Talk:Bureau of Investigative Journalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Neutrality[edit]

The neutrality of the Bureau's work on Tory Party Donors has been questioned. If you look further up the list of stories on the Wikipage you can see that we have looked at excessive pay in the public sector. Doing this story we were accused of being 'Tories'.

Doing the story about Tory party funding we were accused of being 'left-leaning'.

The truth is that investigative journalism is primarily aimed at examining those in power.

At the time of writing, the Conservative Party holds the most power in the UK and has the most diverse funding network. Such funding has been the matter of considerable controversy, namely 'Cash for Access' as exposed by the Sunday Times.

The Bureau's work was politically impartial. We also reported on the funding of the liberal and labour parties but there was nothing significantly 'new' in our revelations.

Iain Overton Editor of the Bureau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainoverton (talkcontribs) 22:53, 7 April 2012

TBOIJ Editing It's Own Entry[edit]

The TBOIJ has been self-editing this article and the talk pages which breaks a leading Wikipedia tenet. An individual, individuals or company officers and/or employees should not be editing their own articles. They should most definitely not be personally addressing issues of bias, perceived negativity or criticism. Wikipedia is not some sort of cv, marketing pamphlet or ideological tool. Subsequently I have deleted the talk page section defending accusations of bias. There are also no cites to any published article where the TBOIG defends itself against bias. Very poor state of affairs when the people the article refers to start weighing in defensively. I have also noticed that the TBOIJ have self-cited, I am not sure that is in the best interests of Wikipedia and the site's need for neutrality and a NPOV.Twobells (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Botched Paedophilia Investigation[edit]

Although this is a story in progress, I think our coverage of the McAlpine smear story needs expanding. Hopefully we'll be able to guard against further cover-up edits by Bureau staff. MichaelPWSmith (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleting entry on Talk Page.[edit]

I'm not really sure under what policy this entry was deleted. I'd like to put it back, but I want to get some general comment first. WP:Talk page guidelines doesn't seem to allow this kind of editing. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • It's called the Policy of Covering Up Bad Left-Wing Journalism, please put it back. Twobells (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Badly sourced information.[edit]

Much of the information is sourced to the bureau itself or to press releases. If there is no objection, I will be going through this article and removing all that stuff. There has been a tag requesting secondary sources since November 2012. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Note on move[edit]

I have moved the article to a title without the definite article according to rule #2 in WP:THE, that is don't use the article if it is not normally capitalised in running text. The website consistently refers to the organisation as "the Bureau" in running text, so I have moved it accordingly. --NSH001 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)