Talk:Center for Public Integrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Center for Public Integrity article.
Article policies
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

[edit] Things That Could Be Added

also: libel lawsuits brought against.

Other things to be covered yet, maybe: Center staffer fired after caught plagiarizing.

I gave this topic a shot. Not sure if it's exhaustive, but there's some stuff in the history section now. Gabby Fest 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, would it be worth considering adding a bibliography of all the Center's published books?

Looks done to me. Gabby Fest 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody could fill in that "Notable Work" section. I think it's a great idea, but it needs a little help. Gabby Fest 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest. Center founder's failure to disclose to readers/members/funders marriage to longtime Washington lobbyist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.132.87 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There's certainly sourcing on the web to back you up, but I'm honestly not sure how to work it into this article. Are there examples of criticism that could be added? Because, if not, I wonder if it's not just more biographical stuff about Lewis himself. So I only added your find to his biography wiki entry [[1]]. Did I make the right call? Gabby Fest (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters can be considered to be an invalid source - large quantity of quotes are out of context. O'Reilly, Soros specifics should reference transcript files available online through FOX.

You mean Fox, the well known right-wing propaganda outlet? Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly is a registered independent thus can hardly be referenced as conservative; once more - Media Matters should not be referenced .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.69.158 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Bull! O'Reilly is a registered Republican, and a well-documented liar. Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Criticism" Section

why so much detail on Soros? this article is about CPI. It doesnt even mention how much Soroshas donated.

I think the article does document a number of contributions by Soros-led foundations.
I don't know when this criticism was registered, but I also see the Soros-related grants registered (See the citations at "OSI"). Gabby Fest 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The stuff about Soros is here because certain conservatives like to claim that a link with Soros means that it's tainted. That's the only reason. Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism has a problem: while there are references for the different donations, there are no references for the criticisms themselves. Thus it can be considered original research, and be removed from the article. -- ReyBrujo 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do see one criticism cited ("The Center for Public Integrity...snicker snicker") in the middle of the Soros section. KevinTapani 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the criticism section strikes me as POV--donors are cited as if the criticisms were cited; the criticisms are in fact inferences from whoever composed that text--that because an institution has "progressive" funders it is necessarily bias. I'm not huge fan of Soros, as it happens, but that doesn't mean I can support a deceptively structured critc section of an institution's chosen to fund.Benzocane 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to address these concerns by lining up a number of sources that I think support the assertion that the Center is, to some notable degree, criticized for taking money from Soros-related foundations and other sources that critics view as politically liberal. I'm unsure whether these criticisms actually add up to "bias," but I think we're getting closer to a point where people can consider the criticisms and make up their own minds. What do you think? Gabby Fest 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course the "criticisms" are biased. If they weren't, they wouldn't be here. Jhobson1 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this section read like it's critical of Soros's other dealings and not with how he relates to the Center for Public Integrity? I think it should be trimmed for pertinence or wikipedia would be useless if everytime a name was dropped a debate about them that belongs on thier bio. article was brought up. -Kain Nihil (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)