User talk:Selltherally

Humble Observations

• Why on Earth could Atsme possibly be arguing for a careful application and sourcing of mainstream media websites and TV channels? This is why: The Definitive List of Media Mistakes in the Trump Era. This is just a partial list (there are many notable and glaring omissions, such as the New York Times pushing the discredited smear that Nikki Haley purchased extravagant drapes, but it’s informative for those who are attempting to coerce allegiance to the media from Atsme, while balking at the notion that these sources would ever exhibit even a whiff of bias. Sharyl Attkisson is a multiple Emmy award winning reporter, formerly of CBS, and quit after the organization refused to report on stories which they perceived to be harmful to former president Obama. Lara Logan is another former mainstream media reporter, who has also recently confirmed for everyone what most of us already know. This woman was risking her life in Egypt and dodging bullets in Iraq while White House press corps reporters did their fawning puff pieces on Democrats from air conditioned pup tents.
• A handful of administrators who seemingly want Atsme to recant her views on mainstream media sources and believe what they believe, namely that websites like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, etc. are neutral sources, and therefore reliable and should be used without the slightest hint of skepticism. MastCell, JzG, and MrX in particular are making a point of demanding that Atsme bend the proverbial knee at the altar of mainstream media and appease the likes of Jeff Bezos, Jeff Zucker, Andy Lack, A. G. Sulzberger, and other like-minded media moguls with whom they agree politically. JzG goes one step further with the worship, declaring that reliable (read as: left-wing) sources are “king,” and proceeds to smear what he refers to as “MAGA types” and attack Republicans as extremists (the party that recently submitted a bill to outlaw killing infants post-birth, and was blocked by Democrats, the non-extremist and centrist party). See his manifesto here for further context. In JzG’s eyes, questioning the reliability of the New York Times amounts to heresy, presumably because “a free and fair press is essential to our democracy, and these attacks on those who dare to speak truth to power is an attack on those values that we hold so dear” or because “Democracy Dies in Darkness” or some other variation of the oft-repeated refrain. Suggesting that editors avoid rushing to insert news into articles is now apostasy. The New York Times printed it, therefore it’s true. This isn’t hyperbole. This is quite literally what MastCell, JzG, Drmies, and others believe, and are now attempting to cram a funnel into Atsme’s mouth and down her throat, in order to better facilitate the emptying of vats of the same Kool-Aid. This isn’t sufficient, however. Atsme must gush over the superb taste of the aforementioned beverage, admit the error of her previous ways, and ask for more. Only then may her topic ban be lifted. Again, JzG is an administrator, and has openly declared war on Trump and editors who he considers to be “MAGA types” (which he certainly considers Atsme to be).
• More level-headed interpretations of Atsme’s extraordinarily reasonable approach to media sources are met with derision, sneers, and aspersions. Masem and TParis have offered the mildest of criticisms, and are met with accusations of nefarious intentions and accusations of “righting great wrongs” as MastCell did here. You can’t point this out, however, because as administrator and overseer Vanamonde93 succinctly explained: “we're biased in favor of the preponderance of reliable sources.” There is no media bias, and Wikipedia isn’t biased either. You either nod your head in agreement when you read the teachings of the Washington Post and when Don Lemon speaks, or you’re a right-wing “MAGA type” extremist who needs to get in line or get out of town. If you read it in a left-leaning newspaper, or saw it on television (Fox News excepted, of course), you are cleared to put it in the article immediately. DGG and GoldenRing are 100% correct. Atsme may have pressed certain issues past the point of disruption from time to time. And how many left-leaning editors have done the same and not received a topic ban from Bishonen under the most flimsy of pretenses? I think we all know the answer, even if some of us have to dig deeper than others for introspection.
• This ban never should have been placed in the first place, and Sandstein was correct in warning Bishonen of overstepping her bounds with unilateral actions. The appeal should have already been lifted, and this now nearly weeklong hand-wringing affair is simply an attempt to rehash the original ban and get her to buy into other editors’ and administrators’(!) worldview. This remark has no place in the midst of someone’s topic ban appeal. You don’t do that. The argument and non-sequitur that “Obama never put kids in cages” (sourced as “fact” to none other than the Washington Post, of course) was repeated, with the administrator again arguing against lifting the topic ban on the basis that Atsme disagrees with MastCell on a political issue. That is just awful, and someone who believes this is acceptable behavior for an admin is not deserving of the mop. I’ve said my piece, and though someone will assuredly come and rev-del my comments because I’m a “troll” or “just an IP,” this needed to be said. Justice should prevail, and I’m hoping that it will for the sake of the project. This brand of bureaucratic POV-pushing piffle and charades at AE is exactly why so many strong volunteers have thrown up their hands in frustration and given up. Selltherally (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We have this thing called WP:RS and we discuss source reliability at WP:RSN. Do not fall into the trap of believing that the editors and admins who pick up the pieces, are the only ones who support he consensus view that mainstream media are generally reliable and propaganda sites are not. Exactly the same rule that applies to, say, Breitbart, applies to Occupy Democrats. A source is reliable if it has a reputation for fact-checking, correcting errors, distinguishing editorial from factual content, and a degree of peer respect. WaPo and WSJ both qualify, though with WSJ deprecated for climate change editorials. Atsme's approach to media sources has never been reasonable. It has always been to fit the sourcing criteria tot he content she wants to include, and then argufy until the heat death of the universe. And I say that as someone who likes her. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

As for sourcing in general, it is wrong to think of Reliable / Unreliable as a clear dichotomy. No source is totally reliable but the NYT is the best that there is in the US. In discussing any one issue, we are concerned with the sources for that particular issue. When Fox and similar sources differ in emphasis from the NYT and similar, Fox may indeed be right a few percent of the time. To call the NYT left-leaning only emphasizes the absence of any major true left sources in the US.

There are many people here who persist too long with issues, and it's very easy to be aware of only the ones who push them in directions one doesn't agree with. With interpersonal issues here, I will support someone which is being unfairly attacked even if I disagree with their actual view on the matter. It is unfortunately true that the way WP works in practice, it is possible for a person with an unpopular position to be driven out. This is especially true of AE--the difficult of reversing a sanction makes it much too easy to be dictatorial. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: It's always worth remembering that Roger Ailes was a former Nixon media adviser who founded Fox News because he believed the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post and new York Times. I also recommend the book Network Propaganda by Hal Roberts, Robert Faris, and Yochai Benkler, which was recommended by Mike Godwin. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Just as I would not call the NYT 100% accurate, I would not say everything in Fox 100% inaccurate. For current American politics, where they differ, the NYT is very much more likely to be right, but it cannot automatically be assumed, not to the extent we refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise in a particular instance. If someone should say it is more likely to be right in general, they are in my opinion and I think yours and by the consensus here, wrong, tho I still would not assume stupidity or evil or prejudice to be the motive--they might be overstating it in response to overstatements in the other direction, or to remind us not to be complacent, so we still need to let them say that, as long as they do not persist in it against consensus. I get quite annoyed at people who support the same position as I when they over-reach, because they make the position look as if it could not necessarily be rationally supported.

And whether I would consider the people who sponsor Fox and set its policy to be evil, that's another question entirely. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. They still ahve Shep Smith, after all. But the fact is that Fox is now unmoored from the reality-based media ecosystem. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed @DGG:, there is no such thing as a purely reliable or unreliable source, but I see no evidence that the most reliable American newspaper is the New York Times. This paper has published numerous stories that no other media organization was able to corroborate (such as their Comey/nutjob bombshell), and they originated the lie about “17 intelligence agencies” concluding that Russia tried to get Trump elected. New York Times covered Trump negatively 87% of the time in his first 100 days and hasn’t endorsed a Republican for president since Eisenhower. Jill Abramson, former editor of the NYT, isn’t a right-wing extremist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact she confessed to keeping a little plastic doll of Obama in her purse that she takes out for “comfort,” whenever she thinks about Trump’s agenda. Abramson said her former employer is “unmistakably anti-Trump” and said the same of the Washington Post in her book. The NYT’s resident economist is Paul Krugman (no explanation needed). NYT? No, thank you. The WSJ isn’t perfect, but if the standard is a race against other editors to insert news into articles, I do not fault Atsme one bit for asking for a smidget of caution and skepticism. Fox News is the most trusted national news channel and one of the most trusted news sources overall. You don’t win the trust of Americans by getting it right “a few percent of the time.” You can say that there is an absence of left-wing news in America, but I see zero evidence for this assertion, and an orgy of evidence to the contrary. That being said, I truly appreciate you sticking up for someone who is clearly being attacked and bullied for partisan reasons. Dissent and a difference of opinions (such as ours on what constitutes “reliable” and “left” sources) is exactly how you improve these pages. What I’m seeing at WP:AE are multiple not-so-subtle suggestions that Atsme is not allowed to have her opinions, and that’s dangerous. MastCell and Drmies explicitly intimated that her topic ban should be not be lifted because of her political beliefs re: the family separation policy.

• JzG: in part, that’s true what you say about Ailes. it doesn’t mean he was a bad person, or wasn’t allowed to have those opinions. The primary reason for Fox’s creation was an answer to the legacy media – there was an opening in the market, and Murdoch took advantage. If networks and newspapers covered the news as objectively and neutrally as I’ve seen people claim they do, there would be no Fox News. Today, every network undeniably has a strong liberal bent, and ONE of them does not. It is notable that you specifically mentioned the Washington Post and Watergate (which you seem to hold as a beacon of non-biased reporting, whose journalists are only interested in the truth no matter which party it hurts or helps). Ben Bradlee was great friends with JFK, traveled with him frequently, and held a top position at Newsweek during his presidency. Miraculously, President Kennedy’s affairs in the White House (and sometimes in Jackie’s bedroom) remained largely unknown to the public, despite a media heavyweight spending an inordinate amount of time (some would say an inappropriate level, for a journalist) with the president. Bradlee later left the objective Newsweek magazine to work at the fair and balanced Washington Post, which landed the Watergate scoop and published it without the problems and nuances that prevented journalists from printing Marilyn Monroe’s relationships with the president. Recently, the Washington Post claimed they didn’t print the stories of Justin Fairfax’s accusers because of not enough corroborating evidence (of which they had plenty, including text messages), but couldn’t print Christine Ford’s allegations fast enough, despite having zero evidence and zero corroboration to back her claims. That aside, to your credit, you are one of the few left-leaning editors/administrators who I have seen criticize any left-wing sources as unreliable (Occupy Democrats and others). That is a rarity here, and shows intellectual honesty and a true dedication to what you believe is correct, rather than blind partisanship and wielding the mop as a weapon to enforce one’s own political opinions. I appreciate your responses, although I still believe that your user page denigrating “MAGA types” is not helpful to the broader perception of pervasive bias on Wikipedia and doesn’t help instill confidence in editors that sanctions are being enacted and repealed without taking one’s politics into account. Thank you to both. Everyone who edits and/or admins in that area has strong opinions, it’s just a matter of not letting them influence decisions that are handed down to those with whom we disagree. Selltherally (talk)

There are opinions in politics, and there is also such a thing as objective reality. (I know there are various philosophies which hold that all reality is subjective, but if one actually supports such a view, there is no point in trying to write an encyclopedia--rather than a collection of personal essays).

The tradition of an encyclopedia is that knowledge of objective reality and of other people's opinions about it is what makes people free. That's also the basis of free culture in general, and of WP in particular. That's why most of us are here. (This does make the assumption that freedom is desirable, but the opposite position is not compatible with free culture).

Some of the opinions above I think are totally divorced from objective reality. What most people widely believe is not much of a guide. Most people in Soviet Russia were quite convinced that the official view of the world was correct, and it wasn't just a matter of the others having been physically eliminated; the same was true of Nazi Germany. Dictators are usually popular while they last. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Selltherally, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Selltherally! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)