Jump to content

Talk:Raw Story

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grorp (talk | contribs) at 01:36, 10 April 2023 (→Removed hyperpartisan sentence: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Junk news" and "hyperpartisan"

I looked at Fox News and "junk" is not a word found in that article. "Hyperpartisan" is also not found in that article.

So why the discrepancy? And "junk news" is not defined in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timeshifter. I added a section regarding junk news below and would love your input. [Please note that while my username discloses my conflict of interest, I would again point out my conflict of interest as a point of fairness in trying to achieve consensus or fair agreement.] Thanks in advance for any consideration. JByrne404 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JByrne404. I don't have a lot of time nowadays for Wikipedia.
Looks like Grorp has since replied, and thoroughly covered the issues.
The current sentence in the first paragraph of the article would never be allowed as is in a biography article. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So why should we use lesser standards here?
Raw Story is considered a hyperpartisan media outlet and has been described as junk news.
It is an attack on a media organization in Wikipedia's voice. It violates WP:NPOV.
The correct way is A describes B as C. Based on ...
That lets the readers decide.
And it should not be in the lede after everything Grorp has found.
--Timeshifter (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You (and i mean all of the partisan hacks disguised as editors) are not really seem to be care about non leftist people and media organizations. Just read any lead in articles of non leftist ppl or media orgs.
For example this lead is nice and neutral and then there s a damn long section called false claims. Why this is not called fake news etc? I just saw ISI96 contributed to this article largely yet his other erticles are considered a crusade against non leftist media orgs.
What do you call someone who always depicts leftist ppl and orgs nice or neutral at worst and non leftist ppl and orgs bad, unaceptable or neutral at best?
U r all biased partisan hacks as the whole wikipedia project by now. 94.21.109.32 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
94.21.109.32. You call me a partisan hack based on nothing. We get a lot of complaining IP editors like you who only see what they want to see. Get a user name so we can see how you edit. Look at my edits and you will see that I fully respect WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
The lead paragraph here says "progressive". The lead paragraph at Fox News says "conservative". They are generally accurate terms as far as those otherwise meaningless terms can be.
Fox News article has many false claims and controversies.
"Junk news" and "hyperpartisan" are just insults desired by people like you. At Wikipedia we let readers make up their own minds.
"Progressive" and "conservative" are general terms that are meaningless in many cases. Single payer healthcare for example is the more fiscally conservative form of healthcare, and people live longer under it on average. A more effective use of dollars. Thus conservative.
And political parties change over time. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. In the United States, the first progressive federal income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862. The act was signed into law by Lincoln. It replaced a flat tax. See: Progressive tax. So was the Republican Party of 1862 a progressive or conservative party, or a mixture of both, as we know the terms today? They are general terms.
Wikipedia presents the facts as backed up by references. Readers can label things as they please. WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Report (off topic request)

Hi Timesshifter. I posted on another of your pages but in case I screwed up (not a member of Wiki) I thought I'd post the same thing here for you and Grorp. PLEASE let Wikipedia readers make up their own mind about Palmer Report too. There is no source that I could find for labeling them a partisan fake news site in the header.


Here is what I wrote to you on the other page. Timeshifter hi. Question. I am hoping I am doing this correctly. I saw your comments on Raw Story and agree with them.I am sorry but I do not have an account and hope this is the correct place to respond. I will also answer you on the other page.

Can you PLEASE --- whenever you have time take a look at Palmer Report? There has been a Wikipedia attack from some republican editors. They are a political site -- a good one and I am a fan.

For months (years) scores of people have been pleading with the editors there to take the "hyper partisan, fake news website" out of the header. It is not accurate. It was put there by the same person who muddied up Raw story -- a republican. I along with dozens -- literally dozens of people protested. We felt it was an attack, a vicious one. The response was always send some reliable sources to counter it.

Only nobody ever used the term "hyper-partisan, fake news website" in the first place. I spent four hours trying to find a source and asked several times. There are some obscure republican sources. They never used, to the best of my knowledge any of those terms.

They also locked the page when people tried to change it and called it vandalism. But everyone I saw came in good faith. The Palmer Report is not fake news and is very much like Raw Story. I had a source -- Brian Williams from MSNBC did a segment several tears ago and used information from their site. I was told that was not interesting enough to put on the site and then they ignored me and all the others. You an easily see this through old Talk pages because there are over a dozen complaints.

I hope you are not upset that I posted such a long post but I think what is happening makes Wiki look very bad and I liked what you said on the raw story site. I do not want to name the person less it be thought of as a verbal attack but you can see all this quite easily. Please if you can do anything, please research this and please look seriously at the "hyperpartisan, fake news" entry. Because that is not neutral.

Thank you,

Norah 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:AD3C:1976:2DA8:EAB2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This page was last edited on 5 February 2023, at 00:11 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:AD3C:1976:2DA8:EAB2 (talk)

I replied on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citation for domestic extremism

  • Specific text to be added or removed: The site was also the first to report on the indictments of the founders of the Rise Above Movement, a California white nationalist group known for actively seeking out and engaging in street brawls.
  • Reason for the change: This sentence fleshes out additional coverage of white nationalism, which Raw Story has been credited for.
  • References supporting change: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3adm3j/robert-rundo-indictment-rise-above-movement

Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Grorp (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy New Year! JByrne404 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Story hires new editors

Thanks in advance for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Grorp (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report on $690,000 theft from Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)

Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Grorp (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional campaign theft exclusive

Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done These are just three précis' that contain routine aggregation credit to TRS. One of them is just 14 words long. I'm at a loss to find many, or any, articles we have on other media outlets that try to contain an exhaustive list of every story they've filed, which is the direction we're headed here. I think our essay on WP:EXCESSDETAIL provides a cogent argument for declining this edit request. That said, if TRS' story on the Schumer campaign committee becomes, itself, the subject of reporting (e.g. the CJR does a feature on the process of newsgathering that went into the development of the story, the story wins the Pulitzer, etc.) I think that would be a different matter. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Chetsford, this is fair and I follow your logic. I appreciate your taking a look. We'll try to reserve our requests for more material items. Best, JByrne404 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed hyperpartisan sentence

I removed the sentence "Some consider Raw Story a hyperpartisan media outlet" and its three citations, which 5 months ago I had tagged as "verification needed". No one else took it up, so today I've taken a stab at it.

Pennycook doesn't mention Raw Story at all. The document includes one figure/chart with 60 domain names (one of which is rawstory.com). That's it. No context. No content.

Xu is not available online through Wikipedia Library Taylor & Francis; it's just not there. I cannot tell if the not-logged-in version is ONLY an abstract, or if the whole thing was yanked from Taylor and Francis. A search by author does not find any similar content under another title or DOI although there remain 3 other articles by Xu.

Benkler mentions Raw Story and 'hyper' in passing; no context or explanation, like it's a foregone conclusion. This is all you find in the article that mentions Raw Story:

  • "Moreover, younger, more net-native, more frankly partisan sites gain significantly in prominence. On the left, Daily Kos, Politicus USA, Raw Story, and Salon gain visibility relative to their place in the link economy."
  • "Media sources most frequently shared on Twitter. 16 Raw Story"
  • "Media sources most frequently shared on Facebook. 13 Raw Story"
  • "Palmer Report and Raw Story, other left-wing sites, saw more attention on Twitter in 2017"
  • "This did not prevent a hyperpartisan site like the Palmer Report or Raw Story from joining the Huffington Post as the three most tweeted sources in the left media set."

I'm just not seeing any WP:WEIGHT to warrant using the term "hyperpartisan" in Wikivoice or including it in the article. Grorp (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raw_Story&oldid=1149074444"