![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 19 |
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 Tucker Carlson#COVID-19 pandemic include a two-sentence summary of the analysis in Tucker Carlson's Fox News show undermined vaccines 99% of the days it covered them since Biden became president?
A previous discussion of this matter is here. soibangla ( talk) 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose on several grounds. First, MM4A is a marginal source for with a very strong bias. We can not assume they approached their data gathering without confirmation bias. Second, the information they present is about Carlson's show since it hinges on the opinions/comments of Carlson's guests, not just Carlson himself. This makes it less appropriate for a BLP about Carlson himself.. Some editors noted that the MM4A claims are generally consistent with those made by other sources. If that is true what value does this stand alone paragraph add to an article about Carlson himself (vs his show's content)? It is also worth noting that this article is already really long. We need to be summarizing large sections vs trying to further fill things in with low quality sources. Questionable study by a partisan group about Carlson's show vs the man himself in an article that is already way to long = UNDUE (and not clearly reliable for the claims being made). Springee ( talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
even obviously true statements such as that these vaccines don't prevent people from contracting the diseaseYes, it is true that vaccines don't prevent infection, rather they create antibodies to fight infections so as to prevent sickness and death. Do you think many of Carlson's viewers, who aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, are able to discern that distinction? Or are they more apt to interpret it to mean "the vaccines don't work" and avoid them? That's the sort of sleight of hand that may elude some, but not MMFA, which has been monitoring and analyzing these techniques for many years, and they document all of it with clips. Tucker's writers and producers carefully craft scripts every day to provide plausible deniability that Tucker didn't actually say something, knowing full-well that it's what non-discerning viewers heard. It's similar to the "joking/not-joking loophole" mentioned in the article.
makes it sound like he's encouraging people not to take the vaccine, which as far as I know he's never done.See: [1] soibangla ( talk) 22:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
"these vaccines don't prevent people from contracting the disease"is your paraphrase, not an actual quote. When I asked you for clarification earlier, you provided two links: Media Matters
"Tucker Carlson guest claims 'there's just no evidence that the vaccines halt infection or transmission in any way'"and The New York Times
"Most of the World’s Vaccines Likely Won’t Prevent Infection From Omicron". What you've done is taken a very specific finding (AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and vaccines manufactured in China and Russia may be ineffective at preventing the spread of Omicron, although they do protect against serious illness) and used it to justify a sweeping generalization (There's no evidence that vaccines halt infection or transmission in any way). Do you have any better examples of specific quotes that are being misrepresented or is that all you've got? – dlthewave ☎ 15:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
it would've been helpful to have had the proposed text in the RfCI deliberately omitted it so we could first clear the hurdle of the concept of inclusion, then haggle over the text. I've seen RfCs get derailed by editors quibbling over specific words and losing sight of the big picture. As far as
using Media Matters as the sole source for a statistical claimgoes, they have frequently conducted analyses like this for many years and I have never seen a credible source call their methods into question. And I've looked. soibangla ( talk) 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
it's telling us what other sources are already saying/is considered common knowledge, but as some in the previous discussion noted, though other reliable sources have reported numerous anecdotes, they have not provided a summary statistic that encapsulates how extensive Carlson's statements have been. MMFA provides that while also affirming what reliable sources previously reported and is included in the article. soibangla ( talk) 03:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
extensivewould be vague. It wouldn't be wrong, necessarily, and certainly wouldn't hurt, but vague sources are more easily disputed as being subjective. These statistics are more informative, and less (arguably) subjective, and therefore more appropriate. Grayfell ( talk) 10:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
References
proven an unreliable source on multiple topics? soibangla ( talk) 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable...We should not use a marginal and biased source to make claims about a BLP. Period, full stop! If what they are saying is factual and has weight, we use more reliable sources. If other sources do not exist then it is probably undue weight. PackMecEng ( talk) 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
"many of Carlson's viewers, who aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier"seems to infer either the person personally knows "many" of the viewers or there may be some editor bias. Since there was a reported 2020 average of from 3.2 to 4.33 million viewers that's a lot of people to personally know to report how "bright" they are for watching Tucker Carlson or possibly for just being conservative. Landed here from "Feedback request". -- Otr500 ( talk) 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
don't remember ever watching Tucker Carlson, perhaps you can get a good sampling at https://www.mediaite.com/tag/tucker-carlson, including Tucker Carlson: "Seems Like the Covid Shot Makes it More Likely You Are Going to Get Covid" Or how about the death by COVID of fully-vaxxed Colin Powell: "So, what does that tell you, exactly? Well, it tells you, you’ve been lied to." [2] He is heavy pro-Trump with a major pro-Trump audience, so this is no surprise: Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame. The persistent thread of his narrative is: the vaccines don't work, and they could kill you, and the government is lying to you. We document numerous anecdotes of this, and the MMFA analysis quantifies it to affirm it. soibangla ( talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
people don't undermine vaccinesSo artificial intelligence does it? All vaccines have had purported side effects for small percentages of people, including death, which explains why we have a vaccine court. But Tucker goes waaay beyond that:
soibangla ( talk) 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested to his 3.3 million viewers on May 6 that more than 3,000 people have died from the COVID-19 vaccines. “The actual number is almost certainly higher than that,” he said. “Perhaps vastly higher than that.” Social media posts then spread this claim further. But the claim is based on a misrepresentation of data collected by federal agencies [3]
For example, one case that was included in Carlson’s count was for an 85-year-old senior home resident who died on Dec. 29. This was what was reported to VAERS: “My grandmother died a few hours after receiving the moderna covid vaccine booster 1. While I don?t expect that the events are related, the treating hospital did not acknowledge this and I wanted to be sure a report was made.” Another report included in Carlson’s count was for a woman who was vaccinated on Jan. 9, had a car accident two weeks later, and died with a brain hemorrhage nine days after that. Another report was for a 17-year-old who killed himself with a gun eight days after he was vaccinated. [4]
"news organizations aren't looking into it because there's an enormous amount of pressure just to ignore it";
"At CNN, they are worried about reports of vaccine-related injuries. They are worried you'll hear about them, so they spend most of their time daydreaming about ways to punish people who refuse to take the vaccine."The tone and intent seems to be to cast doubt on the number of confirmed deaths. I would categorize the BBC (media organization) article covering the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (government organization) recommendation to discontinue the J&J vaccine due to deaths and side effects as evidence against the claim that deaths are being covered up by the government and the media. – dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
According to Media Matters’ analysis, Tucker Carlson Tonight discussed vaccines in roughly 50% of all original episodes since Biden was inaugurated — and all but one of those episodes featured a claim that undermined vaccines or vaccination efforts.
We deemed claims to be undermining vaccines if they described the vaccines as: unnecessary or dangerous; coercive, representing government overreach, or violating personal freedom or choice; or cynical ploys for political or financial gain. We also considered claims that dismissed the efficacy of vaccines; highlighted individual experiences with vaccine hesitancy; politicized vaccine distribution or deployment speed; criticized continued adherence to health measures; or suggested that vaccination efforts are a violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedoms or are a form of control.The last part ("suggested that vaccination efforts are a violation of civil rights, liberties, and freedoms or are a form of control.") would suggest the Supreme Court is against vaccines as a Biden mandate was struck down because it was seen as overreaching. I still think the claim is too broad, and unsupported as stated, especially to be used in a BLP. -- Otr500 ( talk) 09:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
would suggest the Supreme Court is against vaccinesThe Court struck down the mandate because the conservative majority asserted it specifically exceeded the authority of OSHA, not because they opposed the concept of a mandate based on a broad principle (they may have also believed that, but that's not what the decision argued). They argued OSHA encroached into public health rather than workplace safety, not that it violated civil rights, liberties, and freedoms. soibangla ( talk) 14:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, yet someone above commented it is not an exceptional claim.
don't know about the "several anecdotes that precede it"? Where has
MMfa has also had at least one previous instance where it was accused of "methodological bias"? soibangla ( talk) 20:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Beetricks, why did you add this copy edit tag? Llll5032 ( talk) 17:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This deletion serves to maintain the Carlson-protective whitewashing atmosphere here. It creates a catch-22 filter bubble of circular reasoning where "there isn't enough coverage to warrant inclusion" is enforced by deletions of added content. It's also a big NPOV violation to delete criticism. We're talking about ONE simple sentence:
This is really sad. So in addition to the Trump exemption policy widely practiced, we also have a Carlson exemption which also violates many policies. Drop the kid-glove treatment and double standards for how we treat him. Let's just apply our policies to him in exactly the way we do for every other public person. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
"outspoken support for Putin and his war against Ukraine".* To the contrary, Carlson condemned the Russian invasion (calling it
"a tragedy"and noting that
"[Putin] fired the first shots. He is to blame for what we're seeing tonight in Ukraine"), but has since suggested that Putin was provoked by NATO expansion and that the U.S. may have been involved in funding a bioweapons program in Ukraine—all under the guise of "just asking questions," of course. Furthermore, Carlson has described the Ukrainian government as authoritarian and corrupt, opining (at 16:43) that
"Ukraine, to be technical, is not a democracy. Democracies don't arrest political opponents and they don't shut down opposition media, both of which Ukraine has done."Praising Putin's war would be extremely uncharacteristic for him, as
"Carlson is often more careful than other right-wing hosts to avoid assertions that are factually disprovable, instead sticking to innuendo,"according to Time. Can you point to a source that explicitly substantiates your proposed language about Carlson's
"outspoken support for Putin's war against Ukraine"? (Note also that the post-2013 version of Newsweek is not generally reliable per Wikipedia:RS/P and almost certainly should not be used for contentious material about a living person, especially if presented in wikivoice as your edit was.) A brief excerpt (hopefully from a more reliable source than Newsweek) should suffice. Otherwise, it is probably worth remembering that Russian state-controlled media is propaganda; any Carlson clip would likely be reviewed and edited to remove criticism of Putin prior to being broadcast in Russia.
"Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? ... Why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which I am."Later in the same episode, Carlson referred back to this exchange, saying
"of course, I'm joking. I'm only rooting for America."TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Democracies don't arrest political opponents and they don't shut down opposition media, both of which Ukraine has donesays Carlson. Note that he doesn't say when this happened. Does he mean under Zelenskyy, or under his predecessor, the Russia-aligned president Viktor Yanukovych who jailed pro-West Yulia Tymoshenko whom he defeated in the 2010 election (lock her up!) before fleeing to Russia after he was kicked out in the 2014 revolution, after which Zelenskyy was elected. soibangla ( talk) 03:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
References
WirmerFlagge, please discuss your edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the recently added Personal Conflict subtopic
[5] as UNDUE. My reasons are, first, this is already a very long article. It's not clear why this content is DUE. Yes, at the time we have several sources reporting on it but it doesn't appear that any of the content had staying power. The Avenatti material ended up going no where and now Avenatti has been found guilty of several crimes related to his legal practices. No evidence was given that this interaction had a long term impact on Carlson. Basically all the same arguments apply to the second incident. Since the entire section was new and added just to house these two incidents I've removed the topic. Ping Rossenbaum as the editor who created the content.
Springee (
talk)
12:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
"I received this news late today and I'm confident that I will be cleared of any charges of sockpuppetry."[6] apparently wasn't a winning strategy. So I think we're all set here, unless someone else objects. ValarianB ( talk)