Talk:Campbell Brown (journalist)

Discussion
why delete the information about campbell browns lisp. i think it is important because it is a fact, and because it is representitive of the capabilities of people with a lisp.
 * Is there a source for your claim that she has a lisp? I'm watching her on The Tonight Show right now and I haven't noticed anything wrong with her speech... --AMK1211 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

she clearly has a lisp, it is infrequent but i hear it from time to time during her reports. she switches 's' and 'th.' i would go so far as to say she probably won't make it to network anchor specifically because of her lisp. im sure the networks use this small detail as a large factor.


 * WP:OR -- 98.108.203.136 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Her lisp can be heard during any broadcast or news special. I agree, I think its appropriate to include the mention, however I believe it should be added with a news or proper citation that references it. --77.7.220.164 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Somebody block that IP that tries to delete the contents or adds inappropriate information! Is it possible to require a login to edit this article? DXPG 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Campbell Brown 10.jpg
Image:Campbell Brown 10.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Father's record
It seems gratuitous and snarky to include material on her father's legal problems -- I don't see how it relates to Brown or her career. If people are that interested in her father, they can click on the link to his article and read all about it in his article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times thought it was relevant and interesting enough to devote a paragraph to it in a decent piece. It can be presented her but just shouldn't be given undue weight or make some sort of accusation about the subject..Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Cptnono comments, because it seems significant enough to at least mention. --Salem XIII (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

lies by omission?
it seems odd to me that there are several references and citations noted in this article, yet the article is flagged as not having sources or references. also, i think that if a subject has a parent who was a public official etc. that should be included- I think simply trying to cut out that out info because someone deems it,in their view, as "snarky"...well that action of omission seems like snarky "scrubbing"-- I think that is the term used when it seems like the page is being altered to clean things up in benefit of the subject's agenda rather than as a benefit to inform, that is just my impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Just another partisan?"
I was curious about Brown's background, and so have no stake in editing the article, except that this:

POLITICAL VIEWS

By her statements and her over the top support of Barack Obama, Brown is yet another partisan member of the media driven to speaking Democratic talking points and bashing Republicans and their candidates. Despite her claim of "neutrality," her commentary, as evidenced by a Pew Research Study, was seen as highly partisan, favoring Democrats or Democratic candidates 82% of the time.

Seems pretty POV. I cut the whole thing, though if true, it's worth working into the article in an NPOV way.HalIncandenza (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You should have mentioned that you were not logged in when you did the cutting.  Docku: “what up?”  19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Campbell Brown is not an anchor but a cheap tabloid hack who is nothing but a mouthpiece for the 2008 Democratic party. Her bias is so blantant it's a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.11.174 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You did not go far enough. Campbell Brown is nothing but Obama's minister of propaganda. Her highly biased methods are self evident. She actually had the nerve to blame the Republicans for our banking crises, when in actuality it was the Dem that caused this problem by ordering Freddie Mac and the like to push mortgages on people with bad credit, ie Obama supports. Thanks to her, CNN is journalistic garbage.--Charles A 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)\


 * Wow, could you be any more misinformed? I'm going to quote Alan Greenspan here to prove you wrong. You know, Alan Greenspan? The conservative who ran the Fed for decades? Yeah. While he was in front of a Congressional committee and was being questioned, some Republican idiot started grandstanding about how this was all the Democrats fault for Fannie/Freddie. The next guy was a Democrat, and asked, "Do you believe that Fannie/Freddie are the reason that we are in this crisis?" You want to take a swing at what he might have said? I'll just tell you, since you might not be able to connect the friggin' dots. HE SAID IT WAS NOT THE REASON! ALL of the people at that meeting that were testifying in front of Congress said Fannie/Freddie played a role, but were not the main reason that the crisis happened. But instead, you're interested in blaming poor minorities for the problem. Typical bs. What about all the deregulation that happened thanks to Phil Gramm from Texas? He helped repeal many of the regulations that were in The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that stopped banks from leveraging so much money. But then again, your pathetic partisanship obviously gets in the way of telling the truth. I believe you have just exhibited extreme hypocrisy. Small banks are responsible for giving out loans to people who couldn't afford them. Those people are responsible for taking out loans they couldn't pay. Large investment banks are responsible for presuming that housing prices would always continue to rise. Republicans are responsible for repealing the regulations that allowed groups like the SEC to put safer practices in place, and Democrats and responsible for encouraging home ownership for some people who could not afford it. See a pattern here? Everyone played a role. Feel free to shut your mouth when you don't know what the hell you're talking about, moron.

--Charles-A-is-an-idiot, 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it for what it's worth, but the show is planned to remain on-air, although the title of the show MIGHT change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/arts/television/04brow.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"Kurdistan"
Something needs to be done about the section covering the mention of "Kurdistan" on a recent show. It's questionable as to whether what happened was "doing a big mistake", or whatever the phrase was. And I don't think the fact that Kurdistan is not a country needs to be in all caps. StanHater (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Campbell Brown
Where is she now? --93.82.5.210 (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

pregnancy announcements
I understand that we mention her two children, but I don't think an encyclopedic article should mention when and where her pregnancy was first announced to the public. --194.24.138.4 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Profile Pic.
Is it really the best that can be done for her picture on the page to be a blurry screen-grab of her with her head turned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.241.181 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a "screen-grab", as the uncropped original shown. However I think it is probably one of the worst photos currently illustrating someone's article on Wikipedia. I think it should be a challenge to take or locate a better free licensed photo. Perhaps someone should write to her requesting one per OTRS? -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campbell Brown. 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/20160111182428/http://www.8theplay.com/about-8/the-characters/ to http://www.8theplay.com/about-8/the-characters/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why No Webpage for "The Life of Julia"
The deadness of the "Life of Julia" link is something I commented on long ago, in October 2013, with "Is the old Obama campaign slideshow 'Life of Julia' anywhere to be found on the web?"

'I have something I'd like to say about it, but I can't find it anywhere on the web. It's not at the link everyone linked to when everyone was talking about it, which was at the Obama campaign website. The campaign is over, so I guess there's no obligation to continue to host it, but this was an important historical document, and it shouldn't fall down the memory hole.

"The Life of Julia" has come to be cited — somewhat humorously — for the proposition that the government has lured women away from men, into a dependent relationship with the government, and this has had various ill effects. But I want to take a new look at why the graphic used a female character. Using a female screened out the reality that males rely on government programs too.'

'''Surely, "The Life of Julia" is important enough to have its own Wikipedia page. This is the sort of thing Wikipedia is great at. But no.''' In fact, there's only one page in Wikipedia with both "Life of Julia" and "Obama" and "The Life of Julia"....

Campbell Brown??! Remember her?

'In May 2012, Brown published a New York Times op-ed in which she criticized President Obama for sounding “paternalistic” when he speaks of women. Noting his repeated practice of describing women as “smarter than men,” she commented: “It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress.” Brown added that the women of her acquaintance “who are struggling in this economy couldn’t be further from the fictional character of Julia, presented in Mr. Obama’s Web ad, ‘The Life of Julia,’ a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help.” Brown outlined the lives of relatives of hers who have rescued from business failure by “Friends and family, not government.”'

Hmm. That almost makes it look as though her conspicuous disparagement of "The Life of Julia" ruined her career! She was once important enough to have been impersonated by Kristen Wiig and Tracey Ullman.

Ann Althouse

Requested move 12 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved.. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Campbell Brown → Campbell Brown (journalist) – Not the primary topic. |Campbell_Brown Over the past 90 days, the journalist has a daily average of 124 views and Campbell Brown (footballer) has 82 views. Some of the former may be people looking for the latter. There are about a dozen days in that period where the footballer has more views than the news anchor. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support there's also Veronica Campbell-Brown (and other people with Campbell Brown as a surname), who averages ~100 pageviews per day. No primary topic here. Iffy★Chat -- 12:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 90 days is too small a sample to base these decisions on. |Campbell_Brown|Campbell_Brown_(TV_program) Over the long term is seems that the journalist is sufficiently primary over the footballer. Other partal title matches need not be factored in. PC78 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support No clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here per nom and Iffy. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Note that there are several other people with "Campbell Brown" or "Campbell-Brown" in their names, including people with double-barreled surnames that might be identified this way. See Veronica Campbell-Brown, Kathleen Campbell-Brown, John Campbell Brown, Peter Campbell Brown, and Stephen Campbell Brown. bd2412  T 22:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect dates for Dan Senor and Romney
The article currently states that Brown was criticized in 2008 for being biased since her husband worked as an advisor to the Romney campaign. Romney ran in 2012 and they met around then. 2600:4041:5ED1:AC00:7D22:2F79:E924:8D16 (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Clean Up and Remove Tags
Just came across this article and will do what I can to clean it up and improve it.

There is a a link at the top of her article to Campbell Brown (footballer). Should there be one on his article back to her?

Regarding Campbell Brown (golfer), I think it should be deleted. According to https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/18147, a lot about the 1904 olympics is iffy and even though he has a profile on that site it says "Brown did not qualify for match play in the 1904 Olympic golf tournament."

The article was created by an editor with a penchant for creating as many as he could. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As it so happens, I just came across her and even took a picture of her!
 * @Bilby you placed a tag on the article for undisclosed payments.
 * What sections on the current article are compromised? Is there specific stuff here that shouldn't be or vice versa?
 * Just want to frame a game plan as to how to improve it.
 * Thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So I just went through all the missing references "citation needed" and found references for them. So I'm going to remove the verification tag. But coming across these various references, I see how little I know about her. So I'm going to revisit the references to see how I can improve the article holistically. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The job I tagged it for was this edit by a known paid editor, but if an editor was hired to correct a probelm once, it is often teh case that other paid editors have been involved in the past. - Bilby (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me! You're 100% correct. Despite the presence of this paid editor and possibly others, there's no issue here in terms of notability so the issue is to have the article accurately reflect her. I will research to see if they whitewashed any scandals, update it accordingly and tone down any promotional language. When I'm done, is there someone specific I should ask in terms of removing the tag? Do you want me to run it by you? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, no one specific. Any independent editor is welcome to remove the tag if they feel that any issues have been fixed. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok great. Thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)