Wikipedia

Talk:Sharyl Attkisson/Archive 4

< Talk:Sharyl Attkisson
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Petrarchan47 in topic Request to add Attkisson's view on her "anti vaccine reporting"
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RfC: Sharyl Attkisson vaccine reporting

Latest comment: 5 years ago60 comments25 people in discussion

The consensus is against the proposed changes.

Cunard (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the coverage of Sharyl Attkisson's vaccine reporting include the following 2 changes, mainly per WP:NPOV? petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Section title change from Anti-vaccine reporting to Vaccine reporting

2. Addition of Attkisson's comment to Vaccine reporting section (something akin to):

In a 2014 interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson said "the government has acknowledged there’s a link, they simply say it’s not a causal link".

The Daily Beast

2. a) Suggested expansion to add clarity and verification per WP:V with sources and the following additional text (in bold) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

In a 2014 interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson said "the government has acknowledged there’s a link, they simply say it’s not a causal link". Attkisson was referring to a statement from CDC senior epidemiologist William Thompson that "he and his CDC colleagues omitted data that linked MMR vaccine to autism in a 2004 study".1, 2

The Daily Beast
Additional source #1:
Additional source #2:
Excerpt: "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."

For context, here is a larger excerpt from the source material, and Wikipedia's Sharyl Attkisson Vaccine reporting section with suggested addition in bold:

Extended content

Section on Attkisson's vaccine reporting from The Daily Beast:

Attkisson says she is very much in favor of vaccinating kids, but that peer-reviewed studies have suggested the possibility of a "small subset of children" who suffer from difficult-to-detect immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to certain vaccines, much like some children are allergic to polio vaccines.
But she says Big Pharma has actively discouraged scientific research into possible linkages, and that pharmaceutical advertisers similarly persuaded CBS and other broadcasters not to run stories questioning the risk of vaccines for certain children. Never mind that a CBS News veteran, who asked not to be named, says Attkisson’s vaccine-autism reports were eventually killed not because of advertiser pressure, but because they weren’t adequately supported by scientific evidence.

"The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link," Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. "They simply say it’s not a causal link."

Suggested Vaccine reporting section at Sharyl Attkisson

  • addition in bold
  • material sourced to Daily Beast italicized:

In her reporting, Attkisson has published stories linking vaccines with autism; this contradicts the scientific community who reject such a link. In a 2014 interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson said "the government has acknowledged there’s a link, they simply say it’s not a causal link". Attkisson was referring to a statement from CDC senior epidemiologist William Thompson claiming that "he and his CDC colleagues omitted data that linked MMR vaccine to autism in a 2004 study" Seth Mnookin, Professor of Science Writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, described Attkisson as "one of the least responsible mainstream journalists covering vaccines and autism. Again and again, she’s parroted anti-vaccine rhetoric long past the point that it’s been decisively disproved."

Anna Kata, an analyst at McMaster University, has accused Attkisson of using problematic rhetorical tactics to "imply that because there is no conclusive answer to certain problems, vaccines remain a plausible culprit."[verification needed] Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children but that research suggests that "small subset of children" have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines. She has said that pharmaceutical companies have discouraged research into a possible vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News not to run stories about it.

Survey

  • Yes to changes as filer. WP:BLPSTYLE -- "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
1. Change section title to Vaccine reporting per WP:POVNAMING and WP:BLPBALANCE. Also, there exists no support in the article or in WP:RS for the claim Attkisson's reporting is "anti-vaccine"; this is a judgement made by editors. Note that Attkisson states she is pro-vaccine in the second paragraph.
2. Add UPDATED VERSION 2.a to include archived sources and Thomspson quotation which is the basis for her statement/reporting -- Attkisson quotation gives insight into her own motives for her vaccine reporting per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. Presently, space given to her critics far outweighs any material that is neutral or cited to the journalist in question. Two of the three paragraphs in the excerpted Daily Beast interview were used for Attkisson's bio; exclusion of the third, containing her comment, is cherry-picking and violates WP:NPOV.
Examples of her reporting are not included in the BLP, but from what I can ascertain, there is nothing shoddy or imbalanced about it. Her reporting hasn't been retracted, nor have experts she has interviewed made any claims about being misrepresented.
  • 2010 CBS report Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award
  • No to all of this - Attkisson has been widely criticized for her anti-vaccine reporting; it is the subject of the section, hence the title. There is arguably even more content that could be included here about her reporting - it's that widespread. That Attkisson considers herself pro-vaccine is irrelevant; reliable sources disagree. Additionally, adding Attkisson's conspiracy theory comment about the government admitting a link was rejected in an earlier discussion, as Wikipedia is not required to publish incorrect, confusing, and misleading things. These were rightly rejected and should not be included per WP:FRINGE. Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not as presented Yes with the added clarification and the sources Petrar included above as well as this statement by a senior scientist with the CDC.20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Support - there are several instances in this article where the material needs revision in order to adhere strictly to BLP and NPOV. To begin, the lead is misleading. The lead states: Attkisson has published stories suggesting a possible link between vaccines and autism, a theory rejected by the scientific community. Attkisson is not the only journalist who has reported on vaccine studies, obviously written/conducted by researchers/scientists/doctors. Such a statement is noncompliant with NPOV and is highly misleading - not that the scientific community has not rejected the theory - they have. What I'm referring to is the fact that she and other journalists have published stories about a possible link, and studies are still ongoing - isn't that the very nature of science? Are we to assume that any journalist who publishes an article about a controversial subject is anti-something? Following are articles wherein Attkisson denies being "anti-vaccine": In Politico Footnote 38 she states: “I’m not here to fight doctors," Attkisson said. "I’m just saying that factually, I’m not here to advocate for one side or the other. I’m just saying factually, there are many peer-reviewed published studies that do make an association, and the government itself has acknowledged a link." Are we supposed to deny or pretend that those studies never existed? On her own website, she published a public denial of being anti-vaccine. Another cited source is Salon, seriously? Salon had to retract two articles about vaccines. If we're going to claim Attkisson is anti-vac, do we also add the same claim to Time for the reporting of basically the same information written by Claudia Wallis? Of course not - that's what journalists do - they report. Atsme Talk 📧 01:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's disingenuous (at best) to say that the government has acknowledge a link between vaccines and autism. The government has reported that in rare cases a vaccine has lead to encephalitis and that some cases of encephalitis have resulted in autism. That's it. That's the "link". In short, there's a link between anything that might cause encephalitis and autism. Attkisson reporting this as an actual government admitted "link" is irresponsible at best. I think a more accurate assessment would be: "pandering to sensationalism". Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, Rklawton. I found the link I intended to ask for and mistakenly said to "her statement", forgetting to add "to the source she cited in her statement". It appears to be the CDC] article which clearly states that vaccines do not cause autism and that there is no link between the two, so I struck my iVote. Attkisson appears to have been quoting the doctor from an interview she had with him. I do want to add that I still believe this BLP needs to be written from a NPOV based on what I said about journalists snooping around. She should not be labeled anti-vac because she continues to investigate when issues arise. I remember well the case involving RJ Reynolds so skeptism is not such a bad thing. I'm done here. Enjoy the weekend! Atsme Talk 📧 02:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Update (see my corrected iVote)- I think the link Petrarchan is referring to is this one. Now that Attkisson's comment is verifiable per the statement of a CDC senior scientist who stated publicly: I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed. It certainly justifies Attkisson's reporting in my view. Atsme Talk 📧 20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Provide the link to her statement please. With regards to the science, I did a brief check on a recent article in this journal - didn't find it in the archives of Bealls, so you might want to read the article to understand why the issue is still ongoing among inquisitive journalists who keep snooping around in the manner journalists are supposed to behave. Atsme Talk 📧 02:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Her denial is irrelevant. Many people deny things about themselves that are, in fact, true. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denies he is anti-vaccine, instead calling himself a "vaccine safety" advocate. But reliable sources call him anti-vaccine, because he is, and that is the case here.
  • It is undeniable that Attkisson has published articles suggesting a link between vaccines and autism - one that is rejected by the scientific community. In fact, the statement could go even further and note she has faced scrutiny for this. Her reporting on vaccines has been described by reliable sources as inaccurate, and her major claims have been rejected by reliable sources. The article you cited is riddled with debunked arguments and conspiracy theories - there is talk of the "vaccine industry", a "pervasive disinformation propaganda campaign", and government cover-ups. Her claims about Zimmerman were debunked by Snopes, and she even claims there are studies that prove a link between autism and the MMR shot - the granddaddy of vaccine conspiracy theories. That article doesn't prove your point - it refutes it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the science, I'm just merely pointing out that it is still ongoing and that's why journalists keep writing about it. That doesn't make them anti anything. They are journalists. If there's a policy I've missed that says we don't have to adhere to NPOV or BLP for journalists we don't agree with, please point me to that policy. Atsme Talk 📧 02:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
You might want to re-read WP:FRINGE, The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. Atsme Talk 📧 02:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some more examples of her being regarded as anti-vaccine:
  1. "an unwavering supporter of Wakefield"
  2. "factually, there are many peer-reviewed published studies that do make an association, and the government itself has acknowledged a link."
  3. "already notorious among other journalists for her sympathetic reporting on vaccine skepticism"
  4. "vaccine skeptic Sharyl Attkisson"

Our own Signpost reported on Attkisson and her writings:

They monitor and edit Wikipedia pages in an effort to downplay research that demonstrates associations between vaccines and autism, and to disparage those who investigate the links.

  • This is without even looking at her own work, which aggressively argues in favor of a vaccine-autism link. It is not an NPOV to say she has reported that there's a link, and frankly it might be worth saying she has advocated for such a link's existence. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This smacks of WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV means that we dispassionately and accurately describe topics and individuals according to how the preponderance of mainstream reliable sources describe them. It doesn't mean that we put our finger on the scales to play down aspects that might be shocking or offensive to readers, or that we describe every subject the way they want to be described, or that we emphasize obscure or debunked aspects just for 'balance' purposes. The rationales being given for these proposed changes are not policy-based arguments - if you want to change how the article describes her, you need to focus on the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I have now added some clarity with archived sources. Simply put, my intention is to allow the subject to explain her reporting in her own words (as the Daily Beast did). I am not arguing that her critics be silenced, but at the same time we can't silence her. She was reporting on a statement from a CDC official. We have allowed ample room for her critics and there is no justification to disallow two sentences for her rebuttal, so to speak. petrarchan47คุก 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Mixed response: Overall, I thoroughly agree with Aquillion. She has minority viewpoint that is unsubstantiated by science, so it absolutely should not be given equal weight to that of experts. That said, a brief quote from her about her viewpoint should be included, just to establish for readers what she actually asserts. Then reactions to her stance will have proper context. I already see that in the third paragraph, but perhaps a statement or two in the beginning would suffice.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Also, I have no problem with the anti-vax heading, since (despite her assertions to the contrary) she has an anti-vax position. If a person is seen eating ribs, that person can't insist they are vegan. Again, her denials of that fact can be included in the article, but any reader will clearly see that's a false denial based on the coverage of her stances.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Extremely obvious No. She is anti-vax, as the sources say. The usual "neutral" reporting would be not just interviewing the anti-vax crackpots but also an equal number of real, pro-science experts. Actually responsible, competent reporting would be interviewing mainly those, with a minimum quota of crackpots. And we should not quote her fringe claims without refuting them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No to both changes. Our job is to report things accurately, not to provide false equivalency. Attkisson's views on the subject are already clear in the section, and "anti-vaccine reporting" is an accurate summary of what Attkisson has done.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes to 1, No to 2. I agree with the consensus on #2, and the pertinent guideline is WP:FRINGE. We simply don't give this level of credence to fringe theories. As for #1, the sources offered simply do not say that Attkisson is anti-vaccine. It doesn't matter than she's parroted anti-vaccine talking points, promoted conspiracy theories, or exacerbated vaccine hesitancy. Reliable sources say that she supports vaccination, and unless/until they expressly say she's anti-vaccine, neither can we expressly say she's anti-vaccine. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. We should correctly characterize the material as "anti-vax", following the style established by the reliable secondary sources rather than Attkisson's denial. The Snopes piece should be included along with David Gorski's article which agrees with the Snopes conclusion.[1] Attkisson must have known what would happen when she mischaracterized the Zimmerman situation, fanning the anti-vax flames. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Please note that in this RfC we are discussing Thompson, not Zimmerman. I would encourage you to find a reliable source supporting Snopes' claims. Gorski is hardly impartial, and if his blog stands alone in supporting Snopes, that should tell you something. By the way, how did Attkisson mischaracterize the 'Zimmerman situation'? petrarchan47คุก 22:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Fixing ping Binksternet petrarchan47คุก 22:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Petra, you can't keep shifting the goalposts: first you said that Snopes was unreliable, then you said that Snopes was not corroborated, now you say that Snopes is only corroborated by one source. Toa Nidhiki05 22:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm saying you only have one source you're considering corroboration. I have clearly stated that it's a blog and should never have been added. It has since been removed as a violation of BLP, as you're likely aware. To add the claim that Attkisson's report was riddled with mischaracterizations needs at least three RS (not blogs) or it can't be included per policy. petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice goalpost shifting. First it was that snopes isn’t reliable, then it was that snopes alone isn’t sufficient, now it’s that the two sources aren’t sufficient. This is clearly verging on ridiculous and tendentious editing, but here’s another source. Toa Nidhiki05 20:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeeeeep, to me it seems clear that petrarchan47 is mongering on this. By which I mean that your comments make it seem like you have a pre-determined conclusion. If numerous secondary sources have called Atkkisson "anti-vaccine," then it is our job to report that fact. We can also report that the subject (Atkkisson) does not feel that it's a fair characterization, but only if that is in WP:RSes. That's the way the game is played! True neutral is calling balls and strikes, not finding the balance where you want it to be.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Shibbolethink Indeed, if RS generally calls her reporting "anti-vaccine", I would not argue we have gone astray here, but that isn't what I've seen. I do like your suggestion to add that Attkisson "does not feel that it's a fair characterization", and as any editor knows, yes, it must be in RS to include it here. Of course, in a BLP, RS includes her own blog or website, where she has addressed this here. petrarchan47คุก 21:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Way and consider extending the topic ban the proposer is under for pseudoscientific advocacy on GMOs to vaccine-related topics. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, not an antivaxxer encyclopedia. jps (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I need to ask that you provide a source for your version of the reasoning behind my t-ban, and if you cannot verify this claim, strike it immediately. jps see also WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I am the administrator who imposed that topic ban. I think that ජපස's comment is unhelpful. This talk page would not be the place to raise any user conduct problem. Raising the topic ban – which is strictly a matter of user conduct – during this straw poll was divisive and confrontational. Please deal with the matter at hand in your comments. AGK ■ 20:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Would that Wikipedia actually deal with issues relating to content being skewed because of WP:ADVOCACY, but instead we play games pretending that user conduct and content are somehow easily compartmentalized. Well, this is not arbcom. I stand by my evaluation of what I think is occurring here and in general. If you think that this is not what is going on, you are free to explain how this is not the case. jps (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
So, to recap, you feel perfectly comfortable lying about a fellow editor, and instead of correcting yourself, you doubled down. Not only does my topic ban not involve content being skewed, nor does it involve any advocacy, but it actually is evidence that conduct issues can exist separate from content issues. You should probably have read the AE before bouncing over here. Further, if you are going to claim I have advocacy issues, namely that I am "pushing pseudoscience", please find evidence this is the case. You will find that contrary to your preferred narrative, no complaints of that nature have been waged against me, or were taken seriously.
If you want to hang your hat on this RfC as evidence I am "pushing pseudoscience", then realize you are claiming that: a quote from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control scientist = pseudoscience; and that to suggest it's addition to this article, in a section where the subject is being critiqued for her coverage of this quotation, equates to "pushing". If you (and I'm sure you haven't) read the source material, you'd know that what I am suggesting is literally no different from what The Daily Beast has done. They allow Attkisson to explain what fueled her reporting. I have never heard anyone suggest The Daily Beast be considered a pseudoscience promoter. I would suggest that Wikipedia has editors who can't see straight when it comes to the topic of vaccines. It is those editors who should be banned, not those who follow RS.
Do you wish to comment on the actual RfC content? petrarchan47คุก 21:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

This is Sharyl. I know the my true positions matter not here -- but I am not and have never expressed "anti-vaccine" views (and am neither "pro-vaccine"). I have covered a story much as any other government and/or pharmaceutical industry scandal. You can say it all you wish but it is still false and libelous. The vaccine discussion which attempts to litigate a controversy in a one-sided fashion on my biography page, omits all attempts at balance such as: the many times I have reported that vaccines have saved many lives; my web page that links, before anything else, to government vaccine sources and the CDC recommended schedule; the fact that I have included many varied views on vaccines in my reporting; that my vaccine autism reporting has been cited positively in the New England Journal of Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal; my vaccine and medical reporting has received national recognition from independent awards groups; and more. In fact, though it's too complex to summarize succinctly, my general conclusions about vaccines and autism based on scientists who have proven trustworthy, government sources, vaccine industry insiders and published studies is fairly close to the expressed view of many expressed "pro vaccine" experts including: CDC head of vaccine safety--Dr. Frank DeStefano; the former head of the National Institutes of Health--Dr. Bernadine Healy; and Johns Hopkins former government expert witness Dr. Andrew Zimmerman among many others; regarding vulnerable subsets of children. You refer to these views as "fringe" but obviously do not understand them or believe that CDC and Johns Hopkins are, themselves, "fringe," which doesn't make sense. Instead, of representing my views and reporting fairly, my bio has been co-opted by zealots or propagandists to try to shape opinion and controversialize a topic. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.233.57 (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The article quoting DeStefano did not quote him saying anything pro-vaccine, but, as I said in a now-archived thread, "quote-mines him when he is talking not about scientific results but about theoretical possibilities." So, antivaxxers saying anti-vax things and pro-vaxxers seeming to say anti-vax things does not a serious article make. It's like the dishonest tactics creationists use when they seem to quote biologists. And Healy was a conspiracy theorist promoting the non-existent autism link. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Dr. DeStefano is the head of immunization safety for CDC. I know it's the practice of the propagandists on this page to call anyone "anti-vaccine' if they report on or discuss legitimate vaccine science and safety issues, but it's a reach even for this page to claim the head of CDC immunization safety is anti-vaccine. And Dr. Healy was never of course a "conspiracy theorist"-- she was head of NIH. Both Healy and DeStefano are pro vaccine (generally) but agree that there can be issues in subsets of children including autism being triggered. Many scientists agree with this and many studies support it. The propagandists, like you, simply call anyone who engages in rational discussion of the science "conspiracy theorists" and "anti-vaccine." But you are actually hurting the credibility of the cause you are so eager to promote through your nonsensical rhetoric. Check yourself. Very interesting, also, that the "neutral" Wikipedia editors take it upon themselves to claim that people are not who they say they are (such as RFK and Attkisson) and do not feel the way they say they feel (anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine), as if the Wikipedia editors are self-appointed, omniscient editing gods and mind readers in a position to supposedly believe the word of the discredited likes of Snopes and propagandist blogs and vaccine industry shills and sources-- over the actual people themselves. When in dispute these items do not belong on a biographical page. But at least the world can now come to this page and see exactly what's going on without the spin. What a disgrace to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.136 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As expected from a pseudoscience proponent, you distorted what I said. I never said anything about DeStefano being anti-vax. I said Attkisson quote-mined him, the same way creationists do. That means waiting until he says something one can take out of context to make it seem as if he agrees with the wrong ideas that one wants to spread - in this case, the ones which stop people from protecting their kids and make them instead buy useless stuff from Wakefield and others. Then quote that one sentence and ignore everything pro-vaccine he might have said. Result: you interview both sides and still get a text that sounds as if you had interviewed only one side.
And "conspiracy theorist" and "head of NIH" are not mutually exclusive. Why should they? One could say the craziest stuff and still become, say, US President. Just a random example of a remote theoretical possibility.
The best evidence of Attkisson being anti-vax is her use of the pharma shill gambit outside Wikipedia. Serious journalists never do that, only people who cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with them unless they are being paid for it. But all that is beside the point. We have good sources. That is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, this user gets it. I'm sorry I just had to respond and say I agree with you wholeheartedly, and that when I read your comment about conspiracy theories and presidents, I literally laughed out loud. And had to call someone in from the next room so I could read it to them. And then THEY laughed out loud. Quote-mining and expert-mongering in these contexts are both examples of what Atkkisson has done, and are also both clear examples of argumentum ab auctoritate (argument from authority). She's looking for experts and quotes that support her position (skepticism of vaccines).
BUT, we don't even have to worry about any of this, really! Because WP:RSes have covered her conundrums and descent into conspiracy theory territory. Her anti-vaccination tendencies in her reporting are entirely covered by WP:RSes, and so we can report them here. That's fair game.
I must say, if any of these IP addresses really are Atkkisson, then I wonder why they don't see this as a clear example of journalistic sourcing? We're just reporting the facts as they exist in the source material....We're not even quote mining or expert-mongering! We're reporting the consensus. It's a shame that the consensus isn't portraying Atkkisson the way she wants... But then perhaps the way to remedy that is to change how she reports, not change how her reporting is read.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thompson story was debunked

Snopes article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source, please stop with this nonsense. petrarchan47คุก 18:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Snopes is a reliable source and this has been decided by the community. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That Thompson made a statement, covered by Atkisson's reporting, is not "fringe", it's a simple fact. When it comes to Snopes, they have been caught making false statements about Attkisson and should therefore not be used as a source on this bio. petrarchan47คุก 20:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Snopes did not make false statements; that Mrs. Attkisson disagreed with their criticism of her work is not unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Rather than argue it here, take it to RSN, or better yet, BLPN. The Snopes article was a retrospective of events. Attkisson reported only what the CDC senior scientist stated. Should she have believed Snopes or the CDC Senior Scientist. This article is a BLP about a journalist, not a debate over the science. Please stay focused on the issue at hand. If a BLP is going to be criticized for faulty reporting, let's at least try to keep things in perpespective, including the timing of the report and who provided the information. It is nothing like what we've been including in articles based on anonymous reports that are unverifiable. In this situation, the information is verifiable although later debunked which is not Attkisson's fault. She did her job as an investigative journalist at the time. Timing is relevant. Atsme Talk 📧 21:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't seen your suggestion, although BLPN is probably the best option, I have already opened a section at RS/N here. petrarchan47คุก 21:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Dude, there have been 12 entries on Snopes already. Toa Nidhiki05 21:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the basis of Petrarchan47's position. I have seen no evidence of the Snopes source being discredited or otherwise unreliable. R2 (bleep) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG haha No evidence of Snopes being discredited. Where do we begin if that's the extent of Wikipedia editors knowledge? http://theohiostar.com/2019/03/10/snopes-gets-key-facts-wrong-on-ocasio-cortez-campaign-finance-scandal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#c3d7103227f8 https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/06/snopes-facebook-google-fact-check/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/29/the-unreliable-facts-of-a-fact-checking-site/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.136 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your sources are all right-wing extremist, from the spit-polished nonsense at Forbes to the barking mad Moonie Times. That means they're all unreliable; see WP:RS. And you especially might want to reconsider claiming anything based on an article in the Daily Caller, which was founded by a white nationalist. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:8A0:A453:63FA:B703 (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That Forbes link is essentially self-published content. starship.paint (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
More unreliable sources with totally unavailing arguments. R2 (bleep) 15:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The first source (a Daily Caller story, groups Snopes with Snopes with CNN, ABC News, NBC News, the Washington Post, Business Insider and Market Watch as having got a story wrong. Essentially they present alternative facts to what mainstream sources publish. Without getting into which facts are real, current policy sides with mainstream media over these sources. TFD (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Citing the "Ohio Star" as if it were a reliable source is particularly rich, considering this. --Calton | Talk 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vaccine injury award

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Note: how would her CBS News reports about the vaccine injury award be integrated? They are neither "anti" anything nor "post-CBS". petrarchan47คุก 19:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to include them at all, but I could be convinced to support a brief mention. R2 (bleep) 20:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that they need to go in. They're news articles that she wrote as part of her job with CBS that didn't win awards or, afaict, were nominated for any. Did they have an impact on her career? Were they recognized or discussed by reliable sources? If not, I don't see why they should be included. Ca2james (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I don’t see any reason to include this. Toa Nidhiki05 12:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Include - CBS is a RS, the material is about a "first ever" which makes it notable with lasting encyclopedic value. I see no reason to not include such important, encyclopedic information. Atsme Talk 📧 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't this the reporting mentioned by the "New England Journal of Medicine"? petrarchan47คุก 21:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Request to add Attkisson's view on her "anti vaccine reporting"

Latest comment: 4 years ago46 comments9 people in discussion

Per Shibbolethink (see my reply here)

"If numerous secondary sources have called Atkkisson "anti-vaccine," then it is our job to report that fact. We can also report that the subject (Atkkisson) does not feel that it's a fair characterization, but only if that is in WP:RSes."

To add her position seems a good idea and follows policy. I'm not interested in edit warring, so thought it would be best to ask permission first.

Anti-vaccine section

Attkisson has [said:

"I have never expressed any “anti-vaccine” opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues"

This sentiment should be added to the section.

LEDE

Her [response to the criticism added to the Lede a few months ago is this:

[Lede] Attkisson has published stories suggesting a possible link between vaccines and autism, a theory rejected by the scientific community.
First, among my 30+ years of reporting, the vaccine-autism topic is not, likely, even the top 10 topics I reported on most heavily or received the most recognition for. Thus, it is an inappropriate inclusion at the top of the biography. It is only included because certain Wikipedia agenda editors wish to improperly use my biographical page to shape opinion on the vaccine-autism issue, libel me, and falsely portray me as “anti-vaccine.”
Second, the comment is not neutral, is out of context, and is unbalanced since many in the scientific community have not rejected a link between vaccines and autism; and some scientists support the concept of a link. For example, the head of CDC immunization safety has acknowledged that it appears vaccines triggered autism in a child with mitochondrial disorder, as determined in a landmark federal lawsuit that the government sealed so that nobody would know about it. Further, it is libelous and misleading for Wikipedia to imply my reporting has somehow been discredited; though an organized effort has been made by conflicted sources and vested interests to make that appear to be the case.
Third, to the extent Wikipedia editors allow my biographical page to be used to spin on the issue of vaccine safety, it should be balanced with facts such as:
Many studies and pro-vaccine scientists support the idea of a link between vaccines and autism, including (among many others) former Director of the National Institutes of Health Dr. Bernadine Healy; the former government medical expert witness in vaccine injury cases, pediatric neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman of Johns Hopkins; Dr. Jon Poling— also a Johns Hopkins trained neurologist; and the current head of immunization safety at CDC Dr. Frank DeStefano. None of these experts was called controversial until they publicly stated that vaccines may– or do– trigger autism in a certain subset of vulnerable children. Only then did they face organized attacks falsely labeling them as “anti-vaccine,” “tin-foil hat” or “discredited.” In fact, by any neutral assessment, they are none of those things.
My reporting on vaccines and autism has been recognized with independent reporting awards and has been cited positively in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine.

A short note summarizing the above should be added to the Lede. Something like

"Attkisson wholly rejects this characterization"

would work. petrarchan47คุก 19:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it should not be added. We are not obligated to include this in the lede. The claim in the lede is that:
  1. She publishes stories saying vaccines cause autism.
  2. This is not backed up by science.
  3. She has received criticism for this.
Her defense is that vaccines actually do cause autism and that the government, big pharma, and big vaccine are conspiring to hide it. That's not a rebuttal and that's not worth including in the lede. Everything there is factual. Toa Nidhiki05 19:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Why would we defer to her self-image rather than the objective views of independent observers? Almost all antivaxers claim not to be anti-vaccine. Even Jenny McCarthy pretends to be "pro safe vaccines". 82.1.159.160 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Because Policy. "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." petrarchan47คุก 22:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between allegaitons and facts. One may be alleged to have committed a crime. Or one may engage in a behaviour and that behaviour may be documented. The latter is the case here. Attkisson has promoted anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. Her defence is to state that the conspiracy is real. That's tinfoil hat territory. Guy (Help!) 01:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bilby, would you mind dropping by and giving your two cents on this? It seems identical to the issue you helped resolve earlier. To me it appears editors are not familiar with or happy to abide by BLP policy. Thanks in advance, petrarchan47คุก 22:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
She denies being called an “anti-vaxxer” but she does not deny publishing stories that say vaccines cause autism. This entire request is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 23:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't know whether you are unable to comprehend WP:BLP or if you want to ignore the parts that don't allow the content you desire. What she says doesn't have to be true, we are simply required to add that she has officially denied these charges, since we are calling her reporting biased and untruthful. It's exactly as before with her response to the Snopes piece. Surely you remember the result at the noticeboard? petrarchan47คุก 23:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
What of the lede does she dispute?

Attkisson has received criticism for publishing stories suggesting a possible link between vaccines and autism, a theory that has been rejected by the scientific community

She has been criticized. That's a fact, and the fact she has responded to such criticism but deeming everyone to be "pharma" or "vaccine industry" shills indicates she doesn't dispute that.
She doesn't deny publishing stories that link vaccines and autism. That's a fact and she has said as much, that she believes vaccines cause autism.
The scientific community has rejected claims that vaccines cause autism. That's a fact. If she disputes that, that's not a claim against her person - that's a pseudoscientific claim we are not obligated to publish and should not publish. This is why I said your request is ridiculous, like most of your RfCs here have been, frankly. She is not obligated to a point-by-point rebuttal of everything negative that has ever been said about her work. Toa Nidhiki05 23:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Reread this, where your position, similar to the above, had zero support. Please reread where Bilby and others try to explain policy to you. Again, she is a reporter, so claims against her reporting are serious enough to warrant inclusion of her response whether what she says is true or not. It does matter how you feel about what she is saying; do you seriously not understand this? petrarchan47คุก 06:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
If you’re not even going to read my comments and are just going to keep shouting random policies that you know nothing about, there’s no point continuing your discussion. Your proposal is patently ridiculous, as have been most of your proposals here, and it is verging on tendentious editing. There is literally nothing in the lede for her to rebut. I would recommend you read our policy on psueudoscience and fringe theories, which I don’t believe you are familiar with. Toa Nidhiki05 12:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Please try to focus on content and stop making all of your remarks into personal attacks and insulting me as an editor. It's getting a bit tiring. petrarchan47คุก 00:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't dish it out if you can't take a hit. You stop insulting my intelligence and implying I don't care about policy and I'll stop questioning you. Toa Nidhiki05 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No racist admits they are racist, no antivaxer admits they are antivax. In both cases we are entitled to ignore their flattering self-image and go with reliable independent sources. There's a terrible tendency to treat Wikipedia like journalism and give the subject the last word every time, but that's not supposed to be how we work. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't think you've accurately summarized the situation here. We're simply giving her the "right to denial", which was the overwhelming consensus here, in an almost identical situation. From the thread:
A person can deny something, but that does not mean that it is true. A few, objective, words about her denying the claims made against her should be included since WP:BLPPUBLIC says that "if the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."
Make sense? petrarchan47คุก 00:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Reliable sources accurately describe her history of anti-vaccination activism masquerading as journalism. No reliable sources support her denials. Newspapers have a right of reply, encyclopaedias don't. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Where in policy do you get this contention that RS must support her denial? In my understanding, we are simply required to mention her rebuttal, if one exists and is sourced to RS, in this case, her website. It doesn't have to be true or valid. This is how I and everyone except Toa and R2 understand BLP:PUBLIC (including the editor I quote at the beginning of this thread). It seems you're adding to or amending the policy in your summary. WP:BLPPUBLIC "if the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported" seems pretty simple and straightforward. petrarchan47คุก 05:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE. Every antivaxer claims to be really interested in safe vaccines, or public health, or Just Asking Questions™ , but there comes a time when they have published so much, and with such uniform bias, that they exhaust the assumption of good faith. This is one of those occasions, and the sources make that quite clear. Her reporting is misleading, and her defence of it makes it pretty clear that this is deliberate. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Where in policy do you get this contention that RS must support her denial? You're asking that the lede include Attkisson's denial, not just that the denial be included in the article per BLPPUBLIC. What's included in the lede is determined by what's DUE, and we determine what's DUE by what's been covered in RS. And, as has been pointed out, Attkisson's denials are included in the article so BLPPUBLIC is satisfied. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is not an identical situation, jesus christ. What exactly does she deny here? That she has reported that vaccines cause autism? She's admitted as much herself, it's in her fucking blog posts. As far as I can tell the only thing she denies is the scientific consensus on vaccine/autism links, and guess what? We already include her comments in the body. You have not given a substantiative reply to this question since I've asked it and I don't frankly think you can. She is not entitled to a point by point rebuttal of everything on this page that she doesn't like (which is, frankly, most of it). To say so is patently ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Quite. If reliable sources report her sincere belief in the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories Petrachan discusses, then fine, we can document her belief on those theories, but we don't give equal weight to reality and bullshit. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Attkisson's denial that she's reported an antivax position/is an antivaxxer is included later on in the article, isn't it? Thus BLPPUBLIC is satisfied. It is UNDUE to include it in the Lede unless there are lots of RS independently reporting her denial.
    I am concerned that editors here appear to want to include something just because Attkisson has mentioned it. In general, we cannot just include what a subject wants included; BLP subjects do not have control over what the their article says. In this specific BLP, Attkisson has misrepresented the mention her reporting got in the correspondences section of the NEJM as "has been cited positively in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine" (implying by association that her research was peer-reviewed when it was not), and so I urge editors to carefully examine Attkisson's statements and check them against RS before suggesting they be included. Ca2james (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, don't put her denial in the lead section, which gives far too much credence to her position which is not supported by science. Her denial is disingenuous, anyway, as it misrepresents her work. Putting the denial later in the body of the article is more than enough. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
This will likely be my last statement here. Just pointing out that Attkisson is not in control of content here, we have been attempting to follow policy, which does not state that multiple sources cover her denials or rebuttals, only that if serious allegations are made and included in the bio, and if the subject has responded to the claims, their voice should be allowed - whether it's true, disingenuous, or utterly outrageous. The only time that would matter is if we are speaking in WPs voice. But with attribution, it doesn't matter how we judge the content of the subject's claims. Saying "Attkisson has wholly rejected this characterization" is quite simple and really shouldn't be controversial. Lastly, there is no "denial later in the body". We only have the one, where she responded to the Snopes article, saying they had misrepresented the facts. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
There is indeed a denial, under ‘Anti-vaccine reporting’:

Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children, but claims that research suggests that a small number of children have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines

Toa Nidhiki05 12:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't mind a sentence in the vaxx section containing her denial, "I have never expressed any 'anti-vaccine' opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues". That she said that is true (I just read it on her blog), and I suppose there's plenty of material in the article to give the reader enough food for thought. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Neither do I, as long as we follow it with a statement showing it to be bullshit. We're not a newspaper, so the subject doesn't get the last word, especially when they are lying. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I think what Drmies expressed is that the article sufficiently refutes the essence of her claim already. petrarchan47คุก 02:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Are there any objections to Drmies' suggested edit? I'd like to get this page off my watch list so I'd like to need to wrap this up. Drmies JzG Toa Nidhiki05 Binksternet Ca2james

"I have never expressed any 'anti-vaccine' opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues".* petrarchan47คุก 23:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I object and continue to object to this, as a denial is already included. There is no reason to muddy the waters any further with with pseudoscientific ramblings of an anti-vaxxer. Toa Nidhiki05 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, that she claims blah blah is not a "pseudoscientific rambling"--it's a statement by herself about what she claims she's been doing. If you want to add to that that it's a lie, I'm fine with that, but by mischaracterizing the statement you are in fact muddying the waters. I just read that Daily Beast article (note 1, I think) and it doesn't say she "falsely" claims this or that, but I'm sure there's plenty such sources. I agree with JzG that not giving the last word to the fringer is fine. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. She can claim all she wants, she has no expertise in the field and there is no credible evidence supporting her view, so it's WP:FRINGE, needs to be unambiguously identified as such, and definitely doesn't get the last word. And, in the context of the question at issue, there is clear consensus despite attempts to recruit sympathetic voices that this does not belong in the lede. Guy (help!) 23:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Accusing me of recruiting is casting aspersion, which requires proof, and really shouldn't happen at all on this page.
I also disagree that quoting the subject of the page is the equivalent of WP promoting, or not standing firmly enough against, fringe views. Consider: would the ideas espoused by whomever is behind the strange "Flat Earth" theory be disallowed? This argument makes no sense.
Anyway, is there some suggestion for adding her rebuttal so that her position isn't the "last word"? petrarchan47คุก 00:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Her rebuttal is already in the article. Her ridiculous claims that the government agrees vaccines cause autism do not belong here. Adding them does nothing but muddy the waters and could confuse and mislead readers. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Toa, here is the suggested addition from Drmies
  • I have never expressed any 'anti-vaccine' opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues
"claims that the government agrees vaccines cause autism" exists nowhere in the present conversation so I'm unsure what it is you're arguing about.
Could you quote the rebuttal in the article you're referring to? I'm a bit confused by your remarks. petrarchan47คุก 22:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Attkisson cannot tell evidence from non-evidence and scientific studies from nonscientific studies. Her concept of "quoting" is different from the usual one - as I explained in a closed section above (search the age for for "quote-mine"). So, to quote that sentence would be misleading because readers will think it uses the normal meaning of the words. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No change is needed. Her claims are already in the article. Guy (help!) 11:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The addition Drmies suggested is in no way already included. I doubt he would have suggested it otherwise. Here is what we have in total:
  • Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children, but claims that research suggests that a small number of children have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines.
  • Attkisson denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in her report
The suggested addition, again, is "I have never expressed any 'anti-vaccine' opinions; I have quoted evidence and scientific studies on various sides of vaccine safety issues". From what I understand, Guy, you were fine with this addition as long as it isn't the last word. So my question is how you and Drmies had envisioned it. I'd like to make the edit and move on. petrarchan47คุก 05:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to make the edit and move on
Since you don't have consensus, that would be "no". Including from me. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Petrarchan47, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I am not going to fight this hard over a relatively small matter (yes, I do believe it's relatively small). I spoke my peace; if Guy and others choose to ignore my great and unmatched wisdom, that's their loss. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, in my estimation this BLP is non-neutral in that extravagant space is dedicated to condemning her reporting, whilst barely allowing her a word in her own defense (and I am not taking a position here on the validity of any claims, only NPOV). I feel slightly enthusiastic about this issue because if a WP article is blatantly biased, as I believe is the case here, it paints the entire project in a bad light, leading readers to question whether they can trust anything in this or any other article. Bias and "encyclopedia" are, I think, diametrically opposed, and readers know this. I think adding her measly rebuttal does not put WP in the position of supporting anti-vax views (if that's a concern for some editors here), and would greatly help balance the article, making us seem more fair and balanced, more trustworthy. And isn't it "I spoke my piece"? Anyway, that's my peace, or piece, and I thank you for yours. I'll take the page off my watch list. Life is too short ;) petrarchan47คุก 20:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, Sure, but your opinions on many science-related subjects are well outside the mainstream, so I feel comfortable ignoring your personal view - my own review of the article finds it to be just fine. Guy (help!) 23:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Again you have cast aspersions without evidence. Can you show me ONE DIFF supporting "opinions on many science-related subjects are well outside the mainstream"? If not, I am going to suggest you strike the comments. Please (as per PAGs) refrain from making statements like this without offering evidence from here on out. Would that be amenable to you? petrarchan47คุก 20:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, Not a fan of self-serving lies, so no from me. Guy (help!) 16:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, you are absolutely correct--thank you for pointing that out. I learned something new! As for the article, I disagree. I don't think that one sentence makes the difference between OK and "blatantly biased"; I do not believe this article is blatantly biased. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, thanks for playing! Whether a WP article is biased or "OK" is almost entirely subjective, it seems. I have no intention of trying to change anyone's mind. petrarchan47คุก 20:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharyl_Attkisson/Archive_4&oldid=1136233706"