Talk:Michael Allen (journalist)

WP:NPOV issues

Perhaps a section on his controversial articles will stop the vandalism. (Seth (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

• Frankly this looks more like a content dispute than simple vandalism. I urge all edit warriors to discuss matters here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a content matter, though I would like to know who did the original edit (i.e., stenographer), which is a NPOV issue. That said, thanks for the protect. People just want to hate so badly. (Note: I was the one who did the initial revert against User:TallNapoleon, simply because there was no explanation for his undo other than reducing blogger Andrew Sullivan (the core reason this whole mess started) to a dog rather than cite NPOV).Brokenwit (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no idea who did the initial vandalism to the page, but I will certainly defend the “Controversy” section. Many people on Wikipedia have sections about their controversial comments, actions or methods: Michael Moore, George Monbiot “Accused of hypocrisy by Julie Burchill, Monbiot defended himself in a column, 'Hypocrites unite!'”,Kitty Kelley"Time magazine reported that most journalists believe Kelley "too frequently fails to bring perspective or analysis to the fruits of her reporting and at times lards her work with dollops of questionable inferences and innuendos." and of course Andrew Sullivan. These are all perfectly acceptable and I support the protection of this article.Dwmr (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This is not vandalism. If the word "journalist" is to mean anything there should be standards. Mr. Allen has engaged in worst kind of "reporting," which is basically regurgitating the statements of government officials. His standard of "journalism" would not be acceptable in sports journalism. And the more we talk about NPOV -- if you're going to refer to people as "sycophants" and "fanboys" you've lost any conception of "neutral."
      • It's vandalism in that it violates NPOV. And save for another anon IP who has been doing just as much vandalism from the "other" side, no one here has been calling people sycophants or fanboys. Now, you may not think of Allen as a journalist, but reliable sources do--and frankly, their opinion is the only one that matters. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The only vandalism here is by Andrew Sullivan and his sychophants. Sullivan linked to this entry to highlight a Wiki vandal's "joke" -- identifying Allen in the introductory graph as a "stenographer" -- so some Sullivan fanboy decided to create a "controversy" section to memorialize Sullivan's newfound smear. That's all. End of case.

However, if you're seriously going to let this blogger-smear-as-controversy stand, get ready for some serious reciprocity. Plenty of bloggers of Sullivan's stature have accused Katie Couric, Brian Williams, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and countless other journalists and their outlets of being in-the-tank cheerleaders for Obama. With your permission, I'll add "controversy" sections to the corresponding entries leveling the "stenographer" canard. Fair enough? Oh, and whenever we cite Sullivan (a reliable source???) let's make sure to alert the reader to his rampant Trig trutherism and countless accusations that he has AIDS dementia. "Contoversy", ya know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.113.166 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, pretty classless to promote the smear by "protecting" it until further notice. Note that the there's not a single reliable sources -- just left-wing noise machines like Sullivan, Media Matters, Salon and Greenwald. When I create a "controversy" about Couric by citing solely Newsbusters, Redstate, Ace of Spades etc. will I be afforded the same "protective" courtesy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.113.166 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Get a grip, unsigned. Calm down and try again.--71.37.165.93 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If you're going to heave around unsourced accusations, you should at least have the courtesy to sign your name.Dougom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

The primary source of the controversy is an article hosted by the Washington Post, the Post article references multiple sources including one of the original articles of Mike Allen's in contention, as well as the criticism, and his rebuttal. I am unopposed to holding any and all journalists accountable. I think it is wikipedia's responsibility to let readers know, if a particular person has been unethical. Mike Allen has definitely walked a fine line--many accuse him of crossing it repeatedly. I think for now these allegations should remain labelled controversial. If the controversy ebbs, than it can be removed. If it does not, then the well-cited criticisms should be re-labeled under a journalistic ethics section. (Seth (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Right, explanation for my actions. I saw the link on Sullivan's blog, which I read regularly and generally enjoy. However, encouraging vandalism is not good behavior (hence my edit summary, which should probably have included a sop to NPOV). I think the controversy section is entirely appropriate and germane to the topic at hand. I also reverted the bit about Sullivan's "Trig trutherism" since it is in no way relevant to Mike Allen. Seeing the relatively rapid increase in edits to the article, the crankiness of some of them, on both sides, and guessing that Sullivan's post was likely to invite vandalism and edit-warring, I put in the request for temporary semi-protection, which, thankfully, was granted. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seth -- So glad you're not opposed to holding other journalists "accountable", if only by citing non-reliable bloggers who promote mad pregnancy conspiracies. Anyway, in honor of your open-mindedness, I've added a "controversy" to journalist Harry Smith's wiki entry based on his stenographer-like Obama worship on this morning's Early Show. It's fully sourced, linked to quotes from the man himself. I'm sure if someone deletes it and I revert it, you'll as doggedly protect my addition as you did the "controversy" about Mike Allen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.113.166 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ha ha ha Vidor (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Did an IP check...Doesn't look like Sullivan did the edit. It marks some Virginia suburb, not DC (Sullivan has mentioned, time and again, that he actually lives in DC). As per the NPOV, I say the controversy section stays, but only if more sources are put in, as well as further explanation as to what he has done to earn the nickname "Washington's Stenographer," and any defenses made. It's a weak section. Brokenwit (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to add a neutral viewpoint here. Ignore me if you wish but sometimes I think it's useful...

1. Sullivan and Greenwald's position is not a "conspiracy theory", it's a criticism. The criticism is that Allen reports what he's told, rather than by making an attempt to analyze it to determine whether what he's told is true or not before publishing it, or else putting it in context. The complaint isn't that he's pro- or anti-Obama, indeed Greenwald in particular is harshly critical of any journalist he perceives as just regurgitating what he's been told by high ranking officials of any stripe, including - and especially - those in the Whitehouse. Greenwald has specifically singled out journalists for repeating what Greenwald sees as lies by "anonymous" Whitehouse officials concerning torture, and more recently, health-care. So, no, this isn't about a lefty journalist or two (which is fairly ironic considering we're talking about Sullivan here, a Republican until it he became disillusioned with Bush's handling of Iraq and terrorism) inventing "conspiracy theories". It's fairly easy to verify (but would be WP:OR if done here) whether Allen is suited to this criticism or not - just look at recent articles, and see if he repeats questionable statements by high ranking officials uncritically.
2. That said, the controversy section as written is dire. Unquestionably, Allen has been criticized on those points, but the section doesn't address the notability of it (it's not even as if Greenwald or the others have actually focused on Allen at the expense of a sizeable portion of the mainstream media. Indeed, Greenwald argues that this is typical of the media, not that Allen is in some way a uniquely prominent example.)

If it is, indeed, noteable that Allen engages in this kind of reporting, it might be better confined to a section covering the topics Allen writes about and his general style, and it might be worth looking for responses he may have made to such criticism, if this is notable at all. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been on a journalism-ethics kick myself lately, and Allen is a target of mine, but the state of the Controversy section skews heavily against him (as of this date). "Often the material quoted is unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone" is far too self-confident a statement. I also find the lone quote by Sully to be awkward and too much of a proxy for the sentiments of the writer. Such quotes should probably be made to external links so they become the reader's option. Caidence (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So I've done a little work on this section. I removed the Andrew Sullivan quote. I added links to two of Mike Allen's stories, some of the ones that caused the most controversy. Between those two and the WaPo hosted link that links to other Mike Allen controversial pieces, I believe a reader will be entirely capable of coming to his or her own conclusions. I also added a statement, trying to summarize why this important. Politico is read by a lot of people, including those who decide what's on the evening news. His articles trumpeting statements from officials without providing necessary background and analysis is troubling. (Seth (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not User Seth's Personalized Soapbox for his Opinions

Let's example this dreadful example of malicious editorialization by User "Seth":

Often the material quoted is unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone.[3]

"Often"? How is this supported by the cite, which is to a single Politico article co-written by two authors other than Allen? INDEFENSIBLE!

"Unsourced rumors", "unsubstantiated claims" "malicious tone"? Again, the sole cite the same co-authored Politico piece -- which doesn't characterize its content this way -- those criticisms are solely the OPINION of Seth!

His willingness to quote extended statements has given him frequent access to high-ranking officials, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney,[4] who are attracted to his large internet presence hosted by Politico.

How does Seth know this, other than having formed a subjective opinion about the motives of Cheney and others? How it is in anyway supported by the citation?

Since he is quoting others, the journalistic ethics involved are murky and in some cases his actions are clearly acceptable

Thank you so much for your OPINION about murkiness and acceptability, Seth -- we all know you MUST be an expect in these concepts. But what on Earth are they doing in a Wikipedia biography of a living person???

however the pattern has earned him the nickname, "Washington's Stenographer".[5]

If it's a pattern of BOTH murkiness and acceptability, how is the nickname "earned"? Who cares whether Seth is of the OPINION that the nickname is earned? Or whether Seth believes it's acceptable to smear people with maliciious nicknames invented by Andrew Sullivan, and then promoted by Andrew Sullivan with the express purpose of promoting vandalism on Wikipedia?

DISGRACEFUL!!!! The controversy section is hereby deleted for GROSS VIOLATION of dozens of Wikipedia NPOV standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete sections with the NPOV tag. Issues must be resolved on the talk page. 66.131.197.203 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Employing "Stenographer" Slur

An editor acting at Andrew Sullivan's behest again vandalized this article on January 24 (four days ago) by introducing Allen as "the stenographer for the Washington political establishment." The article was restored to identify Allen as Politco's chief political correspondent, and to remove the "stenographer" slur embodied by the "Controversy" section. These changes are PERMANENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Changes aren't permanent. But change is." BTW, who said the editor in question was acting at Sullivan's behest or that it was vandalism (other than you)? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps editing the page and labeling him "stenographer" for Dick Cheney, can we please do something to fix this? HoyaSaxa20 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Allen (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080115235552/http://journalism.wlu.edu:80/storyarchive.html to http://journalism.wlu.edu/storyarchive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Allen (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151204012529/http://gawker.com/heres-an-insane-racist-book-about-communists-by-mike-al-1567608242 to http://gawker.com/heres-an-insane-racist-book-about-communists-by-mike-al-1567608242
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130624020835/http://gawker.com/this-is-a-picture-of-politico-star-mike-allens-old-off-518659090 to http://gawker.com/this-is-a-picture-of-politico-star-mike-allens-old-off-518659090
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151204012535/http://gawker.com/this-is-a-picture-of-politico-star-mike-allens-old-offi-518659090 to http://gawker.com/this-is-a-picture-of-politico-star-mike-allens-old-offi-518659090

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) 12:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Office decor

Appreciate the inspiration--Wikipietime (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)