Talk:Maggie Haberman/Archive 1

Untitled
One January 2015 strategy document – designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president – singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.51.189 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take some propagandist to take a well sourced factual statement and obfuscate it. Stalin would be proud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.104.66 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

article outdated since Trump is POTUS
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/1.3609023

Is there a native speaker with a motivation to add new infos to the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Belated thanks. The article now has most of the key info. —173.56.25.136 (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

why reverted
Why was this revision reverted? What is next, censoring articles that call the sky blue, or claiming that the pope wears large hats? 19:38, 19 November 2018‎ 50.1.114.34 (talk)‎. . (11,050 bytes) (-2)‎. . (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.189.218 (talk)


 * Surely you'd agree that neither of those two examples should be the lead sentence of an encyclopedia article about Sky or Pope. Ditto for the fact that a professional journalist is expected to have access to sources.


 * If you want the article to say more about Haberman's access to sources, find a reliable published reference that discusses this, and then find an appropriate place in the article to summarize what the reference says. That's how encyclopedia articles are supposed to work! —173.68.139.31 (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)