`
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Crile III article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NPOV ? edit
Added a POV tag. This is nothing but hagiographic propaganda -- Crile was the most controversial and discredited television journalist of his age, responsible for scandal after scandal. Other journalists regarded him as more of a propagandist than a journalist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Adler (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the NPOV tag. Your own edits seem, in my opinion, to have removed what bias there may have been. As for your statements above, you need to offer support for them. Verne Equinox 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Crile's documentary "The Uncounted Enemy" was such a disaster that it resulted in the loss of CBS's libel insurance and permanent cancellation of the "CBS Reports" format. An extensive article in TV Guide (when that magazine actually was known for investigations) called "Anatomy of a Smear: How CBS News Broke the Rules and 'Got' Gen. Westmoreland" discribes how Crile utterly destroyed CBS ethical standards. CBS news never recovered. The story is recounted at the site of the Museum of Broadcast Communications' website at http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/uncountedene/uncountedene.htm
- So i'm restoring the POV tag.Scott Adler (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Does all the above discredit his "Charlie Wilson / Afgan' War reporting? Is the book an accurate accounting? James D. Rockefeller (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- V. Equinox, when you add the NPOV tag back, which I have just removed, please accompany it here or in the article with a reliable source verifying the controversy to which you allude. I don't see this article taking a position one way or another on the subjects Crile covered, and expect that it's not at all controversial for WP to report that he covered them, which is all the article does now. --- tqbf 08:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)