Talk:Ben Swann

Archives (Index)

2017/August 2017/December 2018/January 2018/April 2018/May 2018/June 2018/July 2019/February 2019/March

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Conspiracy theorist category

The category Conspiracy theorists has been objected to by an anon IP user; it seems to me entirely supported by the multitude of sources here which discuss his affinity for conspiracy theories. For example, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, His Reality Check reports over the years have often veered into alt-right conspiracy theories.; The New York Times, ‘Super PAC’ Backing Jeb Bush Uses Conspiracy-Minded Journalist in Ad, Mr. Swann, who currently works for a television station in Atlanta, has drawn attention for his focus on conspiracy theories around major news stories., etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that RS support the label. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, but only very tentatively based on the AJC source. Swann's "thing," at least publicly, was always to report on conspiracy theories, not to support or espouse them. That's an important distinction. The New York Times and other sources do not say that Swann supported these theories. The AJC tiptoes right up to the line. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I will do a little more digging tonight. If I can't find more substantial sources, I will rethink my position here. Categories aren't nuanced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm really on the fence about this when when I start thinking about the BLP implications. In fact I'm withdrawing my stated position for the time being while I think about this further. Let me know what you find. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Widely-accepted narratives" is not NPOV, and neither is describing Sandy Hook as a "high-profile controversy"

The anon IP user seems to believe that the phrase "widely-accepted narratives" is NPOV. It is not. Per WP:FRINGE, we do not describe mainstream points of view as a "narrative," and we describe conspiracy theories as what they are — conspiracy theories. There is no "high-profile controversy" about Sandy Hook - there are, instead, conspiracy theories about it, all of which have been completely discredited as evidence-free nonsense. The viewpoint that there is a "coverup" of Sandy Hook, that there is anything sinister about a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. or that vaccines cause autism are fringe beliefs which must, as per policy, be presented in the context of the mainstream viewpoints about the claims — which is that they are all false and at worst malicious lies. NPOV does not require that we give equal time to all viewpoints, nor does it require that we couch conspiracist beliefs in a shroud of semi-respectability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The IP's proposed language wasn't a complete violation of WP:FRINGE, but the current language is a more appropriate description of these controversies. These minority views weren't just contrary to "widely-accepted narratives." The Sandy Hook theory was a truly unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and the vaccine-autism theory has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. We shouldn't suggest that these positions were simply minority views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The specific wording isn't the problem here. The problem is that the lede associates Ben Swann with these conspiracy theories in the first place. The conspiracy theory on Sandy Hook posits that it was a false flag for the purposes of gun control and that nobody actually got killed. Equating that to Ben Swann questioning how many shooters there were in the lede is extremely inappropriate for a WP:BLP, especially since it's based on a minute or two segment in a video with 3000 views while Ben's videos with 100,000+ views get no mention. The lede is actually worse on this now then when this was brought up.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. Neither the lead nor the body say anything about false flag theories or about a video not made by Swann. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The lede says Ben promoted conspiracy theories surrounding Sandy Hook on various platforms. Conspiracy theories surrounding Sandy Hook involve the ones mentioned above. Is it consistent with WP:BLP to have those sorts of connotations in the lede? Is this not a WP:WEASEL issue as well? The implications are very vague and misleading. And do you really not see a problem with the focus on a video with 3000 views when he has videos with 100,000+ views? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is trying to revert my changes to the lede. The concerns were posted here with no response several days ago. The new language I added is consistent with sources given. If Ben Swann has done anything besides question the number of shooters then that needs to be sourced and probably still be specifically mentioned stead of lumping it all into "conspiracy theories" which could mean all sourts of crazy things. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Daily Beast: "On his own YouTube channel he said he had “major problems with the theory” that the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings were each conducted by “lone gunmen.” “There’s a good reason to question this whole narrative: There’s been no evidence so far provided by police, other than what they’ve told us,” he said in his Sandy Hook truther video."[1] The Daily Beast describes him as a "Sandy Hook truther" and Swann clearly says that there is "no evidence" for the official account of what happened. That's promoting conspiracy theories, and we should describe it as such per WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's what the lede now ways. That he questioned the number of shooters. This is the source that calls Ben a "Pizzagate Truther" and pictures him with a tinfoil hat and it didn't even go as far as the lede did with painting him as a conspiracy theorists regarding the shootings. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Swann also says that there is "no evidence" for the official narrative. That's a broader claim than his nonsense about multiple shooters. I don't think we should get into the weeds of what he said precisely in the lede (the body can do that) - it suffices to say that he promoted conspiracy theories about the shootings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

questioning is not synonymous with conspiracy theories according to Wikipedia's own definition. Perhaps start by editing the wiki on Conspiracy Theory if you think simply questioning a narrative is the same as spouting conspiracy theories.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

using facts, which I did, is the best way to maintain NPOV. When you add the language you prefer that strays from facts, then it gets vague and misleading, which is the problem with WP:WEASEL wording.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If I say there is no evidence that the Moon landing occurred and proceed to present debunked nonsense as evidence that the Moon landing was staged by Hollywood, then I'm promoting conspiracy theories about the Moon landing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

that the Moon landing was staged by Hollywood that's the part of "Conspiracy Theory" you are missing with Ben. What was Ben's explanation of the shooting? Conspiracy theories, according to wikipedia, are explanations. If you disagree, take your argument to the Conspiracy Theory talk page. If not, what was Ben's explanation? "on various platforms" is also problematic? Where else did he talk about this besides his own platform? None of these questions are answered in sources --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "on various platforms" and left the conspiracy theory part in there for now. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The removal of "on various platforms" was good. I don't think WP:WEASEL applies to lead content that's merely summarizing what can be found in the body. However I agree with Oklahoma that the sources don't expressly support the conspiracy theory label outside of Pizzagate. I think Aurora and Sandy Hook should be treated the same as 9/11, i.e. Swann questioned the official accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I was gonna say you should make this change because if I did then it would likely be reverted...I was right, but ironically it was reverted by you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Reality, as depicted by mainstream sources, is not a "narrative." Describing Swann's bizarre, false and ludicrous suggestions that the Sandy Hook massacre didn't happen as "questioning a narrative" is unacceptable. Sources describe what he said as "echoing right-wing conspiracy theories." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Where did Ben Swann suggest that Sandy Hook didn't happen? And you're attacking a word(narrative) that wasn't even in the lede. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As per the NY Times, Swann is a journalist who has highlighted conspiracy theories about major news events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because a source in inaccurate doesn't mean we can be. Define Conspiracy Theory for us Baranof and tell us how Ben's reporting matches that definition --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If RS use the term, we use the term. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't repeat false statements under the guise of it being an RS. If it makes unsubstantiated claims than it shouldn't be considered an RS --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is false. We aren't RS. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Prove me wrong then. Tell us the "Conspiracy Theory" that Ben Swann has put forth in his reporting about the shootings. The burden is on you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden is not on us to prove it. We use reliable sources. If you have a problem with the NYTimes, et.al. as reliable sources, this is the wrong place. Take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on you according to WP:NPOVFAQ. Since this is a BLP, you have even more of a burden than in a regular article. The fact that you can't prove me wrong with your so called RS (which is supposed to prove the claim) pretty much says it all. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no burden on us to prove “truth”. The burden is verifiability and reliability. That is accomplished by using RS. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't accomplish it. The idea that you can label an entire publication as an RS and are then able to use any spurious statement that comes out of it is absurd. You can't violate WP policy just because a so-called RS does. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Even granting the reliability of the source, it does not direclty support the claim as it should. It makes a vague comment about "major news events". It does not say Ben repeated "conspiracy theories" about the shootings.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, source is questionable according to WP:SOURCE "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context...Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine." and is contradicted by other sources such as this one https://www.mintpressnews.com/ben-swann-attacked-by-the-new-york-times-for-pointing-out-rubios-voting-record/212801/. Probably shouldn't be in the article at all much less being used to justify contentious material. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Investigative journalist

The lead is pretty generous when it calls this character an "investigative journalist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed how weak the sourcing is on this. Can we do better? I'm not finding much. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be that much about him in RS. Maggie Haberman called him a "conspiracy-minded journalist", but only in a headline.[2] The Daily Beast said he aired: "pseudo-investigative reports of elaborate conspiracies" and generally criticized his claims of investigations.[3] The two terms "investigative journalist" and "conspiracy theorist" are tied in a way. If he just regurgitated conspiracy theories, he's probably neither a theorist nor investigator. I think it's difficult to justify use of either the positive or negative term. O3000 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Edward R. Murrow Award-winning

Does anyone in addition to Bucksburg think we should describe Swann as "Edward R. Murrow Award-winning" in the first sentence of the article? It strikes me as grossly undue and smacks of promotion, even if that's not the intent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

THanks for explaining DrFleischman. No, it doesn't have to go in the first sentence, if we don't do that for other biographies. But something that significant shouldn't be buried at the end of all the negative stuff. Maybe the second sentence, like this bio? "Richard Schiff (born May 27, 1955) is an American actor and television director and producer. He is an Emmy Award winning actor."Bucksburg (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it merits inclusion in the lead section. It's barely mentioned by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll also add that there are many different Edward R. Murrow Awards and I can't figure out which one he received. Some of them are pretty small potatoes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The award in question is definitely not the major Edward R. Murrow Award. The major Murrow award is from the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication of Washington State University—only one is given each year. Walter Cronkite, Ted Kopple, Christians Amanpour, and Bernard Shaw are among the honorees. I don't even find a reliable source for the RTNDA Murrow award, just the promotional cv that blurbed Swann's hiring at a station earlier in his career. The RTNDA website doesn't even maintain a list of the dozens of Murrow awards it issues each year. What is due is that Swann had been suspended from the Atlanta CBS affiliate for a "Pizzagate" segment he produced prior to his firing for attempting to bring back his Reality Check production. [4] . I would argue that the events of 2017—2018 are more germane than the 2004 RTNDA award. Neonorange (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Lede changes

There was a kerfuffle over the lede. I changed the lede in a way that I think solves concerns that an editor raised in the edit summaries - there was a dispute over where precisely Swann had promoted certain kinds of conspiracy theories.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Points for using the word kerfuffle. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The lede no longer references a non-existent Reality Check, but the change did not address the WP:BLP concerns, it still contains poorly sourced contentious information, which doesn't belong in a BLP, much less the lede of one.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Is this about your Sandy Hook concern you articulated above or is there more? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede claims he "pushed scientifically-discredited claims", but has no source for it. Which of Ben's claims has been debunked by Science exactly? This seems like another WP:WEASEL issue as well since it's so vague. And why would we have contentious material like this in the lede in the first place? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Which of Ben's claims has been debunked by Science exactly? It says right in the rest of the sentence that you omitted: "scientifically-discredited claims of a link between vaccines and autism". The sources are in the body of the article. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Citations need to be next to the claims they are intended to support, not somewhere else in the article. "scientifically discredited claims of a link between vaccines and autism" is still very vague and doesn't mention any specific claim made by Ben. The specific claims that are mentioned in the article have not been debunked by any of the scientific sources given (which don't even address the actual claims). And why is this in the lede again? Perhaps it belongs in the subsection where it's actually sourced.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not required to cite things in the lede so long as they are cited in the body of the article. It belongs in the lede because it's an example of why Swann is journalistically discredited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Don't worry about hiding your bias Baranof. WP:LEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If you desire that it's cited in the lede, we can include the citation in the lede. Still no justification for removing it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE. As for why we'd include it in the lead section, it's because it's highly noteworthy whenever a professional journalist promotes a debunked theory, especially when they claim to be giving the straight scoop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's weasel wording. What Ben did was report on documents he received from a CDC whistleblower. It would have been more noteworthy if he didn't report on it. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What's weasel wording? I don't follow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL "The bad thing about weasel worded statements is that their implication is misleading or too vague to substantiate." --74.195.159.155 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No---What are you saying is weasel wording? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

whenever a professional journalist promotes a debunked theory --74.195.159.155 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We’re just not seeing any weasel wording. You must show that an implication is misleading or too vague to substantiate. I don’t see it. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOVFAQ - "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it" --74.195.159.155 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oklahoma, please stop edit warring. The discussion is joined, so participate or move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You lost me Oklahoma. WP:WEASEL is about article content. No one has proposed adding "whenever a professional journalist promotes a debunked theory" to the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)