Talk:Barack Obama presents rescue plan after GM declaration of bankruptcy
Original reporting[edit]
I watched the televised broadcast of the speech live, and took notes. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Per Wikinews policy, could you post as much of the notes you took here. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Whether one wants to call it {{original}} or {{broadcast report}}, I think is irrelevant now that the whole thing is sourced with text of speech as well as a nice hi-res video. --SVTCobra 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Peer review[edit]
How is this not original reporting? His writing this based on a speech given. This is not different if he were actually there. Usually there is a official YouTube video. Can one be found? Calebrw (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that this discussion was had first on IRC, but: it is not original reporting in the same sense that reading a press release or news article and making notes on it is not original reporting. Furthermore, with regard to the companion piece Fritz Henderson outlines plan for "New GM" after GM declaration of bankruptcy, "original reporting" hides the fact that the source is unstated. What television network, which was exercising editorial control, broadcast it? Is there a second source? We can't use a claim of original reporting to cover up lack of sources, it dimishes the quality of our reporting and dilutes our genuine original reporting. --Killing Vector (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean now. I agree with what you are saying. I guess I should have been on IRC. ;) Calebrw (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- There was no "editorial control". The speech was broadcast live and uninterrupted, from beginning to end. Nor was there a "broadcast report" by someone else upon which this was based. This really was me, watching an event, and taking notes, on paper, with a pen; and I'll thank you not to mis-label that as you did. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that you were watching TV and taking notes. The editorial control is exercised by the broadcaster through camera placement & sound design; and then by the television network, which makes the editorial decision whether or not to broadcast the press conference; and of course the content of any prepared notes or opening statements is worked out beforehand. As the broadcast is itself, therefore, inherently an edited news report published by a third-party source, and this article summarizes only the content of edited news reports published by third-party sources, this is not original research. Further discussion on this subject has already been had here and here.
I also point out that you still haven't provided your notes or even what network you watched this broadcast on. If you've got handwritten notes, type them up. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Camera placement does not control one iota what words were said, and it is the words that were uttered that matter here. Your thinking is a nonsense, not least because there were several major news organizations that "attended" the same press conference remotely through video link and (in order to ask questions) telephone. The only difference between their situation and mine was that I wasn't able to ask a question after the statement, yet you wouldn't challenge their reporting for not being their own work. You are also pointing to discussions of reporting based upon press releases. This was a press conference. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that you were watching TV and taking notes. The editorial control is exercised by the broadcaster through camera placement & sound design; and then by the television network, which makes the editorial decision whether or not to broadcast the press conference; and of course the content of any prepared notes or opening statements is worked out beforehand. As the broadcast is itself, therefore, inherently an edited news report published by a third-party source, and this article summarizes only the content of edited news reports published by third-party sources, this is not original research. Further discussion on this subject has already been had here and here.
- There was no "editorial control". The speech was broadcast live and uninterrupted, from beginning to end. Nor was there a "broadcast report" by someone else upon which this was based. This really was me, watching an event, and taking notes, on paper, with a pen; and I'll thank you not to mis-label that as you did. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean now. I agree with what you are saying. I guess I should have been on IRC. ;) Calebrw (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 |
Revision 827399 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: See above comments. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 827399 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: See above comments. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
[edit]
This edit took out M. Obama's actual words as a "style improvement". Given that other news sources, from AP through Newsweek to ABC News are not only quoting this phrase verbatim but even using it in their headlines, was removing the actual words of the speech the best course of action here? Uncle G (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)