Jump to content

Talk:Euronews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Modern Cromwell (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 19 May 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RTE, founder or no?

RTE is listed as a founder, and later as one of those who joined SOCEMIE in 1997 along with the founders. Obviously a small rewrite or correction of this section is needed, but I don't have the information needed --garryq 10:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perspectives

What happened to this particular program? Did EuroNews discontinue it? -- Denelson83 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Do they air it only on weekends? I might be wrong but I can't find it on the EuroNews website anyway. --giandrea 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only on weekends I believe. 84.192.117.13 16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Availability

Euronews was removed from the Canadian Bell ExpressVu service in April 2007. I've been unable to find a published citation for this, but as far as original research goes, I can turn on my receiver and confirm that this is true. ExpressVu has not yet updated its channel lineup file to reflect this change. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent additions to the article's criticism section

It has been brought to my attention that some users have been continiously reverting content from an anonymous contributor, despite the fact that this user sourced his content. I've examined his claims and the source he listed has indeed been used in the intro section of the article for nearly a year now. That the source currently is not yielding a result isn't sufficient grounds for a full removal of this new content -- the website is clearly genuine and a reliable source, and I suggest we give it some time to correct this internal error it seems to be facing at present. At any rate, I see no reason why this content should be removed. DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow,what a coincidence. Rien.  20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific, please? DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But of course. Your "anonymous contributor" is a vandal who was blocked 3 minutes before you started defending his additions (see 84.192.127.254). So whoever has "brought it to your attention" is a) VERY fast and b) possibly not the most reliable source of information. There's also a point c) but I need to do some more research before I can be sure about that. Maybe later. Rien.  20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that when 84.192.127.254 (talk · contribs) was blocked, account creation was also blocked, so new Wikipedia user accounts cannot be registered from this IP until after the block expires. Also Dead external links may be relevant to this discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:PROVEIT, I originally was more inclined to follow Rien's reasoning in settling this dispute. However, the continued reverting of what appeared to be a good faith edit on the baseless grounds of vandalism resulted in a minor sympathy vote for the anonymous on my part. At any rate, the guidelines in matters such as these are clear. My proposed solution is that we keep the disputed content in the article until roughly two or three days after the anonymous user his ban has expired. If the anonymous by that time is not able to replace the defunct link with another/new reliable, published source, I will remove the disputed content from this article in the same way I recently did with a similar (and related) case in the BBC World article. DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two small remarks and then I'm done with this.
To DieOfGoodLuck: Mentioning "baseless grounds of vandalism" is stretching it a bit, in my opinion. Any anonymous user that replaces other users talkpages with shut the fuck up and fucking idiot because they don't agree with him, has, in my book at least, lost all credibility. Further edits by such a user will be seriously scrutinized. And so it was rather striking that this anonymous user first removed stuff from BBC World and then inserted it into EuroNews. Looks like vandalism to me, so I reverted it.
To:Kralizec! I know new accounts can't be created from a blocked address. That's not what I said or implied.
But anyway, I'm not here to defend EuroNews. I'm sure the article has plenty of contributors that will take good care of it. They'll remove stuff if they believe it shouldn't be here. I only got here because I was tracking a vandal, no more, no less. Rien.  21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to regard "Europe" to be Central Europe

I rarely see anything reported from Greece. --Leladax (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now they mention it and very vocal against it in the crisis (being against it is not a norm, e.g. French media is not against it). Something smells fishy here. --Leladax (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mideast Conflict

I would like to see some sources on Euronews's policies regarding the Mideast Conflict, and whether or not people think it is pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian. [1]. ADM (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Programmes section

Is the programmes section in lowercase for some special reason? 87.219.84.28 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euronews in 1986?

I changed the launch date of Euronews because Euronews didn't exist in 1986. It was actually founded in 1992 in Lyon as a European Broadcasting Union initiative by a group of 11 European public broadcasters. -- CTWPerfection (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of View?

Who are the principal authors of this piece?

The majority of the 'references' are to Euronews sources - hardly objective or neutral.

The EU has a track record (see Matthew Elliott et al 'The Great European Rip off')of funding what is essentially propaganda pushed to the market by third parties.

Both the Commission and the parliament pay so called 'independent' producres to produce firndly pieces - that are then placed with compromised outlets like Euronews.

If all this were to be done tansaprently - fair enough. Though tax payers may complain. In fact it is done covertly - as with Euronews.

This article as a whole does not have a neutral point of view and in its assertion that Euronews is akin to a public service broadcaster such as the BBC or PBS is compromising the integrity of genuine public service broadcasters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talkcontribs) 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18 May 2011. This article continues to promote the idea that the channel is a 'Public service broadcaster' similar to the BBC or PBS.

In fact as noted in my revision it is more akin to 'Russia today' or Iran's State TV. These channels promote a clear Goverment 'Line' with some limited editorial freedom.

Euronews carries no (or almost no) stories unfavourable to the EU. Nothing on curruption. Nothing on the effects of the CAP on non European nations. Nothing on the fact the Union's own auditors have not approved its accounts for the last 13 years.

Thus hardly a 'Public Service'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talkcontribs) 11:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewer Figures

I am 'Modern Cromwell'. I have remeoved viwer figures from the text.

References supporting them were Euronews documents - hardly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talkcontribs) 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are the ones that are hardly neutral by calling Euronews a propaganda tool. --Golstein (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well when an organisation claims independence but in fact pushes a line and is subsidised by tax payer funds to do so, i think it meets the definition of propaganda. However I accept the word has an emotional impact not consistent with a neutral POV so i am happy not to use it. However whoever is editing this from Euronews keeps insisting that it is a 'Public service broadcaster' when it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talkcontribs) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to end this discussion Wikipedia's own entry on public service broadcasting containes the following as part of the definition (taken from the UK Broadcasting Research Unit): 'Detachment from vested interests and government in which programming is impartial, and the broadcaster is not be subject to control by advertisers or government.Italic text

Euronews hardly meets this criterion (or indeed a number of others mentioned in the article) and thus cannot be called a Public Service Broadcaster.