Talk:RealClearPolitics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Alleged Bias

There has to be SOMETHING said about the right-wing bias of RealClearPolitics, a criticisms section, something. Just read one article's worth of attacks on Keith Olbermann and you'd see why. 129.49.5.122 22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That claim needs to be verified with a reliable source in order for it to be entered in the article.--RWR8189 22:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
can you verify the GOP is conservative with a reliable source? give me a break. RCP is so clearly conservative, and that is coming from a conservative! 128.62.95.177 20:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it can be credibly verified that the GOP is, generally speaking, conservative. All RWR is asking is that you get a credible source to prove that RCP is also conservative. James.S 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello James. I think RCP is quite objective in its selection of stories. It is not conservative as the wikipedia article suggests. I am a liberal and I've been reading RCP for the past few months day in and day out. This is the first time I've encountered something to suggest that it is conservative.

Ok, how about MCintyre referring to Democrats as "crazy" on Hugh Hewitt's radio show? And constantly kissing Republican ass in his personal blog at RCP? Read the blog. Bevan and Mcintyre are obvious partisan hacks - www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544541/posts

[edit] conservative?

it seems like multiple people have tried to add content pointing out RCP's conservative leaning, but only one person, RWR, keeps changing it back. no coincidence that RWR stands for Ronald Wilson Reagan, btw. it is extremely disingenuous for a media organization to not be upfront about their political leanings, and as a daily reader of RCP, I can assure you it is conservative or at least right-leaning. Jgold03 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, find a media write-up describing it as such and I have no problem including it in the article.--RWR8189 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The writers themselves are conservatives, I don't think they deny this. Bevan is in love with Bush - http://www.suntimes.com/news/bevan/173997,cst-edt-bevan15.article

I believe the reference as "right-leaning" should be removed. This is merely an opinion, not a fact. And there are often articles on the site from all perspectives. The polls are not either right or left leaning. So saying that the entire sight is conservative would be a falsehood, and it is not encyclopedic content which can be attributed to a reliable source. Nwbh 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you actually examine the articles posted by writers for Real Clear Politics you will find that they do not feature left-wing or liberal columns. And their blog is largely a right-wing rant that attacks Democrats and liberals. Please research the facts.

I am pretty disgusted with people continually changing this page to indicate that realclearpolitics is an entirely conservative website. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion site. After reviewing it, I believe that there is indeed a slant towards the right. However, on a daily basis I see some editorial content in the links section included from a variety of political viewpoints, including liberal viewpoints. It may be true that those in charge of the site are conservatives, but they by no means maintain this as a purely conservative site. Also, many people primarily use the website for their compilation of polls and polling averages. I do not see how anybody can claim that these polling averages and listing of recent polls is in any way slanted towards a conservative viewpoint. What shocks me is that you would not even accept my true statement that "not all content expresses a conservative viewpoint." Take your opinions elsewhere. 137.216.176.165 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "we have a frustration all conservatives have...[which is]..the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives."
That is a pretty conservative statement, pretty much stating that the purpose of the site is to _be_ conservative. Their use of NYT et al is a testament to their desire for _quality_ but it doesn't change the fact that those who write original content for the site are such fellows as Robert Novak and George Will, hardly liberal personas. I don't see any original content from the left on there. They link to _other_ sites for that. That being said, it's easier and simpler to label the site as being categorically conservative and that it just happens to feature interesting liberal content found elsewhere. 75.92.15.232 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) User:Joel.a.davis
This is your opinion, and is considered original research. The fact is that MSM uses their compiled information without making a ideological classification. Unless you can find something where THEY say they are a conservative blog then you can't put they are a conservative blog into their lead. Arzel (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions."
"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." (source)
Opinion doesn't have anything to do with anything, it is pretty much their expressed purpose, not to mention there is a someone listed earlier who himself identifies as conservative identifying it as such. Ontop of that you claim that somehow the fact it's used by the MSM has some bearing, but that's pretty irrelevant. Just because they don't mention Bush is a republican whenever they cover him doesn't mean he's without a party, just that the fact the he was didn't matter for what they were going to talk about. Joel.a.davis (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact simply is that they do not self-identify as conservative and for that reason it would be OR to call them as such. However conservative/liberal a media outlet looks has no bearing on whether or not we can call them conservative/liberal. --Ubiq (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
are you having a hard time reading? What I quoted is McIntyre being pretty explicit that the _purpose_ of creating the site was to serve conservative interests. Seems the burden of proof is on you to explain why the quote above doesn't make RCP categorically conservative.Joel.a.davis (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use that tone with other editors. McIntyre is not saying that they created RCP to serve conservative interests. What he said, was that HE/THEY (while talking to a conservative audience) have the same frustration that all conservatives have. This is entirely different from saying that they are conservative. This is all mostly arbitary, the standard with organization is to use their self-identified qualifiers within their leads. To attribute some ideology for them is to perform WP:OR and specifically WP:SYNTH (which is what you are trying to do here). Unless you can find somewhere where RCP says We are a conservative organization you cannot present what is purely POV. Arzel (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well first off, tone here is due to the fact that this is all insanely obvious. When describing the philosophy behind the site he mentions, without missing a beat, that he felt conservatives were the victims of bias in the media. What sensible meaning can we take out of this other than he felt he was a victim of bias and decided to create a website to "rectify" the problem. When you couple that with: ads targeting conservatives all over the site, and original content usually comes from George Will et al, I find it hard to go back to that section and read anything else into it. I'm not stating that we need to say the site anti-liberal or anything, but I think merely stating that it is conservative in tone and purpose is reasonable. The tone of incredulity is because apparently you think we're too ignorant to understand that this is an attempt to insert your own bias. Joel.a.davis (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think is insanely obvious, you must work with other editors here at WP. I think you are seeing what you want to see in RCP. How do you know that he didn't miss a beat between the two quotes? Were you present at the interview? The editors of that magazine would have put together that article to play to thier readers. To imply some content analysis of what was said is WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH. To further this and imply that he felt he was a victim of bias only furthers this original research and synthesis of material. Looking at the front page right now I see the following ads.
  1. The Yankee Institue. They claim to be non-partisan, but probably are viewed conservative by most.
  2. The God Who Wasn't There. Movie advertisement. Explores the Jesus Myth theory and arguement against a historical Jesus. I find very hard to believe this would be viewed conservative.
  3. Roll Call, the Nation's Captial Newspaper. Claims to be non-partisan. Listed as Non-Partisan here on WP.
  4. Kaplan University. Seems pretty non-partisan to me.
  5. Ford Motor Company. Maybe a conservative company, I suspect more conservatives buy Ford than liberals.
  6. Chevy. Who knows.
  7. Direct TV. Don't see any obvious political ties there.
  8. Daddy's little Democrat. Pretty obvious there.
  9. Barak, Yes or No.
  10. Barak, Yes or No again. This one is from Obama.promotowne.info (certainly not conservative.
From what I can see you have a few obvious liberal ads and a several middle road with a few that could be considered conservative. In any case analysis of the website is OR, even though from what I could see the evidence against a political stance is stronger. As for George Will, I don't even see his name on the front page. Arzel (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead should be a summary of what is in the article, the inclusion of the following:

In an interview with Human Events, McIntyre explained "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives."

Fails the summary aspect, it also is undue weight, cherry picking a specific comment to promote a point of view. Plus the context of what was being said can easily by confused to imply that McIntrye is saying RCP is conservative. However, Human Events is a conservative magazine, and McIntyre is talking to that audience, it is not the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the lead because the rest of the article lacks "weight", therefore not making it "undue weight". This is a quote directly from the founder, and deleting it on the basis that it could be misconstrued to "imply that McIntyre is saying RCP is conservative" is silly. The quote merely mentions his position on the bias in media against conservatives. That's an important viewpoint to mention from the founder of any form of media. If the reader derives from this that all monkeys are purple, that's the reader's fault, not wiki's. That Human Events is a conservative magazine is also irrelevant here and you have no evidence that he "is talking to that audience" so I don't know what you mean when you say "it is not the same thing". I'm guessing you think he wouldn't have said that if it weren't a conservative magazine he was talking to? Nothing's going to prove that. --Ubiq (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also note that I don't have a problem putting it elsewhere in the article, if it could fit. I have a problem with the article as a whole...it looks messy and could use some reorganizing of information. At the moment there are two or three sections with very little in them, which doesn't look too good. --Ubiq (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then perhaps you should expand upon a new section discussing the premise that RCP is conservative using additional reliable sources discussing the aspect any how it may affect RCP. However, just making that statement provides only inuendo to the article. You also have no proof that McIntyre was implying that RCP is conservative, only that RCP is on record as sympathyzing with Human Event regarding anti-conservative bias. You have to be careful that you are not imparting your opinion into the article, which what you seem to have done in this case. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but I'm not imparting my opinion anywhere, and I'd appreciate you adhering to WP:NPA. I never claimed that McIntyre implied that RCP is conservative, so that point is meaningless. I don't need any additional sources to put this anywhere into the article, nor do I need to "expand upon a new section discussing the premise that RCP is conservative using additional reliable sources discussing the aspect any how it may affect RCP". That would be 1. not NPOV since you want me to "discuss the premise that RCP is conservative" (also note that I'm not trying to even make that premise) and 2. excessive considering the current length of the article. The quote is relevant to the reasoning as to the founding of their site, which can be inserted anywhere, including the lead. Sorry but you haven't done enough to convince me it shouldn't go in, but managed to insult me in the process at least. --Ubiq (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, excuse you. Your first attempt inserted a false statement, multiple times. Making a statement of fact regarding why RCP was created. So please explain to me why you think that comment, of all the comments McIntrye made in the Human Events article, needs to be included? Arzel (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
First, you ignored my reasoning for inclusion above. Please reread it. The quote from the article serves as a fitting summation for the sentiment expressed by the founders in the article. Above the quote is criticism from one of them on the mainstream media's coverage of the Iraq War. Below the quote is criticism on the New York Times' handling of the Asan Akbar story. So yes, I consider this quote to be one of a few you could take out of this article to help supplement this wiki article. Second, note that the original edit (the "false statement") you're referring to was NOT initially inserted into the article by me. I inserted it back into the article after I saw an RCP columnist and another user by the name of anon deleting it from the article without any (or sometimes bogus) justification. Anyway, we are now discussing a different edit, not that one. Third, I think you are either misunderstanding or misusing the WP:UNDUE reasoning. We are talking about one single statement in an article that is roughly a paragraph's length. Using your logic, I could easily argue that removing it is giving undue weight. Finally, I've noticed that you've twice accused me of POV pushing (once here and another in your edit summary) and I sense some cynicism from you as to my intentions, which I don't appreciate in the least. At this point, I'm leaning towards admin intervention to help resolve this...for some reason I get the feeling that you're still going to want keep this quote out of the article even though you've not submitted to me one legitimate reason it should not be included. --Ubiq (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It is quite simple, it is undue weight for the lead. It is also NPOV because you are trying to assert a political ideology to RCP thus implying they are biased, when no evidence exists that they are biased, only inuendo. I stated NPOV violations because you seem to be trying to include this one sentence to prove that RCP is a conservative organization when there is no evidence of conservative bias. Just because you don't like the reason doesn't mean it is not legitimate. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because you call it undue weight for the lead does not make it so. Back your assertions up with reasons why. The lead is pretty much the whole article. I think you are overblowing the implications of the quote, as well as again, accusing me of trying to make some political point when you have zero evidence to back it up. RFC as well as admin intervention coming within the next few days. --Ubiq (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What is it that you are trying to add to the article with that statement? Arzel (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
McIntyre's view on the bias in media, an important and relevant viewpoint of the founder of any form of media, as I've already stated...restoring info. --Ubiq (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is that statement more important than anything else McIntrye has stated? Arzel (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be more important than everything else he's ever said to be included into the article. You're using your own strict criteria for inclusion to exclude the quote for whatever reason you can think of, and I'm done trying to reason with you. --Ubiq (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Good answer. I replaced with a different quote from the article. Arzel (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So how is that particular quote "more important than anything else McIntrye has stated"? Why is that quote not "undue weight, cherry picking a specific comment to promote a point of view"? Gamaliel (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think either is particularly important for this article, but if that reference is going to be used we should at least approach it from a neutral point of view. Please tell Gamaliel how the quote I stated promotes any point of view? If fulfills your objective completely by stating what the founding principles are. It doesn't try to promote on view over another, and there is no way to imply any kind of NPOV violation. RCP is an independent organization, and other than a view blog and other leftist sites claiming bias because of some apparent connection to republicans or conservatives I have been unable to find anything that explicitly calls them a consevative organization or promoting a conservative point of view. The quote that Ubig, and to a lesser degree you wish to place in this article gives the impression that RCP is a conservative organization when there is nothing to suggest this, other than some original research and wordsmything. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It promotes the point of view that you favor, that RCP is completely neutral. I don't see any reason we can't use both quotes so we don't favor any point of view. Why do you find that idea objectionable? Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? How does it promote any political point of view, and how can you promote neutrality when I didn't even mention anything related to politics. I'll ask you the same question. Why is the conservative quote important? What is it you are trying to say? You know before either was put into the article this article was completely neutral. It didn't ascribe to any political ideology, now however the reader can get no other impression that it is a conservative organization, and if you can't see that well then..... Arzel (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If the reader gets the impression that RCP is conservative when we quote the founders saying "we are conservative", what is the problem? There is no better source for their views than their own words. This isn't about "trying to say" anything. The founders of a media website discussing their views of the media is certainly directly relevant. It's a pertinent fact and the kind of thing the reader would expect to see in a discussion of the founding of the website. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Arsel, I can sit here and use the same argument you use for the other quotes that are provided: that it somehow misleads the reader into thinking the site is a "freedom" and "common-sense values" organization, when I clearly can't find any evidence whatsoever that that is true, either from their site or from secondary sources. I could probably remove it on a daily basis, calling it a result of POV-pushing or undue weight. Or...I could realize it's a relevant quote not assisted by any evaluation or interpretation, and could help add to an article that's relatively bare. --Ubiq (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a solution then. Take them both out then. Neither belong and without any context give a POV presentation. Just because it is a bare article doesn't mean it should be filled with junk. My spare bedroom is pretty bare, but it makes finding the important stuff easy. Arzel (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A new solution that is exactly the same as your old solution? Brilliant. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You should talk. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, snap! *eyeroll* Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think you understand. I said I could make that point using the same logic you do, but I don't, because I see things completely differently than you do (and in fact, I see the additional quotes on freedom and common-sense values as helping this article). You seem to have a more cynical attitude towards the meaning of content presented in this article. I see the presentation of this interview as an as-is presentation, not trying to paint a picture one way or the other, but rather, letting the founders speak for themselves about things relating to their site. Your interpretation of this content as "junk" and a "POV presentation" are merely your opinion, one which I (and I'm sure others) disagree with. --Ubiq (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is "junk" in the sense you are thinking I am saying, just that it gives an undue weight to the notion that RCP is a conservative organization. Now, I don't really know much about RCP other than mostly what they do is compile information from a variety of sources, and from what I can tell they don't promote any political point of view (granted it is not always possible to remain completely neutral on every issue). When you put into this article (especially within the lead) that RCP is understanding of conservative issues, it gives the appearance that RCP is a conservative organization. Yet one must take into context that this was in an interview with a conservative organization, and the questions and answered would have been framed from "their" point of view. If they had made these statements in the NYT or some other main stream media then I would have less of a problem with it. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So we should discount their own words because they were sucking up to some conservative publication? That's not a reasonable standard for judging the acceptability of information for inclusion. Neither is your concern that they might just get the idea that the founders are conservative because they said they were in their own words. I think the editors here can find it acceptable that the quote not appear in the intro and that it be coupled with your quotes highlighting their openness and non-partisanship, but to excise a quote that speaks directly to the motivations of the founders on the flimsy grounds you offer is unacceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to allege bias, allege it. However, a reading of the article in question shows that the quote does not have anything to do with the founding of the website. Also, just because someone shares the frustrations of a group, it does not mean that they are a member of that group.

Perhaps the quote should be put in an "Alleged bias" section. The section would probably best fit under the "Original content" section. anon18 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An "alleged bias" section would only be appropriate if there were allegations of bias. The quote is from the founders themselves describing their motivations, thus it is directly relevant to the founding section. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote does not say that they founded the site for that reason. anon18 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither does this article. At least not anymore. --Ubiq (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The quote in question is not about the founding of the site. -- anon18 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'll play along. Fits perfectly fine in the lead anyway. --Ubiq (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


People who edit this page continue to put a quote that is not about the founding of RCP in the founding section. Other quotes from the story may be about the founding of RCP but the one in question is not. The quote in question should not be placed in the lead because it is not a piece of basic information. As has been suggested on many occasions, it should be placed in another section, or omitted entirely. --Anon18 (talk) 20:507, 07 May 2008 (UTC)

Section has been renamed to Founding and Philosophy. --Ubiq (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with interpretation of the quote. Without attributing the affiliation of the author, the quote only highlights an affinity to a plight, not an affilation. It's not clear that they are identifying as conservative or if they are simply railing against bias that they see against conservatives. For example, imagine Anthony Romero of the ACLU saying "we have a frustration all African-Americans have", which is "the bias against African-Americans, educated African-American, [and even] successful African-Americans." Certainly you wouldn't presume that Anthony Romero is African-American based on that quote. In fact, the only real conclusion you could make is that the person quoted feels an empathy towards an injustice they perceive is occuring. Leaping to the conclusion that they must be part of the class in order to "feel their pain" is a form of confirmation bias. --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good analogy. That quote is given undue weight within the article. Used in an attempt to label RCP as conservative. Arzel (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"In fact, the only real conclusion you could make is that the person quoted feels an empathy towards an injustice they perceive is occuring. Leaping to the conclusion that they must be part of the class in order to 'feel their pain' is a form of confirmation bias." Pretty important line there. Seems the leap that would happen (if at all) would be because we're not able to attach a label to the founders to remove said leap. But we can't just stick a label in to do that and there's no way of really assessing how many readers are actually going to draw that connection anyway. As I read it, it suggests they're frustrated with the media bias against conservatives. To me, that means they could aim for a neutral, conservative, or slightly less liberal bias. --Ubiq (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, it is your opinion, and your interpretation is presented in a non-neutral way. Might I ask why it is important to be included? Arzel (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's apparent to me that you don't even bother reading people's comments. I didn't even state an opinion about RCP or interpret any information. I listed the possibilities I think could reasonably be drawn from the quote. I would answer your question but I already have answered it more than once. Not going to go in circles with you. --Ubiq (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Due to edit wars, this page has been protected for a week. Please use the time to discuss and come to a consensus on what should and should not be included. If you agree before that time you can list at WP:RFPP and request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ubiq (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Sentence.

The following sentence continues to be put into the article without any context. In an interview with Human Events, McIntyre explained "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives." The only reason for inclusion (which I can see) is to promote the personal views and opinions that RCP is a conservative voice. However, no evidence exists to support such a stance. Unless a valid reason can be given for inclusion it should be removed because it provides undue weight to the personal views of some editors, and is also in violation of an overall NPOV. In addition, the very inclusion is synthesis of material, in the sense that it tries to define RCP as a conservative group on the basis of one statement. RCP has clearly stated its purpose and goals, there is no reason to use this loaded sentence to promote personal points of view. Arzel (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this to death. This is nothing new. There is no NPOV violation in quoting people about their motivations in their own words. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Your whole argument is based on a presupposition of other editors' "personal views". It's going to go nowhere--any counterargument can use the same logic, that you want to remove the quote to support your "personal views". --Ubiq (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no personal views of RCP, but it is obvious the both of you do. Rules for inclusion fall on the includer, what is your reasoning Ubiq and Gamaliel? Without any valid reason it is obvious it is to promote your own personal opinions and thus in violation of NPOV. Futhermore Gamaliel, this was never settled before. The page was locked and noone ever gave a reason for why they wanted it included before. As I see it this is still open. Arzel (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not "obvious" because it is not true. I've never heard of RCP outside of this article. Find a valid reason to remove the quote beyond your imagination. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The creator of his website describing the reason for the creation of the site in the article about the site seems perfectly reasonable and it'd have to be a pretty good reason to remove an otherwise fine and sourced quote from this article. Chris M. (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)