Talk:Ben Swann/Archives/2019/February

Conspiracy theorist category

The category Conspiracy theorists has been objected to by an anon IP user; it seems to me entirely supported by the multitude of sources here which discuss his affinity for conspiracy theories. For example, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, His Reality Check reports over the years have often veered into alt-right conspiracy theories.; The New York Times, ‘Super PAC’ Backing Jeb Bush Uses Conspiracy-Minded Journalist in Ad, Mr. Swann, who currently works for a television station in Atlanta, has drawn attention for his focus on conspiracy theories around major news stories., etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that RS support the label. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, but only very tentatively based on the AJC source. Swann's "thing," at least publicly, was always to report on conspiracy theories, not to support or espouse them. That's an important distinction. The New York Times and other sources do not say that Swann supported these theories. The AJC tiptoes right up to the line. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I will do a little more digging tonight. If I can't find more substantial sources, I will rethink my position here. Categories aren't nuanced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm really on the fence about this when when I start thinking about the BLP implications. In fact I'm withdrawing my stated position for the time being while I think about this further. Let me know what you find. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

He's blatantly a conspiracy theorist; this is supported by RS. No BLP issue. Steeletrap (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can revert out of hand to restore the conspiracy theorist label. There doesn't appear to be a consensus here. What sourcing are we relying on? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s simple, as I see it. The burden of proof for a BLP is on those wanting to add the category. That means reliable sources that show he is advocating, rather than reporting. Let’s see the reliable sources. Otherwise this is POV pushing. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I softened the language in the lede. He doesn't appear to actually generate nutty theories. He just pushes them. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reporting is not “promoting” as I see it, and the latter is advocating. Again, you need reliable sources to use that wording in the article, or it’s a BLP violation. Jusdafax (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That's my concern too. The guy does seem to be promoting these theories in a backhanded sort of way, but that's just my own personal analysis. I haven't found a reliable source that actually says that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Using “The Daily Beast” as a lede reference is not how we do things here. I’ve pulled the dubious stuff from the lede. This is a clear BLP violation, as I see it. It appears more work will be required. Jusdafax (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the reliability of the Daily Beast source, but it didn't verify the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The name alone does it for me. But fair enough. Jusdafax (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's unacceptable to treat Swann's uncritical repetition of discredited lies about people (c.f. Pizzagate) as "investigating" or "reporting on" these nonsensical, absurd and often-malicious conspiracy theories. He did not do any such thing, and no reliable source treats his "Reality Check" nonsense as "reporting." Rather, he was in fact fired by his employer because the segments were not journalistically sound. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What specific lies from Ben are you talking about? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I also am interested in knowing more precisely what lies you refer to. Jusdafax (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't call him a liar in the lede directly, so I think a more important question is what specific "fake news" do you believe Ben has "repeatedly spread"? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. "Pizzagate" has been often cited as an example of a "conspiracy theory" that Swann "espouses". Is there a source for this claim? The only thing I can find was a "Reality Check" where Swann wondered aloud why there was never any official investigation. And I cannot find anything at all from Ben Swann on Sandy Hook or Aurora. If someone is going to make the defamatory claim that Ben Swann "espouses" conspiracy theories, there is a burden of proof on them. I do not think that burden of proof has been met. Technically Wikipedia could be sued for slander if they are not careful about permitting people to make such claims. FastEddieo007 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can't find sources for the shooting content, then you haven't looked at the sources cited in the article. Everything in the article is reliably sourced. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I read the two Atlanta Constitution Journal articles related to the disciplinary action that CBS took. But that underlying Reality Check where he mentions Pizzagate, he still does NOT espouse that conspiracy. In fact for the most part he debunked it. He ended merely saying that there needed to be more investigation by authorities. That is hardly espousing. Perhaps CBS News wished he had ignored it altogether and that is why they suspended him. But again, he is not espousing a conspiracy theory. This would be like saying Snopes espouses the theory that Monica Peterson was murdered by the Clinton's merely because they rated it "unproven". CBS News then claimed they fired him because he attempted to independently revive the Reality Check clips. FastEddieo007 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought I must be missing something in terms of the criteria for putting someone in that category... until I looked at who is being added to Category:American conspiracy theorists. I am not missing anything. There are very good sources that mention his role is spreading conspiracy theories, including Washington Post, The New York Times, and a quote from WGCL. There is an entire section devoted to his theories against prevailing opinion about those theories. He lost his job because he wouldn't stop spreading theories. I have a hard time conceiving what more you need.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason why challenged material requires an inline citation. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, he clearly has spread conspiracy theories. But, I would think a “conspiracy theorist” is someone that invents them. I haven’t seen any sources that claim this or any theories that he originated. O3000 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't use the term that way. Check out the contents of the category. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just want to point out that any editor who feels the need to put scare quotes around the phrase "conspiracy theory" when talking about Pizzagate (a CS so incredibly stupid that I legitimately and unapologetically question the competence of anyone who believes it) is unlikely to be swayed by what the RSes actually have to say, regardless of whether they claim to be basing their argument on them or not. I would also suggest that any editor who creates an account for the sole purpose of arguing about whether a conspiracy theorist is just that, and does so by making legal threats is not worth responding to, except for the inevitable "There is a discussion at WP:ANI to which you are a party..." notification. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. O3000 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

NewsMax TV

NewsMax TV is listed in the Infobox - indicating that Swann worked there in 2014. I am not finding that. It seems that he may have done a story for NewsMax in 2016, per this.

I didn't come across NewsMax in any of my newspaper or books searches for Swann. Is there any indication of where this might have come from?

As an aside, I did remove primary sources, including a public speaker bio.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with removing that. I also didn't come across that and one story is not enough to make it summarizing-his-career-in-the-infobox worthy. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)