Wikiwand AI

Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sentence in Criticism section

The consensus is against deleting the sentence in Tucker Carlson Tonight's "Criticism" section that reads, "By August 2019, Media Matters calculated that the show had lost more than 70 advertisers since December 2018[,][15]" where footnote # 15 is a link to a Media Matters site.

Editors found that it is fine to include the analysis with attribution.

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 15 December 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.

Proposal: Recommend deleting the sentence in Tucker Carlson Tonight's "Criticism" section that reads, "By August 2019, Media Matters calculated that the show had lost more than 70 advertisers since December 2018[,][15]" where footnote # 15 is a link to a Media Matters site. Media Matters is not a reliable source; it is a biased left-leaning propaganda website, funded by David Brock's political action committee/politically-active non-profit conglomeration/empire. Alternatively, if there's a reliable source, ideally two sources since it's a criticism, that cites the same thing as Media Matters and which is not a circular source reference that cites Media Matters, I wouldn't be opposed to replacing the citation. But, as written, this is a highly problematic citation.

Given the contentious nature of this show and the attention it attracts, I thought it prudent to establish this RfC to establish consensus rather than editing out that sentence, only have to it be undone within days (if not sooner).--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

To non-involved closing RfC editor/administrator: Please ensure you wrap this closed discussion in appropriate, optional tags when consensus has been attained. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do you need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for this? Have the avenues described at WP:RFCBEFORE proved fruitless? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, I like to use RfCs. What's wrong with using them? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The first two sentences of WP:RFCBEFORE should explain this. There has been no previous discussion of the matter on this page, so it's difficult to see why you went straight to RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, The talk page does not seem particularly active, so in a semi-bold move, I started the RfC to attract attention to it. Otherwise, talk page discussions languish unanswered for months—even years. Also, see my earlier comments re: Media Matters and this page being potentially monitored by paid, political strategists, who would likely revert any bold content removals I made. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
You still don't need to go straight to RfC - WP:RFCBEFORE has a four-item bulleted list, did you even try the first one, about asking for help at the relevant WikiProject? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, I take your point, but in this case, I'm seeking an expedited removal of this content due to its problematic nature and the source not being reliable. WikiProjects are, anecdotally, notoriously inactive even when their status is officially active. That's fine, if you don't mind waiting months. Hope that clarifies. Anyway, I kinda think we should be using RfCs much more; rarely do I see more than 5-6 RfCs per category. It's a great tool. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to invoke WP:IAR here, but if necessary, that would be my reason for starting this RfC. I didn't look at WP:RFCBEFORE, but I read those are merely suggestions; not "must-dos" as at AfD. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Gonna skip past the discussion above about whether this RFC should have been opened and just give my opinion: According to WP:RSP there's no consensus on whether MediaMatters is a reliable source. It's certainly a biased source, but according to WP:PARTISAN "reliable sources are not required to be neutral". So I don't think that the fact that it's biased is alone reason to not use it. Loki (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    LokiTheLiar, They're currently considered a yellow flagged source, which, I'd argue, means they should be avoided. At minimum, when sourcing a yellow flagged source, one should back that up with at least one, and preferably two, green sources. Doug Mehus T·C 00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    With all due respect, that's not how sourcing here works. Yellow specifically doesn't mean "should be avoided", and it definitely doesn't mean that you need further sources to back them up. Loki (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    LokiTheLiar, Kinda disagree here. Quoting GreenMeansGo from WP:RSN, "The current assessment of the source at WP:RSP seems fairly on-point. It is a partisan advocacy group that should be used with all the caveats we normally apply to partisan advocacy groups. Attribute their opinion, and determine WP:DUEWEIGHT based predominately on whether independent sources themselves use them as a source for the information cited." [emphasis added] To me, WP:DUEWEIGHT applies here. Doug Mehus T·C 01:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, but, what's the WP:WEIGHT problem in the first place? Whose views are being given too much weight on the topic of how many advertisers Tucker Carlson has lost? Loki (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    LokiTheLiar, The problem is their methodology. How are they assessing how many advertisers his show supposedly lost? We should be substantiating this with another source, to confirm the finding. Doug Mehus T·C 02:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    That's the exact kind of thing that is why we separate biased sources from unreliable sources. Everyone agrees Media Matters is biased but it doesn't seem like there's good reason to believe that they're unreliable as well. Which is to say, they may well mention the number of advertisers Tucker Carlson has lost in an article about Tucker Carlson when another source would not, but they wouldn't lie about the number itself. Loki (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    LokiTheLiar, At minimum, as written, it's misleading. We should be noting what Media Matters even says where they write, "Carlson has seen his nightly paid ad load plummet from a high of 36 paid ads each night in October 2018 to averaging 15 per episode in August 2019[,]" preferably paraphrasing this by saying that Media Matters claims to have surveyed the average number of paid spots on Carlson's show between the given period and noted the number had decreased by n where n is the number of paid ad spots. We should also, ideally in-text but I'd settle for a footnote, note that Media Matters is a partisan-linked advocacy organization/pressure group. Doug Mehus T·C 02:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it was easy for me to find two secondary sources covering this, and in fact there were several more if anyone has any problems with the two I added; I just stopped because this seemed like enough. It's clear that this particular finding by Media Matters is both WP:DUE and citeable to reliable secondary sources rather than just Media Matters directly. (Also, the ease with which I found secondary sources - literally just a quick search for "tucker carlson" "70 advertisers" had a bunch right at the top - is an example of why WP:RFCBEFORE exists; those would certainly have come up if there was any discussion beforehand.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Aquillion, Thanks for finding the circular reference sources, which simply quote the Media Matters article. I agree with adding additional citations or' adding the needed context and/or footnote described above in reply to Loki, but if additional citations are added, they should independently confirm partisan pressure group Media Matters' finding. Doug Mehus T·C 12:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Dmehus, you missed the point. We say MMA said X, and we support that with MMA plus sources reporting that MMA said that. This establishes the significance of the claim (meeting the burden of due weight). I suggest you pick another fight, mate, because this really isn't a tough call. Guy (help!) 12:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Two things. First, quoting another source makes them WP:SECONDARY coverage, which both reinforces the WP:WEIGHT of the primary source and puts the institutional reliability of the secondary source behind what the primary source says. Using reliable, unbiased secondary sources that quote or cite less-reliable, potentially-biased primary sources is the entire way WP:RS works - eg. a NYT article that quotes a bunch of people with strong opinions is a reliable source, even if we could never cite those people directly. And you misunderstand WP:INDEPENDENT, which requires that the source be free of institutional dependence on the primary source (eg. if a Fox News news article cites a Fox News opinion piece, that is not WP:INDEPENDENT; but if it cites a NYT opinion piece, or if the NYT cites the Fox opinion piece, that is independent and therefore worth more.) In this case these are independent secondary sources citing the primary source, which is exactly the sort of sourcing we're supposed to use. It does not mean that a secondary source is required to separately do its own research to confirm a primary source (how would that even work? By definition, such research would involve looking at more primary sources!) And, second, we definitely can cite a WP:BIASED source like MMA for their opinion, at the bare minimum, with an in-line cite (as the article has) - they're reliable for that, no matter how WP:BIASED they are, and at least meet the minimum requirements of WP:RSOPINION. The question for that sort of citation is then whether their opinion matters, whether it is WP:DUE. Their strong partisan position might call that into question, but the GQ source establishes that this particular figure or opinion on MMA's part is noteworthy because it has received secondary coverage. EDIT: You also misunderstood WP:CIRCULAR, which is about not citing sources that cite Wikipedia. There's nothing circular about citing a reliable secondary source that bases its story on a less-reliable primary source - that's a straight line, not a circle, and it's how WP:SECONDARY sources work. By definition, a secondary source generally doesn't do its own research outside of gathering, evaluating, summarizing, and commenting on primary sources - the important thing to us is that evaluation and summary provides us with information on how to cover them, which is more useful than eg. citing MMA directly because we can look at GQ and see how they described that source, how much weight or credence they gave it, any disclaimers they did or didn't have, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    Aquillion and JzG, I sort of disagree here that this isn't circular referencing and, given that we have a very biased, albeit notionally reliable source in Media Matters for America, we should be finding independent confirmation of the analysis (or rough confirmation). One or two sources citing the same original source is still an echo chamber. Now, yes, if it is the New York Times, The Economist, and the like, this is fine; however, for partisan sources, we should be getting independent confirmation.
    At minimum, regardless of the result of this RfC, from what I am reading, neither of you would be opposed to further refining this sentence to better explain MMA's methodology and/or adding to the footnote of the partisan nature of MMA.
    You're both just opposing this RfC on grounds that MMA meets WP:RS. Correct? Doug Mehus T·C 12:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The secondary source is sufficient to justify the text as-is; if you're going to "refine" it further, it should be with stuff from the GQ source. That's precisely what secondary sources are for in this situation - to provide context, interpretation, and analysis. Adding or implying "but you tots shouldn't trust this because MMA is totally liberal" would be WP:SYNTH on your part, and it's especially a problem given that the GQ source cites them without saying that. Also, I still think you misunderstand what circular referencing is - if MMA was citing GQ, that would be circular. A secondary source citing a primary source isn't circular, it's a straight line - and it's the WP:SECONDARY / WP:PRIMARY relationship we're supposed to use. A less-reliable primary source does some research or says something, then a secondary source takes that statement and reports it with their own interpretation or analysis. This gives us context - we can look at the GQ source and say "all right, how did they treat the MMA source?" and use that to inform how we cover it here. eg. if the GQ source had said "According to some numbers by partisan ultra-liberal pressure group MMA, which they reached with a questionable methodology..." we would want to cover all that context here. But they didn't; they treated MMA's numbers as reliable. And that means we have to go with their interpretation even if you personally think GQ was wrong to do so. That's how the relationship between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources works. --Aquillion (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion, Which is exactly what MMfA is: a less-reliable primary source by virtue of its current yellow/warning status. Doug Mehus T·C 15:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion, I wouldn't necessarily rank GQ that high on the reliability index, either. Same with Yahoo!, which is just a content aggregator. A lot of sources take sources at face value, which is problematic when it's MMfA. Doug Mehus T·C 15:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, valid source with attribution. The editorial line of MMA doesn't undermine the analysis here. Guy (help!) 12:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's attributed to Media Matters. We could totally find another source that argues what MM says is not true, but MM is not unreliable, just slanted. --valereee (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Attribution is corroborated by other sources. Ifly6 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Media Matters is a reliable source. The data cited are accurate. Gerntrash (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If someone can find a second source supporting that claim it should remain, but not with only one partisan source. HAL333 03:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    HAL333, Thank you. That's all I'm suggesting. We either need to add an independent source which independent corroborates Media Matters for America's findings or we should say, at minimum, that Media Matters is a partisan pressure group linked to the Democratic party, John Podesta, Neera Tanden, and Hillary Clinton. Doug Mehus T·C 06:00, 28 November 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.

Blake Neff

There's been an attempt to remove the Blake Neff news from the lead. Here's a couple of points that I believe make this info more than relevant:

  • Tucker Carlson's biggest notability comes from his nightly show. Everything else is secondary to that.
  • In a recent article in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, Neff said, "Anything [Carlson is] reading off the teleprompter, the first draft was written by me."
  • Carlson said he spends hours working on scripts, but referred to Neff by name, saying he was a "wonderful writer" and acknowledging his assistance. And Carlson credited Neff in the acknowledgments of his book, "Ship of Fools," for providing research. In the acknowledgments, Carlson said that Neff and two others who helped with the book "work on and greatly improve our nightly show on Fox."
  • Neff never responded to CNN's request for comment, but before the news even broke, Tucker's show fired Neff asked Neff really nicely if he would please resign, which he did.

To argue that this isn't hugely relevant to the show is to put blinders on. There are already dozens of reliable sources reporting this news. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

First, this is a detail about the show, not a high level fact. Second this is RECENT so the impact to the show is unknown. These questions need to be answered before this content goes in the lead. Springee (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You appear to be of a minority opinion about what a "detail" is. Here's an exercise: search Google News for "Tucker Carlson". Then look at all the articles that are talking about Blake Neff. You don't even need to search Neff's name. He's the head writer of the show. Carlson has named him on-air. But I said this already above, and you ignored it and chose to revert over and over again without discussing. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Based on the consensus view at Tucker Carlson, I have restored the previous edits. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is absolutely misguided, and now that I'm here, it's two against one. There have been bigger controversies surrounding this show, and none of them have made the lead. The firing of a head writer is a minor detail that's dominating news coverage right now, because it's a recent development (and because Carlson's show is so widely watched). Unless this becomes a defining aspect of the series (like the Roseanne scandal, which led to the show's cancellation), it shouldn't be in the lead. Too early. MetaTracker (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
"The consensus is absolutely misguided" ? I'm not sure that's going to fly once an admin gets involved. Maybe strike that comment. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It's my opinion. As for the topic at hand, I'm not censoring anything. If I was, I'd be removing any mention of the controversy. My point is that this is a current event that hasn't played out enough. It shouldn't be in the lead, especially when it's already acknowledged in the History section. Also, characterizing comments using contentious descriptors is not the best practice. See WP:RACIST. MetaTracker (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, WP:RACIST very clearly states that in cases where reliable sources agree on framing, then the descriptors should be treated as attributions. Short of putting "racist and sexist" in quotes, the previous wording didn't fly. MetaTracker (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What are you talking about? You're removing content that is literally taken word-for-word from every single source that's reported on this (and there are many). I'm talking about WP:CENSOR, where, if anything, policy dictates that we should go even FURTHER than the CNN article - that article doesn't even print the n-word, but according to our guidelines, we don't put asterisks in, we print the whole word. I actually omitted that sentence because I figured the other two examples were enough, but given the solid sourcing, if someone else felt it should be added, I would have no problem with it. You're looking to wipe the article of those examples completely.
And by the way, saying "I'd be removing any mention of the controversy" - yeah, I know, you've already tried that. The consensus that you called "misguided" was against you. And that was on the Tucker Carlson article. Now here we are, at the actual article of the show itself, and you're arguing that content doesn't belong here either? Hard to imagine the rationale. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to your last edit, I don't even see how those qualifiers are necessary, given the universal condemnation of those comments, but if it mollifies the Tucker Carlson fans, I suppose it's not the end of the world. It's not like there's even one editor who would argue that those comments weren't racist and sexist. See WP:SKYBLUE. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing the examples. I'm the one modifying the wording of the descriptors, which are fine now, because I added an NYT attribution. Gesture of good faith: I'll keep your stuff in the lead, so long as you keep the NYT attribution. MetaTracker (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Update: I'm fine with the way the article looks now. Thanks. MetaTracker (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a bartering system. There's a right way to write an encyclopedia entry and a wrong way. Your NYT attribution is designed to make it appear that only that one source described the comments as racist and sexist, when, in fact, dozens of sources have done so. And even worse, you know this full well. So your attempt to salvage some sort of softening of this incident is for naught. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, it looks fine now, so we can cease this interchange. MetaTracker (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not DUE for the article lead. It currently is over 1/3rd of the lead which is meant to be a summary of the article. Springee (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The section on Neff is UNDUEly long. Neff's specific statements don't need to be included as they are things he said/posted outside of his involvement with the show. This single incident is now half the entire history section of the show. I understand that many sources have repeated the same CNN material but that is the click bait age we live in. It's almost free to repackage the story that CNN just ran and get clicks for your own site. However, this reeks of RECENT. The weight being applied here is currently undue. The material should be in the article but the level of detail is UNDUE since it's not about the show itself. Springee (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've reduced the length of the Neff material in the article. It was UNDUE for the lead and the length in the History section had grown to be a subjection and half the overall history material. This is UNDUE as this is something the writer did outside of his work on the show. Material about the show is due but this has become a coatrack for material that isn't about Carlson or the show itself. Springee (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you're right. We need to keep space to potentially extend the content depending on the development of the story and its impact on the show. If I remember well, Carlson is going to make a statement today; his reaction needs to be mentioned. Alcaios (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple people that disagree and think this is WP:DUE for the lead. The only one that agreed with Springee was MetaTracker. And we saw how that turned out. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. Weight in the lead is typically based on weight in the body of the article. It's UNDUE to add a section to the lead that is almost as long as the same material in the body. Ultimately, other than Carlson acknowledging the issue we haven't seen much impact to the show. That might change in the future but for the time this is a RECENT issue that may be little more than a flash in the pan relative to the scope of this TV program. That said, if you disagree perhaps raising the question at WP:NPOVN would be in order. Springee (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep out of the lead. recentism applies and we don't have more information about an incident in the lead than we do in the body. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead should reflect the body of the article in scale, give it the proper weight and not try to monopolize the lead by inflating some negative press incident. Its an Encyclopedia not Reddit.Eruditess (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

MetaTracker is a sockpuppet

MetaTracker is a sockpuppet and has been blocked. Disregard all their comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

14 Words

The mention of the Neff's controversy is fine. I have only one issue with this: "A banner headline on the show was also quickly compared by critics to the neo-Nazi 14 words slogan".

  • The only sources that seem to mention that, the HuffPost and Salon, are tagged as often "biased and opinionated" by the community (see WP:RSP).
  • For context, they're comparing a Fox News chyron reading "We have to fight to preserve our nation & heritage" to the neo-Nazi slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children". I think this is precisely why the WP community has tagged those two sources as such ("use with caution"). Alcaios (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with your opinion. MetaTracker (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The Independent also mentions it. But the community review states that In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.
The current source used is Salon. The community consensus states that There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.
WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources Alcaios (talk)
JzG, El_C, Objective3000, Springee, Volunteer Marek, JimKaatFan, ‎ Philip Cross, Portillo, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, could you comment on that? I think this should be removed unless several RS mention it; you'll find the arguments in the comments just above. Alcaios (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Salon is not at reliable source for such controversial BLP content. It's also WP:UNDUE. - MrX 🖋 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
If the show had used the actual 14 Words, that would be WP:DUE. As it's just one source, and a banner was "compared" to the 14 Words, it probably falls short at this time, unless more reliable sourcing appears. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
That's all I found in high-quality RS (as per WP:RSP): both The New York Times and Haaretz acknowledge Fox News chyron in the context of the Carlson–Duckworth controversy; none of them make any link with the neo-Nazi slogan. Alcaios (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the 14 word sentence. It was only supported my Salon (not the other two citations) and that raises a question of DUE. It also may be a BLP issue to claim Carlson is associated with neo nazi slogans. Finally, Salon's commentary/opinions about those it politically dislikes should be treated with caution. This is one of those cases. Springee (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This trick of disqualifying a source because it is opposed to something leads to removal of every criticism of that something, i.e. it is a classic whitewashing tool. Fringe proponents often try to remove criticism of their fringe ideas with that reasoning. It does not work there, and it should not work here either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree. There's also more sourcing now than there was when I made my initial comment, so I struck it. I believe this incident rises to the level where it should be included. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, that comes across as an accusation that those who object are gaming the system. First, there are several editors who agree this is UNDUE. Second, at the time the material was removed only Salon made the link to the Nazi slogan. The other two sources did not. Thus we have only a single source making the link and that source is a marginal RS for such a connection. Thus UNDUE. If there are other sources that associated the on screen words with a neo-nazi slogan please provide the. There are plenty of reliably sourced negative things to say about this show. We don't need to jam the article full of speculative accusations that have amounted to nothing. Springee (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
"There is only one source" is a good reason. "The source disagrees with Carlson" is a bad reason. You used a bad reason, and I called it. (Bad reasoning is not "gaming the system", it is just bad reasoning.) Now you are trying to weasel out of it, instead of admitting you used a bad reason. Now, as JimKaatFan said, there is more than one source, so the good reason is gone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Then show the other sources that make the "14 word" connection. You can claim my reasoning was bad but that doesn't mean it was. Springee (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the removal. UNDUE at this point. Covered by the news cycle who then moved on. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Parsing

The last paragraph in the criticism section is very poorly written. I don't know enough of the details or what is due, but it should be rewritten for clarity. AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox as RS?

Is Fox News a reliable source for the fact that nobody in their right mind takes Carlson seriously?. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Certain types of news, like Opinion pieces are held to a lower standard than regular news. Readers/watchers are (perhaps wrongly) expected to know that. Part of Fox New's lawyer's defense of Tucker Carlson Tonight is that it is a Commentary piece (I assume "Commentary" and "Opinion" are the same thing) and should not be held to the journalistic standard of the New York Times. I'm not sure Fox labels all of it's stuff that low grade, but stuff like Fox News#Climate change makes me think that on that network content rated to a higher standard is deceptive in a lies by omissions sort of way.--2605:E000:1704:77A:C025:98E7:CF8C:B027 (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Karen McDougal case (and fox lawyer's comment about accuracy)

I thought that this was worth bringing up. But someone reverted my edit saying my attempted contribution was misleading. Even if it wasn't it would have needed to be updated since a judge recently dismissed the case (). I don't want an edit war, so could someone help me share this information on the Tucker Carlson Tonight page in a manner considered appropriate? Most Humble and Obedient Servant (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: nature of show

"Remember the facts of the story; these are undisputed"

"nationalist" and "conservative" in lead

Common Guests

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Requested move 25 April 2023

Edit request

GA Review

Passed. Spinixster (chat!) 01:38, 1 September 2023 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. This is my second review that is not a quickfail, so please be patient as I work through the article and correct me if I say something wrong. Spinixster (chat!) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

Infobox

  • The infobox image seems to show the Tucker Carlson Tonight logo from 2016-2021, not the newest version. You can probably get the logo from here or crop from here (the latter would probably be the better option) and add a caption like "Logo used from 2021 to 2023", but if you can't, you can just add a caption like "Logo used from 2016 to 2021".
  • You should add a number of episodes, if there's not an exact number, you can just put an estimate (e.g., "over 2000") as long as it's mentioned in a reliable source.
  • Consider adding the names of the producers in the infobox.
  • If there is information, consider adding the names of the production companies and the theme song/composer(s).

Lead

  • For the second paragraph:
    • I would rearrange the sentences like so: Tucker Carlson Tonight is presented in a populist format. During its run, the show garnered significant attention amid several controversies. The show employed a minute-by-minute viewership rating system, a change brought about by former senior producer for The O'Reilly Factor Ron Mitchell. In July 2020, Tucker Carlson Tonight became the highest-rated primetime program across all of cable news; its dominance in the time slot ended only after the program's abrupt cancellation. so related sentences are near each other. Right now, the sentences are abrupt.
    • I'd merge "Tucker Carlson Tonight is presented in a populist format." with "During its run, the show garnered significant attention amid several controversies." together, because the two sentences are a bit short.
    • a change brought about by former senior producer for The O'Reilly Factor Ron Mitchell. Add a comma after The O'Reilly Factor.

Format

  • I would recommend you remove or move information not related to the text somewhere else, for example,
    • the head writer mention could be in the History section instead, as it is not exactly related to the Current events segments subsection. It could also be better in the Controversy section, but it's not really related to the show, so (shrug)
    • similarly with the Ron Mitchell viewership mention, but if the shift to heavier topics is because of the viewership, you can briefly mention it.
    • some parts would be better in the Controversy section or removed entirely, remember, this section is focusing on the format of the show, not some points Carlson made, so try to keep the parts as examples only, and keep controversial comments at the Controversy section.

Studio

  • I'd move Tucker Carlson Tonight was broadcast from Bryant Pond, Maine and, occasionally, Florida. to the start and then rephrase the first two sentences, something like: Tucker Carlson Tonight was primarily broadcast from Bryant Pond, Maine and, occasionally, Florida. It had previously been broadcast from Fox News' bureau in Washington, D.C. as of 2017. I can't access the source, so feel free to correct.
  • Remove Maine on the second paragraph if you had made the edits from the first point.
  • Move the image to the right per MOS:IMAGELOC.

Production

  • Would recommend moving the third sentence about scouring the r/The_Donald subreddit to the Controversy section because this is not really related to production. Actually, now that I think about it, it's not that controversial. Perhaps you can move it to the end of the paragraph?

History

Roger Ailes' resignation (2016–2017)

  • I would change the Carlson that are not referring to Gretchen in this section to Tucker, per MOS:SAMESURNAME.
  • Add a period to the end of the image caption.

Timeslot changes and boycotts (2017–2023)

  • when Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor was let go, following allegations of sexual misconduct. Remove the comma.
  • Despite advertiser boycotts, Tucker Carlson Tonight became the second-highest rated news show in all of primetime in October 2018, after Hannity, with 3.2 million nightly viewers. At first glance, it wasn't clear that the 3.2 million viewers statistic was from Tucker Carlson Tonight and not Hannity's. I would use ...in all of primetime in October 2018 with 3.2 million nightly viewers, following behind Hannity. instead.

Cancellation (2023)

  • ...leading to speculation that it was related to internal criticism of Fox News leadership,... Consider adding "either" after "was" so that it's clear that the speculation was either of the three and not just the first one; I was confused when I first read the sentence.
  • Link All In with Chris Hayes.
  • Link Jesse Watters Primetime instead of just Jesse Watters.

Reception

  • I would recommend adding reception of the show here, like reviews, etc, not just controversies and legal issues - that's not really reception.

Controversies

  • Add period to the end of the caption of the image.

References

  • Reference 68 states the website as mediaite.com instead of Mediaite like the other references. Same with 44, states adweek.com instead of Adweek.
  • Refs 49, 58, 68 and 71 are missing author.
  • Refs 44 and 45 are missing author and date published.
  • Ref 59 is missing author and website/publisher.
  • Refs 72 and 74 are missing date published.
  • To keep consistency within the references, I'd suggest you either link only the first instance of the website in the references or link all of them.
  • Would suggest replacing ref 31 with this - Crooks and Liars is a blog and is thus unreliable.
  • Would suggest replacing the Business Insider references since it's only reliable on a case-to-case basis, and on a contentious BLP, it is best not to use it.

Comments

@ElijahPepe: I'm done with the first round of review. Sorry it took a while; I was busy for a couple of days. Overall, it's a well-written article, just needs some points addressed. Spinixster (chat!) 10:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

2 cents: the article mentions repeatedly the Great Replacement conspiracy, but never says clearly what it is and whether Carlson endorses the theory or rejects it. Throughout the article I see overuse of words like "connected" that don't make it clear what views are actually expressed by the show. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Update

Most of the problems have been resolved. I understand why some points were not resolved; it may be too much to ask for in a few days. I'll be passing the article now and hope that you can resolve the Reception section and also what buidhe pointed out in the future. Spinixster (chat!) 01:36, 1 September 2023 (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.

Why is the subject still in present tense?

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks