Talk:Republic TV

This article needs an extremely thorough re-write and cleanup

Preferably by people who don't have anything to do with India and don't have a real side to pick politically in the country. I went through the entire article and all the citations today, this article is a complete fucking mess. Websites that are literally opinionated blogs are being used as citations. Let me make this absolutely fucking clear: this is not your personal blog. Not directed at a specific person.

Websites like Scroll, PostCardNews, The Wire, The Quint, National Herald, NewsLaundry and Altnews, et al are on the same standing in terms of quality and bias as OpIndia, Swarajya, Rightlog, DailyO, et al. If you can regard content by the first lot as content worth being cited on Wikipedia, you'll have to regard content by the other lot as useful as well. They're all the same in terms of journalistic standards, just biased towards one side or the other. These are basically blogs. Blogs of the sort you and I and others can start in ten minutes with a little money in domain name fees.

Same goes for individual commentators that have been billed as 'media critics' here - what's stopping me from taking a bunch of articles and tweets by another set of prominent people associated with the media, who seem to love Republic and see it as a feisty, independent channel that pulls no punches and goes after everybody? Not an opinion that I completely agree with, but I can make it happen.

I am not a fan of this channel at all, but I check my personal opinions at the door when I click on 'edit'. It's not that hard to do. This article is an extremely clear case of ideologically polarized, politically motivated editing. What's stopping a bunch of bhakts from barging in and working their own little magic on this article? They would ethically be on the same standing as you guys if they do that.

This should be looked at by editors that have nothing to do with India or Indian politics. Meanwhile, buck the fuck up, get your damn act together, and stop citing nonsense from blogs because you have an axe to grind with the channel. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I echo your thoughts. It’s written in opinionated way. Needs to be rewritten. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NPA. WP:RSN is that-way, if you wish to challenge the reliability of any source. Also, PostcardNews has not been cited, as has not, any tweet. OpIndia and Rightlog are currently deemed as unreliable, per RSN consensus.
  At any case, I can easily ping a few editors from entirely outside of ARBIPA but overwhelming chances are, it's not going to do much of anything -- sorta pings for uninvolved commentary, I receive about articles in USPOL.
  Truth has a left liberal bias, as well documented by scholars and to pretend otherwise, to clamor for a false neutrality, is to be naive. ∯WBG^converse 11:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I will be very interested in accommodating positive coverage of the outlet, provided the sources does not fell afoul of WP:RS esp. WP:SPS. ∯WBG^converse 14:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Though I agree that Postcard, Dainik Bharat, OpIndia and Right log are propaganda portals which are not independent and their editorial process is shady to pass WP:NEWSORG. Postcard and Dainik Bharat are being ran by propagandists and dimwits. But Swarajya has fair editorial process, it has EAB, it files return, it doesn't support any political party though they have right-liberal bias. It has support of IPSMF. See their about us section. I don't think it will be wrong to use this magazine as source. Rest is dependent on consensus. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Fair points, which can be somewhat considered but what are you seeing over Swarajya about our subject except 1, 2 and 3? ∯WBG^converse 15:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

My comment was general, not related to subject. Though, we should give due weightage to these opinions in Critical commentary. Your opinion?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Propose a line, please. ∯WBG^converse 15:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This "snapshot" looks good:

Goswami is taking up the right issues, issues that many others avoid, but he is not necessarily treating these topics with the gravitas and respect they reserve.

In the end, his larger than life personality on the TV screen may well end up tripping him as he tries too hard to live up to being Rambo, and the harbinger of over-the-top news.

attributed to R. Jagannathan 2. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL. We certainly agree! ∯WBG^converse 04:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Swarajya is not a reliable source. Kindly do not use it for anything here or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Too bad. I was so looking forward to seeing that "Rambo" thing up on Wikipedia! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I have already pointed out in above paragraph that it passes WP:NEWSORG. They have EAB, they are being funded by IPSMF which is reputed media trust, they don't allow user-generated or propaganda type of content like Postcard news or OPIndia, they don't support any political party, there is almost NO mention on RS noticeboard that they are not reliable. Winged too agreed with it. Now, please point out that where the reliability lacks? If there is any existing consensus then please provide link or open discussion about reliability. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Their EAB has Swapan Dasgupta, Jerry Rao, Surjit Bhalla, Manish Sabharwal. None of them is politician. If you’re going to pointing out fake news thing (which happened two or three times) then same thing happened with most of media houses which we considered as RS. Some sources are of course propaganda type (which I agreed) but some are of course not. You’ve provided judgement that it’s not reliable without giving any rebuttal that why it fails RS or NEWSORG. Isn’t it case of I just don’t like it?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Kautilya3: Can you share your opinions?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a case of I just don’t like it. Not commenting on anybody specific here, but the political climate is really messing with a lot of people, making them polarized. There's no real thinking going on anymore, people want shit that reinforces their opinions. Wikipedia hasn't been safe either - although it's better than conventional social media sites at least because there's an institutional element to Wikipedia. Harshil has a lot of valid points, I just looked into it myself and Swarajya seems like a legit source. The Hindu was caught up in propaganda as well when they deliberately scanned and published only a part of a Rafale-related document to create a certain public perception, and the whole document, unaltered, was then published by one of these "Modia" tv channels - should be ban The Hindu now? No. My point is that every publication and news channel has at least some bias. The Wire was the publication that after the Pulwama attack published a list of the victims along with their caste - it's obvious that they have certain interests and they will publish content that fits those interests. Frankly it makes way more sense to me to become a bit relaxed about the specific publication being cited and focus more on a) who wrote it and that specific person's credibility b) did the person really write it, verifiable with blue tick SM accounts of the person. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, pointing you at WP:RSN. Also WP:NEWSORG

I have not much of an idea about what all the entire Rafale controversy was about. I do not recall any article by The Wire about the caste of those slain in Pulwama but noticed one by Azaz over Caravan. It was an interesting read, covering how caste continues to manifest itself across a lot of scenarios and I did come across little outrage from anybody apart OpIndia, Swarajya and CRPF, itself. I don't know what nefarious interests can drive that type of reporting esp. that countless studies have been done across the globe, which show a positive correlation between socioeconomic deprivation and the footsoldiers of armed forces.

At any case, please confine your discussions to the subject, only. Meta-discussions ca be held elsewhere. ∯WBG^converse 12:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"right wing ecosystem"

Who apart from Rajeev Chandrasekhar funded the channel and how many of them qualify as "right-wing"? Chandrasekhar is by far the only guy among the investors listed in the outlook article that has clear ties to a right-wing political entity. Other major investors include Ranjan Ramdas Pai that Manipal Group guy, Dr. Ramakanta Panda, the heart surgeon and medical entrepreneur, Hemendra Kothari from DSP Investment and R. Naresh and Shobhana Ramachandhran of TVS Tyres. Who's the right-winger here apart from Chandrasekhar himself? Come on, let's get things right.

References

-Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Outlook®'s piece of "Churnalism" aside — if you're genuinely looking for it, shareholding-patterns of privately-owned business are hard to keep track of — specially with up-to-date filings. Nevermind the fact of governmental record-keeping in jurisdictions like India. But still.. Last time I checked, the top 2 stakeholders were: Ventures titled with the initials of "ArGo" and his spouse. Regards. —Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A completely opinionated article

The contributors have focused on article more like a tabloid journalist than like a researcher.The article can have opinion of the contributor which of course will always be the subject of concern.However the article barely provides any information about the news channel before jumping into opinions and citations.The least that can be expected out of this article much like any other is the information about the creation,however each section seems to be filled with opinions about BJP, Modi and the agenda. This is to remind the (Personal attack removed) author that this is wikipedia and not twitter where you can post your ideologies.Coming to refernces,most of them are blogs that in themselves raise questions about their own reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashu504 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Most of the cited sources in the article appear to be reliable sources. Feel free to point out anything that you believe is not verifiable. — Newslinger talk 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

propagating fake news

In the 2nd Paragraph, It is mentioned as 'The channel has been accused of practicing biased reporting in favor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and propagating fake news', But the source only says about the biased reporting of Republic TV and it doesn't supports 'propagating fake news' statement. Biased reporting and propagating fake news are different things. So, we should remove remove the statement, 'propagating fake news'? Divyam Seth (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation #3 is a collection of about 10 citations about the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving second para to reception section

The second paragraph in the introductory section doesn't belong where it is. I was about to move it to the reception section where it belongs but I felt it necessary to make my thoughts clear on the talk page and understand why this hasn't been done already before I went through with it. So anyone who feels the second paragraph belongs where it is kindly explain why. Debitpixie 💬 06:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Debitpixie, that won't do, since the WP:LEAD is a summary of what is in the main body of the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Says a lot about an article when its main content is just criticism and reception. Seems like the article could use some dedicated contributors. Either ways thanks for the clarification :) Debitpixie 💬 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A very opinionated article

It needs complete revamp. Opinions are expressed as facts and only from side. Ruchirgoyal (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)