Talk:Al-Jazeera: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards (→Bias) |
imported>David Finn (→Bias: concur) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'...reaching & exceeding the standards...': I think, Martin, you've removed one bias and replaced it with another! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | '...reaching & exceeding the standards...': I think, Martin, you've removed one bias and replaced it with another! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:Well, although it is my professional opinion, we could also quote Hillary Clinton who expressed similar sentiments recently -- when arguing for money to support the American global media, as Al-Jaz was providing better coverage. I don't have the citation to put in, though. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | :Well, although it is my professional opinion, we could also quote Hillary Clinton who expressed similar sentiments recently -- when arguing for money to support the American global media, as Al-Jaz was providing better coverage. I don't have the citation to put in, though. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:You are correct, Ro. The removed phrase was "''That strategy means that it focuses on meeting the demands of its principal viewers, which are not necessarily those of a Western news service.''". That is to say, the removed phrase stated that AJ catered to its audience. That does not seem such a biased thing to say about any news service, or indeed any company. Nonetheless it was unreferenced. Replacing it, however, is the phrase "''Al-Jazeera English is increasingly being accepted as a global player, reaching and even exceeding the standards of established broadcasters such as the BBC and CNN.''". That seems quite a bold statement and one that may not be universally held, and is unreferenced. The suggestion is that we ''could'' reference it, but that reference would need to come in a form other than the personal opinion of a single person, whether that person be a CZ author or a politician, or else it should be labelled as opinion. Either way, maybe we could find an Editor who could shed light on the matter. For now I have removed the "''and even exceeding''" part which, in the absence of any references, seems unduly promotional. I would note that I came to this article by way of the article on [[Qatar]] which displays a similarly promotional tone regarding AJ, stating that Qatar has "''distinguished itself''" with the introduction of this news service, whilst providing no reference to show that is a widely held opinion. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:10, 19 March 2011
Thanks, Ro, for adding to this. For some reason, this is an article I have had trouble starting. --Howard C. Berkowitz 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, hard. One thing you might mention later is how AJ English has poached a number of journalists from the BBC (Pedrosa, Omaar, Cole...) Ro Thorpe 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Bias
'...reaching & exceeding the standards...': I think, Martin, you've removed one bias and replaced it with another! Ro Thorpe 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, although it is my professional opinion, we could also quote Hillary Clinton who expressed similar sentiments recently -- when arguing for money to support the American global media, as Al-Jaz was providing better coverage. I don't have the citation to put in, though. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct, Ro. The removed phrase was "That strategy means that it focuses on meeting the demands of its principal viewers, which are not necessarily those of a Western news service.". That is to say, the removed phrase stated that AJ catered to its audience. That does not seem such a biased thing to say about any news service, or indeed any company. Nonetheless it was unreferenced. Replacing it, however, is the phrase "Al-Jazeera English is increasingly being accepted as a global player, reaching and even exceeding the standards of established broadcasters such as the BBC and CNN.". That seems quite a bold statement and one that may not be universally held, and is unreferenced. The suggestion is that we could reference it, but that reference would need to come in a form other than the personal opinion of a single person, whether that person be a CZ author or a politician, or else it should be labelled as opinion. Either way, maybe we could find an Editor who could shed light on the matter. For now I have removed the "and even exceeding" part which, in the absence of any references, seems unduly promotional. I would note that I came to this article by way of the article on Qatar which displays a similarly promotional tone regarding AJ, stating that Qatar has "distinguished itself" with the introduction of this news service, whilst providing no reference to show that is a widely held opinion. David Finn 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)