This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 is part of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. If you would like to participate, don't hesitate to join!
"At least $350,000 in grant money has been accepted by Democracy Now! since 2001 from the Lannan Foundation that was set up by the family of former ITT board member J. Peter Lannan. Over $100,000 in grants have also been given to Democracy Now! It's done by former Microsoft VP and Real Networks CEO Rob Glaser's Glaser Progress Foundation in recent years."
This whole article reads like an advertisement for Democracy Now! I came here to find out what Democracy Now! is, but found only this sales brochure. I don't know enough to balance it, but plead with those who do for some help. At least add a "Criticisms of" paragraph to add some perspective.
I agree. A bit of a puff piece, if you ask me.Arlesd (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an obvious POV issue here. As someone else said, this reads as a brochure for "Democracy Now!" The so called "peer reviewed" article that was posted is NOT peer reviewed and should NOT be used as a source even if it does get "peer reviewed" (who are the "peers"? Creation Science articles are "peer reviewed" too). Did anyone actually read the article? Their criteria for non-bias, "diversity," and what that "diversity" entails - are absolutely pseudo-scientific. How can any criteria such as "pure foreign news stories", "fewer elite sources", or "more grassroots sources" be worth anything if they don't investigate *WHO* (as in personality, biases, etc...NOT external traits such as skin color, sex, or ethnicity) those sources are and the *CONTENT* given by those sources? For example: Fox News might have all white males doing their reporting but they might report MORE FAVORABLY towards women (how anyone would quantify this I don't know). Or another example: Democracy Now! might have a "grassroots" source (how is "grassroots" defined?) but they get to choose *WHO* that source is and what the *CONTENT* will be so they choose, for example, an anti-war activist because it fits the Progressive agenda. Hence, Democracy Now! could be extremely far Left (or Right for that matter), could have every story tainted by extreme bias, and still get labeled as LESS biased because they are more "diverse." I can't believe a paper like this can even get published, but maybe it hasn't been because it's such a joke. Another concern with the paper are the authors involved. For example Robert Mcchesney: Does a radical Marxist/Communist sound like an objective source on the subject? Maybe he is, but his political affiliations should definitely make everyone read a little more closely.
"He is also a former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review, which has a fifty-year history of supporting Communist movements and regimes."