Talk:Ryan Lizza

Untitled
Hi, I am starting this article because I think this guy has written enough to be considered a noteworthy person. I only just started this so if anyone has more to add please go for it. If you think I am erroneous please tell me but I think it's a justified article. Cubguy83 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that Lizza isn't noteworthy, but the page doesn't prove it. The Brian Williams quote seems utterly puffy, and there is no actual information beyond he is a person. I think in lieu of actual information, the page should be deleted. 72.227.159.234 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting on Whitehouse dinner with Hannity, Shine,... July 26 2017
A section on this watershed moment in US history need to be included in the article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/26/trump-dines-with-sean-hannity-ousted-fox-executive-bill-shine-and-scaramucci/

--Wikipietime (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Progressive" in lead
After a flurry of edits to the article, by and me among others, an IP editor removed the word "progressive" from in front of "CNN political analyst" in the lead. It's since been restored without comment by various new-style IPs that may be the same person, most recently here (they've also started capitalizing it, which is incorrect usage). After some thought, I decided the first IP was right. There's nothing in the body of the article, so far as I can see, characterizing his politics. I just removed it again: what do others think? Are there sources characterizing him as "progressive" or "left-wing"? If so, I believe they should be added to the body of the article, and it still might be undue weight to have such a characterization in the lead. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed it the first time, and would have done so again (noticed it was back yesterday) but just saw you already had. The best evidence I'm aware of is that Lizza worked for The New Republic and The New Yorker, which are generally recognized as left-of-center. However, he's always been a reporter, never a pundit, and in any case I suspect there's some Weinstein effect point-scoring involved. (FWIW, I do not know Lizza and have no COI here, in case anyone might wonder (long story)). WWB (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "A reporter, never a pundit"--sure, that's a good way of putting it. I wish it were as simple as that with all these cats who are writing stuff but also commenting on stuff. This happens "on both sides" of course. Sure, "progressive" should not be in here. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Misconduct Section
I'd request that editors keep an eye out for editors downplaying the allegation of sexual assault (supposedly for NPOV reasons, although NPOV hasn't stopped such users from adding several laudatory quotations). Here is the current version, which I have re-added after reverting efforts by a sock puppet account to downplay the allegation. I'm not suggesting my version is at all perfect, but I have made a conscious effort to include several perspectives: adding both the alleged victim's endorsement of the New Yorker's finding and discussing the subsequent investigations by media organizations that decided to continue to employ or subsequently employ Lizza.

The issues with the section before my edits are quite obvious: the earlier version titled the section "Unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harassment", and an intermediary version clearly attempted to similarly downplay the allegation by removing the header and adding a list of tweets that defended Lizza (and notably no tweets condemning him). Similarly, these edits have emphasized that The New Yorker "claimed" that Lizza engaged in sexual misconduct (sometimes saying "without evidence"), while using definitive language to describe other media org's determination that the allegation wasn't worth keeping off the air. Two users who recently edited the article were found to be sock puppets at Sockpuppet investigations/NPOV-Fixer/Archive.--2604:2000:1742:A11F:6CF4:818D:398A:AC43 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)