Talk:Democracy Now!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Podcasting  
WikiProject icon 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!
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Democracy Now!:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Lannan Foundation, Ron Glaser & Air America[edit]

"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."

Can we have a reference for these numbers? -plaus

"Glaser was also a major investor in the financially ailing Air America radio network."

I've removed this bit, it's something for an article about Ron Glaser or Air America, it's unrelated to DN. -plaus

Please balance this article[edit]

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)

POV issues alllll over.[edit]

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."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2227.

72.92.6.243 (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We have articles about news organizations which have obvious agendas. We use the best sources available. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The article you complain about, in The Nation, is a lengthy, well-researched article written by a professional journalist. The Nation's bias is obvious, but is a professionally edited journal. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A quotation from a progressive such as Robert_W._McChesney#Political_views is a reasonable source evidencing praise by progressives of the program. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

Their definition of "democracy" must be included in the article. It's another of those POV issues. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)