Talk:Clinton calls Fox interview "conservative hitjob"

Reporting notes
Okay, so I don't get Fox News Sunday, but I found it on youtube.


 * Part 1
 * Part 2
 * Part 3

--Brian McNeil / talk 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This story would be much improved by reading the interview & including more Clinton quotes., comedy gold in them thar hills! Maybe I'l watch it again. :) Nyarlathotep 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It really depends what you want to emphasise, the two key points that I wanted to bring out were related to the issue of media bias. Clinton made a big deal out of getting a "loaded" question and his perception that the Republicans get questions that are "loaded" in other (favourable) ways.  Without leading the reader to a conclusion I wanted to bring that aspect out. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Original?
Why is this marked as original reporting? There are no notes here to suggest this is original. Jason Safoutin 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Original applies when you observe something directly, even if it is a TV show. The closest analogy I can come up with is being present at a press conference and citing the answers given to reporters of competing news organisations. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And who might have been at this conference? It was not a conference...it was an exclusive interview by Fox News. I am not understanding what the OR is here. Jason Safoutin 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the report had been written solely from Fox's textual reports on the interview it would not qualify for OR. As the interview was observed the report formulated from the interview qualifies as OR as the interview is a primary source. Similar to reporting on content of a scientific journal. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any and all quotes by clinton are exclusive to Fox News, published by fox news and interviewed by Fox News. I still do not see the OR. If a Wikinewsie was there during the interview then I could see OR...As the interview was done soley by Fox News. Jason Safoutin 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I give up, you're being combative and not accepting that watching the broadcast is as good as being there. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I accept that, but this was not a press conference. This was an exclusive interview byt a single reporter. If we were to use OR like this, then technically, any article I write from a report I saw on TV would be OR. I am not being combative, I am simply expressing my views on the subject, and in this case I do not agree to. Jason Safoutin 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The interview went pear-shaped for the guy from Fox, it's fair game to report on Clinton roasting him, and I don't see every other source publishing a link to the video or transcript to justify their material. Wikinews has a fairly longstanding tradition of treating reporting based on TV coverage as original, part of allowing the label OR is to recognise that reporters have gone to primary sources for their material.  This interview is a Primary source, on the rather strict basis you are applying we'd only get OR on this if Clinton talked to us. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am implying that this is an interview by Fox News. Not a Wikinewsie. I did not interview him and a Wikinewsie did not interview him. I see several news reports on TV and occassionally write about them. At least I know if I do it again,. it will count as OR. Jason Safoutin 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case the news was the interview, thanks to the wonders of technology even a non-US resident like myself had a ringside seat. And just like the boxing match that the prior analogy invokes, the "ringside seat" allows you to claim OR rights.  You watched, up close and in detail. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading WN:OR, I'd say OR = 1) something you take notes of 2) involves interviewing, eyewitnessing or trying something out like the investigation on Google convicted in case brought by Belgian press.

I really don't think this classifies as OR, and because Jason doesn't either, I'm removing the notice for now. Maybe we should bring this up on the watercooler? I also removed the OR tag from another article, read the top of Talk:Protesters_block_day-care_centres_in_Denmark. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I watched the interview and took notes, I still have the pad of paper with them on it next to me. I was made aware of this interview prior to its broadcast via a leaked transcript.  I waited until I could watch the interview because the transcript does not convey the body language.  I picked backup sources that focused on Clinton's effort to correct the mischaracterisation of him which I believed was the salient point from the broadcast.  On the other hand, if I want to do a followup I can always take the top google news hit for "Clinton fox interview", after I've filed it as an example for the definition of non sequitur. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 17:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)