Talk:Media Lens/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

John Rentoul's Independent blog

As I have said before most journalists who comment about Media Lens have been in dispute with them at some point. Rentoul provides a description of how it seems to the David's opponents. Rentoul is now (see Independent blog's biography]) a Visiting Professor at Queen Mary, University of London less his credibility should come into question. He does not differ from Beaumont's points about their activities, but is another source establishing that The Observer writer is not alone in his perceptions. It is the natural place for his comments to follow Beaumont. It appears Rentoul is being excised from following the others to allow the extended positive summary of Oliver Boyd-Barrett to take presence over Media Lens critics.

As editors, in considering how NPOV affects article structure we find this passage:

"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." (my emphasis)

I think that is a clear argument to place the Rentoul passage where I placed it, rather than to where User:Dlv999 moved it too. The positive points of Oliver Boyd-Barrett would seem to be undue if left without Rentoul's counter argument, the mention of Beaumont is relatively brief here. Philip Cross (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Keith-264 has added to an edit summary to his removal of the Rentoul passage: "more ad hominem not NPOV". Comments about a subject, like those of Rentoul, are not obliged to be neutral. The policy pages on Ad Hominem attacks refer to discussions between editors, not whether something should be included in an article. So your point is not a good argument in favour of removal. As the conflict of interest page puts it in an initial precis: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia". The COI issue is not counted as a personal attack. Philip Cross (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Physician heal thyself.Keith-264 (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rentoul was not moved into the media reception section "based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself", it was moved because of the nature of the source (primary source blog of involved party). My idea would be to keep the low grade stuff out of the main article as it is not the sort of stuff I would expect to see in an encyclopedic coverage of the topic, we have much better sources, and our policies tell us not to base our articles on this kind of primary source from involved parties. This is not based on the POV of the material, but evaluation of the source quality in light of Wikipedia guidleines (discussed at length above).

In any case putting two primary blog sources of involved parties in the opening section and not including the large amount of academic and third party media material is not going to work. If you want to break up the response section and include it all in the main sections fine, but if you look at the material in the response section the majority is favorable, and we are going to rely more heavily on the third party, and especially third party academic material, and much less on the primary source material from involved parties.

The facts are that all the third party academic scholarship is predominantly positive. The vast majority of the third party mainstream media sources are positive. Of the primary source (blog/opinion) material from involved parties there is a split between positive negative and ambiguous or mixed responses. Dlv999 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you put that rather well. Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

So we can have several positive primary sources close to each other if they support or defend Media Lens by individuals who are not totally independent third parties, viz Barron, Greenslade, Wilby and Pilger, but Rentoul following Beaumont at the end of section which otherwise contains no criticism at all is beyond the pale. Beaumont and Rentoul are referring to the same issue, that of activities, which happens to be part of the title of the section. Philip Cross (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at the Media response section: Barron, Greenslade, Wilby and Pilger are treated in exactly the same way as Baumont, White and Rentoul. In actual fact the odd one out here is Buamont, who probably should not be in the history/activities section, but we just don't have any serious sources making critical comments about their activities so we will have to make do if we want something to balance Barrett in that section. But I will not have the section loaded with primary source blog commentary from involved parties, that is not reflected in the serious academic discussion of the topic. Maybe your time would be better finding academic scholarship critical of the topic rather than keep trying to fill the article with blog material. Dlv999 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is editors are not supposed to bunch opinion which is positive or critical in the way you seem to approve of. Sorry, but media responses have taken several forms. We have plenty of critical comments about their activities to draw on to spread through the article at the appropriate points. Editors are supposed to do that for reasons of NPOV, so that articles are not one-sided, but now you want to move Beaumont as well. Boyd Barrett offers an uncontentious summary of what is already included, therefore their no reason to identify him in the main text away from the reference section. The same goes for the Herman quote, even if his own work is far from uncontroversial. This is the normal practice in dealing with points where readers may need to know this source in order to ascertain the credibility of a comment. While the Rentoul piece is now only briefly quoted, published online by a reliable source, you haven't explained why you don't object to (positive) non-third party sources by Media Lens associates or former employers like Pilger and Wilby.

Academic papers discussing or citing Media Lens appear to be scarce. The WP policies on this issue express a preference rather than give a command to use academic sources. As I have said before, Rentoul is an academic part of the time.

"But I will not have the section..." Sorry, you are only one editor. Philip Cross (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

It has already been explained to you that moving Rentoul to the media response section is not based on the positive/critical nature of his remark. It is based on analysis of the source quality (primary, involved party blog) grounded in Wikipedia policy. The opinions are not bunched according to which is positive or critical, as you can see the media response section contains positive, negative and ambiguous comments. Rentoul is given the exact same weight as other primary sources from involved parties whether they are positive negative or ambiguous, that is neutral. What you want to do is cherry pick one negative comment (Rentoul's) out of all the primary material and place more prominently in the article, that is non-neutral.

Academic standard sources discussing the topic are not scarce as I have already shown. I have added numerous such sources to the article and I did not carry out a full literature search by any means. Dlv999 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Kamm

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/leader/104002/chomsky-sophistry-champion

Posted by AlanBallin [User Info] [Email User] on April 6, 2013, 11:56 pm

Dear Editor,

In his 28th March piece (Chomsky, sophistry champion) Oliver Kamm once again crowbars into the conversation how he supposedly got the better of Noam Chomsky in an exchange, wondering how Chomsky �thought he would get away with a falsehood so easily refuted�. A few background facts put an entirely different interpretation on this claim.

In 2005 Oliver Kamm attacked the choice of Noam Chomsky as the world�s top public intellectual in a poll carried out by the journals Foreign Policy and Prospect.

Included in Kamm�s piece was the comment that in Chomsky�s 1969 book American Power and the New Mandarins �Chomsky went beyond the standard left critique of US imperialism to the belief that �what is needed [in the US] is a kind of denazification.� This diagnosis is central to Chomsky's political output.�

Anyone who has read American Power and the New Mandarins should know that the use of the phrase �what is needed is a kind of denazification� specifically refers to what Chomsky called �moral degeneration� not �US imperialism�. This is crucial because Kamm needs to make the fallacious �nazi� claim stick before, in the next sentence, going on to say that Chomsky likens �America�s conduct to that of Nazi Germany� - an accusation which Chomsky himself describes as �too ridiculous for comment�.

Chomsky replied with a wide-ranging rebuttal of Kamm�s entire piece, including a charge of �misquoting and omitting the crucial context� regarding the denazification quotation.

Instead of rising to the challenge of providing a substantive response to the numerous points in Chomsky�s reply, Kamm focused on Chomsky�s use of the word �misquoting�. He argued that because he had quoted Chomsky�s words accurately that Chomsky�s accusation of �misquoting� was a �lie�. Kamm ignored the fact that the quotation was used out of context and, further, in a misleading way that totally misrepresented its meaning.

For Kamm to continue, brazenly, to regularly depict this episode as some sort of �victory� over Chomsky really does need to be challenged, and I therefore hope you will publish this letter in full.

The world�s top public intellectual accused of sophistry by Oliver Kamm? Indeed. Keith-264 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This item was placed on the talk page to represent an example of the material some editors feel free to include on the main page when the item is critical of Medialens. The grounds for reverting it if it were on the main page would be identical to those used to revert critical material on grounds of POV, verifiability, primary source etc. It should stand here for that reason.Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all primary sources are of equal validity. The Rentoul blog is indeed a primary source from an involved party, but it is published on the Independent website. This letter is published by Media Lens which in the Wikipedia view of things means it is self-published. Firstly self-published material is not allowed to make claims about third parties. Secondly I am doubtful as to the notability of the letter and thirdly I'm not sure how this letter is contributing the improvement of the article which is the purpose of this talk page.

Perhaps you could consider the fact that Media Lens is not the only Media Monitoring site out there. Do you think it would be appropriate for instance that adherents, to CAMERA or Honest Reporting should be allowed to promote their agenda on Wikipedia by posting self-published material by those organisations? Dlv999 (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My point in putting it here is that it was rejected by our colleague for the same reasons that you have been rejecting some of his contributions. It wouldn't be proper to put it on the main page, just as it was improper to put equally tendentious material there and proper for someone to remove it. The point I have made by doing this, is that the nature of the piece is the reason to judge it wanting from a Wiki policy point of view, not its content. This has not always been evident in edits on the main page as you have eloquently demonstrated.Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Argue, assert, claim etc

how about not treating these words as synonyms but using them literally - if you put "argue" describe it briefly, like the one for OBB which I think is sufficient for the reader to know what OBB's argument or proposition is. If a claim or assertion is being made describe it as one and if it's straighforward description use "wrote". That's why I used "because" earlier - I was referring to the argument not the conclusion.Keith-264 (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No need for a hard rule such as this, synonyms work fine. I don't ordinarily use "claim" because it is not neutral, "assert" is better as one isn't implying their are reasons to dispute what is being stated - whoever is making a point. Philip Cross (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously they don't, that's what's causing mutual reversion. Claim is descriptive and a synonym of assert, i.e. delivering an opinion not an argument. The passage about OBB describes his reasons so it's an argument, the remark about Kamm isn't so it's not. Oh is that the problem, Kamm makes claims but not arguments? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me who reverted you. Philip Cross (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I know but all three of us have been at it.Keith-264 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Boyd-Barrett

Is this academic such a major figure that he deserves his points to be itemised in such a way? Every other commentator on Media Lens has his points spread throughout the article, and they are cited at appropriate. To specifics.

"First the focus on the British left of centre/liberal media." This point is made at the end of the next section "views" where have I merged it with a cite to Neil Clark's recent American Conservative article. Thus to mention the point here is repetition, and their concentration is a viewpoint, a self-restriction not shared by others who criticise the media from the left. As ML also criticise the BBC and Channel 4 "media outlets legally obliged to be impartial", as the summary says, Boyd-Barrett's point is a contradiction when used as a quoted statement rather then as a citation. As it is in the next section.

"Second, Boyd-Barrett states that rather than simply producing surveys and reports, Media Lens' work is characterized by an ongoing engagement with the journalists and editors they criticize." This point has already been in the previous paragraph with multiple citations. Boyd-Barrett might be added to them, but there is no point in repetition. An "ongoing engagement" is to be expected with a group which writes about the work of journalists. So it is a non-notable point. How often do ML communicate with "editors"? Very rarely, people like Alan Rushbridger ignore them, so the word's inclusion is misleading.

"Finally Boyd-Barrett points to their 'relentless commitment' to judging the media 'on criteria of rationality and humanity, for what they write and fail to write, and doing so in a tone that is determinedly polite and respectful, even when the content is highly critical.'" I don't have a problem with this point being included as it is not made by another commentator. Peter Beaumont is not alone in having disputed this assertion though. Philip Cross (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• The focus of their activities, is an important point to discuss in the activities section. I don't really care if we add 5 other sources which describe the focus of their activities and just describe it as a fact or leave it as it is. But what there activities are focussed on needs to be described in that section.

• You added the point at the end of the next section - you need to explain why you added it there and why it is relevant to that section before you can use the duplication that you created as an excuse for deleting pertinent, well sourced material from the activities section.

• "their concentration is a viewpoint, a self-restriction not shared by others who criticise the media from the left." - I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. Their activities largely concentrate on the liberal left media - that is something that can be sourced to almost all the sources in the article. If you want to also add a source about the BBC/C4 here as well, I have no problem with that.

• Saying what different sources say about a topic is not a contradiction. NPOV says that we represent all significant views, not that we pick one view to represent and delete all the rest. Wikipedia is not a an RS, quoting to me what our article says as if it can trump an RS is meaningless. What sources support the claim? What do those sources say exactly? We write the article according to what sources say, we do not remove RS because they do not jibe with what we ourselves have written.

• The previous paragraph is a factual description. Boyd Barret's opinion is that their work is characterised by ongoing engagement with those they criticise. Baumount's opinion is that "that Media Lens does not engage in dialogue with their targets, rather that they exploit the media to create a virtual soap box for their opinions." -- Deleting one opinion and not the other would be dubious for obvious reasons. Dlv999 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• (1) It is already, that was my point. It is repetition. "Focus" is just a different turn of phrase. What is so unacceptable about having Boyd-Barrett as a fourth source earlier in the passage?
• )2) As you had not reverted my use of Boyd-Barrett at the end of the next section, I thought you had accepted it.
• (3) I was advocating using this point as their 'view' rather than an 'activity' suitable for the 'History and activity' section. Other such writers, those outside the Chomsky cult, don't restrict themselves to the 'liberal-left' media, a "self-restriction" therefore. An approach will which Media Lens, unlike others, could be identified, a 'viewpoint' in other words.
• (4) Why is Oliver Boyd-Barrett, not a major academic, so important that we have to have all three points on Media Lens? Selectivity has used with the other sources. It is an omission here, the absence of a BBC/C4 mention, not a difference from other sources which is at all notable. As you say, many of the sources could support Media Lens' concentration on the 'liberal-left' media as a description. Why stick your neck out on this one?
• (5) As I have said above I don't have a problem with including Barrett-Boyd's third point. I have not suggested deleting "one opinion" with only Beaumont remaining at all. Philip Cross (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • OBB may well not be an eminent academic but compared to Kamm et al he's a TitanKeith-264 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Funding

User:Eclipsemullet keeps inserting information to the opening summary asserting that Media Lens has received financial assistance from the Barry Amiel & Norman Melburn Trust. The last entry on the Trust's website involving their support for Media Lens is under "Pojects (sic) awarded grants in 2002-2006". Now quite a long time ago. I can find no third-party confirmation of this detail for the purposes of establishing notability, so I would suggest that this detail is removed from the article. Philip Cross (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it unsurprising that a "Marxist" source had bunged Medialens money (assuming it's true)? My impression of The Daves is that they apply moral criteria not ideological ones.Keith-264 (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)