Talk:Jay Carney

Stepping down as press secretary
Someone edited it to say "was" press secretary, but he still is. His resignation has been announced, but he will remain secretary until mid-June. --Scatteredbomb (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's germane in the context of this online encyclopedia to provide some reflection upon Carney's reasons for resigning, stated or unstated. The absence of such discussion (particularly given this resignation's occurrence in the presence of hammer blow after hammer blow being suffered by the present incumbency's credibility as the scandals keep pushing the Pinocchio meme beyond the point at which even the legacy media can strain at dissimulation) positively reeks of the "curious incident of the dog in the night-time." Not that anybody should ever suspect the arbiters of Wikipedia of political favoritism regarding the current occupant of the White House....  71.251.132.37 (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. As someone who watches these press conferences, its absurd that an article devoted to a press secretary would ignore the inherent dynamics of press briefings. Press briefings are events where professionals attempt to discover the disconnect - and the degree of that disconnect - between what the entity claims and what the entity knows. In simple terms, the whole point of a press briefing is for the entity being questioned to defend its narrative and for the press to minimize the degree of information asymmetry. It's therefore intellectually dishonest to ignore the press's degree of perceived information asymmetry and the effect of that sentiment on both the press secretary and on the reputation of the organization he/she represents. Covering up this detail doesn't even make ideological sense since it exposes malicious bias. Regardless of one's political views, only Public Relations professionals intending to violate Wikipedia's NPOV would deny or commit these 3 facts:


 * 1)  The press perceived deception whether such deception existed or not.
 * 2)  Events occurred during Carney's tenure as Press Secretary that caused media scrutiny.
 * 3)  Jay Carney's methods of handling these situations, while effective, fostered distrust among the media professionals present.
 * 4)  These facts are backed up by the publicly-available press briefings.
 * The problem is white-washing and the fear by those who can't take criticism. The Press Secretary's job is to be challenged by ideological friends and foes alike. When a press secretary give up his/her job after a rough 12 months, it would be blatant dishonesty to ignore such understandable and obvious factors. Mentioning these possible and contributing realities isn't bias - its reality.


 * There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Wikipedia pages that present uncertainty and speculation in an honest and open way. If this site were to mandate that all information must be proven fact and that sections or articles honestly detailing possible and likely uncertainties be deleted, then much of this article and most of Wikipedia would have to be purged and this site would fail to inform its readers about anything. Considering how beliefs and theory govern much of our understanding of science, religion, foreign policy, and philosophy, even the most accepted ideas considered factual are based on assumptions, observations, and speculation. Primary sources can lie or forget important details, theories can be disproven or greatly amended, observations can be falsified or misinterpreted, and deception can overcome truth. Should Wikipedia purge all pages about subjects that rely on such assumptions, regardless of how true they may seem, due to their reliance on technically unprovable theories? Should pages that rely on the assumption of the factual nature of such things as atomic theory, evolution, theism, historic texts, gravity, primary sources, relativity, et cetera be deleted due to their reliance on theories, opinions, and observations that can't technically be proven regardless of how true they may seem? If so, then Wikipedia would be little more than an empty main page, a page of rules, and a single page with the line "truth is uncertain" and the citation being reality.
 * Wikipedia exists to catalog information based on observations, not merely to advance a point of view or bias. It has rules to protect its ability to perform this function, however, due to bias, PR, and other factors, Wikipedia's NPOV and accuracy standards are too often being used to justify a POV and ignore perfectly acceptable sources. While its obvious that many sources are openly biased and intellectually-dishonest, raw primary sources are being excluded just because of debate over interpretation or because more senior editors don't like them. From reading thousands of articles and even checking the histories on many of them, openly biased and outright lying sources are allowed yet other sources are shot down for reasons as childish as disagreement with the source or beliefs that the source shouldn't be trusted without proof given(happens a lot with sources who are USSR defectors). This site is meant to record information and display disagreements and points of conflict, not squelch opposing sides with petty acts of censorship. When there is uncertainty on a subject, the truth isn't known. Covering up speculation, theories, and challenges to the main narrative by claiming that other views "just aren't credible" is dishonest and represents an attempt to push a POV by shifting the burden of proof onto other editors only to discard any opposing arguments by killing their sources.
 * This article is a textbook example of infantile attempts to push a bias. By claiming that no one's allowed to speculate or even make a section exploring why Jay Carney is quitting, and by ignoring the thousands of hours of Whitehouse Press Briefings available to the public which give some pretty compelling theories, editors are breaking the rules by pushing a POV by omitting any information they don't like. Most pages mention possible explanations, causes, or theories regarding an unknown yet this page demands that such ideas be ignored despite the hours of unbiased and public evidence provided by the White House itself. Its sad that people are trying to destroy Wikipedia this way.

67.7.236.52 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Balance
I found a reference for the blog post section. I think it's a legitimate point of interest for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.21.3.213 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think devoting half the article to a few blog posts and the attendant controversy severely distorts the article. 24.69.98.46 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I cut it down to about a quarter. :/ 86.44.27.255 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole blog post section strikes me as rather unimportant; is there any compelling reason to keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcrounse (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Barry Obama should take leadership classes from Netanyahu. This man shows true leadership unlike the spineless lying wanna be president of the United States. Not only does Netanyahu only show real leadership but also honesty. He doesn't have to think about how he is going to speak his next sentence so he doesn't get caught in a lie. He speaks stright forward and honesty which is something Barry needs to learn how to do. Unlike the US, Israel has a real leader with strong skills. Wish the US did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.49.114 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014
Jay wrote an article in the satire paper The Onion on his last day, May 30, 2014, in the White House. http://www.theonion.com/articles/well-time-to-go-out-in-front-of-a-bunch-of-people,32948

20.137.162.51 (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Even assuming that the piece in the Onion was actually written by him and not, as is more likely, simply satire by some staff writer, what is it that you would like to change about the article? Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014
Edit sidebar to show that he is not the incumbent anymore.

173.79.163.147 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that Carney is still currently the incumbent; his resignation will not be effective for another couple of weeks. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. I do strongly suggest that you make sure there is a consensus before making any changes to this page and make sure that you have a reliable source before trying to make such a change, especially since this is a biography of a living person. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 12:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Work in Obama administration" severely unbalanced and teetering on defamation
Presently:

"As of June 21, 2013, Yahoo news reported Carney has responded in some variation of "I don't know" over 1,900 times since his first briefing.[8] It was further reported Carney had somehow dodged a question approximately 9,486 times.[9]"

And a further paragraph regarding press complaints, this one being perhaps a bit more appropriate. Seems edited by someone with a few degrees of bias, given the source being a Yahoo blog. No diversification of his time as Press Secretary at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.240.56 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jay Carney. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/top-9-486-ways-jay-carney-won-t-104907191.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Familiarity
I'm suprised that people involved in politics are not aware of Mr. Carney or his dealings with employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.154.42 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not consistent with Claire Shipman entry
Claire Shipman entry says she is married to Jay Carney and they have two children. This entry says "Carney lives in the Washington, D.C. area with his partner, Robin Reck. Between them they have four children." Billthebikeadvocate (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)