Talk:Jeff Gerth

This entry appears vandalized
What the hell happened to this article? It looks as if the intro section was hit by a bomb and successive rounds of edits (some with a distinct hostile tone) were hastily picked up and mixed together into an incomprehensible mishmash.

Desperately needs a re-edit. Rousse (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, balance, and Preserve violations
We don't expect very many IPs to understand policies, so we usually just undo their policy-violating edits, but experienced editors like Mr Ernie know better, so we're looking at a clear NPOV and balance violation here. It's also a violation of our Preserve policy, which advises improvement, rather than deletion. NPOV says that opposing POV in RS are supposed to be documented for balance, thus they have due weight. We don't write hagiographies here.

The article currently presents a fringe POV with no mainstream commentary or rebuttal, and the fringe nature of Gerth's series is described well by the renowned [[Duncan Campbell]:


 * "On 30 January 2023, the CJR published an immense four-part 23,000-word series on Trump, Russia and the US media. The CJR‘s writers found their magazine praised lavishly by normally rabid outlets. Fox News rejoiced that The New York Times had been “skewered by the liberal media watchdog the Columbia Journalism Review” over Russiagate”. WorldNetDaily called it a “win for Trump”."

According to Campbell, other RS are apparently on their way with commentary:


 * "As with The Nation in 2017, the CJR is seeing a storm of derisive and critical evaluations of the series by senior American journalists. More assessments are said to be in the pipeline. “We’re taking the critiques seriously,” Pope said this week. The Columbia Journalism Review may now have a Russia Problem."

Right now we have Mother Jones, and I expect Mr Ernie to undo his policy-violating deletion. Feel free to improve it, but don't delete or censor it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Valjean. The Gerth article needs to register some criticism of the CJR piece. Andre🚐 04:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Valjean. We should at the very least include secondary sources that show noteworthiness, and these shouldn't be self-published Substack posts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Saw the gleeful recitation of Fox talking points about Gereth's series on Valjean's talk page. Among other problems, Fox -- per Maslow's law pumped this up bigtime, and its followers are all over the right wing internet pushing it like the Durham, Barr, and other failed smoking-gun gotcha's. Sadly they don't understand that publication, even in an established periodical such as CJR, does not confer absolute uncritical acceptance. That model is more out of the recent Republican mold. There's mounting scrutiny and criticsim of Gert's effort, and there is no reason to exclude such mainstream views from this page. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am collecting mainstream commentary here: User talk:Valjean -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)