Talk:Andrea Mitchell

Header
Not much info on her career, just incidents. The background info isn'r enough. Please improve this article. thanks. -Alan

can anyone document when she had her face lifts? Kingturtle 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sean7phil 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is she a republican - her husband certainly is?

Who was her first husband?

Religion
What relevance is it to put it in the infobox? It's not there for other TV journalists. Dogru144 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Mitchell, a 1963 graduate of New Rochelle (NY) High School was an accomplished second alto who performed as a soloist with the NRHS 'A' Choir, and was a member of Double Octet and All State Choir.

Washington Bureau
Did she succeed the late Tim Russert as NBC News Washington Bureau chief? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy during Obama Campaign
This seems to violate No original research. I am removing it and it can be restored when or if it gets sourced. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did find sources but I didn't see the quote of what she originally said so it was left out. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

wawa scandal
I have added some sources for the criticism and ridicule Mitchell has come under for the incident. There is no question it exists. That some sources may not be reliable for some material hardly impeaches words verifiable in print and video. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No question the scandal exists? Sure, the newsbusters blog calls it a scandal. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, that is not a reliable source and one blog calling something a scandal is meaningless. Now let's look at the rest of those sources:


 * First up, we have the Politico blog (now broken, here's a replacement link) which, quite pointedly, did NOT in ANY way connect this to Mitchell, the subject of this article. "The MSNBC clip feeds into the narrative, beloved by some on the left, that Romney is a 1950′s throwback. After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine. In fact, what Romney found so “amazing” was the discord between private sector innovation and public sector bureaucracy." That's about all it had to say about Michell: She laughed at a clip which, as presented, made Romney look out of touch (seemingly amazed at the "touchtone keypad" touchscreens at Wawa. In fact, the source explained that her laughter was "understandable".
 * Next, we have a copyright violation at youtube. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, Wikipedia does not knowingly link to copyright violations and the content of a news report does not demonstrate that there was a controversy about the content of that report.
 * Finally, we have Fox News. Let's see how close they get to "Mitchell came under criticism and ridicule for presenting a flagrantly dishonest edit of comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him." We have several charges here: "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell, "a flagrantly dishonest edit" (somehow involving Mitchell, the topic of this article) and "mocking him" (Romney). Here is everything in that source that mentions or alludes to Mitchell: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Now, do we have "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell? No, we have criticism of NBC. Do we have "a flagrantly dishonest edit" (somehow involving Mitchell)? No, we have "manipulated video" that she OHMYGOD! "played". Do we have her "mocking" Romney? No, the closest we have is in the Politico source where she "broke out into laughter -- which is understandable". I'd give this a little bit of time for the current user name using newsbusters to respond before yanking this, but it is currently a contentious claim regarding a living person. I am removing it, per WP:BLP. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the use of a newsbusters blogging "Controversy!" aimed at NBC with claims that the existence of video of a news report supports that the report was "controversial" has been repeatedly discussed elsewhere. See, for example Talk:Kelly O'Donnell. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this should be included is open for debate, however there are some aspects that are factual and have been reported. Mitchell dishonestly played an edited video in order to make Romney's "suprise" regarding Wawa similar to that against GHWB's "shopping scanner" incident.  Her presentation of the material was done to make Romney look out of touch with the average person and her comments leading into the presentation make this clear.  Mitchell has not appologized for the deliberately misleading lead-in into the presentation.  I doubt that this is going to completley go away.  Arzel (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * She "dishonestly" played it? What planet did that take place on? Yes, she was on the show the video was played on. And she did it for what reason? It's amazing how you've gotten into her mind and read her motives. Her lead it was deliberately misleading? My, but you do have a creative streak. I know you doubt it will completely go away, but that's a moot point. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that she is completely innocent of anything on her show, that she is little more than a paid prop to read a teleprompter? I didn't get into her mind, there are many sources that point out her dishonest reporting.  I am a little suprised that you would defend this kind of misreprensentation of events.  Arzel (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are reading into what I said. I did not say what you think I said. I said that you are reading into what the sources said. They do not say what you think they say. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the he above comments are quite emotional. You cannot remove an entire section by complaining that youtube is not a reliable source for a video which is open for all to see.  (We also cannot assume that the material was posted without permission, but in any case the fact that Beck mocked Mitchell is indisputable.)  If editors have problems with the wording, they should feel free to work on it.  But wholesale repeated deletions for different excuses each time is edit warring and I intend to report the behavior if it repeats. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot remove an entire section of poorly sourced material making a contentious claim about a living person? Quite the contrary. We're supposed to do exactly that. (BLP violations are, in fact, the only specific exception to WP:3RR.) The video does not make a reasonable claim of copyright permission. In fact, it makes no claim at all. So, we're supposed to assume it is a copyright violation. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That she has been criticized is not a contentious claim about her. No one denies she has been, not evene her when she issued her correction the following night.  Calling her a liar directly might be, but saying that others have criticized her when they have criticized her is simple fact.  If you think liberal papers like the WaPo, Atlantic, HuffPo and NYMagazine don't reflect a balanced set of sources you can attribute the claims as per WP:ATTRIBUTE.  But you certainly cannot delete the material. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP. The section contained numerous contentious claims about a living person which were not cited to reliable sources. Discussion of the actual material continues below. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post and New York magazine as sources to the article. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Let's take a look at those sources:
 * Washington Post: "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell are under fire"
 * The Atlantic Wire opens with the follow up you've failed to note. In fact, that's the only thing the article says about Mitchell (remember her? she's the topic of this article).
 * huffingtonpost.com: The headline? "MSNBC Romney Edit Draws Fire; Andrea Mitchell Briefly Addresses Controversy". This, remember, is in support of the claim that the controversy was about Mitchell... somehow. "MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell briefly addressed a controversy on Tuesday about the way her show had edited a clip of Mitt Romney." Yes, it's all so clear now... "The network came under fire for the way it edited comments..." Hmm, they forgot all about Mitchell's treachery... "The clip Mitchell showed..." OHMYGOD! THERE IT IS! THE SMOKING GUN! SHE @#$%ING "SHOWED" THE CLIP! Really? How, um, presenter-ish of her. "The pushback was swift, as conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC..." but they, um, forgot to accuse Mitchell? Then on to the second bit, that you haven't seen fit to mention.
 * Fox News: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Wow! Such naked aggression! The venom! She "played" it!
 * New York: "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" You have to read between the lines here... actually, you have to get loaded up on scotch, get in a creative mood and read something else entirely. That's the only time Mitchell is mentioned. Still, it cited for her "misrepresenting", which it does not say she did.
 * Yeah, um that New York article? It's also used for the rest of the sentence right after "misrepresenting", supposedly in support of what she supposedly misrepresented: "comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him for the invented gaffe." All of that from "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" Amazing. Before gulping down the scotch, fire up a few bowls, i guess.
 * The same Fox News cite is now used to source, "The clip". Again, all it says about Mitchell (the topic of this article) is "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters...".
 * The same huffingtonpost.com article again, still discussing what the show did, rather than Mitchell (the topic of this article).
 * The same Washington Post blog, again, saying which blog first reported this. Still nothing about Mitchell, though. Credit where credit is due: this source actually says what it is cited as saying.
 * Politico is also cited as a source for the name of the blog. Politico, BTW, says only one thing about Mitchell (the topic of this article), "After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." Curiously, you neglected to mention that.
 * newsbuster.org, as repeatedly discussed, is a blog. It is not a source.
 * In summary, from the sources above, after limiting the discussion to Mitchell (the topic of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire for a video the network had edited in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, briefly address the controversy the following day." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sarcastic emotional tone and suggestion I abuse drugs is not well taken and it won't look good if this goes to administration. "Misrepresent" and "invent" are verbatim from the sources. The current wording is perfectly neutral and verifiable--we agree no verifiable source says she "had been led to believe" anything. Mitchell took responsibility for her own broadcast the following day and stood behind it, she didn't say the show aired in her name mislead her. Bozell's comments were broadcast on Fox news and his verbatim words are sourced in the ref from Fox, not Newsmax. Newsmax was given only as a source for the video, a primary source which Fox and Huffpost also provide. Likewise for politico. It is a redundant source supporting soopermexican's credit for revealing the scandal. The Washington Post says the same thing. Given your distaste for these unnecessary sources I will remove them. The are unnecessary as supoprts for the text as it stands. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the politico and newsmax sources as redundant, added the date of the incident and clarified the allusion to the GHWB super market scanner. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to take this to whatever board you would like. I'd suggest either the BLP board or the reliable sources board. Hell, knock yourself out and go for an admin board.
 * Yes, a source does say that MSNBC "Misrepresents Romney Speech". This article is not about MSNBC. Saying Mitchell "misrepresented" anything in an unsourced contentious claim about a living person.
 * The same goes for "invents". The source says MSNBC not Mitchell.
 * No, we do NOT "agree that no verifiable source says she 'had been led to believe' anything". The Politico source, which you have now strangely decided to remove, directly says, "Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza ... had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."
 * Newsbusters, as repeatedly discussed on numerous talk pages and the reliable sources noticeboard, is not usable here.
 * Again, with sourcing for everything, and limiting ourselves to material about Mitchell (the subject of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire for a video the network had edited in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, briefly address the controversy the following day."
 * Should you choose to ignore this suggestion, I will replace your section with it. If you would like to specifically cite reliable sources speaking about Mitchell to add to this or claim that the sources I've cited do not say what I am claiming, I am more than willing to listen. If you post further claims without specifically citing the sources for each portion of your claim, I will simply reply that your addition is uncited. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus opposes the view that this section should be deleted, or, barring that, references to the reason for the controversy be deleted in favor of just mentioning that Mitchell aired a show. I have restored the verbatim "misreprent" and "invent" so that readers will know why there is a scandal. I changed "for misrepresenting" (fact) to "as having misrepresented" (criticism). I have fixed the Wawa piping. The last two sentences are abrupt and need work. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - misrepresented
The claim: "After a June 18, 2012 segment on her show Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell came under criticism as having misrepresented..." Fact: The source does NOT say Mitchell misrepresented anything, nor does it say that anyone made that claim. The source says, "MSNBC Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’". Discuss.- Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As there has been no response, I've fixed this to match what the sources actually say. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - under criticism
The claim: "Mitchell came under criticism Fact: Four sources are given, clearly implying that Mitchell was widely criticized. The first three sources clearly single out MSNBC, NOT Mitchell. Of the numerous sources presented in the contentious history of this claimed controversy, that last source, Fox News, is the only source that clearly states Mitchell was criticized. All of the rest clearly hang this on MSNBC. The Politico source, one of the first ones ever cited in this section, specifically and directly exonerated Mitchell. After I pointed this out, that source was removed. In a fair and balanced kinda way. Discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As there had been no response, I fixed this. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested section content, still not discussed
I have suggested: ""MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire for a video the network had edited in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, briefly address the controversy the following day." There still have not been any comments on this suggestion. Does it misrepresent any of the sources? Which ones and how? Is there any reliably sourced material about Mitchell missing? What and which sources present the material? Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for your changes or interpretation. Your calls for discussion after having deleted the section wholesale seem inconsistent.  In any case, you have read mine and Arzel's comments above.  I remind you the show is called Andrea Mitchell Reports and unless you find a reliable source saying she said she was misled her second-day clarification implies she takes full responsibility for her actions. Please update us when you find such a source. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your new claim seems to say that what sources say the network did somehow applies to her because of the name of the show. Please discuss this in the two "Dubious" sections above. Additionally, please explain what you feel this section gets wrong or omits, citing sources for each issue. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AM did not address the controversy, or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong. She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment.  I am actually quite suprised that AM has not yet done a Mea Culpa on this since the deception is clear and she has yet to even note that what she did was wrong.  But then I suppose since Romney is a Republican there is little outcry from most of the media to even note just how blatently biased her report was.  Arzel (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That you believe "what she did was wrong", the "deception is clear", liberal bias in the media, etc. are all moot points with no relation whatsoever to what we should or should not include in this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not address my first two sentences regarding you previous comment, they are factual statements backed up by the sources and not my opinion. Only the last sentence is my opinion, but c'mon, are you really defending her actions here?  I've not seen anyone in the media defend what she did, at most it has been ignored, but all that have commented on it have come to the same conclusion.  AM aired a deceptively edited video designed to make Romney look out of touch or like an imbecile, and she did not appologize or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong in the least.  Arzel (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not "factual". Claim: "AM did not address the controversy". Fact: Yes, she did. Claim: "or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong." Fact: Reliable sources do not say that she did anything wrong. Claim: I did not address "She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment." Fact: What's to address? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - laughing at him for the invented gaffe
The claim: "(Mitchell) laugh(ed) at him for the invented gaffe.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/msnbc-misquotes-romney-invents-wawa-gaffe.html" Fact: The source cited does not say Mitchell "laughed at him". In fact, the source cited doesn't even mention laughter. The only thing this particular source says about Mitchell is, "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" There is nothing remotely related to what the source is cited for. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you are on about. The reference is added to support the fact that the supposed gaffe was invented by the editing--not the fact that she laughed at the gaffe, which is evident from the primary source of the video and requires no separate source. Given the rewording by Canoe1967 I have removed the dubiouses.μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source does not say or show that she laughed at Romney. While having her laugh "at Romney" supports your idea of her attacking him, it is not in the source. As you have not responded to the other two "dubious" tags (detailed above), should we assume you agree with the analysis presented there? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed Canoe1967's edit inserting MSNBC since it implied MSNBC had laughed at Romeny, not Mitchell and her guest. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed your "fix" as the source does not say that anyone laughed at anyone. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * you remove Mitchell's alleged laughter -by the dubious claim that it doesn't even exist in her report or isn't worth noting- then you are removing her laughter from the context of Romney's being ridiculed (which was quite apparently the solely desired effect of the clip). she even made reference to another oft smeared republican, GHWB. was this analogy necessary. why isn't this a howard dean "ahhhh" moment? don't many a failing politician have a memorable falling out? but denying our right to report laughter even happened.  just because it was retracted the next day unapologetically, or because one of the "neutral" sources did not make light of it in their recounting of events... you're saying it didn't happen? or though you know it did occur from the videos, you either won't acknowledge, or you decide it's non notable because one site failed to include it in their blurb summary of what took place? so... Romney's speech was worth Andrea pointing out as a classic gaffe at the time, but now that the facts are in, you become wary of us trying to interpret Andrea Mitchell's actual words and laughter for their desired effect? if so, you are inconsistent in your logic. this is what she did... mistake or deliberate, it did occur on (unedited) tape so own it. yes, I called it ironic because she wants to hold Rommey accountable for  supposedly recorded words that were quoted severely out of context, yet her recorded words are suddenly excused now, even though they achieved their desired effect.hykos (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You repeated refer to the "desired effect". None of the sources discuss Mitchell's intentions or desires. That you feel her motives are obvious is moot. Stick to the sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - mocked
The source given for "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney" does not say she mocked anyone. The only thing Mitchell does in the source is "(suppose) that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" Discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Entire section is dubious
It now turns out that Mitchell had virtually nothing to do with the clip. She played it, apparently unaware that it was out of context ( "Mitchell...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." ), laughed and, in response to accusations by "conservatives and media writers" later played the full clip. Much of the discussion here defending strongly worded edits (ironically taking words from sources out of context) has hinged on claims that Mistchell was or did this, that or the other thing. It now turns out the video did not originate on Andrea Mitchell Reports. It came from MSNBC's Way Too Early with Willie Geist. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. If she really had nothing to do with it then why has she yet to appologize or even acknowledge that it was misleading and done with the intent to make Romney look like an inbecile?  Her non-action speaks quite loudly.  Arzel (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to believe what a reliable source reports (that it did not originate with Andrea Mitchell Reports) and your unsourced claims regarding intent and what you feel the absence of evidence is evidence of are all moot points. We do not have reliable sources saying "She must appologize!" We do not have reliable sources saying that it was deliberately misleading. We do not have reliable sources saying that absence of evidence is evidence that she is the evil spawn of Satan intent on destroying all that is right and good with the world (a.k.a. Romney). What we have is a section that started out as a very poorly sourced attack on Mitchell for is now seems to be barely related to her in any way. She aired a clip from another show and "broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given (she) had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine."- Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is quite Orwellian logic you are spinning here. I suppose by next week it would have not even happened on her show and by the week after that not even on MSNBC.  Arzel (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! I'll have to get the rest of the anti-Romney cabal together for a good old fashioned history editing party. After all, we can't let the record reflect that Michell aired a clip and understandably laughed at it. I'll head on down to the WaWas and use the touchtone keypads to order up some meatball subs with pickles. It'll be great! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated question, why do you repeatedly say which is understandable with regards to AM comments? Are supposedly neutral reporters supposed to bust into laughter when presented with something that they think makes the subject look like a moron?  I'll remember to look for those reports of Obama's gaffes by AM in the future.  Arzel (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not say it. The reliable source says it. Interesting fact: That source was originally tortured into supporting the outrageous BLP violation that was originally here. When I pointed out that the source said her reaction was "understandable" given what she had "been led to believe" that source was removed as "redundant" by your associate, Medeis/"μηδείς". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SummerPhd, Believe what you want to about your sacred Mitchell. No apology was made by her that I know of, so it is impossible for you to assume whether she deliberately manipulated the clip or if she was just that negligent in reporting the news. Either way, if she's not sorry she did it, she's probably sorry that she got caught. Let's stop protecting her with assumptions that she "allegedly" didn't know what she was doing.  It's only her job to know!  hykos (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You believe she deliberately manipulated a clip, gave it to the earlier show, then used it on her show? Wow, that's one busy woman! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't see the irony? Andrea Mitchell wanted to point out someone's gaffe. The bigger gaffe is one which was manufactured by her, and her employer. You've never heard of guilt by association? You're giving her a free pass for some reason, but it is clear to me that she either had malicious intentions, or her employer did. either way, she shouldn't be reporting on the news because she has a responsibility and she doesn't fact check. This isn't her first controversy, either. You want to delete this section, but it is apparently her claim to fame. If she weren't so controversial, I might not know who she is.hykos (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I see that you think there is irony. What is truly ironic is the way you are creating facts to support your claim that Mitchell is being somehow dishonest. "Mitchell wanted..."? How do you know what she wanted? "...manufactured by her..."? None of the sources say anything of the sort. In fact, we know the clip came from another show entirely. "...she...had malicious intentions..."? This is an unsourced, libelous claim. "...she shouldn't be reporting the news because she doesn't fact check."? This one is hilarious! You expect ONE PERSON to fact check all of the news that fits into that show? Really? "...this section...is apparently her claim to fame."? Yeah, I'm sure. That's why we have so many independent reliable sources about her that predate this "controversy" that barely involves her. "If she weren't so controversial, I wouldn't know who she is." You might need to get out of the house more. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't expect Mitchell to be at every single stump speech or to digest all its material correctly all the time. But since (redacted WP:BLP violation), and since she is getting paid to interpret speeches, and decides (redacted WP:BLP violation), she is liable for her mistake. I like to hold people accountable for their words. this section is staying. it would be no different from fox news making up false claims and their reputation getting called out on it all the time, or a talk show making up statistics. I get so mad when I see these obvious misrepresentation of fact. you do not need to give her a free pass just because she wears her agenda on her sleeve which attracts more negative attention than you would like, or because she even ran a retraction. she got caught! of course she did a retraction. it's called damage control. and the more damage control you singularly do on her wikipedia page, the more you make it look like a cover up. That's why I said I don't know who she is otherwise. it is the only thing marking her relevance right now. Maybe I have to get out of the house more like you said so that I can expose myself to more (redacted WP:BLP violation). i certainly don't want to be that guy that edits a wikipedia page 25 times in one day just to make myself feel like I'm the only one who's right around here. wiki is supposed to be a neutral consensus, and you are running it like it's your own. that is not what it is intended for. let's report the whole truth, and not give her or msnbc the benefit of the doubt. this is a repeat offense for both parties, and if you think it wasn't deliberate, then you are giving her way too much leeway.hykos (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review our policy on biographies of living persons. Your repeated unsourced contentious claims are a problem. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't redact all my claims. All I said was, in theory, that I might not want to "expose myself to (redacted WP:BLP violation)" I did not have to pretend (redacted WP:BLP violation)'', but nevertheless is true. when you cited the Biographies of Living Persons, are you referring to the neutral point of view? please be specific... i have read the whole policy and do not understand which details you are correctly adhering to that I am not.hykos (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not redact all of your claims. I redacted your unsourced contentious claims regarding a living person. "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLP This is policy, applies to articles as well as "talk" pages and is not open to discussion. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - "was made to appear"
The claim: "The edited clip was made to appear as though Romney was amazed by fairly standard technology at a local Wawa convenience store." Fact: Changing this from "The edited clip made it appear..." inserts the idea that this was the intent of those who edited the clip. None of the sources support this idea. Discuss. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your logical interpretation of what the intent was of those who edited the clip? Whether intended deliberately or delivered carelessly or some combination of the two may be dubious to you but it must be one or the other. Mitchell makes clear enough what her own intentions are.  Andrea Mitchell called this Romney's "supermarket scanner moment" and laughs at Romney's projected stumbling over technology and uses the metaphor to compare to GHWB.   Romney was not talking about supermarkets nor scanners, but that does not matter to Mitchell, who herself appears more out of touch with reality than her made-up version of Romney.  The clip was verifiably edited (see multiple sources) and in doing so they projected an entirely different message than the original speech. How could this happen to a viable and resourceful news organization unless by intention?  Many failed politicians can have memorable downfalls. She uses GHWB as her perfect example. (Republicans look dumb on camera. She didn't say it, but inferred.) Now, next time media quotes someone out of context and gets caught doing so, it will be compared to Andrea Mitchell's Report. Perhaps that's not the reputation she wants, but she deserves it and must own it. She is not noticed for much else lately, so it is fitting that her own self inflicted controversies be included as part of her bio. hykos (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "interpretation of (her) intent" is just great, but has no place in this article. We do not have any way of knowing what she intended and your interpretation is simply not relevant. You've decided that it MUST be either deliberate or careless. That you can think of no other explanation is moot. Your ideas of her "projection", what matters to her, "inferred" (ironically, you inferred that she implied it), what she "deserves", etc. are all your opinions. They do not belong in an excyclopedia. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious - "despite all of the evidence to the opposite"
The claim: "Others said Romney was not taken out of context deliberately, despite all of the evidence to the opposite." Fact: The source cited says, "Others defended the edit, saying it was not taken out of context." That sentence links to "Inconvenient Untruth: Mitt Romney’s ‘Wawas’ Story Was A Big Fat Lie". Mostly, it discusses whether or not Romney's optometrist story holds water. That said, it directly says, "...they leapt to condemn MSNBC’s completely reasonable editing of the clip, even as they ignored the glaring lie Romney told in the longer clip." This is not a discussion of whether or not it was "deliberately" taken out of context (the other editor's "not taken out of context deliberately"). This is clearly arguing that it was not taken out of context at all: "it was not taken out of context" is pretty damned straight forward way of saying, "was not taken out of context" (as in my version that says "was not taken out of context"). The remaining portion, "despite all of the evidence to the opposite", is simple soap-boxing, not supported by any of the sources. We could just as easily say "Conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of making Romney appear out of touch by deliberately distorting his comments, despite all of the evidence to the contrary." - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making up some claims that Mitchell's intention was never to mock or laugh at Romney, depsite recorded evidence to the opposite. I missed her point, then. What was it?  Not to make a mockery?   You tell me what her objectives are, I'd love to hear your logical scientific interpretation. hykos (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not claim to know Mitchell's intent. We do not weigh evidence and determine intent. My logical, scientific interpretation is that we should represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Your guesses as to what her objectives are and weighing of the evidence are immaterial. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not watch msnbc, but I recently came across more video research indicating that Mitchell had, as recently as February, defended GHWB's supermarket scanner moment to Chris Matthews, as though he had merely been subjected to misconceptions that followed him unfairly! I find it strange, then, that she would be the one to take Romney to task, give perpetuance to if not invent a new supermarket gaffe outright, then even allude to GHWB for apparent similarities. In that context, her analogy must have to identify Romney's speech as having been taken out of context as well, however, this is markedly inconsistent with her being the one taking Romney out of context (whether deliberately or otherwise, you and I may disagree). If she thinks there are parallels between Romney and GHWB's supermarket moments, and she defends GHWB, but laughs at Romney, then apparently she'll argue whichever side of the same point if it's convenient. It is no wonder that you say I shouldn't try to pin down her motive, she is really mixed up. hykos (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of Mitchell remains moot. The comparison between the two seems to be based on 1) commonplace technology 2) seemingly being unfamiliar to a presidential candidate. That's it. Nothing more. This is not about Mitchell's opinion of Romney or Bush. It's about two situations that seem to indicate a candidate is out of touch with John and Jane Smith. Your interpretation here is similar to the "controversy" discussed in Andrea_Mitchell. She says, "People think X" and it gets twisted into "Andrea Mitchell thinks X".
 * In any case, you have not defended the claim that "despite all of the evidence to the opposite" is sourced or sourceable. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New image
It seems the old one was deleted from commons. I went through flickr and this was the best I could find. I did crop it to make it fit the infobox better. The flickr user had cropped it before that from a larger image. Feel free to overwrite the file in commons if anyone finds a better one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

title
Andrea Mitchell is NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. Richard Engel is NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent. Is there a difference? Does anyone know?74.69.8.195 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chief Foreign Correspondent is out in the field - he is their lead overseas correspondent, working from wherever the news is. Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent analyzes foreign affairs, usually from home base. Tvoz / talk 19:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Switch to Beiber controversy
The first version of this cited only the Huffington Post coverage which quite clearly laid the "blame" on the network: "Andrea Mitchell Had To Interrupt An NSA Discussion With Breaking Bieber News: We would LOVE to know what was going on in Andrea Mitchell's head when she was forced to cut off a discussion about the NSA for breaking news about Justin Bieber's arrest."(emphasis mine). The text added to the article, however, was directed at Mitchell: "In January, 2014, Mitchell received criticism for interrupting and breaking away from an interview with former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), speaking on the topic of NSA spying, to report the breaking news of a Justin Bieber court hearing on charges related to a possible drunk drag racing incident." (emphasis mine) No, in the source cited she did not have a choice, was not criticized and there was no "controversy". For the new version, the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently). The new sources include the Huffington Post coverage (above) that detracts from the claim it is cited to support. Next up is a snarky blog post from philly.com (whose owner also controls The Inqy and Daily News): "So, Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do and interrupted Congresswoman Harman in the middle of her sentence so that she could throw coverage to Miami, where Justin Bieber was in front of a judge to face his charges, including resisting arrest." RT.com (I don't know who this is) is next with "Unbebiebable! MSNBC cuts Congresswoman during NSA LIVE to report... Justin Bieber"(emphasis mine) The closest to a "controversy" involving Mitchell here is "...announced Andrea Mitchell, the MSNBC news anchor, interrupting the congresswoman." Time ' s blog gives us "Watch MSNBC Interrupt a Congresswoman to Break News About Justin Bieber’s Arrest" (emphasis mine). Throughout the piece: "... a news channel interrupts...", "...MSNBC interrupted...", "...so they could...", it's all MSNBC until the snark comes out: "...anchor Andrea Mitchell said without a hint of irony, casually chipping away at the dignity of news reporting with a pick axe moulded from the sharp, shattered discards of our national soul." The Independent gives us "Justin Bieber arrested: MSNBC interrupts congresswoman during NSA interview for important Bieber news" (emphasis mine) Going deep undercover: "...an MSNBC anchor cut off..." (not exactly "sources close to Kissinger" here...), "...host Andrea Mitchell said..." (demoted from "anchor"?). The sources so far put this in MSNBC's lap. Those who see this as a "controversy" about Mitchell apparently think Mitchell controls MSNBC, expecting her to weigh the orders from the network coming through on her earpiece against her assessment of the situation, based on the detailed information given to her on the spot, right? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction: I now see earlier unsourced versions. An unsourced IP addition to the lede had her receiving "fierce criticism" and another IP edit warring and making a personal attack adding a brief mention of it to the lede. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently)" Your parenthetical ending to my suggestion has no basis whatsoever.  I'm genuinely open to an alternate and appropriate characterization, but you've offered none - merely complete blanking of the section.  Her actions have received international attention, and are noteworthy.  "Garnered attention" would probably be a generous characterization.  The first identified source states, "There were cries of dismay on the internet last night, when an MSNBC anchor cut off congresswoman Jane Harman..."  In that sentence, Mitchell is acting party.  "Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do..."  I don't think they intended any sarcasm there.  Nope, I'm sure of they didn't.  John2510 (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have forgotten that four of the five sources you offered lay this at the network's feet. Thus, in trying to tie this "controversy" to Mitchell you pulled it away from her. Yeah, I get it. Some editors dislike this, that or the other journalist. To them, everything is a "controversy". I didn't offer a "different characterization" because something using five blog sources, all of them on the same day, do not show a significant aspect of her career for a biography. I didn't offer a "different characterization" because 4 of those 5 sources don't support the content you were adding. This isn't about how to "characterize" it. This is about the material simply not belonging in the article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "This is about the material simply not belonging in the article." Oh... that's what this is about.  Do you care to offer a reason? John2510 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just as I don't intend to lay it at her feet, I don't dislike this journalist. Editing this article will go better if you wouldn't keep ascribing non-existent bad faith motives to me.  Thanks! :)  John2510 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This issue was briefly mentioned in various blogs on one day, most of which did not attach any supposed controversy to Mitchell. This leaves us with one blog making sarcastic comments tying it to her. That is not a meaningful event in Mitchell's career. If that coverage is sufficient, we have a whole lot of similarly sourcable bits and pieces to add to this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This issue was briefly mentioned in various blogs on one day, most of which did not attach any supposed controversy to Mitchell. This leaves us with one blog making sarcastic comments tying it to her. That is not a meaningful event in Mitchell's career. If that coverage is sufficient, we have a whole lot of similarly sourcable bits and pieces to add to this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Phony claim of "controversy" VS Actual Claim of Documented "BIAS" - somehow not a 'controversy'
User:Redtobelieve, who's already been blocked once for BLP violations, has repeatedly added a subsection to the "Controversies" section dealing with leaked private emails between Mitchell and Colin Powell. None of the cited sources report any actual controversy regarding the matter, and none substantively criticize Mitchell's comments or link them to any improper behaviour. This is just a crude attempt to smear a journalist Redtobelieve apparently has a low opinion of, and clearly violates WP:BLP. In addition, all but the closing sentence is essentially cut-and-pasted from a Fox News page, making this text a copyvio as well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well Hullaballoo who has been treated like dirt by administrators sing 2006 for some unknown reason object to the Mitchell update for several reasons:


 * 1st not RS - well it has been on DCLeaks for several months, but I did not add till Fox News Reports - RS Check
 * 2nd only Fox New which has Snarky Bias reports, only one news source not controversy - well I added a 3rd RS Daily Mail - additional RS check
 * 3rd not a controversy and partial Copyip - well this may be valid point but it would call for an edit not a removal - he removed a 3rd but claimed an exemption for the 3 time edit rule


 * here is a Fox New breakdown by Tucker and Sanchez
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2h95cIH_8


 * So here we can start to document a 4th source that document Mitchell is straying from a journalist towards a pundit or worse...calling a prepared speach that was used on a previous day to Jewish supporters a 'gaffe;


 * http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2016/09/14/trump-campaign-chief-calls-out-andrea-mitchell-excusing-hillarys


 * Hullaballoo states on one of his reversals that she thinks Trump is awful just like many people - but the email and the other comments were about overtly leading viewers to her desired outlook - PUNDIT - 1st with an email to Powell about endorsing Clinton, or ways the RNC can use the rules to overturn the Republican Primary voters, we can guess that she only wrote to Powell and was not making these same comments to everyone she knew - then with the 'gaffe' issue I just found - all leads to Clinton declaring that Mitchell is her kind of woman


 * http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/clinton-to-andrea-mitchell-you-re-my-kind-of-woman-760418371559

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Andrea Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001021/http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680 to http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680
 * Added tag to http://nrhs.nred.org/site_res_view_folder.aspx?id=f48013ee-45f7-4e7b-a618-7cdecf8ecaac

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Postal service
What’s happening to restore our postal service. We have counted on prompt service all our lives and have been disappointed that the Trump slow do has not been restored.

Belarus: question
Why doesn’t nato put sanctions on Belarus 174.252.130.104 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)