Talk:One America News Network: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:27, 30 November 2017

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

California Start‑class Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Start‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disambiguation

A disambiguation page is needed for OAN as a way to find this article and others with the same acronym.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TNKS! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the audience

Over time, the last sentence of the article will change (comparing the viewership to Al Jazeera, and giving the reference as only "it is believed".) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this to boost the new network: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3168926/Tomi-Lahren-22-rants-live-TV-Obama-s-tip-toe-efforts-against-terrorism.html -- AstroU (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the article says is that her speech (though completely unfounded) was viewed 755,000 times on YouTube. YouTube wouldn't count towards TV viewership. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watching their show this morning, their pomotional spot says (as of this date) they are carried on 150 cable systems. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on One America News Network. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Herring

Charles Herring, the force behind a media company carried on 150 cable networks and no Wikipedia entry? https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesherring --Wikipietime (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some good info on Charles Herring: https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/One-America-News-Network-Reviews-E859149.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananahammockman (talk • contribs) 06:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article if you feel like it is merited. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OANN vs OAN

In the article, should the network be referred to as OANN or OAN?

Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP numbers, let's talk

The reverted text[1] is reliably sourced (Washington Post, Snopes, the Independent, Buzzfeed). The edit summaries of the IP numbers are deceptive in the extreme: two IP numbers claim that these four sources amount to "one editorial" when there's absolutely no editorial cited. The last IP number says the text isn't neutrally worded, which is just nonsense. The IP numbers appear to be familiar with Wikipedia lingo, yet they all have less than 5 edits between them until they started to whitewash the page in question. If their intent is to deter me from editing this page, it's not going to work. In fact, these edits are inspiring me to spend more time building this Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this considered state run media?

Should we characterize One America News Network as State media because it's a pro-Trump news network and because Trump is now President of the United States, should this be categorized as state media/propaganda for the Trump administration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddediteddie (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we go by RS. If an RS describes it as state media, we attribute the claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change...

One America News Network (abbreviated as OANN), also referred to as One America News (abbreviated as OAN), is a conservative pro-Trump^[1]^[2] American cable news television channel, launched in 2013, that is owned by Herring Networks, Inc.

to...

One America News Network, commonly referred to as One America News (abbreviated as OAN), is an American cable news television channel that is owned by Herring Networks, Inc.. The network is headquartered in San Diego, California, and operates a news bureau in Washington, D.C.^[3] and New York City.^[4]

because the previous edit is factually incorrect and is politically charged in an effort to defame the subject. Maddygardner3 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "An inside look at One America News, the insurgent TV network taking 'pro-Trump' to new heights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-10-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ "Trump's awful Britain tweet posted minutes after identical report by conspiracy theorist news channel". The Independent. 2017-10-20. Retrieved 2017-10-21.
^ "One America News Cable News Network Announces Debut in Collaboration with The Washington Times". The Washington Times. May 30, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ "Run by the right, OAN is the best news channel". NY Daily News. Retrieved 2017-05-15.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The conservative and Trump stuff can be covered, but having it in the first sentence is clearly bad formatting. Look at other news networks for example like Fox News. The ideology stuff also does not replace the fact that it is headquartered in San Diego and has a news bureau in Washington D.C., which is pretty standard stuff for the first sentence of a news channel. Not sure why that is gone. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about sentence describing coverage instructions of specific subjects by owner Charles Herring in the lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Does the source cited support this statement, and does it merit the inclusion of it in the lead section? "Charles Herring, the owner of the channel, has ordered producers to promote certain types of content, such as pro-Trump stories, anti-Clinton stories and anti-abortion stories, and ignore stories about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election."

Fisher, Marc. "An inside look at One America News, the insurgent TV network taking 'pro-Trump' to new heights". Washington Post. Washington Post. Retrieved 9 November 2017.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Oppose This sentence describing specific directions on specific stories is clearly WP:Undue weight and all of the stuff it mentions is already summarized by the conservative stance in the lead. The lead summarizes the contents, and is not supposed to give specific instances. Doing is also very inconsistent with the leads of other news channels such as Fox News or MSNBC which both clearly have had editorial directions on specific issues in the past, but obviously that is not highlighted in the WP:Lead. Also seems to be WP:Recent regarding specific election matters. Anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, and anti-abortion all fall under normal conservative ideology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Include Merely saying that they are conservative/pro-Trump covers a lot of ground, from center-right to far-far-right. This is not a widely known network so specific examples are helpful to assessing just where they stand. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Include. It's notable that a network is being ordered by the owner to cover certain types of content and ignore other content. A news outlet may have conservative leanings is one thing, while this kind of interference is something else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not LEAD - fails WP:LEAD as it is just a single source and not DUE proportion of its article or coverage or even the proportionate to how much the Washington Post one article had it. Put right-lean in top as commonly said and media bias fact-check.com. This bit should be smaller and down in the article. Markbassett (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not follow WP:LEAD guidelines or match similar articles of news organizations that have an editorial bias. Should be relocated to the "Trump presidency and access" section.--Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:LEDE arguments above. The lede paragraph relies on a single source which is not used elsewhere in the article. Sources should be incorporated appropriately in their relevant sections then where applicable summarized in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, it does not matter how well known the network is, it is important that Wikipedia articles maintain consistency and follow the correct encyclopedic format. It is clear that highlighting specific examples like this is the lead in this case is not only unnecessary, but wholly inconsistent with the formatting of Wikipedia. Anti-Clinton, pro-Trump, and anti-abortion all fall under typical conservative ideology, which is already summarized in the lead. "Minimizing Russian stories" is also consistent with most conservative outlets. The Washington Post article simply attempted to highlight the network's conservative coverage, which is already described in detail. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marquis de Faux, and oppose the inclusion of this passage because it does not meet WP:LEAD guidelines which govern the formatting of similar articles. I would agree this falls under the umbrella of usual conservative media hijinks. Beyond the formatting issue, no one expects FNC to cover Russiagate quite as heavily as CNN. Similarly, it's not expected Jeff Zucker would be telling his staff at CNN to focus on Uranium One. It's worth keeping in the "Trump presidency and access" section, but not appropriate for the lead.--Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the author sounded familiar. Fisher wrote this particularly unflattering piece on Sean Hannity, also in the Style section. "Style" seems to be a mix of news and opinion on Arts and Entertainment. I would give it less weight than the Post's news coverage, print or online. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post blog source - Marty Kaplan

I was tempted to remove this Huffington Post blog source from the article [2] until I saw it was written by Marty Kaplan who holds a prestigious position at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism[3] which USA Today ranks as one of the top journalism schools.[4] Instead I think should be expanded. This comment is a note to myself as much as any editor who is interested in expanding it. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Moore sexual misconduct report controversy

The first paragraph of this section is cited to two sources both of which only mention One America News in passing:

Newsweek - The rumor was recycled by pro-Trump radio station One America News Network
The Daily Beast - The pro-Trump cable station One America News Network even aired the news, citing a “report.”

I removed this citing undue weight. It was restored. I would like others to comment.

The Washingtonian, which describes itself as "the region’s top source of information for dining, shopping, entertainment, and personalities", is clearly not RS. Objections should be presented at RSN. In the meantime I have removed it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[:1-1] "An inside look at One America News, the insurgent TV network taking 'pro-Trump' to new heights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-10-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[:2-2] "Trump's awful Britain tweet posted minutes after identical report by conspiracy theorist news channel". The Independent. 2017-10-20. Retrieved 2017-10-21.

[WT02-3] "One America News Cable News Network Announces Debut in Collaboration with The Washington Times". The Washington Times. May 30, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[4] "Run by the right, OAN is the best news channel". NY Daily News. Retrieved 2017-05-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 I was tempted to remove this Huffington Post blog source from the article [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/my-new-favorite-news-netw_b_6419182.html] until I saw it was written by Marty Kaplan who holds a prestigious position at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/marty-kaplan] which USA Today ranks as one of the top journalism schools.[http://college.usatoday.com/2016/09/30/best-journalism-schools/] Instead I think should be expanded. This comment is a note to myself as much as any editor who is interested in expanding it. [[User:James J. Lambden|James J. Lambden]] ([[User talk:James J. Lambden|talk]]) 20:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
+== [[One_America_News_Network#Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_report_controversy|Roy Moore sexual misconduct report controversy]] ==
+The first paragraph of this section is cited to two sources both of which only mention One America News in passing:
+* [http://www.newsweek.com/roy-moore-supporters-spreading-conspiracy-theories-accusers-712117 Newsweek] - ''The rumor was recycled by pro-Trump radio station One America News Network''
+* [https://www.thedailybeast.com/troll-smearing-roy-moores-accuser-stole-dead-seals-identity The Daily Beast] - ''The pro-Trump cable station One America News Network even aired the news, citing a “report.”''
+I removed this citing undue weight. It was restored. I would like others to comment.
+The Washingtonian, which describes itself as ''"the region’s top source of information for dining, shopping, entertainment, and personalities"'', is clearly not RS. Objections should be presented at RSN. In the meantime I have removed it. [[User:James J. Lambden|James J. Lambden]] ([[User talk:James J. Lambden|talk]]) 21:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)