Talk:Frank Rich

Without Pointing Out Rich's Very Liberal Views, the Article Simply Makes No Sense
Even Rich himself is honest enough to admit that his views are predictably liberal. Rich has no military service, went to Harvard, and got a job at the Times. His views mirror the standard-issue liberal worldview at the Times. Love it or hate it, that's the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Liberal tag
Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh are all labelled as "conservative" in the first paragraph of their articles, while Frank Rich (and Molly Ivins, Maureen Dowd, Krugman) are not labelled as "liberal". Why is this? WBcoleman 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia articles on Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh thoroughly detail the conservative views of those individuals. And I believe all of them proudly call themselves "conservative".  Nothing in the Frank Rich article indicates that he has liberal views other than the unsupported labeling of him in the very first sentence. I will remove the label from the paragraph and if anyone wants to reinsert it, please provide evidence in the article itself that he is in fact a "liberal columnist".Hal Raglan 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

i have provided some evidence of liberal bias over the years.--Crt101 20:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of this article is to be a bio, not to kiss his ass.

Well to avoid original research, what you should really be looking for is evidence that he is considered liberal by reliable sources, or that he considers himself to be and says so. That is certaintly the case with Limnaugh and the others you have mentioned in regards to them being called conservative in their articles. As for the other side of the political spectrum, note that people such as Michael Moore are clearly labeled as liberal in their articles because they are considered to be so by others and they proudly label themselves so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.155.139 (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, I'm a liberal and it's obvious that at least Rich, Ivins and Krugman are liberals -- Krugman even calls his blog "Conscience of a Liberal"! Dowd is liberal, too, but this could be argued since she trashes pretty much everybody and is generally hated by dailykos.com. Benwing (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can be successful at doing original research doesn't make it any more valid. Find a reputable source that calls him liberal and cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.123.247.39 (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For further reference
He's the subject of a cover article in the current issue of the Harvard alumni magazine. AndreasKQ 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I removed this "While listining to his Book "the Greatest Story Ever Sold", one has to wonder what story he is talking about on the first CD it is easy for any informed individual to pick out at least 3 deceptive statements I would advise the remainder of the world there is no such thing as a partial, or half truth an inaccurate statement due to lack of personal knoledge, or intentional lie in part is a lie in entierty."

It was tacked on to the Colbert section although due to the lack of quotes I think this was wikipedia editor's opinion and not Colbert's (the typos support this I think). If this is, in fact, a quote please provide a source. Thanks ^_- Perfect Passive Participle 03:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I think we should include Colbert's status as a satirist alongside his quote, so as to give it some context. If that makes the criticism section weaker I know Ann Coulter's new book includes some negative remarks about Frank Rich. Given that her book is little more than Coulter quoting herself for 200 pages it shouldn't be hard to find an online source for these comments. (are text sources ok for wikipedia? I'm new >.>). Perfect Passive Participle 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Colbert section of "Criticisms" should probably go, given that he is a satirist and presumably not making the criticisms in earnest. Replacing this with Coulter (bless you for actually reading her) would be a good idea CAVincent 04:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"far left bias" etc
Some IP is very keen to alter


 * Rich writes regularly for the New York Times (and thus the International Herald Tribune) on the mass media and public relations, particularly on their coverage of US national politics.

to


 * Rich writes regularly for the New York Times (and thus the International Herald Tribune) on the mass media and public relations, particularly on their coverage of US national politics; he consistently displays a far-left bias that has come to characterize the New York Times editorial and news sections.

I've reverted this, and I'll continue to revert or have reverted this or any similar assertion until the assertion is backed up with a credible quotation from anywhere ranging from (a) a book published by a university press or comparable publisher to (b) something from a mainstream columnist (as opposed to a token wacko or of course satirist) in an intelligent newspaper or news magazine that's anywhere left of far right. For the latter, the conservative Andrew Sullivan or some regular columnist in the conservative New Republic would be fine, but some nutball AM radio bloviator or a columnist in the National Review would not. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, WHOA. "The magazine [The New Republic] generally supports liberal social and social democratic economic policies." Hoary, you're losing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.15.5 (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all Andrew Sullivan is not conservative, nor is the New Republic. I would say most people would describe them both as leftwing or at least center-left. Your obviously showing your bias by writing things like "AM radio bloviator" and discounting the rightwing/center-right National Review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishiano (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic changes of spelling
I notice this edit, a change from "theatre" to "theater", with the comment theatre -> theater; he's an American, so using American spelling.

First, I had thought that "theatre", though less common, was still common in the US.

Secondly, as one part of the change, Rich is shown as having cowritten The Theater Art of Boris Aronson. But Worldcat shows no such book. It does show The Theatre Art of Boris Aronson, published by Knopf. (There doesn't even seem to be a British edition or other non-US edition of this book.) So the article now misinforms.

Conceivably, the choice of spelling in the book title suggests that Rich himself prefers "theatre", for what this preference would be worth. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As an American editor, I was/am in favo u r of "theatre". Interestingly, our own Manual of Style gives "theatre" for the spelling of the building and performance of the drama in UK & Ireland,	South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. And for the U.S., it says "theater (building), theatre (stage productions)". Rich is a critic of the stage productions, and not an architecture critic. First Light (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can never get excited about "American versus British spelling", but "Theater" in the book title is plain wrong, and as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to revert the whole edit, however well-meaning it may have been, so that there's "theatre" everywhere (except, of course, in any quotation or title in which "theater" may have appeared). -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points. I've reverted my changes. Thanks, Hoary, for dropping me a note. In my experience "theater" is more common than "theatre" but the latter spelling exists in the US. Given the title of Rich's book, he seems to prefer the latter, which seems good enough to prefer it in the article. --CAVincent (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done, thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - that wasn't so dramatic after all. First Light (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in "Media and political criticism"
This section needs work, but I made a couple changes to reduce some obvious bias. Saying that someone is "openly" critical of Fox News implies that they are somehow endangering themselves or their reputations by making such an allegation. One is "openly" critical of Gen. Pinochet, one is not "openly" critical of Fox News. Saying that Bill O'Reilly is "often" critical of Rich requires some examples. Saying that "the media" supported George W. Bush's policies is a controversial statement, so I added "what he perceives as." Wormyguy (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Trimming external links
I am trimming some of the external links in this article - If anyone is able to repurpose them and re-incorporate them into the body of the article, please do so.


 * Rich participates in an extended political discussion with Andrew Rosenthal, David Brooks and Maureen Dowd, The New York Times video, July 17, 2006
 * Interview by San Diego CityBeat, May 5, 2007
 * C-SPAN Q&A interview with Rich, August 9, 2009
 * The New York Times biographical video interview

KConWiki (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)