Talk:David Gregory (journalist)

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

Untitled[edit]

Well, I wrote the temp page, just for fun. My first try. Most info from bio at Leading Authorities. http://www.leadingauthorities.com/search/biography.htm?s=17527. There is an image here but I was not sure about copyright infringement. http://www.carlcoxphoto.com/images/David%20Gregory.jpg

  • Temp page has replaced the main article. RedWolf 03:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's remarkable that even the MRC named him best White House correspondent; I didn't know that. What a brave journalist, despite what some would say. -Amit

Imus Transcript[edit]

The Drudge transcript is clearly wrong. I've fixed it up a bit to match the audio and video clips I've seen. Should we still cite Drudge as the source? Should we even include the transcript? --Geedubber 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found full audio of the phone call here. will fix transcript later tonight.--Geedubber 01:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is biased. needs to be wikified

I would agree with that notion. The article needs a professional workup of the material. Also, the content which clearly shows an unfavorable bias should either be removed or given context. We should never list defamatory statements about a person in the main section. - ICarriere 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Gregory's Rather Clear Bias is Quite Important to any Fair Article[edit]

Because Gregory claims to be a neutral journalist, it then becomes important to point out the many instances in which Gregory has been very clearly biased ideologically. Were Gregory the host of an opinion show such as "Countdown," his on-camera appearances would clearly fall into the category of leftist opinion. But Gregory is doing what so many journalists do, pretending to be neutral while actually having quite an obvious ideational tilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely surprising to me that this page doesn't make some acknowledgement of David Gregory's tone and approach on Meet the Press, as I feel it is a huge break from the previous host. It may be a function of how much more frequently accusations of liberal media bias come out, but there is a stark contrast in the tone he uses and the frequency in which he cuts off Democrat versus Republican guests. On the June 17, 2012 episode, the way he makes David Plouffe vigorously defend Obama's agenda and holds the President accountable for the well-being of the entire economy is clearly antagonistic. There is very little acknowledgement of Plouffe's statements on Romney's record in Massachusetts or on the Moody reports cited by David that articulates how Romney's economic plan will plunge the US further into recession. However, his later interview with John McCain flows much more like a session on collaborating about the flaws of the Obama agenda and gives him a very open and interrupted opportunity to clarify why he attacked Romney during the 2008 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.8.241 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provide evidence. Gregory, on numerous occasions, has gone after people on the left. To this day, I still believe the guy is somewhere around center-right. Also, the fact that he asked a question about how Bush is failing does not make him bias. Almost 3 out of every 4 people disapprove of the current President. If he was giving a constantly favorable opinion that would automatically make him bias toward a very small portion of the population.

POV[edit]

This article is little more than a transcript of White House complaints about Gregory. I'm going to work on expanding the serious info and removing some of the excess. Gamaliel 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure of this criticism. When I read this article I did not feel that Gregory having disputes with the White House necessarily reflected poorly upon him, he is a journalist after all. The complaints from the White House about Gregory are of the ad hominem variety and therefore, not that convincing. Also, if the conservative media watchdog gives him an award and now the Bush administration hates him, then one could argue that he is doing his job. So, in the end, I still felt able to make up my own mind on the subject. Moomot 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that some of this stuff needs to be removed. Fully half of the article is given over to some of the more "contentious" elements in Gregory's career, i.e. the confrontation with W., the argument with McClellan, and the Imus incident. This kind of thing is really more in the nature of a footnote, or maybe a link; it doesn't deserve to be half the article -- is this Wikipedia or is this Wonkette? 68.93.120.212 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)From the original author of the temp page, who is still too lazy to sign up for an actual account.[reply]

Instead of removing it, why not add more positive items to balance out the POV? I hate it when Wiki takes things out. I depend on Wiki to give me a starting point for research, and knowing more about any subject, positive, neutral, or negative, makes my job much easier.66.8.139.9 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is critical of Gregory. The opposite case can be made and should be made. See, e.g., http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070604&s=roth060607 (The New Republic TV, David Gregory's Greatest Fights by Zachary Roth) and http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070604&s=roth060407 (The New Republic, King David: How a pompous reporter saved the press corps by Zachary Roth). --PubliusPresent 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last night on Conan O'Brien's show, David Gregory stated his height as 6'5". They were talking about this thing he calls a "dream sack" that he sleeps in while in hotels (apparently he's afraid of the hotel sheets) and said something to the effect of, "It's particularly hard to find one when you're 6'5"". I corrected this last night, but someone has changed it back to 6'6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.244.157 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources[edit]

These do not generally fit Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, but they may be useful sources if someone wants to use them to improve the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

potential sources[edit]

Jewish[edit]

I noticed he is listed as Jewish in the tag line but I do not see any sources cited. Please cite a source for that or maybe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Tim Russert died, he said on air that according to his religion, which is Judaism, ... 130.64.70.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]


The citation given for him having a Jewish upbringing has nothing of the sort in the article, it is a false attribution and should be removed.

This article mentions Judaism, which is irrelevant to his celebrity, so many times and so prominently it's absurd. Why does it require more than the religion label in the sidebar? Or why not mention he's white, with white parents, and his wife is white, and his kids are white too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.201.171 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article in the Washingtonian [1] said that as part of NBC's effort to improve his on-air personality, their consultants said that it would make him seem friendlier if he revealed some of his personal life on-air, such as his Jewish religion. So it is relevant to the article. You should be able to find more discussion about his Jewishness in The Forward. --Nbauman (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ How David Gregory Lost His Job. Last summer, Gregory was let go from his gig as host of "Meet the Press." Here's an inside look at his fall from the top—and what it says about the state of TV news. By Luke Mullins. Washingtonian, December 21, 2014

info box set up[edit]

the info box set up was info box "celebrity" rather than info box "journalist" - I tried to clean that up but could not get it to display properly. could someone give that a try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Snow[edit]

  • the following comment about the article has been moved from the article space-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the incident in December, 2006, it is not true that Tony Snow did not answer Gregory's question. Snow clearly stated the report in question was not a rejection of the President's policies. The resultant controversy erupted because Snow stated Gregory was framing the report in a partisan fashion. The video of the press conference is widely available. Snow does answer Gregory's question and any claim to the contrary is misleading.

comment is from this edit

Condense[edit]

I did a fairly major edit on this page, mostly condensing the information. I strongly believe that each little blip in his career does not need its own sub-headline. I also deleted some information that I don't really believe added anything to the content of the article Kika chuck (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which was promptly undone. Crap! Am I the only one who thinks all the subheadlines are stupid? Kika chuck (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source for my previous edit on Mr Gregory's violation of DC Gun Laws.[edit]

DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition..”

I think we all know that the edit was accurate. Since the policy only applies to unsourced comments the comment needs ot be reinstated. Removing it again would be an act of vandalism as this is obviously relevant to his "Meet the press" career:

Someone w/ the right privildeges please add the below ( or something like it):

"On a recent show, Mr Gregory broke the Districts Gun laws by possessing a 30 round magazine. He even admitted to it in his description and showed it on national TV as a prop in his discussion with Mr. LaPierre. As of this writing he has not been arrested or charged" ^26

To add for references: 26. DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf

Palmerwmd (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It <is> a little weird locking the article.. though citing the policy of no unreferenced writing about legal problems of living persons.. This very act of locking it takes away this posters ability to add the reference in the first place... pretty weird... 03:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerwmd (talk • contribs)

  • First, welcome to Wikipedia. The article is only "locked" in the sense that unregistered or brand-new editors will be unable to edit it for a few days after a spate of anonymous editors added unsourced allegations of criminal activity to the biography of a living person. And just quoting D.C. law is not a sufficient source. You'll need to find discussion of this alleged act in a reliable third-party source before it can be added here because Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research. - Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. : ) Would it be sufficent if i linked a vid to him holding it during the show, which we know is in DC? It is common knowledge that they are illegal in DC and the law, the primary reference that exists, is a matter of public record and can also be quoted. It is also of tremendous interest because of his position on the matter that banning them would make people safer implicitly because then they would be absent. yet he himself proved that in DC ,where its banned you can easily get it, as would any crinimal (which he now may be). The irony of this is too delicous to hold back no matter which side of the debate you are on.

Palmerwmd (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would not be sufficient.
First: For anything someone says, simply linking to the source does not show the statement is anything of significance. We would need secondary reliable sources discussing the comment. Otherwise, articles on public figures (e.g. any president within the past 40 years) would be overrun with quotes that various editors felt were important.
Next: You comparing what he said with another source (the law in question) is synthesis: His statement + the law = your interpretation that he broke the law.
Finally: As this is a biography of a living person, controversial claims MUST be supported by coverage in reliable sources. You certainly cannot accuse a living person of a crime without citing a reliable source that makes that claim.
The simple version: Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about a subject. You don't have a source saying what you are trying to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reliable source that mentions Gregory's violation of D.C. gun laws:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/25/D-C-Police-Investigating-NBC-s-Gregory-For-Violations-of-Gun-Banning-Laws

And here's a reliable source that says the private school that he sends his children to employs 11 armed guards. These are not secret service agents to protect Obama's kids - instead, they are regular employees that the school had long before Obama ever became President:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

The reason that both of these are notable enough for inclusion is because they show that Gregory is a gun control hypocrite.

Larry Craig has an entire article devoted to his gay sex hypocrisy. Gregory at least deserves one sentence about each of these two things in his article.

Gh82xc56 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here are some more reliable sources on Gregory's alleged violation of D.C. gun law. The newsbusters link also accuses him of hypocrisy for opposing armed guards in schools while simultaneously sending his own children to a private school with 11 armed guards:

Gh82xc56 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, a few right wing blogs and a few articles reporting that right wing blogs are reporting something, plus commentary from anonymous Twitter users courtesy the Daily Mail, report that the D.C. police are investigating something they saw on TV. I can read the follow-up sentence ("Ultimately, no charges were filed.") from here. Perhaps it will rise to notable enough for inclusion in a BLP should actual charges be filed. (Not every single random thing that gets mentioned in the press is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.) - Dravecky (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is not right wing or reporting what right wingers said. The CNN article states, "Washington Metropolitan Police Department is investigating whether NBC’s David Gregory violated D.C. gun laws when he displayed what he described as a 30 round magazine as part of an interview during Sunday’s 'Meet the Press.'" It does not say "... according to right wing sources."
The Hill is a very reliable source.
Here are more reliable sources on this:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Report-Police-question-NBC-host-over-gun-4145290.php
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dc-police-investigating-nbcs-david-gregory-for-possible-gun-law-violation/
http://www.wtop.com/109/3171388/Did-David-Gregory-violate-DC-gun-law
http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-wayne-lapierre-meet-the-press-david-gregory-2012-12
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/23/david-gregory-presses-nras-wayne-lapierre-may-have-violated-dc-law/
Gh82xc56 (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you're (apparently) new to Wikipedia and it's exciting to see the several new editors who have (apparently) come aboard in the last few days just to edit on this specific topic but not everything that the press writes about makes it into a living person's encyclopedia article. I could show you a dozen solid news sources for what Mitt Romney had for breakfast on almost every day in October 2012 but I guarantee you there will not be a "Mitt Romney's October 2012 breakfasts" article or section in any article related to him or the recent campaign. Police investigate things all the time. When charges are filed, then it may rise to worthy inclusion of this biography of a living person. - Dravecky (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this latest bit: [1]. "An official from the D.C. police told a member of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that David Gregory COULD display a high capacity magazine [...] 'Meet the Press' may have gotten 2 different answers from law enforcement." I wouldn't necessarily consider TMZ a great source, but in this case, that's even more reason to just wait for more information. Other media are picking up the TMZ report now as well. It may have been against DC gun laws, but it's certainly BLP without the proper context...e.g., did Gregory willfully violate the law as initial reports stated? Doesn't seem notable unless he's actually charged with something, in any case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original objection by Dravecky was "You'll need to find discussion of this alleged act in a reliable third-party source before it can be added here because Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research."
So, in response to that, here's one of the most reliable sources of all - Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/26/usa-people-gregory-idUSL1E8NQ3M020121226
Gh82xc56 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and then I expanded on the relevant policy, explaining that not everything verifiable is automatically notable for inclusion in the biography of a living person. So far, only the verifiability threshold has been crossed. - Dravecky (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of possession of high capacity magazine, again (based on January AG letter).[edit]

OK, admittedly, I'm not a regular wikipedia-er--I read it quite a lot, but rarely edit. So I removed "potential" from "potential violation of DC Code ...", as the Attorney General has come out and said so. UW Dawgs says the adjective is necessary because there's no police report, arrest or charge. OtterSmith removes the "potential" again (pointing out, again, that this is what the Attorney General said) and then Dravecky changes "potential" to "apparent", with a note of "compromise". What does "apparent" mean? Google says: "1. Clearly visible or understood; obvious. 2. Seeming real or true, but not necessarily so." I think "1." is close to my understanding, and I'm guessing "2." is close to UW Dawgs understanding. So "apparent" is at least ambiguous and confusing, and I would also argue unnecessary. I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts. 01:16 18 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.145 (talk)
See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do you have a source for Gregory definitively breaking the 7-2506.01(b) (or another) statute? And before getting hung up on Wikipedia policy, stating that someone in fact broke a law without providing citations is potentially libelous. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Attorney General's letter stated they were declining to prosecute the violation of the law that had occurred. Do we need to put the complete text of the letter into the article? htom (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found the document to which you are referring and added it as sourcing for the assertion. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The AG's letter claims the illegal to possess magazine has been given to the MPD by NBC. (Presumably this giving took place outside of Washington DC ....)htom (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snips from text of letter from AG to NBC[edit]

People keep putting in "softening" language about Gregory's display of the magazine. Here, some snips of the letter where the Attorney General of Washington, DC, explains the law and violation that occurred:

...of the news program "Meet the Press" on Sunday December 23,2012. On that broadcast, during the course of an interview of a guest regarding firearms policy in the United States, the program host, David Gregory, exhibited on camera a large capacity ammunition feeding device ("magazine") in violation of D.C. law.
... The device in the host's possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C. It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to "possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm" or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a "magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition." Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000, or both.
... The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter,
...OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law,
... On the other hand, no specific intent is required for this violation, and ignorance of the law or even confusion about it is no defense. We therefore did not rely in making our judgment on the feeble and unsatisfactory efforts that NBC made to determine whether or not it was lawful to possess, display and broadcast this large capacity magazine as a means of fostering the public policy debate.

Someone should probably download the entire thing and store it away here for future references. htom (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparent" violation[edit]

I do not understand why people keep inserting the word "apparent" in front of violation. Gregory claimed it was a 30 round magazine. The law claims such are a violation. The police investigated, found the magazine, it is a 30 round magazine. The Attorney General of DC states the possession was a violation; "There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter"; and "the clarity of the violation of this important law". How does this become "in apparent violation"?

I'm not removing it again, but I'm really disappointed in this example of WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED; there is nothing in the AG's language, opinion, and explanation that approaches "apparent violation".

AG Nathan stated that Gregory was in violation of 7-2506.01(b) and that is reflected unambiguously in the article language and supported via a citation. Beyond Nathan's opinion, how do you propose to support that Gregory was in violation of 7-2506.01(b)? Many media sources speculated that Gregory was in violation and those are reflected via the existing language and citations as well. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our paragraph says: On the December 23, 2012 broadcast of Meet the Press with National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre, Gregory displayed what he identified as "a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets".[26][27] NBC had requested permission from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to include a high-capacity magazine in the segment and were denied.[28][29] Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, in apparent violation of D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibiting the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition".[30][31][32]
How is this unambiguously reflecting a violation? Striking "apparent", leaving "... on the show, in violation of ..." would seem more unambiguous, removing the implied possible misunderstanding. htom (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong paragraph. "On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said her department has "completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the District’s Office of the Attorney General for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case." On January 11, 2013, Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan declared Gregory's action was in violation of 7-2506.01(b),[36] but that he would not proceed with prosecution.[37]" UW Dawgs (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, then, "apparently" should be struck from the paragraph I've quoted. - htom (talk)

Unless he was found guilty in a court of law, all we have is the assertion from the AG that in their (expert) opinion he appeared to be in violation but that they would not prosecute. "Innocent until proven guilty" is still a solid guideline, especially for biographies of living people. - Dravecky (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the text of the letter does it say that "he appeared to be in violtion"? It says he was in violation, and they are choosing not to prosecute! (There are handy snips from the text in the section above, or you can search it out yourself online.)htom (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a court of law, or Wikipedia? This isn't about Gregory being "guilty" of any charges. Nobody's arguing that. How about "The Attorney General *claimed* Gregory violated the law."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It already reads, "On January 11, 2013, Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan declared Gregory's action was in violation of 7-2506.01(b),[36] but that he would not proceed with prosecution.[37]" What is your objection or proposed change? UW Dawgs (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That the word "apparent" be struck from "in apparent violation" in the first paragraph of the section "High Capacity Magazine Display". htom (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the support for the assertion, beyond Nathan's stated opinion which is already incorporated with a citation in the article? Nathan stated (that he believes) Gregory violated the statute. I find it a tremendous leap to state that Gregory violated the statute absent ANY other support. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's Gregory's own statement on the air that it was a 30 round magazine! And NBC producing a 30 round magazine to give to the MPD, who either destroyed it or put it into safe keeping. And Nathan does not state that "he believes" Gregory violated the statute. He says "There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter,..."; "the clarity of the violation of this important law, ..." ... Have you read the letter at all? htom (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, how do you propose to cite this as proving Gregory broke the statute? Already stipulated that Nathan believes this and is cited as such. There does not appear to be any record of law enforcement being present at the broadcast, confiscation of any evidence at that time, and no charge, trial, plea, or conviction of Gregory. I feel the discussion is simply going in a very small circle, repeating that Nathan believes Gregory to have broken the statute without any other sourcing. And Yes, I'm the contributor who located, read, and cited Nathan's document. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's cited as saying it is a fact, not a belief. MPD investigated, found the offending magazine. I am not saying we should say that Gregory was guilty ... but we should say that he did it, not that he appeared to do it. Otherwise, it makes no sense for the prosecutor to exercise prosecutorial discretion in not charging him -- if he had not done the deed, there would be no need for discretion, one does not charge people if you know they only appeared to break the law. Or one shouldn't, anyway.htom (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're "not saying we should say that Gregory was guilty" then you cannot "say that he did it". And the statements of a district attorney do not create facts or else we could save a lot of money by doing away with courts and judges and trials and such. The D.A.'s statement is what it is, and it's cited as such. Anything beyond that for a biography of a living person would require a court verdict. Seriously. - Dravecky (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because you do a deed you are guilty? That really gets rid of the trials, courts, juries, and judges. Because you are found guilty you have to have done the deed? We can get rid of the Innocence Project, then! There is no question that he displayed the magazine, he claimed it was what it was. The question, is "then why wasn't he charged", and the answer by Nathan is "prosecutor's discretion", not "question of having done the deed."htom (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the explicit noting of WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED within "Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, in apparent violation of D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibiting the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition," the context is about media noting the potential code violation. I think it reads fine as-is, but could be rephrased along the lines of "Gregory displayed the magazine on the show, with media reports noting D.C. Code 7-2506.01(b) prohibits the possession of magazines with a capacity in excess of "10 rounds of ammunition" or such. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your rephrasing would be an improvement, changing "media reports noting" to "media reports then noting". htom (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated using this language. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CUT IN PAY[edit]

I want all 500 and some employed government in Washington take a cut in pay.


Work together. Stop all pay after they leave office! Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.180 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacious questioning[edit]

I just had an edit reverted. To avoid an edit war, I am taking the dispute to the talk page. Here is the core of my edit that resulted in a revert:

On June 23, 2013, Gregory employed the complex question fallacy, "perhaps the most widely practiced of the devious devices used in what is known as 'yellow journalism',"[1] during an interview of journalist Glenn Greenwald.

The edit was reverted because "WP:OR, source cited does not discuss Gregory". My edit created a wiki-link to the specific fallacy employed. Then I used my source for a direct quote describing the common use of the fallacy in journalism. I do not believe this constitutes WP:OR, but I ask for the opinion of other Wikipedians. --JHP (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my edit so hopefully I will be on safer ground regarding WP:OR. The new sentence simply says "On June 23, 2013, Gregory employed the complex question fallacy during an interview of journalist Glenn Greenwald." --JHP (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are advancing a position not advanced by the sources: "Gregory employed the complex question fallacy". That is original research. To add the material you added you would need a reliable source that specifically states that the fallacy was involved in this particular exchange. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not required to add information to Wikipedia articles. For WP:BLP, sources are required for contentious information. Wikipedia has an entire article on the complex question fallacy. After reading that article, do you disagree that David Gregory's question was a complex question? If so, what is your reasoning? --JHP (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more encyclopedic to identify the actual fallacy that David Gregory employed, with a wiki-link to an article describing the fallacy. However, if you prefer, I can dumb it down with references. The Washington Post called it a "gotcha inquiry"[2] and said the question contained a "veiled accusation".[3] The Los Angeles Times said "Gregory’s question disguised a loaded assumption."[4] Meanwhile, the New York Times says "If you tease apart his inquiry, it suggests there might be something criminal in reporting out important information from a controversial source."[5] These are all ways of describing the complex question fallacy for journalists who probably aren't specifically familiar with it. I think of an encyclopedia as a source where people can learn. That's why I'd much rather identify the fallacy and link to its Wikipedia article. --JHP (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not adding information to the article, you are adding your opinion to the article. Initially, you said Gregory was practicing yellow journalism. Even in your trimmed version, you are accusing him of using misleading questioning to target his subject. If you have a reliable source saying that, you might be able to say that the source accused him of this. You are stating in in Wikipedia's voice as an objective fact. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something is a fallacy is not opinion. It is objective fact. That's the whole point of the study of logic: whether a line of reasoning is valid or invalid can be objectively identified. The identification of fallacies is part of the study of logic. You are pretending (or assuming) that logic is about opinions. It is not.
In the case of David Gregory's question, his line of reasoning was invalid because it "disguised a loaded assumption". That's the complex question fallacy (a.k.a. loaded question). I will very happily change the text to say "The Los Angeles Times said 'Gregory’s question disguised a loaded assumption.'" It's just different phrasing for the same thing and I have a reliable source. --JHP (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A further point: You said I am claiming he used "misleading questioning". I am claiming he posed a fallacious question. The two are not the same. Whether a question is misleading is opinion; whether a question is fallacious is objective fact. --JHP (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an "objective fact" only after we have established several other facts and assembled them to fit the definition. This is original reseach -- more specifically, synthesis.
"To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden," Gregory said, "even in his current movements, why shouldn't you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?" Presumably, you are reading "you have aided and abetted Snowden" as a supposition which has not been proven/widely accepted. Two problems: 1) you now need to backtrack and show this is not proven (good luck) and 2) that is NOT what Gregory said. To fit unequivocally, Gregory would have had to have said, "Shouldn't you be charged with a crime for aiding and abetting Snowden?" For emphasis: Gregory did not say that.
You might, at this point, wish to argue that the distinction is minor or immaterial. You might want to argue that I misunderstand Logic 101. You might want to argue that we should instead call it a "loaded question". All of these bring us to the central problem here: We can't both be right. Wikipedia has a way of dealing with this: verifiability. If you have a reliable source stating what you are trying to add, we have no issue.
Additionally, the heading "Fallacious questioning" has to go. We need balance. The article currently makes an accusation against Gregory while ignoring those who supported the use of the very question under discussion, as covered in the Poynter source we are currently using. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made the change with lots of quotes and directly relevant references. I still need to add citation templates. Before I go through the work of filling out the citation templates, I'll wait to make sure my edit isn't just going to get reverted when you see it. I think the change may be worse from a WP:NPOV perspective, but I wanted to use every directly relevant source I tracked down earlier to fully satisfy your WP:V and WP:NOR criticism. I think it's redundant to say "veiled accusation" immediately prior to "disguised a loaded assumption", but I feel I need to separate them if I want to use both sources and "say that the source accused him of this". --JHP (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We still need balance. The article currently makes an accusation against Gregory while ignoring those who supported the use of the very question under discussion, as covered in the Poynter source. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a relevant quote about a conceivable defense from the Poynter article. It was the only quote from the Poynter article that seemed relevant to the logical structure of David Gregory's question. I have been limiting all my edits to a discussion about the logical structure of the question. On a broader scope, I completely agree with the argument in the Poynter article that "Journalists can ask tough questions to other journalists. ... If they don't, who will?" However, that is beyond the narrow issue all my edits were addressing. It has never been my intent to become a general editor of that section. If you want to add other content for overall balance, go ahead. As far as I am concerned, I consider the edit dispute to be over. I don't want anyone else holding off on edits on my account, especially if those edits can add overall balance. --JHP (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Copi, Irving; Cohen, Carl (1990). Introduction to Logic (8 ed.). Macmillan Publishing Company. pp. 96–97. ISBN 0-02-325035-6.

David Gregory spread a falsehood about Medicare tax provision of the ACA[edit]

Probably should be added to the page. Numerous sources debunk his mistruth on the matter and he had to apologize:

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/08/to-millionaire-tv-host-anybody-who-gets-a-paycheck-makes-more-than-200000/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/07/meet-the-press-david-gregory-falsely-claims-all/194751

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/07/1221897/-David-Gregory-lies-about-Medicare-tax-provision-of-the-ACA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/david-gregory-correction-apology-obamacare_n_3600462.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder In Forest Ms.[edit]

I have a story about a murder in Forest Ms. I think you might remember it because you from time to time worked with the today show I used to watch you all the time I am not a writer wouldn't know the first step but I know you write and thought you might be able to help me get my story on paper I am the guy that helped break the case when the murderer broke in and attempted to murder the ex-wife and her other 3 children and I spoiled his plan but the next day the 12 year old boy we had been looking for was found burried in the back yard the today show did coverage on this story I laid in my hospital bed and watched  it after comming out of surgery please get to back to me if you could help me to put this into book form  you can contact me at Reggie0913@aol.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.44.162.174 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High-capacity magazine display[edit]

I reworded one paragraph in the "High-capacity magazine display" section to improve the grammar and remove the wordiness and unnecessary legalese, including the quote and repeat of the criminal Code number which is already mentioned previously in the section. Another editor, UW Dawgs, reverted my changes completely,[6] linking to a 2013 talk page discussion among a couple editors.[7]

I kept exactly what was stated in the original version, but simply rewrote it to improve the presentation and add a link to Nathan's article. The "lawyerly speak" quote from the police chief's spokesperson isn't needed as there's nothing remarkable about it; it can simply be explained in our own wording. Also, alluding to the "7-2506.01(b)" legal lingo serves no purpose since it's already used in the first paragraph of the section. I also placed both sources at teh very end of the paragraph, rather than splitting them up, since they verify the entire paragraph and improves the appearance.

Old version:
On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said her department has "completed the investigation into this matter, and the case has been presented to the District’s Office of the Attorney General for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case." On January 11, 2013, Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan declared Gregory's action was in violation of 7-2506.01(b),[1] but that he would not proceed with prosecution.[2]

New version I changed it to:
On January 8, 2013, a spokeswoman for D.C. police chief Cathy L. Lanier said her department had completed its investigation into the matter and referred it to the office of the District's attorney general to determine if Gregory would be prosecuted. D.C. attorney general Irvin B. Nathan announced three days later that although Gregory had violated the law, no charges would be filed against him or any other NBC employees.[1][2]

If any editors want to give their opinion as to which version they prefer, please comment.

Rowssusan (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Gregory (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference levineletter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference wapo130111e was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Gregory_(journalist)&oldid=1207457689"