Talk:Richard Miniter

Is the King Happy?
A hacker claims to publish a copy of an email sent from Miniter to a Moroccan friend asking if the King of Morocco is happy about an article the writer published about Polisario front in Foreign Policy Magazine. He also claims the journalist received favors and money from Morocco for his publications copy of the email on twitter.41.223.96.17 (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Email
A friend asked me to research the truth of an email hoax related to Richard Miniter's latest book, Disinformation. Here is the text of the email:

"Here’s an interesting new book I would like to read called Disinformation by Richard Miniter. According to the Human Events leader to this book, it states: Did you know WMD’s have been found in Iraq? No you didn’t because of disinformation from the major media sources. In fact: “1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium; 1500 gallons of chemical weapon agents; 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas); over 1000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas; roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency have been found. And this is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction: according to Richard Miniter’s book. The reason for this is political disinformation.

Mr. Minter’s book contains 22 media myths that have been disseminated to undermine the war on terror, including Osama bin Laden’s alleged kidney dialysis and personal wealth."

Her question was "Is this true?" It's clear that Richard Miniter wrote this book and that it's being lauded all over the internet by conservatives--conversative book reviews & think tanks, Fox News, fukfrance.com, Catholic Analysis, etc.

Some of what Mr. Miniter writes in the new book is undoubtedly true, but I don't see any evidence that credible sources like the New York Book Review, for example, have picked up this book & measured its value or veracity.

My best guess is that it's a mixed bag of truth and propaganda, and one would have to study the book and do a bit of research before deciding what is true and what isn't. Is anyone available to point me toward a less-biased source of information regarding Disinformation?

Leishalynn 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Miniters's Disinformation
I just read the article you mentioned, an ad sent to "Fellow Conservatives" for HUMAN EVENTS. I was amazed at the content of the letter, which is quoting "Disinformation". How two halves of the US can be receiving completely opposite views on Iraq and other issues is really eye-opening. I am sure his fellow conservatives lap up every word of that, while my fellow liberals are aghast that anyone can believe things like the following are myths, which implies that Liberals actually believe the bit about the nukes or Jews in the WTC.

- There is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (not a myth!) - The U.S. funded the Taliban in the 1980s [According to the Wikipedia article on the Taliban: "The Taliban were already making international news in such papers as the Irish Times as early as first quarter 1990." As far as I understand, the future leaders of the Taliban were being trained by the US to be able to fight the Russians. - Suitcase nukes are in place across America (who says this?) - Osama_bin_Lad'n was trained by the CIA - Halliburton made a fortune in Iraq (of course they did!) - There were no Jews in the Word Trade Center on 9/11 (this is widely believed in the Middle East, not in the US!)

As you say, some of these are confirmable, some are myths, but the myths are believed by the conservatives because of disinformation from their media.

BYelverton 22:17, 12 December 2005

I have read "Disinformation" and his points are well researched and believable. A differing Wikipedia article hardly qualifies as a refutation. To believe the statement "There were NO WMDs in Iraq." Is foolish. Of course there were. It's been well documented. Considering the quantity and condition, the general consensus is that they were not significant. Both sides should be willing to admit both those truths. Then we could all move on.

Why is this article tagged as an advertisement?
I realize that it isn't in depth, and doesn't quote critics, but it appears to be straightforward. Perhaps a better term might be "stub" -- it simply needs more information.Scott Adler 10:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is an advertisement, an online cv. I'm surprised he doesn't go as far as giving his rates for public speaking! Meowy 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree this article does sound like a resume for a job. It may be all true, but needs balancing information as well.

I concur. It needs a sharp axe. smb 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

27 DEC 2007: I am the person responsible for writing, " Substantial Innaccuracies and credibility Issues in Miniter's Reporting ". This heading has been removed many times, but it's accuracy has yet to be challenged directly. And no matter how many times it is removed, I will keep replacing it. For a very simple reason: Miniter's reporting is Innacurate And/Or Biased On Many Key Points. And I invite anyone to research these points for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicemc (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
As seen in the history, an IP who has added a rather long, all-capitalized commentary section relating to Wikipedia, has been removed. It was signed by the subject of this article, and I have left a note on the anonymous editor's talk page to let them be aware of the issues with such an edit, as well as the COI guideline. I suggested the editor discuss the article's problems here, and refrain from editing, so anyone who regularly contributes to the article, please keep an eye out for the editor who may request factual corrections. Thanks, Ariel  ♥  Gold  09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I have re-ordered and renamed the sections to be more in line with biography standards, which present one's life in order, early life, education, career, sub-headers of career areas, etc. This article, which must adhere to the living persons biography policy has no inline citations of reliable sources, which is absolutely imperative for living biographies, and these issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. Someone who has a best-selling book, surely has been written about, and yet the only items given are those written by the subject, which are not reliable, third-party sources. I request someone familiar with this subject work on this article, before it becomes an issue of BLP concerns. Thank you, Ariel  ♥  Gold  09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange accusations and a possible conflict of interest
I just received this message on my talk page concerning edits I am supposed to have made to this article. Up until about five minutes ago I hadn't actually heard of the guy, so have no idea why the message was posted to me, but not to worry. I suspect there's some kind of vandalism/conflict of interest going on jusging by other edits made from the ip address concerned. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a COI, although to the IP's credit, someone had posted the link/statements 3 times to Miniter's page -- once in the intro, once in the "Author" section, and once in the "Personal" section. I have removed the first two references to the accusations, and included Miniter's allegation that his accuser is a "convicted felon." This should do it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
I just nominated this article for deletion. I see no reason whatsoever for giving Richard Miniter Wikipedia page status. His accomplishments were extremely minor, and he hasn't done anything for quite a while. He was nothing but a minor Bush-era neo-con journalist who published a couple of minor books and was involved in a couple of lawsuits. If anyone wants to actually justify why this page should stay, I'd be happy to debate with that person. 217.136.87.133 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

American Media Institute is a separate organization but redirects to Richard Miniter
The American Media Institute is a separate organization, that Rich Miniter happens to be the CEO of. We need to create a new Organization page for the American Media Institute, as it is a 501(c)(3).

Americanmediainstitute (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If the institute is not notable in its own right, it is better for the reader to be pointed to this article than not see any article at all. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/us/politics/elliott-broidy-donald-trump.html
 * 4 Takeaways From a Close Look at Elliott Broidy
 * By Eileen Sullivan
 * New York Times
 * Aug. 13, 2019
 * As part of the anti-Qatar campaign, Mr. Broidy donated $240,000 to a nonprofit media outlet, American Media Institute. That organization produced articles critical of Qatar and pieces favorable to Mr. Broidy’s clients and prospective clients.
 * --Nbauman (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * --Nbauman (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Miniter. 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/20080907001730/http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/04/the_general_vanishes.php to http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/04/the_general_vanishes.php

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) 05:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)