Talk:Susan Roesgen

Opinion pieces in BLPs

I've reverted an edit that inserted more opinion commentary cited to a blog, and the editor's synthesis that it was 'contrast'. There were millions of viewers of that 2-minute news clip, and I'm sure each of them have an opinion on it. If Malkin's opinion (which looks to be not hers, but simply the echoing of a 'Newsbusters' story) should be widely covered in reliable sources, we can revisit it. Per WP:WEIGHT, the BLP article shouldn't become a coatrack for every fringe opinion expressed about that one event. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, if the page is going to say Rosegen's coverage "attracted a degree of partisan commentary" it would make sense to have bipartisan footnotes rather than just links to CNN, the WashingtonPost, and the Daily Show. You need to provide the other side, or just erase this page altogether.

Both sides are provided in the two links (Daily Show isn't used). Xenophrenic (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouted obscenities

See [1][2][3][4], you have not addressed any points I've made. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I have to go. I will be back later tonight, most likely. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with ThinkEnemies on his change.184.0.119.152 (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't addressed any of the points you made? The first three of the four diffs you've given offer no points at all:

• (I think I've done a good job of explaining in the edit summaries. If you would like to, we can discuss it on the Talk Page. Do not revert.)
• (OK, I'll take a crack at it per cited sources, also removed repeat reference of CNN transcript.)
• (Perhaps you didn't read my detailed edit summaries..)
• (shouted obscenities was reported by no more than one(1) source, couple days later. For inclusion, it must be added AFTER her quotes. not as A+B=C)

The fourth diff gives your personal opinion (reported by no more than one source), and another personal opinion of yours (something has to be added after her quotes, not before). I don't see what needs addressing here. Since it is impossible for you to say only one source reported on anything, perhaps you meant to say there is only one cited source presently in the article? Most of the content in this article has but one citation, and that is all that is usually necessary. As for your personal opinion that some content should precede other content, that sounds like nothing more than style preference - unless we were trying to "bury" significant content in a less relevant portion of the text, but neither of us wish to do that.

I think this initial edit summary of yours is more demonstrative of the point you are trying to make:

• (As for obscenities, I must be after the quotes. Not before or in the middle. A lot happened to two days after the controversy. Some would call it an excuse. A rewrite of the events.)

That indicates to me that you don't believe the cited sources. Perhaps you are of the opinion Roesgen and the protestors had a calm, pleasant little chit-chat without obscenities or incivilities. You are welcome to your opinions, of course, but it is not appropriate to try to insert your personal opinion into Wikipedia articles. We need to stick to reliable sources, and those presently exist in this article. Also from the sources already cited:

"But you can obviously see the tensions rising there..." --Kyra Phillips

"He said things that we can't air because he got so angry." -- Amanda Carpenter about a protestor

Sources close to the situation tell TVNewser as Roesgen was reporting her 2pmET live shot for CNN, she heard shouts from the crowd including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch." As we now know, Roesgen wrapped up the live shot, saying "I think you get the general tenor of this," that it was "not really family viewing" from an "Anti-CNN" crowd.

If you listen to the filtered CNN video embedded here, or any of the several unfiltered videos like this one, perhaps you might change your opinion as to what Roesgen was hearing as she wrapped up her news shot. The profanity is there, as are the many screams of "CNN Sucks!", and even a few "Baba Booeys". The following content is accurate, and conforms to what the cited sources say: After hearing shouted obscenities, she concluded the interview with, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more, and since I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you, Kyra." Xenophrenic (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't use videos here at wikipedia. Please do more research on what constitutes a reliable source and come back please.71.51.22.105 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Videos aren't being used as sources here. You apparently misread. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I should tell you about WP:Too long; didn't read, I also should point out WP:OR. You fail to understand my point. Besides the argument of WP:RS I can make, you are putting one source before all the others. Tea party in Chicago, Susan Roesgen interviewed protesters with a live mic, her quotes have been reported. Two days later, after everything ensued and opinions were rendered, people close to Roesgen claim she heard obscenities from the crowd. This is how the events unfolded. Get it? How can I make it clearer? Explanations or excuses from Roesgen and the people nearest to her happened after the event, after it was reported. You cannot give preference to their reasons before the reliably sourced(reported) content. Yes, the obscenities were reported days later. No, that cannot be used as a reason for her statements(which somehow avoided her very loud mic during the event). ThinkEnemies (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources indicates she heard obscenities. Unfiltered videos, while not cited as sources, back that up. Get it? I see no sources citing "people close to Roesgen", and I'm not persuaded by your inability to read more than a paragraph nor your lack of understanding of filtered mics. You mention an "argument of WP:RS" you can make; now would be the time to raise it. Pending that argument, and since you haven't yet given an actual reason to support your edit, I'll be restoring the sourced text. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read all the the sources, this is what began my editing process. There are currently four sources, I don't feel like linking them, they are in the article. The transcript, the Washington Times and WaPo all have Roesgen's quote(s). I have no problem with them, I would even advise using a block quote. None of these sources make a mention of obscenities in the crowd, or that if true, led to her quote. TV Newser is the source of this argument(days later). This single source cannot precede Susan's well resourced quote(s). I am not opposed to it after, and made a reasonable edit to reflect this position. ThinkEnemies (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have no interest in watching the video and conducting my own original research. I'll just go by the cited sources. "People close to Roesgen" is my interpretation of a weaselly worded TV Newser excerpt:

Two days after Susan Roesgen's much talked-about Chicago Tea Party live shots, we are learning more about what happened off-camera. Sources close to the situation tell TVNewser as Roesgen was reporting her 2pmET live shot for CNN, she heard shouts from the crowd including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch." ThinkEnemies (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As we now know, Roesgen wrapped up the live shot, saying "I think you get the general tenor of this," that it was "not really family viewing" from an "Anti-CNN" crowd.

That is the third time you have raised the prospect of conducting your own original research, so I will again advise you not to - it is against policy. You are welcome to use the videos to further reassure yourself that Roesgen was indeed under a loud, raucous and profane verbal barrage as she wrapped up her news shot, but you may not cite those videos as sources in this article. Other reliable sources already exist in the article for that content.

I must agree with you that "People close to Roesgen" is a weaselly interpretion of the TVNewser source. A closer examination of the reliable source reveals that TVNewser actually cited, "Sources close to the situation", and not people close to Roesgen -- good catch. This further confirms the accuracy of the content describing what Roesgen heard, and the tenor of it. TVNewser, as noted in older discussions above, is a reliable source with the editorial oversight and accuracy Wikipedia requires. The source also notes Roesgen heard the obscenities "as she was reporting", and not two days later. (Note: The Washington Times and TVNewser sources both reported 2 days after the event, and the Washington Post 1 day after the event - all of which is irrelevant to this article.)

I understand your personal opinion about noting the verbal abuse in the article: "Some would call it an excuse. A rewrite of the events." However, reliable sources trump personal opinion. Find some reliable sources that support your opinion that Roesgen's closing comments were not the result of hearing un-airable shouts as indicated by the sources. Amanda Carpenter of the Washington Times did indeed note that things were said in anger that couldn't be aired; Kyra Phillips did indeed observe that the tensions were obviously rising there, and TVNewser did indeed learn more about the remarks heard by Roesgen. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I find ThinkEnemies' ("TE") argument and reasoning eminently more persuasive than Xenophrenic's. As TE notes, none of the reliable sources make any mention of the alleged obscenities, much less their causal relationship to her quote. But in truth, I think this issue can be resolved on the basis of the reliability of the obscenity source alone. It is not reliable. Period. Again, even if it were, it should only be mentioned/described - at best - afterwards in the manner articulated by TE.71.51.22.105 (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly, 71.xxx, that you are claiming TVNewser (one source of the obscenity content) and Amanda Carpenter on CNN (one source that things were said by a protester in anger that couldn't be aired) are not reliable sources? You are incorrect. As for the truth of the matter, I've already heard "bitch" and "bullshit", among other vocalizations on videos of the event, so I personally know it's true - but we're not using videos here. On what basis are you calling the cited sources unreliable? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to keep this discussion both civil and relevant to my edit. I have brushed off many attempts by a certain editor to make this discussion personal. I have avoided a circular argument about TV Newser as a reliable source. My edit[5] proves that I accept them as a RS, in this case. I have ignored much solicitation to conduct original research, I prefer to formulate proper edits according to reliably sourced material. I proudly announce I could care less about filtered mics, as opposed to non-filtered. My interpretation of text will never be considered "weaselly." I will not accept my words being twisted in a way intended to mock or aggravate me. I will not engage in nonsensical arguments that typically dissuade editors from attempting to improve articles. Due to my avoidance of redundancy, I have nothing else to add to this discussion. I would like to thank 71.51.22.105 for his recent contributions, both on this page and the two reverts on the BLP while this process plays out. ThinkEnemies (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A full paragraph about editors, yet nothing about article improvement and not a word to justify your lastest edit. I have reverted your edit and returned the content of the text to a state that reflects what the sources convey. You have given your opinions and expressed your interpretations, and neither are persuasive enough to justify casting the sources aside and inserting your preferred synthesis instead. The reliable sources clearly indicate what Roesgen heard as she reported, and how she concluded that report. The article should as well. Shuffling the sourced statements around in a way intended to alter their meaning from what the sources convey is inappropriate. If you have nothing to add to justify your edit, perhaps we should petition for more eyes on this matter, and more input. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have an abundance of opinions and happily offer then up when I choose. Not hard to do when you're not a POV editor, or someone that isn't fixated with a certain event or group of people. My edit explanation is not an opinion, I've never suggested "casting the sources aside." I have not wavered in my reasoning. You, however, have contradicted yourself many times. "Shuffling the sourced statements around in a way intended to alter their meaning from what the sources convey is inappropriate," I couldn't agree more. That's why this ONE(1)UNO TV Newser source must be separate from the THREE(3) other sources, as they DO NOT support your "preferred synthesis." BTW, "People close to the situation," does mean "people close to Roesgen," as they would be the source of what SHE heard(she has offered no such statement on the record). I don't know, maybe they just read her mind. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not contradicted myself at all (and your lack of even a single substantiation of that slight is noted). Your edit does not separate one source from other sources, as you contend. It separates content from one source (What Roesgen heard) from the rest of the content from that same source (As we now know, Roesgen wrapped up the live shot, saying "I think you get the general tenor of this," that it was "not really family viewing" from an "Anti-CNN" crowd). And BTW, "People close to the situation" means exactly that, your personal interpretations notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've requested page protection until this dispute is settled. Doesn't mean the page will be protected, hopefully it will introduce some new eyes to this very minor, per cited sources edit. It should at least stop the edit warring during the discussion. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

...or you could simply choose to voluntarily stop. We'd likely gather more input from a petition on a Request for Comment noticeboard, rather than PP boards. Would you care to do the honors, or shall I? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Proposed edit

In addition to my initial edit[6], I would also like to improve the article with an edit that can easily be agreed on. I've already spent far too much time on this article(which I stumbled upon while patrolling for vandalism). It took me two minutes to find two glaring improprieties, my first fix was unchallenged. A simple qualifier of "reported" or '"reportedly"' can accurately portray the TV Newser source. Susan never publicly claimed to have heard obscenities, if she did it would be the source. This source must be separate from the others. Unless we are in the business of misrepresenting the publications of CNN, the Washington Times, and WaPo. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Also remove Kyra at end of quote, or wikilink her.

This was the original:

As Roesgen was reporting, she heard shouted obscenities and she concluded the interview with, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more, and since I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you, Kyra."

This was my current version(which was intended to be a starting point to compromise, as I always assume good faith):

After the interview, she concluded, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more, and since I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you, Kyra." On April 17, 2009, it was reported that Roesgen heard obscenities shouted from the crowd.

This is my new proposal:

After the interview(s), Roesgen reportedly heard shouted obscenities from the crowd. She concluded, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you."

I could make this edit immediately, and will be more than happy to get as far away from the BLP as possible. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud any efforts to resolve content issues, and this attempt seems earnest. There are, however, a few complications that need to be addressed:

• The source says she heard the obscenities "as she reported", not after the interviews. That should be corrected.
• The source says she concluded with the words, "...I'll toss it back to you, Kyra.", not simply "...I'll toss it back to you." That should be corrected. While I personally have no objection to linking Kyra, I believe Wikipedia convention prohibits wikilinks within verbatim quotes. (If so, "Fox" should be de-linked as well.)
• Here's the probable sticking point: the insertion of the weasel qualifier "reportedly". Most factual content is "reportedly" reported, but we don't add that word unless we are trying to interject some doubt. It has either been reported by a reliable source, or it hasn't. For example, CNN "reportedly" indicated it would not renew Roesgen's contract, but the article rightly says, simply, "CNN indicated it would not be renewing Roesgen's contract" - no "reportedly about it.

Incorporating these changes results in this content:

As Roesgen was reporting, she heard shouted obscenities from the crowd. She concluded, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more, and since I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you, Kyra."

Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reportedly is essential, since their are no statements for Susan Roesgen herself. It's like allegedly, we have no choice. As for CNN declining to renew Roesgen's contract, unless they've(CNN) made an official statement, I must read: "TV Newser reported that CNN..." I am not opposed to wikilink Kyra, and Fox must be. Instead of after, I'd be fine with "During her live shot, Roesgen reportedly heard... and so forth. ThinkEnemies (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, can we use the CNN version of the full quote. That's the one I used in my most current version, and what the other sources used segments of.

• During her live shot, Roesgen reportedly heard shouted obscenities from the crowd. She concluded, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you -- Kyra"

I haven't read policy of wikilinks in quotes. I've used them, but only when absolutely necessary. ThinkEnemies (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You raise three remaining issues: using quotes from the CNN transcript; using wikilinks within quotations; and inserting weasel words such as "reportedly" or "allegedly" into the article. With regard to using quotations from the CNN transcript, this is a non-issue - I agree with you that we should use quotes from the transcript, and not from the sometimes paraphrased secondary sources. As for Wikipedia's rule to not use wikilinks within quotations (see Manual of Style, WP:LINK section):

• Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article.

The intent of this rule is to prevent editors like us from indirectly inserting our own personal (and possibly incorrect) interpretation of the quoted text. I'm fairly certain we don't run that risk here, and we can all agree that when Roesgen said "Fox" and "Kyra", she meant Fox News Channel and Kyra Phillips, and not Fox and Kyra. I won't fight to remove the wikilinks, nor will I stand in the way of their removal for the sake of uniformity.

The final problematic edit is your insertion of the word "reportedly", which you say "is essential, since their are no statements for Susan Roesgen herself. It's like allegedly, we have no choice." Wikipedia policy disagrees, as do I — in fact, we are specifically told to not insert this form of biased phrasing.

• From WP:WTA: These adjectives (and related adverbs) can imply that a given statement or term is inaccurate, without being upfront about it. This has a similar effect to scare quotes, and such usage should be avoided. If doubt exists, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who is doing the doubting and why.

You have indicated you have personal doubts about Roesgen's response to the obscenities from the crowd, but you have to refrain from inserting your doubts into this BLP when the sources do not convey those same doubts. WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:WEASEL specifically disallow this form of editing. The cited TVNewser source indicates no such doubt when it says "we are learning more about what happened off-camera", and the Amanda Carpenter source further confirms about a protester, "He said things that we can't air because he got so angry", and even Kyra noted "you can obviously see the tensions rising there" and "I know Susan Roesgen is having a hard time hearing me..." Incorporating the previously discussed changes, I propose the NPOV-compliant content:

As Roesgen was reporting live, she heard shouted obscenities from the crowd. She concluded, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you -- Kyra"

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I almost forgot. You tell me to add hearsay. I try to help you add hearsay by providing a qualifier. You say the qualifier doesn't belong, per policy. I inform you that the qualifier is the only way us wiki editors can include hearsay. Hopefully, you understand. There are many secondary sources that should be used. I recall(I will not search for, I've read terms like) "CNN sucks," "you're not a reporter, and "let him talk." These obvious quotes were reported by secondary sources, no qualifier needed. This doesn't mean Roesgen didn't hear voices. We don't know what she heard, she refuses to tell us. ''Should you, X, tell us???"" Instead, let's use what respectable journalists heard.

No, I've not told anyone to add hearsay. Yes, weasel words (qualifiers?) do not belong. I've no idea what you are speaking of with all these new terms you mentioned, but if you wish to use them in this article, please provide reliable sources. We do know what she heard, and we don't need to hear it directly from her as reliable source has already told us. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry friend. Hearsay is not something you can argue. You don't know what she heard. Hell, nobody can ever know what she heard. Look up hearsay, then talk to me. I understand Susan did a story on Drew Peterson in Chicago. Do some research on the hearsay from friends of Stacy Peterson. After this, there can be no confusion. ThinkEnemies (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm glad you will not argue to insert hearsay. Neither of us can know exactly what Roesgen heard - even if she told us personally. Fortunately, as editors of Wikipedia, we don't need to hear directly from her when we have reliable sources. We also don't have to personally see her reporting from Egypt on pyramids or from New Orleans on Katrina, we have reliable sources. We don't need to have graduated with her, or received an award with her, because we have reliable sources. I've reverted your edits so the content again reflects those sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are trying to change the subject. I want this BLP to be just. I refuse your additions of hearsay. I also refuse the mentions of Barack Obama, Abe Lincoln, or whoever else doesn't belong. Maybe you should focus your energy on an article that better suits your intentions(one w/o an editor that is committed to the encyclopedic qualities of Wikipedia). ThinkEnemies (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of it either way does not belong, its close to worthless all of it, its being given far to much space and it coatracking cnn and right wing and obama,it needs trimming almost to death, what do you want to focus on this one single two minite interview for, if it is so fantastic why not start an article about it and expand all about it there, here it is two minites in her life and is taking up a quarter of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would like this to mirror other BLP's in size and scope(for reporters, journalists, and commentators). ThinkEnemies (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And due weight, of course. Let's hit Chicago with a wide brush. Quotes do nothing to help this BLP. Reception, could be the section. No names, just praise and criticism. I will might hard to find a balance.. ThinkEnemies (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TE's argument seems reasonable.76.4.72.225 (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is 71... from above; I've been having internet problems and they've been reconfinguring it today.76.4.72.225 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify which argument of TE's seems reasonable (as he has put forth several), and why? Perhaps the input of another person will help us get over this hump. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

References

BLP dispute

I think this could be resolved by everyone simply reading WP:BLP, "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, No original research" --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think editors are making good progress in the discussions in the previous section. However, I'm concerned we might be giving the 2009 Chicago Tea Party information undue weight, and I question if it meets Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise. --Ronz (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Roesgen's notability is that she is a reporter for a major network, and the Tea Party section is about a report she did for that network. While she has done scores of similar reports, this particular one generated considerable follow-up coverage in the media, so I believe it passes the Criticism & Praise requirements and deserves mention in this bio. You might have a valid concern as to "weight", however, but I don't see how the section can be further trimmed while still conveying all significant sides of the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like it is a bit of coatracking and is clearly being given undue weight in her life story. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Roesgen and another protestor likening another president to Hitler

I think that adding information to the Tea Party section about Roesgen's reaction to another protestor likening George W Bush to Hitler adds additional context to her reaction to the Tea Party protestor likening Obama to Hitler. In the case of the Bush protestor, she did not challenge the protestor and actually said that he was a Bush "look-alike." In the case of the Tea Party Obama protestor, she strongly challenged the protestor.--Drrll (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be trying to create new perspectives by saying two plus two equals she is a ------- put whatever you think is correct there. It would be original research. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The source I would include is actually the one making the point, not just me.--Drrll (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, would you post it here so I can have a read please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"According to Mark Hemingway of National Review, in 2006, when a protester likened George W. Bush to Hitler (by costume), Roesgen did not challenge that protester as she did the Tea Party protester likening Obama to Hitler. Instead, she referred to him as a Bush "look-alike.[7]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like opinionated partisan content to me. She goes about things with all the subtlety of a brick through a window, and in the end it appears she's just an angry jerk. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that opinion sources were allowed as long as it is attributed to the source.--Drrll (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a blatant BLP violation to me. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No BLP. Perhaps the solution would be to simply state that she referred to the Hitler-Bush as a "look alike," and include the source, but say nothing more. Allow the reader to draw her or his own conclusions. It's extremely relevant, given the assertion that one of the interviewed individuals at the Tea Party was holding a sign referring to Obama as Hitler. If that's relevant, then her Hitler-Bush look alike is relevant.76.4.72.225 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Significant critism from the opposition

An IP,76.4.72.225 with ten edits is insisting and repeatedly inserting the there was significant criticism from all and sundry, of course there was, she is left wing and the right wing criticized her...this is not what wikipedia is here for.. it is totally partisan and has no value here in this BLP perhaps in another article like obama or whatever, it is totally clear to m that this issue is being given excessive weight in her life by people with an issue to coatrack on her life. This will not alter anything politically at all, as wikipedia editors we should protect living people from becoming coatracks for the right wing or the left wing pushers, we should do all we can to keep this kind of partisan pov out of articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is Wikipedia for crying out loud... the king of political bias. If an article has even the slightest potential for being spun - however remote - you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be spun to the left. The only way to fight these college drop-outs is to be as bat-shit-crazy persistent as they are. You have to just keep coming back and keep coming back and keep insisting (and changing) an article until it is neutral. It's sad, but that's the way it goes.76.4.72.225 (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you not find another outlet for your opinions? Off2riorob (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks

Now look, all over a couple of silly words, how good is that, looking out of my window nothing has changed at all. At least now it is locked editors can move on to the next push, this tea party was last year , old news, it should be stable, well if anyone wants to talk about it we have a couple of weeks, to find consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I got tired of seeing this on my watchlist every ten minutes. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha , me too...all over about 40 words.. tiresome.. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The semi-protect will reduce the watchlist pings, since the IP editors will be vacationing, but I don't see it resolving the problem between myself and TE. His last several edits (and reverts) have been to insert a single word: "reportedly"

I don't see what all the fuss is about. My personal preference would be to strip down the whole nonsensical section to a single sentence that says: Roesgen interviewed some people at a political rally which generated both criticism and support, largely corresponding to partisan lines. Then leave it at that for a year until it fades from recent political memory, and other editors will realize it is irrelevant and probably remove it from the BLP completely. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

A recent revert by Off2riorob has an edit summary claiming disputed content, but I can't find his explanation of what he is disputing here. The edits he has reverted consist of:
1) My change of the word "source" to "sources", because that is what the cited article says.
2) My addition the words "as Roesgen was reporting" directly from the cited article, for clarification.
3) I moved the sentence about how she concluded her report after the sentence about what happened during her report, exactly how it is in the cited article.
It would be helpful if you could refrain from reverting constructive edits without discussion, and it would also help if you could be a little more specific in your edit summaries. Simply claiming an edit is "disputed" doesn't give us much to work with if you don't explain that dispute. Could you please elaborate? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That word reported, has been a cause of reverting for a few day, lets say, perhaps I was a bit trigger happey and was surprised I thought the article was fully protected,did you change the citation? if you did and it is directly from the citation then it can go back, I see you reverted it anyway, so..sorry about that ..perhaps we should start again, what we need to agree on it the wording and the size of the comment. I think presently the interview is being given excessive weight and an editor also said that just above, perhaps we should have a look at it here and make a deal? This is one interview on one day in one year of a multiple year career, has she not done any other interviews? I would like to see the section trimmed and put back at the bottom of CNN section. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The present version doesn't have the weasel word, "reportedly" in it. That word was the reason for many of the previous reverts. As I said above, I agree with you that the tea party interview is being given too much weight in this article - and should be trimmed, and certainly doesn't deserve its own header any more than the scores of other news reports she has done. I think some editors here won't be happy unless Roesgen appears to be defined only by the tea party content in this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, its a bit coatracky but what to do, anyway there doesn't appear to be any opposition here as yet to your addition. If there is no opposition in the next day or so we should get the artice unlocked, funny how everyone has disappeared.Off2riorob (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 Chicago Tea Party

On April 15, 2009, Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago, including one protester calling Barack Obama a fascist and carrying sign depicting him as Adolf Hitler, and another protester that praised Abraham Lincoln. Sources close to the situation told TV Newser that Roesgen heard shouts as she was reporting, including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch," from the crowd. Roesgen concluded her live shot with, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you -- Kyra" Mona Charen of the National Review said that the the interview style was confrontational. George Washington University professor of media, Frank Sesno, defended Roesgen for not letting statements go unchallenged. A CNN spokesperson said, "She was doing her job, and called it like she saw it."

From TV Newser source:

Two days after Susan Roesgen's much talked-about Chicago Tea Party live shots, we are learning more about what happened off-camera. Sources close to the situation tell TVNewser as Roesgen was reporting her 2pmET live shot for CNN, she heard shouts from the crowd including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch." As we now know, Roesgen wrapped up the live shot, saying "I think you get the general tenor of this," that it was "not really family viewing" from an "Anti-CNN" crowd.

References

tea party discussion

Is there anybody who does not accept Zeno's version? Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't. She or he needs to get a reliable source for that obscenities nonsense.Jt14905 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As established in above sections, the source meets RS requirements. Gamaliel (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the source meets WP:RS standards. I'm the one that crafted the final version, more or less. I believe TVNewser's reports should be after the Roesgen quote, where I originally placed it. I do believe this section is too much. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the quote, President Obama, the Fuhrer and Honest Abe. Maybe just the reporting of the segment, reactions good and/or bad, as they relate to Roesgen. I'm not even sure if she's gone from CNN, or that this was the reason. †TE†Talk 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to see the back of abe, hitler and obama. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I know of this discussion from the talk page of Off2riorob.) As a result of this dispute, the section is written in a very poor way. Instead of stitching facts and quotes together, we should paraphrase the incident and the explanation in a neutral way. Sole Soul (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yo , sole how are you doing, cool, yea, write a little-ish comment and we can have a look. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Again

Another user is reverting without any discussion, I have left him User_talk:ExitW3Must a warning on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

I've asked the page be protected again, due to various SPAs deleting information from the page and claiming the sources aren't reliable. I can find no evidence on this talk page that the material is anything other than properly sourced, and the various accounts haven't bothered to explain their deletion. I'm opening up this section in hopes of getting some discussion on the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• This has been so tiresome, suggest removing all the political partisan commentry from the comment so as to free this BLP from involvement in the bigger issues. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

On April 15, 2009, Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago. The interview attracted a degree of partisan commentary. [8] [9] .

Something simple like this and removed from its own section and placed back in the CNN section. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to appease multiple disruptive editors, rather than writing from the available sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I have always thought that this political partisan stuff was being coat acked on to her bio. I am looking for a stable article and I have no preference for either the republicans or democrats. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2009 Chicago Tea Party

On April 15, 2009, Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago, including one protester calling Barack Obama a fascist and carrying sign depicting him as Adolf Hitler, and another protester that praised Abraham Lincoln. Sources close to the situation told TV Newser that Roesgen heard shouts as she was reporting, including "Damn CNN" and "Shut up, bitch," from the crowd.[20] Roesgen concluded her live shot with, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox. And since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you -- Kyra"[21][22][23] Mona Charen of the National Review said that the interview style was confrontational.[24][25][26] George Washington University professor of media, Frank Sesno, defended Roesgen for not letting statements go unchallenged.[27] A CNN spokesperson said, "She was doing her job, and called it like she saw it." [28][20]

What actually has the great majority of this got to do with the subject of this bio? Very very little. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the past, I think we've been giving it undue weight. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes I remember your comments now, if the report favors neither one side or the other the article can stabilize. I have found this really works. and if people want the titillating detail they can click on one of the links. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that we don't remove the very facts that make this incident worth noting. There are no "sides" being favored here, only sources and information from those sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue actually has its own page and in the lifelong career of the subject here it is getting undue weight. To me the comment as we have looks as if it is an attack on republicans but as I said I am neutral and have little understanding of the complexities and as you said, it's all in the citations oh well locked again. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of Roesgen in Tea Party protests. Are you referring to somewhere else? --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the actual Tea party article, when I said this issue, I was referring to the tea party not to Roesgen, although it is interesting that this interview is unworthy of a mention there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here she is, Tea_Party_movement at first glance it looks like a cut and copy of what we have here or the other way round. It is not exactly the same, hey don't have abe and adolf and barack larging it up there and they don't have the additional information of Shut up bitch and damn cnn . Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC).Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party coverage

Currently this article states: "On April 15, 2009, Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago. The interview attracted a degree of partisan commentary.[19][20]" This isn't very informative. Why not state what she said, and what was controversial about it? 'A degree of partisan commentary' is so vague as to be useless. Robofish (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A 2-minute news broadcast in the life of a 40-something year old career journalist - not exactly stunning biographical content, I agree. I'm surprised it is even mentioned, but someone thought it was important enough to squeeze in here. You can probably find more information on it in the cited sources, or in the Tea Party movement article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That right, nice and vague, which has at least stabilized the article, it is mostly coat racking of an issue that is nothing to do with her and there is a link to the tea party movement article so reporting the excessive detail is of little or no value here, in fact the inclusion of the coatracking details was disruptive and destabilizing to this article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Current wording for Tea Party coverage

How does "Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a 2009 Tea Party protest in Chicago" indicate the noteworthiness of that incident? The version that Gamaliel restored did indicate how the incident was noteworthy. If we want to keep the size of this to a minimum, we should at least note that according to the reporting of Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post, Roesgen argued with a protester at the event. Drrll (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of disruption last year about this and the article repeatedly locked down and this was the consensus addition related to undue coverage of a single interview and coatrack of the tea party dispute. The article then stabilized for over six months, as its a BLP that is a good thing, I still support the old consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "noteworthiness" of the Tea Parties on April 15th, 2009, is fairly self-explanatory, as is the noteworthiness of the Katrina hurricane, the death of Michael Jackson and the Jena Six trials — all of which are similarly mentioned in that same section. If the reader wants to be further informed on the noteworthiness of these events, she can follow the Wikilinks provided in the article. Kurtz' commentary about Roesgen's interview with the guy carrying the Fascist Obama=Hitler sign, as well as comments from other news people about the obscenities hurled at Roesgen while she reported, and comments about how Roesgen was right to ask probing questions, etc., are numerous, but not noteworthy in themselves. The article already mentions that partisan commentary was generated. That is sufficient for a WP:BLP; we don't need to coatrack a whole laundry list of such commentary from all across the spectrum in an article on an individual. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the decision to trim the section but I understand the reasoning behind it. I would support a fuller treatment of the issue, but not one that singles out Kurtz as the only quoted or cited commentator on the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as the Kurtz article, it is reporting, not commentary. This event is hardly incidental in Roesgen's career and thus deserves fuller coverage in her WP article. Almost all reporting on Roesgen since the event has mentioned it. Besides the Kurtz Washington Post reporting, there is reporting on this on Kurtz' TV show Reliable Sources on April 19, 2009 and the following news articles:

• July 16, 2009 TV Newser article on Roesgen leaving CNN
• July 20, 2009 The Hotline article mentioning TV Newser's reporting
• September 14, 2009 The Washington Times article about Tea parties
• November 18, 2009 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article mentioning Roesgen leaving CNN
• January 31, 2011 New Orleans Times-Picayune article about Roesgen returning to the air in New Orleans

Clearly this is still a significant event in Roesgen's career. The above articles mention that she "argued" with a protestor, that her reporting was criticized, and that her report was "confrontational." "Confrontational" seems to sum up her reporting on this the best. Drrll (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While Kurtz may do some shoe-leather reporting once in a while, the top of the article you cite in your edit identifies him as "columnist" and the column itself pleads "Guys, what happened to we're-just-covering-the-events?" on the first page, so I think it's safe to put that particular piece in the category of commentary. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Drrll (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The event is incidental in her career in that it was THE thing that sent her packing to the, as would be perceived among her fellow talking heads, the lowly local news of a small town. Yes, New Orleans is a small town to locals and those in entertainment. In effect, she'd been promoted from her job at a local New Orleans station to the national scene then abruptly demoted after backlash to her comments at the tea party event. Considering her employer was CNN, the backlash had to be significant for her to be fired. The show she co-anchored on WGNO following her firing was called News With A Twist and would be considered by any of today's news anchors as a severe step down the success ladder. Rather than actual news stories of the weight Roesgen had previously been reporting on, this show was silly enough to have a bar scene for a backdrop and barstools for the co-hosts to sit on. In keeping with the non serious tone of this "non news" news show, Susan now became "Susie" Roesgen. 2600:8807:50C7:3D00:E8AD:DCF0:145:D5C7 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is an example of her work on News With A Twist. A promo with Jerry Springer.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zC9WCXXE37Q 2600:8807:50C7:3D00:E8AD:DCF0:145:D5C7 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Please comment on this proposal for changing the wording about Roesgen's Tea Party coverage. It keeps things brief and avoids long quotations, but covers all the bases:

In 2009, Roesgen "confrontational[ly]" reported on a Tea Party protest in Chicago that featured a sign depicting President Obama as Adolf Hitler and that reportedly included insults against Roesgen and CNN. Conservative commentators critized Roesgen's reporting, but a George Washington professor and CNN defended her.

"Confrontational" comes from a recent Times-Picayune article about Roesgen. Drrll (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean this article, by a TV columnist in the Entertainment section of that local paper? Well, at least it has a quote from her on that particular reporting event.

Comments:

• "confrontationally", while contained in scare-quotes, is still presented as an unqualified fact, when it is actually a subjective description.
• The fact that insults and obscenities were hurled at Roesgen is qualified with the "reportedly" weasel-word.
• Commentaries in support of her reporting are designated as coming from a mere 2 sources, while the mention of commentaries critical of her reporting contain no such limitation.
• For a proposed expansion purportedly covering all the bases of views both critical and in defense, why does it present a specific criticism ("controntational"), while avoiding specifics in defense ... saying only "defended her"?
• I see that the defense is described as coming from specific elitist institutions of higher learning, and mainstream media sources (I recall being told these are code words in conservative circles), while exact descriptions the criticism sources are absent, and vaguely described as "conservative".

I think I favor the following content for the BLP article: On April 15, 2009, Roesgen interviewed a number of people at a Tea Party protest in Chicago. The interview attracted a degree of partisan commentary. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I also don't support Drll's desired addition - we are not her to report the pityful POV of the partisan whoevers - this single interview is actually a pin prick on this persons career. "confrontationally" as above in scare quoted just above says it all, and the added titillation and drama mongering of mentioning hitler this type of addition is actually already on that tea party article where it sits a lot better. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned specifics of the Tea Party protest to give context and a defense to Roesgen's confrontational reporting. Reliable sources discussing Roesgen after the Tea Party event don't agree with you that is "actually a pin prick on this persons career." Nearly all sources play the Tea Party reporting event quite prominently. Drrll (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I used "reportedly" because of the source: "Sources close to the situation tell TVNewser as Roesgen was reporting her 2pmET live shot for CNN, she heard shouts from the crowd including “Damn CNN” and “Shut up, bitch.”" Unnamed sources deserve the use of "reportedly."

I was vague about "conservative commentators" because the commentators (like Mona Charen and Michelle Malkin) don't have a specific qualification like a professor or a news organization has--it wasn't meant to portray criticism as exceeding defense.

That's a fair point about not having specifics regarding her defense. Drrll (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This again!?! ¡Ay, caramba! †TE†Talk 01:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We should at the least mention in some way that her reporting at the event was confrontational/contentious/argumentative. That's the way multiple sources characterize it, even months or years after the fact:

• Washington Post:" At a Chicago demonstration, CNN's Susan Roesgen started arguing with a protester over why he referred to President Obama as a fascist."
• Washington Times: "CNN reporter Susan Roesgen was confronted during a live segment at a tea party in Chicago in April while she aggressively grilled a man about President Obama's tax policies."
• Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "During the coverage, Roesgen began debating with a protester and stated the event was "anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox.""
• Times-Picayune: "Susan Roesgen, whose confrontational CNN reportage from an April 2009 Chicago Tea Party rally sparked criticism from all points along the political spectrum, will co-anchor a new local 6 p.m. semi-newscast set in a mock barroom."

Drrll (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

-- We should at the least mention in some way that her reporting at the event was confrontational/contentious/argumentative.

Again, you are stating that as a matter of fact, instead of the subjective opinion that it is -- and you are insisting that these contradicted opinions be added to this BLP as if they were somehow important.

-- We should at the least mention that Obama wasn't born in the United States.

There is a reason that we don't stuff these kinds of things into biographies. If you feel that this matter of opinions variously describing Roesgen's interviewing style is of sufficient notability and interest, then I suggest creating an article about it, as was done for the myriad of opinions expressed about Obama's birth. Along with your opinions that Roesgen's reporting is confrontational and argumentative, we can add to that new article opinions that her reporting "asked the necessary questions"; "didn't let firebombs go unchallenged"; was "stoic amid the obvious hostility"; "you have to wonder if more reporters at CNN will step up like Susan Roesgen did"; and "her responsibility as a journalist is to challenge", etc. Yes, we can obviously have loads of fun with your new article, but this BLP isn't the place for it.

Off2riorob is correct when he notes this was just a 2 minute segment in a reporter's life. The events during that 2 minute interview are no more notable or out of the ordinary than what occurs every day in the White House press room, for example. I'm not doubting that you can find a whole range of sourced adjectives to describe her reporting during that segment, but unless reliable sources have reported that Roesgen has established herself as a "insert adjective here"-kind of reporter (beyond just that one interview segment), then it has no place in this BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the suggested language tracks with reliable sources that state that she "started arguing with a protestor," "aggressively grilled a man," "began debating with a protestor," and "whose confrontational CNN reportage…" WP articles, BLPs included, are supposed to be based upon what reliable sources say. And reliable sources do not state things like "Obama wasn't born in the United States" or "you have to wonder if more reporters at CNN will step up like Susan Roesgen did" (from DailyKos).

There is no getting around the fact that nearly all coverage of Roesgen since that event prominently mentions her style of reporting in her coverage of the Chicago Tea Party event. That definitely distinguishes that from "what occurs every day in the White House press room." And I am not trying to state that Roesgen is a confrontational-kind of reporter--just that she was confrontational in her coverage of that event on that day.

I am not tied to a specific way of conveying that she argued with protestors, but in discussing her Chicago Tea Party coverage that does need to be conveyed in some way. Drrll (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

-- I am not trying to state that Roesgen is a confrontational-kind of reporter...

Good; that case has not been made in reliable sources.

-- ...just that she was confrontational in her coverage of that event on that day.

Then do so in an article about that event or that day, as suggested above. (I believe someone may have beaten you to that.) And when you do make your statement of that opinion, expect statements of opposing opinions to be inserted right along side it -- all reliably sourced, of course.

-- I am not tied to a specific way of conveying that she argued with protestors, but in discussing her Chicago Tea Party coverage that does need to be conveyed in some way.

I can see your need, and I have no problem with that. There are all kinds of conflicting viewpoints we can convey about that coverage of the Chicago Tea Party when discussing it. This BLP isn't the place for that discussion; consensus was against it, and I don't see that anything has changed during the almost two years hence. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Susan Roesgen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100418021111/http://www.cnn.com:80/CNN/anchors_reporters/roesgen.susan.html to http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/roesgen.susan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susan Roesgen. 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://archive.is/20070212201254/http://suncoast.emmyonline.org/emmy/2000Awards/winners2000.htm to http://suncoast.emmyonline.org/emmy/2000Awards/winners2000.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Lol

"Wikipedia isn't biased", the editors claim, as they refuse to mention Susan Roesgen openly arguing with people she was supposed to be interviewing (easily the defining moment of her otherwise ignoble career), then lock the article to prevent anyone putting in factual data. Keep begging for money, Wikipedia.