Talk:Ed Schultz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ed's great, but this is about as NPOV as a typical presidential attack ad.
What exactly isn't neutral? I see nothing here that is not an accurate recounting of fact.
[edit] Cleanup
This article requires better structure and expression. The "Political Views" section needs to be expanded, with verifiable evidence to support the assertions made. I'll try and find some time to do it myself, but I've tagged it anyways. Any assistance with this would be most appreciated. Jackk 11:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the political views section is a little misleading. Ed is a little more conservative and that is why I like him but "against abortion" makes it sound like Ed is not Pro-Choice, which he is according to his producer. And Ed is for gay rights, although I'm not sure of his position specifically on gay marriage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.132.39.166 (talk • contribs) .
Under political views, "against guest worker programs" is cited as a departure from progressive politics . . . a large proportion of liberals are opposed to guest worker programs, as they are harmful to unions and lower-class citizens; guest worker programs have typically been a conservative movement in the recent past, spearheaded by the president himself . . . again, this whole section needs cleaned up.
I just read the discussion of the "Whiskey Bottle Incident", and it's overstated and misreported to say the least. First of all, I don't believe there any glass shattered in the announcer's booth as a result of the bottle toss. My recollection (and I was there - Ed attacked me and my fraternity brothers in the stands) is that the bottle went through an open window. I also do not recall the bottle having ever hit anyone. Statements made immediately after the event did not report anyone having been struck by the bottle.
As for Ed's political leanings - find which way the wind blows hardest and you'll find Ed's political leanings. In the 1980s, Ed was a staunch Reagan conservative. At that same time he was the Voice of the North Dakota State Bison. When Clinton came into office, and became popular, Ed realligned his political leanings to fit those of the times. At about that same time, Ed became the voice of the University of N. Dakota Fighting Sioux (the Bison's greatest rival).
[edit] Should we split this?
I'm wondering if we should split this article into two. One for the host and one for the show. There is a lot more information about the show that could be put into it, but it goes beyond the host. Chadlupkes 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Go right ahead. Lots of hosts have two articles: one of themselves, and one for the shows. See Rush Limbaugh and The Rush Limbaugh Show; Stephanie Miller and The Stephanie Miller Show; and Al Franken and The Al Franken Show. --Asbl 22:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like someone had already, but then merged them. Let's see how it goes. Chadlupkes 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Your host Ed, Just like the Rep. who love wars Coming up with his own cheery picking druming for a war against Iran. Amazing he calls himself as better and different from the Rep war mongers.
[edit] Dog shooting
I have removed the bit about Schultz shooting his dog. I don't see how an unsourced rumour is "interesting and relevant." Rumors don't belong in Wikipedia. An encylopedia is factual...not filled with rumors. Even if this rumor was backed up with sources, I'm not sure that shooting your dog is the kind of thing worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. --MatthewUND(talk) 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fact is he blows up whenever someone says, "Hey Ed, how's your dog?" I don't know how you'd cite that, but it's true. And the reason people do it is because they know the rumor. And the fact that people do it and he reacts to it pops up on the air every once in a while. It's a self-perpetuating mini-controversy. But...whatever. Keep it deleted.Spottacus 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

