Talk:Panorama (British TV programme)

Undue editorialising

I am questioning this reversion by @Jontel:, which re-adds a chunk of text that relates only two one single recent Panorama episode (which already takes up a large amount of space in this article). The added text is not actually about Panorama at all, but relates to the topic covered by this single the Panorama episode (Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party - which has its own article). Not only is this amount of words about something tangential to this article simply not due, and arguably pushes a particular POV, but the text relies on a leaked report that is the subject of an inquiry and of multiple legal actions.[1] BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The narrative of this episode was challenged on its broadcast and later by the Labour Party and others. Critics referenced its unbalanced nature, lack of transparency, misleading techniques and the long established and deep hostility to the Labour leadership of its presenter, producer and those Labour Party members, politicians and staff who were interviewed. This criticism of staff by the Labour Party was widely condemned, including in this article. The highly detailed Labour Party report provides chapter and verse backing up the allegation that the staff interviewed in the programme were deeply hostile to the Labour leadership. The report also provides a clear alternative narrative to the Panorama episode, laying the responsibility for the lack of action on antisemitism cases on staff in the GLU, including some of those interviewed, and concluding that the Labour leadership was urging action on such cases, the exact opposite of the picture painted by the episode. The report is consequently, in large part, a response to and rebuttal of the Panorama episode, which merits including its relevant findings here. Jontel (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for slow reply. I don't understand this reasoning. We have already noted that critics referenced its unbalanced nature etc, citing sources where this happens. The fact that this unpublished report provides "a clear alternative narrative to the Panorama episode" does not mean it merits inclusion in this article: I am sure there are other documents which provide "alternative narratives" to that given in this episode, and indeed documents which provide "alternative narratives" to those given in the episodes about Scientology, Seroxat, Vatican sex crimes etc over the years. If we included a couple of sentences on every document which provides an alternative narrative to a Panorama episode, this would be a very long article indeed. Finally, if the unpublished report is "in large part, a response to and rebuttal of the Panorama episode", then we'd need a reliable source saying that before we even decided if it is DUE; otherwise the premise is original research. (We shouldn't quote the report itself, but the report doesn't say it is a response to the episode: in its 851 pages it mentions Panorama four times, once in a footnote as a source of a quote and three times briefly to attempt to refute very specific details in the episode.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I accept your point that the report should not be included simply as a rebuttal to the programme. I will edit it back to something closer to your last edit if you wish. Alternatively, feel free to reinstate that and I will consider whether I think any minor tweaks are needed. Jontel (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Happy either way. Will check back when I have time later or tomorrow. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I think the edit still includes a whole sentence that is not related to Panorama, the subject of this article. (The Ha'aretz Jerusalem Post quote removed does relate to Panorama, so I just don't understand the logic here.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Apart from JLM officials masquerading as ordinary members, the heart of the programme, and that which got all the media attention, was interviews with former party staff which tended to imply that the Labour leadership obstructed investigations of allegations of antisemitism. The Labour leadership challenged the programme immediately and questioned not only the integrity of the programme makers but that of the former staff. For that, they were roundly criticised by all and sundry. This discussion which immediately followed the programme is included in the article. The party investigation corroborates the case of the Labour leadership, justifying their challenge and further undermining the programme's conclusions. That is its relevance.

I do not see that a one word comment from someone on the Jerusalem Post about how the programme made them feel adds much to our understanding of it, particularly as the content of the programme was so strongly denied. On the rare occasions material from newspapers is included in the article, it is because it contributes additional information. Jontel (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sorry; I appreciate the edit and engagement, but I'm still not getting this. I am not arguing for the JP quote to be reinstated, but querying the logic of use of the unpublished report (specifically the second sentence of the new text), which we rightly source second hand via a reliable source, Sky, to whom it was leaked. If the Sky piece said what you are saying here, sure, we could put that in, but it doesn't. At the risk of repeating myself, the text is about the topic of a Panorama programme, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, it is not about Panorama itself, which is what this article is about. It is simply not WP:DUE. Maybe other editors need to give their views, as we're apparently stuck. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've pared it right back to the focus of its relevance to the programme which is that the Labour Party, after an extensive and heavily evidenced investigation, has reaffirmed its view that the motives and testimony of some former staff members is questionable, such testimony being central to the Panorama episode. Jontel (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad it is pared back. But I think the pared back version misrepresents the source. The source says "[the report] singles out for criticism some who gave whistleblower evidence to last year's highly-critical BBC Panorama investigation on antisemitism within Labour. These include the former General Secretary Lord McNicol and the former acting head of the governance and legal unit, Sam Matthews." I think that is not accurately rendered as "[the report], according to Sky News, concluded that the validity of the personal testimonies of former staff members was questionable". I also think it is important to say the report was unpublished rather than extensive.

This is a different issue, but I also feel we have given undue weight to criticisms of the programme. We have 300 words summarising critical views (140 words of which comes from poor sources such as Electronic Intifada, Middle East Eye, The Canary and a Wordpress blog), and 43 words summarising the positive views. WP:DUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Is it really the case that 300-43 is the negative-positive proportion of significant viewpoints in published sources about this episode? "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." If you look at the actual coverage, I think you'll see the balance is rather different: see https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqSQgKIkNDQklTTERvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoOGFIV1EzUXpkTWJXRmtRMmwwU1V0d1RXSmpaREJ1V2paME5WbENhVGxOS0FBUAE?q=panorama+%22%E2%80%9CIs+Labour+Anti-Semitic%22&lr=English&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB:en or https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqSQgKIkNDQklTTERvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoOGFIV1EzUXpkTWJXRmtRMmwwU1V0d1RXSmpaREJ1V2paME5WbENhVGxOS0FBUAE?q=panorama+%22%E2%80%9CIs+Labour+Anti-Semitic%22&lr=English&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB:en for coverage of the controversy. I might try to rectify this later if I have time, by adding rather than by trimming other editors' contributions, but I feel it would be better done by trimming as the section is already bloated. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed extensive as 860 page covers that. I have replaced leaked with unpublished as they mean more or less the same thing. I have addded in the point about criticism but retained the point about questioning the testimony as that is different and critical. I have used exact quotes.

On your other point on balance, there is a lot in the programme to be critical about, notably the partiality of both the producers and those who appeared on it and the techniques it used. There is also a place for overall criticism of it. I do not see anything that can be omitted without losing significant information. Certainly, the programme was widely reported in either positive or neutral terms. If you include some of that coverage for balance, be aware that many commentators are partial, too, and that their remarks were generally made before full details of the criticisms emerged. Jontel (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for editing first sentence; much better. I'll leave second sentence but would be interested if other editors think it is pertinent to this article. On the second point, sure there is a lot to criticise, but it isn't really for us to say; it's about what the balance of RSs say. Yes, the positive commentary would also be partial, but that's always the issue if you include opinions (the alternative is to keep to facts and not report anyone's opinions, in which case, e.g. Loach would be removed). Fair point about the first set of commentary came before some of the details emerged, but I think that can be dealt with in a careful write-up. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

POV (and other) issues - 'Is Labour Anti-Semitic?' programme

As you may have noticed, I have given the section on the programme ‘Is Labour antisemitic?’ a POV tag. There has clearly been discussion before on this page about the section's neutrality (I notice Bobfrombrockley raised issues with weight; thanks Bob!), and I do not believe those concerns were properly resolved.

The issues I am concerned about:

1. This section appeared to disproportionately give weight to the critics of the program with insufficient weight to its supporters (the section almost implied there was consensus that the programme was wrong/biased, which is not the case). Until I edited it just now, for example, there was no mention of the fact that the complaints to the BBC and Ofcom were dismissed and the programme was ruled by Ofcom to be sufficiently impartial. Those who made or supported the program and those who critique it are also not subject to the same level of scrutiny (see point 3). I believe it is relevant to mention both sides given the media coverage but the weighting needs to be addressed - Wikipedia should be neutral, see WP:NPOV and especially WP:WEIGHT
2. A number of living individuals are named here and so this section must adhere to high standards. I have taken a number of non-notable names out as the previous article text rather implied these individuals were not all named in the programme, but am happy to reinstate if they are proven to be mentioned in reliable sources etc and sufficiently notable. Editors should not name/include people when they do not have to - Wikipedia has a presumption in favour of privacy. See: WP:BLP
3. Much of this section uses sites such as The Canary and Electronic Intifada as sources. These sites are deemed unreliable and should be avoided. It is good that this section mentions inline that it is using these sources so that readers are aware of the text's questionable accuracy, but it is nevertheless Wikipedia policy that these sources should not be used except in exceptional circumstances. In particular, these sites should never be used when discussing living persons, as parts of this section are, and so they should be removed or replaced with better sources. Many of the other sources given are also quite niche and obviously political publications which might be ok if they are sufficiently reliable despite their bias but there should be appropriate in-text attribution to make this clear. See WP:GUNREL and WP:BIASED

As I mention, I have already attempted to take some steps to improve this myself, but assistance from others would be very helpful. Labour's response to the programme is the subject of ongoing legal action, both by many of the whistleblowers and by the reporter (Ware), as is the leaked report mentioned, so I think we must be particularly wary of POV given the situation (see WP:LIBEL). Good steps I think would be replacing Canary/EI references, ensuring all individuals who are named are either in the public eye or need to be named for some reason, making sure all sentences referring to living people have good sources (there are currently some which are Canary or citation needed), and addressing the overall weighting of opinions. Thanks for any assistance :) Annecremin (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with all Annecremin’s points. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I agree that this section was highly POV and biased. It was effectively written from a far left perspective and relies on sources of that nature. Until I edited it, it didn't even mention that the Labour party has now apologised to the whistleblowers and paid them compensation. I've edited it to remove the dubiously sourced content discussed above (EI and The Canary are not RS) and update about the legal settlement, but it still seems to reflect a somewhat partial view of this programme, rather than a broader perspective across a range of reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've edited this section now that it's not a developing story. It doesn't need to restate essentially the same allegations of bias multiple times; Labour's official statement and Loach's quote adequately explain on what grounds people objected and the strength of feeling, and I don't think we need to find a differing opinion for neutrality because the reader can infer from the unfolding of events that the claims of bias were disputed. The section also doesn't need to dive into the contents of the programme because that's better covered by the article on antisemitism in Labour. Chaz smith (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Chaz smith. Much better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The article now seems very biased in favour of the programme. It does not mention the Forde report's judgment that the programme was "entirely misleading", the fact that a recording exists of the conversation in which an English Jewish woman supposedly asked an English Jewish man if he was from Israel (an absurd question to ask in the circumstances) and in which no such question occurs. Nor does it mention the misrepresentation of the statement of Izzy Lenga which was not referring to Labour members, but to Neo-nazis! There is also no mention of the Al Jazeera documentary which takes the documentary to pieces. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What reliable sources are you proposing here? (This is one Panorama episode out of around 44 a year for 70 years now, so I really don't think any episode should get more than a brief paragraph in this article. I think we should be trimming the bloated entries not growing them.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

We'll the obvious answer is the Al Jazeera documentary. If we are having the positive spin about the exceptionally biased bin fire of a doc, we need the negative stuff as well. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Longest Running?

The BBC citation in the header claiming the show is the "world's longest-running news television programme" contradicts Wikipedia's own list of longest-running TV shows by category. Meet the Press more accurately would hold that title. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-running_television_shows_by_category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.228.129.11 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Number of episodes

I've added the number of episodes to the infobox as 1,233 as there are 1233 listed on the BFI. Unforturnately this only captures up to September 9 2019 and so is already outdated. It would be great if we could get a more up to date number. There are 2,019 episodes listed on IMDB but this seems like quite a large discrepency so not sure Carlinmack (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

First producer

The author and editor Michael Barsley. It is mentioned in his obituary in The Times if anyone can access it. Spicemix (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)