -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The personal opinion of any individual Wikipedia editor about the "correctness" of Salzberg is not really relevant to this discussion. Certainly if Attkisson has been praised by medical or scientific authorities (not associated with the anti-vaccine movement) we can include those here as well if they are also published in reliable sources. Rather than arguing about the subject of the BLP, we need editors to provide sources. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You cannot shift the burden of proof. It is not up to anyone to provide sources contrary to yours, the proof is on you to provide encyclopedic significance in a neutral tone that does not affect the reader of the article's perception of the subject. Your stance here denies the subject, which is contrary to care in a biography of a living person. Your arguments are fine by wikilawyering policy about reliable sources, but they completely ignore the concept of a biography. Sharyl Attkisson's reporting in her profession as a journalist does not reflect her personal opinion, and we're characterizing that it does and, even worse, providing no context. You do not have high quality sources, you have not gotten it right.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Wikipedia:Biography of living persons

Now, how is this single sentence doing that again? Keegan (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that nowhere in the one sentence about Salzman's characterization does it describe her personal opinion, just her "reporting". Quoting parts of BLP policy that do not apply in the current instance, and mischaracterizing the content in discussion, would seem to not be a very convincing argument. Yobol (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, two other relevant cites were provided but deleted by the biased editors so there is not a genuine search for truth, facts and balance here. For example, the biased editors deleted mention that Attkisson had won an independent international award that included her vaccine reporting. The biased editors also removed the context and legitimate source (Orange County Register) that proved Attkisson had been a target of false statements in the past of bad actors in the pro-vaccine-injury movement. In any event, you continue to place yourself in the position of falsely labelling people (or accepting propagandists' label) as "anti-vaccine" while, at the same time, not seeming concerned that the cited source (Salzberg) is anti-vaccine-safety or pro-vaccine injury (to use an equivalent version of their false "anti-vaccine" label). Therefore, you give undue weight to one side of the argument as if it's neutral, then claim that any sources on the other side must meet your (conflicted editor's & their surrogates) own definition of being "not part of the anti-vaccine movement." The Salzberg crowd falsely associates anyone who examines vaccine safety issues as "anti-vaccine." Therefore, they are "associated," not in true fact but by the pro-vaccine-injury crowd. Wiki should not allow this charged moniker of "anti-vaccine" to be applied lightly, and should be mindful that it has been widely used in a well orchestrated and financed propaganda campaign. In the end, you apply your bias in setting the bar at an impossible level for a fair bio. Further, even adding opposing cites doesn't solve other serious problems such as: entering the whole discussion clearly violates biographical neutrality, is part of an longstanding, ongoing attempt to vandalize and unfairly color a bio, is contentious and potentially libelous and should be immediately removed, and gives undue weight to a small segment of the reporter's reporting. Indeed, a tremendous amount of material and research would need to be added on many other topics on the bio to put the vaccine issue (which the biased editors wish to insert) into proper perspective. Wiki is not a soapbox and, in this case, special interests are trying to turn it into one. This should not be allowed.

As a comparison: if President Obama is "pro-choice," but certain scientists and policy analysts were to write about him and label him "pro-murder," or "pro-death," would that label and a discussion of it be allowed on his bio? Not the proper place. And not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.248.59 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing a conspiracy by editors or by the reliable sources is unlikely to be helpful to convincing others of your case. The only new source you are citing is the OC Register retraction, which would only be reliable as a source that the OC register retracted one article, years after the original was published. It would probably not be a suitable source for this article, and would not be a reliable source that says anything positive about Attkisson's vaccine reporting. Certainly if it is not anti-vaccine or within the mainstream of medicine, you can find a WP:RS that says so. We have several sources that says it is anti-vaccine. Yobol (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep avoiding mention of the international independent award Attkisson received in part for vaccine reporting-- which you removed from the bio? Further, you haven't cited any sources regarding "anti-vaccine" except for the pro-vaccine-injury movement which includes Salzberg, the discredited Offit, and others cited above. They are the equivalent (on the other side) to the sources you reject because you apparently have a bias for your own reasons, and don't wish to cite anybody except on one side of the issue. You also fail to address your violation of Wiki policies on neutrality, undue weight and the special care that should be given to contentious material on bios. You ignore anyone who offers opposing viewpoints and declare viewpoints invalid. Let others be the judge of whether the OC Register cite is relevant. Why do you keep deleting it from the bio and even the talk page? That sort of censorship is very revealing, malicious and damaging. Apparently, a fair bio is not what is desired here: a skewed, colored, inaccurate piece of propoganda is what is apparently sought by the editors who have repeatedly revealed their biases with their inappropriate edits.

"An OC Register article dated Aug. 4, 2008 entitled “Dr. Paul Offit Responds” contained several disparaging statements that Dr. Offit of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia made about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report. Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit’s statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report “How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?” July 25, 2008. Unsubstantiated statements include: Offit’s claim that Attkisson “lied”; and Offit’s claim that CBS News sent a “mean spirited and vituperative” email “over the signature of Sharyl Attkisson” stating “You’re clearly hiding something.” In fact, the OC Register has no evidence to support those claims. Further, Offit told the OC Register that he provided CBS News “the details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck.” However, documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose his financial relationships with Merck, including a $1.5 million Hilleman chair he sits in that is co-sponsored by Merck. According to the CBS News’ documentation recently reviewed by the OC Register, the network requested (but Offit did not disclose) the entire profile of his professional financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including: The amount of compensation he’d received from which companies in speaking fees; and pharmaceutical consulting relationships and fees. The CBS News documentation indicates Offit also did not disclose his share of past and future royalties for the Merck vaccine he co-invented. To the extent that unsubstantiated and/or false claims appeared in the OC Register and have been repeated by other organizations and individuals, the OC Register wishes to express this clarification for their reference and for the record."