Talk:Ben Swann

General discussion about SYNTH

I've marked the "views" section alerting to some WP:SYNTH. There are sources in there which describe certain topics, but which fail to mention Swann in context. As this is a BLP, I'm going to do a source-by-source check and remove any sources added which serve only to give background or refute particular views, but that fail to mention Swann. -- Netoholic @ 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You removed the "alt-right" link from the lede without explanation; the cited AJC source helpfully states His Reality Check reports over the years have often veered into alt-right conspiracy theories. Thus, I have restored the discussion of his links to the alt-right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Uh wait, I didn't remove anything "alt-right" from the lead... That hasn't been there in at least several weeks or months. Reverting that new addition til you can show consensus for it. -- Netoholic @ 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Total fucking nonsense lies. You removed it here, and it had been in the lede for months if not longer. I've reverted all your edits until you discuss and gain consensus for them on the talk page. You are weakening discussion of anmoted conspiracy theorist who was fired for spreading bullshit conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"Alt-right" has been in the lede since this July 2018 edit, which was based on extensive drafting and ANI discussion. Your removal of it is out of order, and your blatant lies about not removing it and it not being there are ridiculously easy to disprove with simple diffs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edits present debunked falsehoods (like vaccine-autism bullshittery) as a "controversy" (contrary to reliable sources, which do not), claim that Pizzagate is not false nonsense (it is) and removes well-sourced descriptions because they're negative. None of these changes are acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles do not use labels that aren't in the sources used for the article. I'm happy to discuss any additional reliable sources (which mention Swann) into the article and incorporate whatever labels are used in the majority of them. Otherwise, you sound more like we should WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which is not an acceptable position. This is a WP:BLP and we have to err on the side of caution. -- Netoholic @ 22:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to grant that, in some cases, this article lays things on a little thick, and the language in certain places might be overdone. That said: we need to be very careful to avoid giving the impression that Swann has merely "reported" on conspiracy theories. Snopes reports on conspiracy theories. Swann isn't. He's "boosting" (per Erik Wemple), highlighting (per Maggie Haberman) or "mostly repeat[ing] talking points from what he calls 'self-described online investigators,'" (per Ben Collins). In other words: he promotes conspiracy theories. If there's another synonym that you prefer, I'm open to it- but saying he has simply been "reporting" or "covering" falsehoods is really misleading. Nblund ^talk 00:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Reported" is certainly always a neutral word to describe a reporter's work at a TV station. Its odd how editors are failing to acknowledge that the Reality Check series, up to and including the Pizzagate one, was supported by Fox 19 & CBS46, filmed in their studios, used their graphics department, stamped with their logo, promoted on the stations' social media, and based on what the CBS46 news director described as Swann's "meticulous ... search for facts". "Highlighting" as a term might not be bad in some instances, as the news segment certainly focused on stories that most other news stations weren't, so I don't see that as too far off. But this article has used terms like espoused, in the lead no less, which has an extremely negative connotation, is not a term used in reliable sources, and doesn't accurately describe what a news anchor for a major TV station does. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Nblund. I'm certainly ready to work with you on improving the article, and there are probably some places where we can tone down repetition and stridency; but that requires collaboration and discussion, not removing almost 10k of text in one go and, along the way, massively weakening reliably-sourced statements about Swann's motivations and ideologies. He does not neutrally "report" on conspiracy theories — he was fired for suggesting, if not outright saying, that false ludicrous nonsense such as Pizzagate were true or even potentially true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

He wasn't fired for that according to the sources (ajc.com in particular). He worked at the network for about a year after the Pizzagate segment, and when asked his news director called his work "meticulous". AJC says he was fired much later for relaunching his 'Truth in Media' website. Your fundamental misunderstanding about the chain of events is certainly a big problem here - I might even describe what you're saying as "false ludicrous nonsense", since it wildly differs from the sources. -- Netoholic @ 09:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I am going to create separate sections for each example of SYNTH below. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, as Black Kite discussed in the relevant noticeboard thread, your definition of "synthesis" simply isn't correct. It is not "synthesis" to use sources to discuss what things are true and what things are not true. Synthesis is using two separate sources to create a novel conclusion not found in the reliable source. The conclusions that Pizzagate is false or that Assad gassed his own people are not novel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a definition of synthesis, I use Wikipedia's (WP:SYNTH): "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.. So, if one source says "Swann hosted a segment on X", including a source which says something about X should not be included because it implies the conclusion that Swann did or said something wrong in reporting about X. This is YOU as an editor choosing what to include and imply about Swann - not what a reliable source says about Swann. This could go on and on, as I could rationalize adding even more sources that don't mention Swann, but throw doubt on those other sources. We simply cannot use this article to debate the overriding topic. Added: I'll also refer you to WP:TRUTH so be careful about using that term. -- Netoholic @ 04:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is being "joined." Reliable source A says something is false. We can use reliable source A to say that the thing is false. And I'll refer you to WP:BLP when we're dealing with dangerous wingnut lunacy like Pizzagate, which led to death threats against innocent people and a violent standoff — we are required by BLP to be utterly clear that nobody named by the conspiracy is guilty of anything and that the entire thing is completely and totally made up by shitheads on the Internet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's continue discussion about Pizzagate under #WP:SYNTH regarding Pizzagate. My point in that section is that we have an abundance of sources that say what you want to say AND include mention of Swann's segment all together. We don't need unrelated sources. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding chemical attacks in Syria

I removed three sentences based on a source which does not mention Ben Swann or Reality Check at all and is dated April 20, 2018. Since Swann's segments about Syria ran in 2013 and 2016, it is inappropriate to include as it reads like a refutation or vilification of Swann's segments using information not available at the time. We have a link to 'use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War' for readers that want more information - the extraneous material is not appropriate for this article. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the highlighted sentences. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal. Leviv ich 14:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Was about to remove the non-relevant sources that don't mention Swann per above, but after looking at what would remain, we're left with very little substance. The first sentence is based on the Star Tribune which says "Swann has also attracted controversy for ... an alternative explanation for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The "alternate explanation" links to an article on his personal site (reposted on Truth In Media), and is unusable per WP:BLPSELFPUB points 2/3/4. The Star Tribune piece is a non-journalistic blog post by an anonymous author "rachelsb" and doesn't provide any context for the source of this controversy, though, and I can't find any other secondary source that mentions that same Swann article nor a controversy around it - all I've found are your standard reposts/links to that article from around the conservative blogosphere. The second sentence is from Daily Beast, and is literally only a mention of the title of a much-later Reality Check segment - no context either. I don't see much justification in retaining any of this section. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the sources that do not mention Swann and have removed the Star Tribune blog-sourced section since its not clear what editorial controls are in place for those, the author is anonymous, and because no others sources cover this. -- Netoholic @ 22:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding creation of ISIS

I removed several sentences based on a source which does not mention Ben Swann or Reality Check at all. The first sentence is based on a Daily Beast source only says he is " “crowdfunding” an episode about how “U.S and partners intentionally created ISIS”" - nothing more - only a presumed title of an unreleased segment. It is inappropriate to include the additional material as it reads like a refutation or vilification of something which Swann had not (did not ever?) release. Even the mention of the crowdfunding seems extraneous for this article, but I left it in only because I was removing SYNTH, not making structural changes. I am fine with removing the whole paragraph per WP:DUE unless there is some other source than Daily Beast that brings it up. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to keep "Swann has also sought crowdfunding for an episode titled, “U.S and partners intentionally created ISIS”." but remove the rest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The diff posted by Netoholic appears to preserve the language that Snoog wants preserved. I agree with this as well. Leviv ich 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - I ended up moving the crowdfunding title mention to the personal projects section. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding Sandy Hook/Aurora shootings

I removed two sentences based on three sources which do not mention Ben Swann or Full Disclosure at all. This was an episode of Swann's side-project Full Disclosure made on January 3, 2013 (Sandy Hook shooting was on December 14, 2012) and was mostly about the "multiple shooter" vs "lone gunmen" theory. All the context necessary for this section can come from the existing sources which do discuss Swann. Even one of the addition sentences actually puts Swann's episode in a sympathetic light ("The theory of multiple gunmen may have been influenced by early news reports of the events"), since it is based on a source which does not mention Swann, it is SYNTHESIS. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we are required to clarify that Swann's fringe nonsense is precisely that, so the content should be kept. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, if "Swann's fringe nonsense" exists, then there are sources which describe his nonsense AND the refutation of that nonsense all in one source. We cannot construct either a refutation or a sympathetic explanation for him based on sources that do not mention Swann. Since multiple early reports involved multiple gunmen, its hard to really blame any reporter who mentioned those reports, especially only 20 days after the event. If he made this segment today, I could see the point. If a source says he still defends it, I could see your point. -- Netoholic @ 10:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between unverified reports during and immediately (i.e. hours) after a shooting, and using these reports 20 days later to construct conspiracy theories. The former is an earnest attempt at journalism whereas the latter is just conspiracy peddling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: The sources actually say the exact opposite - that he was, in fact, not "peddling" conspiracy theories:

• "raised questions ... about official accounts of the 2012 mass shooting in Sandy Hook" & "He examined... allegations that the gunman in the Sandy Hook shootings didn’t act alone" & "has drawn attention for his focus on conspiracy theories around major news stories"
• (citing the NYTimes article above) "As Haberman reported, Swann never said any of that. His online "Full Disclosure" series noted that theorists had been bubbling over with questions about the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, and that "police have not yet provided the surveillance video" of either incident. The conspiracy theory was the hook -- one that few reporters would start with -- but Swann was using it to ask about transparency." and "no one was really explaining how he talked about conspiracy theories. Consistently, he has explored them as a reporter, asking why other people are asking questions. He is as likely to debunk the questions as to leave them open." (this article is actually very praiseworthy of Swann in general that he doesn't adhere to the conspiracy theories, just reports on them.)

These two articles in particular paint a far different picture than what we are saying about him. We need to do better. -- Netoholic @ 10:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm late here, but I also agree with this removal, not so much as SYNTH, but because of WP:COATRACK, and general principles of good writing. Leviv ich 15:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

I removed several sentences based on two sources which does not mention Ben Swann or RT at all. This section is based on a Daily Beast source about an appearance Swann made on July 23, 2014 on RT. The removed sources are based on the October 23, 2015 'DSB Final Report' on the crash, so it is inappropriate to include them as a refutation or vilification of Swann's appearance, because they are information that was not available at the time. Even the mention of this appearance seems extraneous for this article, but I left it in only because I was removing SYNTH, not making structural changes. I am fine with removing the whole paragraph per WP:DUE unless there is some other source than Daily Beast that brings it up. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

OK to keep per WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down on 17 July 2014 - his appearance was only 6 days later. Its highly-debatable that there was anything "FRINGE" about this so soon after the crash. We know now that it turns out he was wrong, but we should not let hindsight overreach by writing this as a refutation based on a final report that came over a year later. The Daily Beast source doesn't even try to make such a statement about it, and we shouldn't either. Let's let the quote and the link to the Wiki article do the work alone. -- Netoholic @ 10:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I should also point out, from a fact-checking perspective, Daily Beast quotes from and links to the July 23, 2014 transcript of Swann's appearance, but states that it was in 2015. This is a major error, considering the above. -- Netoholic @ 11:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the entire paragraph should be removed as WP:UNDUE. The Daily Beast is a questionable source as currently listed at WP:RSP (which I agree with), whereas this article is still a BLP. Unless multiple reliable sources deem it significant that he said this in July (before investigations were completed), I don't see why this one obscure Daily Beast writer's opinion is worth including in a BLP. Leviv ich 16:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding Vladimir Putin

I removed several sentences based on using Swann's website/blog posts as a source (which is unusable per WP:BLPSELFPUB points 2, 3, & 4) along with additional sources that do not mention Ben Swann at all. There are no reliable secondary sources used here which discuss Swann's coverage of or viewpoints about Putin, so the entire section is a flight of fantasy constructed by Wikipedia editors as a form of refutation or vilification. -- Netoholic @ 09:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

OK to remove if none of the secondary RS mention Swann. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- Netoholic @ 21:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, endorsed, I don't have an issue with this - doesn't seem well-constructed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding Russian hacking

I removed one sentence based on a source which does not mention Ben Swann or Reality Check at all. The first sentence is based on a Daily Beast source only says he is "Recent “Reality Check” topics... include... “5 Problems with CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC/Podesta Emails”" - that's all - just the name of the segment. It is inappropriate to include the additional material which reads like a refutation or vilification of this segment based only on the title. Even the mention of this segment seems extraneous for this article, but I left it in only because I was removing SYNTH, not making structural changes. I am fine with removing the whole paragraph per WP:DUE unless there is some other source than Daily Beast that brings it up. -- Netoholic @ 09:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the clarification of what the intel says, but want to keep the name of the segment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this entire paragraph should be removed as WP:UNDUE, per my argument two threads up, it's again the single Ben Collins Daily Beast source. If one writer writes negative stuff about another person, we can't just throw it all in our BLP articles–that would be undue. Also, why does it matter that he ran a segment titled "5 Problems with CIA Claim"? Lots of people talk about "problems" with intelligence analyses. It's not like peddling the Pizzagate thing, and if there aren't multiple reliable sources saying that this is significant, we shouldn't include it in our BLP. Leviv ich 16:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - I've removed the section (including segment title) per discussion above. -- Netoholic @ 11:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding CDC and vaccinations

I removed a source which does not mention Ben Swann or Reality Check at all, and then re-wrote the line based on the meager mention that was in the remaining source. I also marked {{citation needed}} as there may be other sources that cover this in some better way (ones that actually mention Swann). The source currently used makes only a mention of Swann and links to a blog, which is not reliable to use in itself. I am also fine with removing the whole paragraph per WP:DUE unless there is some better source available which covers Swann's segment on the CDC and vaccinations. -- Netoholic @ 09:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep this. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed in the past and there was consensus to keep the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The sourcing on Swann's segment is incredibly weak - the most minimal mention in a post on the Science-Based Medicine blog (see Avoid self-published sources for the problems with blogs about BLPs). I don't much care what was discussed before - if there are no other good sources to establish the relevance to Swann, the whole thing must be removed. -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Science Based Medicine is not a self-published source. It's a respected source of medical information with a clear editorial structure, identifiable writers and clear fact-checking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The site is listed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as an accepted reliable source, and not a self-published source. If you wish to change this consensus, you're welcome to start a new thread on RSN. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepted. It doesn't change the fact that the source barely mentions Swann. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've tried a new wording based entirely on the Gorski source. I still haven't found a reliable source which describes his coverage of this topic in-depth - there are copious anti-vax websites sharing his news segment, but none of the mainstream sources do. I still feel this single source is very weak for inclusion of this topic. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove the whole paragraph, per above: again, one writer in one source writing one negative thing one time is not enough to include in our article. Who cares that David Gorski thinks Ben Swann is an anti-vaxxer? It turns us into like a gossip column ("Well, this person said that that person did this bad thing..."). If we have enough reliable sources to support a statement in wikivoice that Swann is an anti-vaxxer, then let's go for it. Otherwise, it's WP:UNDUE. That said, I support Netoholic's rewrite, which is better than what was there before, but I think removing the whole paragraph would be even better. Leviv ich 16:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH regarding Pizzagate

I removed several sources which do not mention Ben Swann or Reality Check at all. On this subject, there are plenty of sources which do mention Swann, and I added one from TVSpy which meant most of the content of the section could remain. These extra sources were added just as a pile-on refutation or vilification and, since we already have a link to the Wikipedia article about Pizzagate, there is simply no need at all to use them here, when relevant sources abound. -- Netoholic @ 09:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep the text per WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Before I can respond, I need to know what aspect of FRINGE you're citing here. Pizzagate is obviously false, and Swann made clear in the segment there was no evidence for it - he was reporting on what the conspiracy theorists were using to base their theory on. And I said, there are so many sources (already in the article and potentially that could be added) that both establish this -and- mention Swann's report directly. We do not need the other things. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not remotely how reliable sources describe his "reporting" of the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources used in this article indicate he presented the conspiracy as "potentially true" - that is pure editor POV insertion/assumption. I would think a simpler explanation for the suspension and social media takedown would be to quell the internet crazies from bombarding the station, but the station was essentially silent on this, except the news director who described Swann's work as "meticulous". -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that's what the sources say — "calling for an investigation" of something which is false bullshit is, indeed, giving veracity to false bullshit. You don't ask for an "investigation" of something you don't think is true. You're welcome to propose a different paraphrase of sources like this and this or this, but the sources are impossibly clear that this was no normal neutral "reporting," but essentially advocacy for nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Reporting on what the crazies are obsessed with is not the same as advocacy. None of those sources say anything like he presented as "potentially true". Frankly, to anyone science-based asking "why hasn't any investigation taken place" is the very start of reason-based, rational evaluation of claims - it is neutral as to whether the output is potentially true or potentially false. The "potentially true" wording could be replaced by the equivalent phrase "almost surely false" because the sources confirm he started AND ended the segment saying there was no direct evidence. The difference is that "potentially true" has a strongly negative connotation, especially for a BLP. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That might be an excuse in 2016. Swann's "report" came months after the entire thing was definitively and entirely debunked, he cited zero sources outside anonymous messageboard shitheads, and did zero independent reporting on the issue. That's not my opinion, that's what the reliable source says about it. Again, he didn't "report on what the crazies are obsessed with," he cited the crazies as if they were journalistic sources and as if their alt-right messageboard rantings constituted evidence of anything more than their own delusions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He did not "cite the crazies" and present it as truth. Its the same pattern he used for the shootings - describing the conspiracy theory and using it as a hook to ask the real questions about transparency and lack of formal investigations. No doubt at all he could have done better, but he obviously does not ascribe to these conspiracy theories ("Consistently, he has explored them as a reporter") and we should stop implying he does in Wikipedia's voice. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You're citing sources written a year before his Pizzagate report, which say literally nothing about what he did in the Pizzagate report. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm citing a source that explains his general journalistic style in Reality Check. For the lead, would you be OK changing "aired a Reality Check which presented the false Pizzagate conspiracy theory as potentially true" to "aired a Reality Check in which Swann asked why there had been no official investigation into the Pizzagate conspiracy theory". This is more-or-less what the sources all agree on. -- Netoholic @ 04:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Netoholic's edit removing some (but not all) of this content. The removed content is WP:COATRACK. We already say that Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory. We don't need to then spend several sentences detailing the debunking. If the reader wants to know, they'll click on the link and read Pizzagate. Leviv ich 16:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)