Talk:Bush has a rehearsed tele-conference with US troops in Iraq

It does not appear that our article supports the evident statement of fact in the first line. Nor does it indicate that the conversations are rehearsed. It may be that the sources support these facts, but those facts aren't in our article. --Chiacomo (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly

Words like allegedly are great if you want to maintain a NPOV, but I have to say I don't often see them used when there is video and audio documentation that something has in fact taken place. And in regards to that proof not being in this article, the sources are proof. If you need embedded video and audio in the wiki article, then the word alleged needs to be added to a few hundred thousand other articles as well. (posted by KnuckleBean, 19:18, 14 October 2005)

I agree that "allegedly" doesn't need to be used here, this doesn't make any claims that aren't supported by the sources, which are themselves reporting on what was broadcast for all to see. It doesn't say "the conversations were rehearsed", it says Barber was "coaching the soldiers about what topics the president would be asking questions about", "rehearsing their actions on camera" and "reminding them of what questions have been assigned to each soldier." All of those things are supported by the quotes, which are considered facts due to the wealth of provided reliable sources. If some people are concerned that people will read this article and conclude that the entire thing was staged, then... well, people do have a funny way of examining the facts and using them to form conclusions. -Eisnel 22:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with all the titles that have been proposed is that they assign some malicious intent in preparing some military officers for an interview with their commander-in-chief. I can't imagine anyone being interviewed by the president without some preparation. The article itself says (at the bottom) that the soldiers were prepared, but that their answers were their own. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that these officers were "prepared" for the interview -- and indeed the president was prepared as well by his advisors. This was a publicity stunt -- were it not, it would not have been televised -- but the POV problem arises when we present these facts as inherently bad (or good, for that matter). Why can't the title simply say "Bush holds televised interviews with US officers in Iraq" or something like that? Let our readers draw their own conclusions. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem I see. Perhaps if the story focused on the critcs view of the events (as well as those who don't see the problem with it) it would be harder to characterize it as POV. The problem with that, is where are you going to find that discussion? The news agencies reporting aren't giving us that side, so unless the author conducts interviews its going to be impossible to make it sound any different. Perhaps if we could lengthen the Whitehouse's rebuttal to the accusations it would balance it a little more, but I think for a story as interesting as this it would be unfair to keep it in development hell. Unless someone can come up with very specific POV charges (apart from "it kinda sounds POV") then the tag should be removed at it placed on the published page. Choosing what story to cover shouldn't be considered POV. --Wolfrider 23:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about the title. There's probably a better title out there. But there's a problem with your title suggestion: This story isn't about the teleconference, it's about the pre-conference rehearsal before the teleconference. Why is that news? Because a number of other news outlets have decided it's news, and because it interests people, the same reason anything is news. If this were just about the teleconference and not what happened just before it, then your title "Bush holds televised interviews with US officers in Iraq" would be fine. But a minor media uproar has occured due to Barber's televised preparations with the troops, and we need to report on it too, so here we are. The title needs to reflect that. Perhaps "Bush aide rehearsing troops in preparation for interview with President draws allegations of a scripted performance". I know, that title sucks, because I suck at titles. But what I'm trying to point out is that the title needs to say what the article is about, and the article isn't really about the teleconference, it's about what came right before and the buzz and denials that followed it. Another title idea: "White House denies perception that President's interview with troops was staged." -Eisnel 23:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, does anybody know how many stories that become the centre of an NPOV dispute AREN'T stories with some connection to President Bush?! Rcameronw 22:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Edbrown05's title

At this moment, Edbrown05 has changed to the title to "Bush teleconference with Iraqi troopers criticized as rehearsed" -- I think this is great. I might make change it to Bush teleconference with US troops in Iraq criticized as rehearsed, but his title is fine. I'm just noting this here in case it changes again and I forget. Does anyone object to Ed's title? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's great. --Wolfrider 23:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to imagine (like said above) this conference would have gone off without some preparations of the soldiers part. With the headline change, I think the most seriously objectionable NPOV allegation has been meet, so I'm removing the tag and moving this to 2nd lead. -Edbrown05 23:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I still have a problem with it. Since I'm new to actually editing the site, I'm not going to make a fuss or try more changes of my own, but if I came across this without having been exposed to the story before, the new headline would leave me with the impression that the article dealth with criticism. Criticism comes from critics, critics are not neutral, criticism is opinion based on a POV. I could argue that in a more subtle way, this headline is as equally inappropriate as "alleged" was. It suggests that the content is the actual criticism or that it will be critical, and that what is newsworthy is the criticism and not the teleconference. Don't get me wrong, this is a headline worthy of unbiased news sources everywhere. It could appear in the NY Times and I wouldn't blink. But our news media handles the truth with kid gloves, because polls say people don't trust or like them, and their earnings often show it. They walk on egg shells unless sudden public outrage spurs them into mild fits of journalism. But the truth in this piece of news is simple: The President held a pre-rehearsed teleconference with American soldiers in Iraq. I understand how using "Bush" for short might hit a nerve with people tired of hearing "Bush did this," and "Bush did that," sometimes I don't like hearing it either, especially from the mouth of someone I know wants to influence my opinion, not inform me of facts. But these are facts, and whether you use "Administration held" or "Whitehouse held" or "Rehearsed by administration staff" or something incredibly passive like, "Live News Cameras record rehearsal and preparation for President's teleconference with Troops in Tikrit" -- no matter what you use, the facts are that it happened. It wasn't criticized by the news, it was reported by the news, and this is wikiNEWS. It also is not simple preparation as was suggested, simple preparation is nonspecific and could refer to hairspray. Also the dictionary definition of rehearsal is not compatible with the definitions of interview or conversation. --KnuckleBean 08:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't find one thing wrong with KnuckleBean's reasoning, nor can I find where anyone on the talk page feels his title was POV...so I am putting it back for the sake of title integrity. Neutralizer 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutralizer, if you cared to read my comment above, you would very much recognise that, leastwise myself, finds the newly-revised-by-you headline POV. Hard to believe you find it that important to change it (thereby creating messy redirects) when the previous headline was satisfactory by a seeming concensus. -Edbrown05 14:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry about changing the headline; I thought it was ambiguous and could read as if only Iraqis were involved "iraqi troopers" and then I had trouble changinging it something that made sense. Anyway, whatever headline the rest want is fine; I would change it back to Ed's headline right now except for KnuckleBean's comments below; sorry, I should have just left it alone. Neutralizer 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Neut, please change the headline back to what it was. --Wolfrider 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless deleting the word "allegedly" makes it my headline, it wasn't my headline. Maybe I should've considered it more and used something similar to what I suggested in my last post. But moving on, I still don't understand the logic of using 'criticized' in the headline when the subject of the article is not criticism, but the actual rehearsal. It's like changing the headline of an article about the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal to read "Clinton holds booty call, criticized as adulterous." It also undercuts the reality of a rehearsal by suggesting administration critics are the source. --KnuckleBean 16:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Because rehersals are not news. What makes this interesting and noteworthy is that there is a controversy generated because of it. There is discussion about whether or not this means Bush was padding his conference or that the soldiers were simply speaking their mind. It raises alot of questions about whether Bush is actively censoring and altering information that would undermine the administrations policies. That's what the news part of this is. The implications and discussions around the rehersal. --Wolfrider 16:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe there is a confusion here over the disparity in source coverage between the words "Staged" and "Rehearsed". I agree that the larger focus of most of the news coverage is the controversy over whether it may have been "staged" even in advance of the rehearsal. That said, even from this perspective I don't understand the purpose of going back to "criticized as rehearsed". If rehearsal is not noteworthy (personally I think both are significant) or at least less noteworthy, then it should not be the headline. But I also object to "staged" simply because it makes no sense. I realize that for FOX, ABC, and the Pentagon it has some kind of incendiary meaning. I also realize that as a country we in America seem to be hurtling through some sort of plus ungood doublespeak hellscape devoid of dictionaries where words mean whatever most people can be tricked into thinking they mean, but the fact that the teleconference was rehearsed, that each party had prepared statements to make (regardless whether or not they passed out copies to eachother), and that it was recorded for an audience intended only to see the results post-prep, makes it staged by any defnition of the word. Anyway, my thoughts.--KnuckleBean 21:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

sgt. ron long's blog...

...has been positively identified as sgt. ron long's blog? Doldrums 14:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)