Jump to content

Talk:Asian News International

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


Why dont somebody delete the offending part ?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Asked and answered; requester's lack of understanding of WP is beyond our remit to resolve here. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont somebody delete the offending part ? Vivaxe (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's offensive to you maybe perfectly acceptable to others. Read WP:NOTCENSORED. And wikipedia works on consensus. — hako9 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot say in public, anything that causes Mental Harassment, affects reputation or degrade a person in front of society. In a private conversation, it is not illegal. But when somebody says, that a person is accused of something, it is better that the unproven accusation be kept out of the facts about that person. Vivaxe (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot say in public... I can actually. — hako9 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several somebodies have, but atm the article has a WP:BLUELOCK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is locked it means wikipedia is responsible for the contents right ? Why does it want to take responsibility ? When a legally established court of law of a country holds that the statement made in the article is illegal, why do you want to hold on to that ? And get punished by the court ? The court is entited to punish wikipedia as the Constitution of India. So what can be done ? Also, and it seems, nobody has filed appeal against the original order of the court and it is now in the contempt of court stage. Vivaxe (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian court has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia other than the ability to block the website in India. The court seems incapable of understanding that Wikipedia only reflects reliable sources. Yet none of those reliable sources (which include the BBC and the Guardian) have been summoned, merely the tertiary source! Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if the court is blocking Wikipedia in India ? Vivaxe (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's regrettable, but if we remove information that governments or news organisations don't like every time they threaten legal action then our impartiality would be irrevocably comprised. "State X" doesn't like that our article points out their human rights record is poor and threatens to block the site unless we whitewash their image? Sad, but it's better we report the facts than kowtow to threats. Valenciano (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The peculiar situation in India is that, the Indian Judiciary has more powers than Indian Government and Indian Parliament. This is something most foreign organisations dont know. Vivaxe (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be unfortunate, but Wikipedia will continue. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we write about it at Censorship of Wikipedia, and probably start a Block of Wikipedia in Turkey style article. And supposedly the Indian people will support the judiciary, so there will be no problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have to do that shortly and its a very good idea. And about Indian People, the 1,500 million of them, 95% are struggling to make ends meet and slogging for survival and they absolutely dont care about the judiciary or Wikipedia. Vivaxe (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that locking of WP-articles, like the writing of articles, is done by WP-volunteers? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If are locking something, it becomes the responsibilty and liability of the exclusive people who only have rights to modify it. Its not a good idea and its against the principle that anyone can edit the content. Vivaxe (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am jumping into this, @Vivaxe, I understand your concerns, but it seems like you may not be fully aware of how Wikimedia operates. Wikimedia is built on principles of neutrality and freedom of expression. It's important to contribute thoughtfully and responsibly, without unintentionally harming India's image or values. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivaxe, Additionally, it seems you may not fully grasp the implications of your statements. Are you suggesting that the Indian courts act like dictators by advocating for the blocking of Wikimedia in India? This is a very unfortunate perspective. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Judiciary has basically unlimited power, even to quash parts of the Constitution of India, take action against the Government of India and also to quash laws made by the Indian Parliament. It is the most powerful Judiciary in the world. Vivaxe (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is better than words. Especially when one doesn't know what they are talking about. — hako9 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The litigation has nothing to do with the State of India. This is a pure Tort liability suit for which the remedy is available in all Commonweath Countries that follow Common Law. The Indian Government or Indian Parliament or Indina Judiciary has not suo moto initiated this case. This is a pure private litigation between ANI and Wikipedia on the claim that Wikipedia has offended the reputation of ANI. It is a pure Tort suit / litigation. The laws made by the Parliament and the Constitution of India has given the court power to take action in such cases. The Indian Government has nothing against Wikipedia Vivaxe (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weeeell...[1] Sure, that was in 2020, but politicians remember. A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia may be of interest. It's from 2019, things may or may not have calmed down. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I meant in the context of this particular litigation. The Government is not a party in it. The links hat you placed is correct. Vivaxe (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you threatening Wikipedia editors here? We are editors, not a governing body of Wikipedia and whatever the decision your court or government takes, won't harm us. Hu741f4 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only said that WP:BLUELOCK be removed since Wikipedia need not take responsibility for the contents of an article. All countries have many kind of laws. Why do you want to face unwanted trouble ? Vivaxe (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bluelock does not in any way represent an approval of the content by "Wikipedia" or the Wikimedia Foundation or any other sort of editorial board. Your comments demonstrate a massive misunderstanding of WP, its policies, and processes. You have asked to have content removed. Your request has been overwhelmingly denied based on multiple policies and guidelines. I'm closing this discussion as it is not likely to lead to any further action but only further IDHT and shades of CIR. DMacks (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved editor needs to collapse and archive this mess WP:TPG. — hako9 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article improvement

[edit]

I have added some tags to the article as there seems to be dispute over it’s neutrality, both on-wiki and off-wiki. Aside, I think it’s probably a good idea to have the extended conform protection removed as well. The article has been protected for almost five months already. Yes, FOS *is* important, and it’s important for everyone. It would be best if no party is being shut up. I’ll try to see what I can do to improve the article. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really think it's a bad idea to remove the ECP, for many reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Contentious topics applies to this page and the respective protection is a normal procedure. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some" tags is an understatement. I am removing all of these because you haven't justified any insertion. Where's the dispute over neutrality? — hako9 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read from this source [2] that “Regarding Asian News International’s claim that its page was not editable, Wikimedia explained that ... Experienced editors can still improve the article following Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliability.” I would interpret that as WMF also has some concerns about the neutrality of this article, but, I can be wrong. Anyway, none of the tags I added explicitly say that there’s problem with neutrality, so that’s just my personal opinion.
Aside, if only *some* tags are not ok with you, why are all of them removed? I don’t think there’s any problem adding the {{In use}} tag. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the use of that tag? We don't have a hundred editors editing simultaneously and causing edit conflicts. The activity is negligible because of extended protection. — hako9 (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that I got two reverts and four article talk page comments in around an hour just after I started edit the article. I don’t think the activity is “negligible”. And, do we have *any rule* saying that we need to ask for permission on talk page first before adding tags such as “In use”? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No permission needed. But add tags that serve a purpose. Read the template documentation and relevant policies. Otherwise it's just WP:Tag bombing. I won't revert a second time if you feel a tag is necessary. — hako9 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. FYI I did read the documentation and do think the tags are necessary. I won’t act against 1RR for this C/T though ... Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself ... hmm, the WMF is probably wrong. With all those “contentious topic designation”, “ECP”, etc. improving the article is just too difficult, if not impossible. You will got reverts, warnings, within hours, and you are aware of WP:1RR, and WP:BOLD is always a lie to children. And, you’d better give up <and ... shut up; before you are *forced* to> :-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit article removed

[edit]
notice that the Wikimedia Foundation has removed access to a lawsuit

Gone - Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Anyone is invited to edit Wikidata at Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (Q130603111)

I invite wiki editors to assist with journalistic reporting of this story in The Signpost, which is the newsletter for and by Wikipedia editors. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. If you have questions about joining the journalism, then check in at WP:NEWSROOM. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that "In the meantime, ANI is pressing its application for takedown of the page, which was heard today by Justice Prasad." (from today). My reading is that "the page" here refers to this WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The likelihood that this actually happens seems pretty low though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought about the case-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, to say the court proceedings are hilarious would be an understatement. The powertripping uncles unkils[1] have bought into their own delusions that milords and their lords have any authority over wiki just like they have had on others for a decade in this usurped dance of democracy. The likelihood of wiki taking down or censoring this article is null, and i doubt the judges would pass any judgement that doesn't favour ANI. So, the chances of wiki just getting blocked or restricted here are fair.
What's your stance on my previous comment to remove the wording "alleged/accused" for the agency serving as propaganda/mouthpiece for the government? This is not much of an accusation when it is so evident and when they have repeatedly admitted to it in interviews. Do you think this has some significance and warrants a discussion? Lunar-akaunto／talk 19:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunar-akaunto, I'd need to see that 'admitting to it in interviews' source. Otherwise, no, I think we need to take it out of wikivoice and attribute wherever appropriate. If we have nothing reasonable to attribute it to, we remove. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, i have not been able to be very active out here lately. I'm also out right now, but I'll try my best to link the appropriate sources by tomorrow upon verifying. Also, maybe my wording was not very accurate, "admitting", as in not exactly outrightly saying it but bordering on it times and times again. The interviews are damn long, so I'll need to speedrun through them. Uh, let's discuss this further once i do post it by tomorrow. Lunar-akaunto／talk 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "what is an unkil". Retrieved 2024-10-27. 

The current litigation section

[edit]

Asian_News_International#Litigation is now almost entirely WMF/WP, and IMO it has swelled out of WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. There is of course a reason for this, an informal merge seems to have occurred, but it's still not right for this article. We should look into condensing the WP-stuff. Apart from the bits of WP:NPOV, "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." is also policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't care about Indian Courts but the content, as it stood prior to my revert, violated core content policies, the foremost among them, being DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks about right to me. Could have used an edit summary though. I have some hope that it's generally helpful on several levels if we strive to make this a good article from the WP-pov. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

improving

[edit]

I think we need to do everything we can to make sure this article is as good as we can make it. I've put a few tags in the lede, I think it's a not-bad idea to attribute there. It's one thing to say they did something. It's another to say someone else said they did something. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, do it. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to do this but was reverted (I reverted back per WP:ONUS) I think the stuff about the alleged mistreatment of employees and claims of promoting misinformation is better discussed in the body, as otherwise the lead seems unduly focused on shoving as much negative content in the lead as possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the edits Hemi made. The lead was mostly negative and completely unattributed. I think we need to attribute. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attributions and significant pruning is unwarranted. There are just too many reliable sources that have called out the fake news and disinformation operations from this agency. We cannot list them all on the lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO we don't have to list them all. Just the best ones. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ratnahastin, the fact something hasn't been attributed in the lead isn't a reason not to attribute it when well-intentioned experienced editors are actively discussing exactly that. Consensus can change.
Please, all, let's stop with the edit warring. There are clearly multiple editors who believe this content needs attribution, based on additions of tags and/or additions of that attribution. Come in here and discuss. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly see the section Asian News International#Content and the range of sources that have provided the coverage confirming their rampant fake news peddling. Attribution would only make it seem as if we are treating this to be an uncommon belief when it is a widely accepted fact that ANI is regularly spreading fake news. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah agree with @Ratnahastin! Baqi:) (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that if we attribute, we're somehow indicating it's an uncommon belief, but I have no objection to, say, "The BBC and multiple others have" said whatever. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, This is exactly the point. If the ANI media team had understood the basic fact that every word in the article is backed by references, they wouldn’t have filed a case in court. Baqi:) (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that irrelevant? Half our lead is unattributed negative content. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "range of sources" you mean two investigative sources that basically nobody can read because they are behind a very tight paywall, along with a handful of factchecks of particular erroneous reports? ANI clearly has serious issues which deserve to be discussed in the lead, but by making the lead so negative it reads like a polemical attack, not a neutral encyclopedic summary. Going by your standards we may as well just call ANI a fake news website in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI's issues are being dealt with by the Delhi High Court. Unless the court passes an order, they are not our concern. Please refrain from bringing this up again. You are welcome to raise objections based on Wikipedia policies. And, there is no policy that says paywalled sources are somehow inferior sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to the sources because they are behind a paywall, they're obviously fine per WP:SOURCEACCESS, I'm just saying that other editors without access to the sources can't comment on whether or not the sources are being fairly represented (that being said, I have no reason to believe they are being misrepresented). I'm not looking to whitewash ANI, just representing them fairly and accurately. I think focusing on ANI quoting the fake sources associated with the Srivastava group is a more effective sentence in the lead rather than suggesting that they promote misinformation based on a handful of fact checks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia I will email you a copy of the Caravan article. I do not have access to the other source, though. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to do this but was reverted - I did not revert you but why that might have been the case? Three reliable sources—BBC, Politico, and The Diplomat—reiterate that ANI had amplified a vast network of fake news websites spreading pro-government and anti-Pakistan propaganda but you, for reasons unknown (and unjustifiable), thought of attributing it to BBC News alone. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the problem is that not enough sources are being attributed, I have no objection to attributing it to more. Valereee (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we can add a footnote mentioning all sources? GrabUp - Talk 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me to prevent long lists of sources in the lead, but I still think we need to attribute in the lead. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a reply to Hemiauchenia but in any case, Ymblanter has locked the page. So, we have ample time to discuss at the t/p and wordsmith the lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam, in this edit you removed "has been accused of amplifying" and replaced it with "has amplified", placing it into wikivoice. I think that's a problem, whether or not the BBC is mentioned. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think an attribution is needed; the same charges have been detailed by Al Jazeera (1), Le Monde (2) and others. How many sources do you wish to attribute, a dozen? The attributions to The Ken and The Caravan need to stay; not these.
    In any case, if you are firmly against wikivoice, go ahead with the attribution (you have my consent to edit through the protection); maybe, "BBC, Politico, and other media organizations ..." works ? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but again, whether or not this needs attribution, you've placed the statement into wikivoice by changing from "has been accused of amplifying" to "has amplified". Valereee (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that wasn't my intention; can you please restore to "has been accused of amplifying"? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really kind of loathe to do that. When an admin places a full protection, they expect any admin who is involved to voluntarily comply. Lemme see if I can catch SFR below. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also somewhat believe that attribution is a good idea. If this had been attributed before ANI went to court, the court might not have targeted Wikipedia. After seeing that Wikipedia simply says ‘according to BBC’ or ‘The Diplomat report,’ the court might have better understood that Wikipedia did not make the claim on its own, and eventually, ANI would have to go after The Caravan, BBC, or The Diplomat, which are the actual sources of these claims. GrabUp - Talk 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not here to compensate with any court. If someone cannot understand the wording and sourcing standard of Wiki then it is their own fault. Dympies (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't see this is as an issue. Whether or not ANI is a mouthpiece/propaganda outlet of the Indian government/BJP is somewhat subjective assertion and should be attributed, but there's no real doubt that ANI did promogulate these sites and that they are indeed fake. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. But this is not even the case of a misunderstanding. I believe this was explained to them, but then their remark in turn was... uh... nevermind. It is indeed very tough to explain something to judge unkils. Lunar-akaunto／talk 09:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the wikivoice over other allegations, but regarding the reportage of misinformation, why do that? Has the agency not done that? On the contrary, they have at times notoriously apologised for doing it. Lunar-akaunto／talk 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By this standard, has The New York Times has "consistently reported misinformation" because of its reporting on the Holodomor and the whole Caliphate (podcast) debacle, among others? I'm not saying that the ANI isn't sloppy or hasn't deliberately reported misinformation at times, but we need a source that explicitly says so, rather than just a WP:SYNTH based on multiple factchecks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, you're right, and i understand your point, but those are occassional slip-ups; this is not the case for ANI. As others too have pointed out below, the misreportings align with what the government pushes; context differs, and this is the bread and butter for ANI. Lunar-akaunto／talk 09:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to the editors

[edit]
CLOSED
I'm closing this to encourage people to discuss at WikiProject India or at Village Pump WMF. This is not a forum. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No, this is not a legal threat by me.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/wikipedia-user-details-delhi-high-court-ani

Wikipedia has agreed to disclose to the Indian Court in a sealed cover the basic subscriber information (BSI) details about users who wrote/ edited the page about news agency ANI. This might mean that Wikipedia will likely disclose editor's IP addresses of the editors that edited here.

Honestly I am disappointed at Wikipedia failing to protect the identity of its editors. Wikipedia forbids VPN access that can protect editors, while at the same time refusing to protect editors.

While most of the editors might be outside the jurisdiction of the Indian courts, what about those that are in India? Hopefully WMF have answers to that question. If not, this will be a chilling effect where editors won't edit the "tough things" anymore. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly disappointing. The Wikimedia Foundation is failing its editors, compromising their 'freedom of expression.' While it's well-known that Indian courts can be biased, the Foundation also had a responsibility to protect its editors.
Recently, in an offline meeting, a representative from Wikimedia India was present. When I asked her about the ANI vs. Wikipedia case, she stated, "Wikipedia itself does not have information about editors." However, now the Foundation is providing editor information to the court. This situation is genuinely concerning. Baqi:) (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

[edit]

Admin only, wtf? The lede sentence states "Asian News International (ANI) is an Indian news agency that offers syndicated multimedia news feed to news bureaus in India", this is grammatically incorrect. Is there one news feed, or multiple. It either needs to say "offers a syndicated news feed", or "offers syndicated news feeds"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish often responds to edit requests and is an admin. SFR, I'm sorry to ping you, but I'm loathe to respond to these as I'm just an editor here. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks! Went with "feeds". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 October 2024

[edit]

Partially undo this edit of mine — replace "ANI has amplified a vast network ..." with "ANI has been accused of amplifying a vast network ..." I didn't mean to change that; thanks to Valereee for pointing it out! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: judging by the discussion at #improving, this would be a controversial change. If consensus develops for a change, please re-request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers, it's not controversial. TB made the edit without realizing they were changing the meaning, and I am loathe to edit through the protection even with their blessing. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be misunderstanding comments by Ratnahastin and Jannatulbaqi. When they say they oppose attribution, is that not on objection to the change under consideration here? Counting TB (at least temporarily) in the "make the change" column, it's borderline whether there's consensus for the change. A couple more reasoned voices would tip it over for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're opposing attribution. What TB didn't intend to do was change "has been accused of amplifying" to "has amplified". They were objecting to including 'by the BBC' and made a bigger edit than they realized, and now the statement is in wikivoice, which they didn't intend. I know, clear as mud, right? But basically if you just change "has amplified" back to "has been accused of amplifying" I don't think the other editors are objecting to that. Valereee (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Between this analysis and the new comments, I'm seeing enough to make the change.  Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A source that is not used

[edit]

In 2018, AltNews, the fact-checking outlet, published a long list of the agency’s “inadvertent errors and oversights”, all of which seem to be aligned with the government's interests. In March 2019, an investigation by Caravan magazine claimed close ties between ANI and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Last week, EU DisinfoLab, a Brussels-based NGO, alleged that the agency was part of a large-scale disinformation campaign in Europe to allegedly further the interests of Modi and the Indian government. While ANI hasn’t directly addressed the allegations, its editor Smita Prakash, in a tweet on 11 December, accused “Pakistan and its proxies” of damaging ANI’s credibility “by hurling wild accusations of fake news”. Smita is Prem Prakash’s daughter-in-law, and is married to Sanjiv Prakash, managing director of the agency.

There do seem to have been “oversights”. In July, only days after it reported that there were no Chinese troops on the Indian side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the agency released another report saying China was refusing to pull out its 40,000 troops in “front and depth areas”. There was “not even an apology” for putting out a contradictory report earlier, tweeted defence expert Ajai Shukla, a retired colonel from the Indian Army. The agency, he added, was “India’s largest, but worst-run, sarkari mouthpiece”.

But ANI, which registered as a news agency in the mid-1990s, didn’t always attract such criticism ... [I]n recent years, ANI's journalism has often attracted charges of being partisan towards the BJP ...

After the 2014 election, and ahead of the 2019 election campaign, Modi gave two press interviews to ANI’s editor Smita Prakash, the most he's given to any media organization. "I am holding fast to my desire to be as neutral as possible in the interview," she wrote in a behind-the-scenes account of the first interview. "My questions are beyond the riots of 2002, beyond Hindutva and beyond hate speeches." The second interview, aired on 1 January 2019, was criticised for her unwillingness to persist with hard questions, even on issues such as the alleged Rafale fighter jet scam ...

Prakash’s book has an episode from the 1975 Emergency that may illustrate the comparison. While he was reporting in the field once, some people stopped Prakash’s car near a gurudwara in Delhi. There were rumours of a lathi-charge at a demonstration nearby and people wanted to know if it was true. Before Prakash could answer, a Sikh man interrupted and addressed the crowd: "Why are you asking them questions? Can’t you tell they are journalists? They are not allowed to speak." The sentiment still resonates.
— Mint (newspaper) https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/ideas/prem-prakash-ani-and-the-perils-of-access-journalism-111607855620941.html

As is evident, the writer of the article — currently at NPR — is accusing ANI of being brazenly partisan to BJP; additionally, he notes something of an institutional history in the regard, highlighting the "considerable bonhomie" between Prem Prakash and "the people he was to hold accountable as a journalist".

So, contrary to what Hemiauchenia believes in good faith, the criticisms levelled at ANI are not limited to the cited sources and I can probably find others. One also needs to remember that ANI provides news-feeds to virtually every MSM in India and notwithstanding India's sharp decline in press freedom, we cannot really expect those organizations to bite the (metaphorical) hand that feeds them!

I look forward to seeing about how @Valereee and others feel about including this source. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good source to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia So, do we write "Investigations by The Caravan, The Ken, and The Mint ..."? (This might seem to be in jest but isn't.) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mint doesn't really seem to have done a deep investigation into the issue, more just bog-standard reporting. I would support "reporting by The Cavaran, The Ken and Mint" instead. Also, it's probably worth noting at least in the body that ANI has never properly addressed the fake news allegations and has declined to comment when specifically confronted about it (which is mentioned in the Mint piece). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your proposal of toning down "investigations" to "reporting". Agree on the other aspect. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to describing The Ken and The Caravan reporting as investigations, maybe something like "Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken, and reporting by Mint" would be better, but is somewhat clunky. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is MSM? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Mainstream media. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know about TV, but print media rarely use ANI news feeds. And, when they do, they often print them verbatim, so that we know who wrote them. But I am recently discovering that PTI just as bad, but it least attributes its information to government sources. ANI, on the other hand, makes it look like it knows it to be a fact. These problems were rampant during the 2023-2024 Manipur violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I am fully sympathetic to the supposed "inadvertent errors and oversights" that magically align with the government's interests. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This whole situation of inadvertent error magically aligned with the government's interests—this is primarily because of the depth of Smita Prakash's mind. Lunar-akaunto／talk 10:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI has previously been accused of serving as a propaganda channel for certain interests of Indian power, and its articles are regularly picked up by media outlets in the region.

- Le Monde; link

Close to the government and with a virtual monopoly in India, the ANI has not only relayed the propaganda of the fake media, but has produced "fake news" itself.

- Libération; link

The whole skill of the mechanics of the "Indian chronicles" is to be able to rely on a powerful megaphone: the ANI, or Asian News International. This private Indian news agency, whose content EU DisinfoLab has scrutinised, is in fact responsible for massively relaying, or inventing, this "fake" content based on false sources, fake experts, fake think tanks or fake journalists.

Le Soir; link — hako9 (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources also look good Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could include the mint source, but 'glaring omissions' and 'still resonates' feel like opinion to me. Would have to be attributed, possibly to the writer. Omkar Khandekar, is there a reason we particularly care what he thinks? Valereee (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic propaganda

[edit]

Read this hilarious coverage by Newslaundry. The source is cited in our article — that's how I discovered it — but the content is not.

In any case, too many sources say the same things about our subject and I have not (yet) come across a single reliable source that goes against the trend. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I haven't had much of an interest in the article ever and will leave it to fellow editors with the suggestion that the litigation shouldn't prod us to bend backward and be overtly conservative. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't have much time to spend on this either, but I am just defending it from being ransacked, using the court case as an excuse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More investigative reports

[edit]

ANI’s reputation since 2014 is of being pro-government to the point of being crude. The truth is it has always leaned towards the powers that be for access and business. Every second tweet from its regional X handles are on chief ministers ...

Kapoor’s [ANI’s national bureau chief] X profile now has a picture of Modi, perfectly encapsulating the state of affairs at the news agency today. ANI is far more likely to find citizens who praise Modi during his public meetings and rallies than at any other event held by an opposition party. During key elections, Modi looks to ANI – as he did in 2014, 2019 and 2022 – for soft interviews. Shah [the Home Monister of India] gets a platform too at crucial moments, such as when he debunked "myths" after the notification of the Citizenship Amendment Act rules in March this year. ANI's editor Smita Prakash hosts a podcast too, where she invites four pro-government guests for every single anti-establishment voice ...

In Modi’s India, ANI has unrivalled access to everything the government does. It was the only private media house permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the Ram Mandir during its consecration in January. It's also the only non-government media house that flies with Modi on his foreign tours. This is why ANI has earned the sobriquet "Always In Narendra's Interest" [by Ramachandra Guha, argubaly, India's greatest living public intellectual].
— https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/04/08/anis-news-business-pr-contracts-with-cms-podcasts-and-a-quest-for-power

@Hemiauchenia: What do you feel about this source (I cannot read the entire article, though, due to lack of a subscription)? Do we add yet another attribution? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, @Kautilya3. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. This was among a large number of quotes I provided a month ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: Ah, true. If you have a NL subscription (or this article), can you email me a copy? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a great source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph gone

[edit]

The above discussion is too free-wheeling for me to make sense of what is being talked about. So opening a new one. Hemiauchenia removed this paragraph from the lead:

Critics have also alleged the agency has consistently reported misinformation, has employed video editors to misrepresent media sources,[1][2] and has quoted sources that do not exist.[3] It has also been accused of favouring revenue output over ill-treated employees.[1][4]

References

  1. ^ a b Donthi, Praveen (1 March 2019). "The Image Makers : How ANI Reports The Government's Version Of Truth". The Caravan. Archived from the original on 8 February 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
  2. ^ Chaudhuri, Pooja (21 October 2018). "ANI – A tale of inadvertent errors and oversights". Alt News. Archived from the original on 4 December 2022. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  3. ^ "Modi Govt's Go-To News Agency ANI 'Quotes Geopolitical Experts, Think Tanks That Don't Exist': Report". The Wire (India). 23 February 2023. Retrieved 19 September 2024.
  4. ^ Ahluwalia, Harveen; Srivilasan, Pranav (21 October 2018). "How ANI quietly built a monopoly". The Ken. Archived from the original on 16 January 2023. Retrieved 28 December 2019.

And his explanation for it on the talk page is (other than claiming "ONUS"):

I've tried to do this but was reverted (I reverted back per WP:ONUS) I think the stuff about the alleged mistreatment of employees and claims of promoting misinformation is better discussed in the body, as otherwise the lead seems unduly focused on shoving as much negative content in the lead as possible. (15:04 UTC, 28 October 2024)

So, my questions:

  1. How do you know that this is "unduly" negative?
  2. You might argue that employ mistreatment is not lead-worthy but how can you claim that misinformaiton is not lead-worthy?

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the "quoting sources that do not exist" bit, but it should be tied into the "amplifying a vast network of fake news websites spreading pro-government and anti-Pakistan propaganda." because it's part of the same network. I don't think the mistreatment of staff stuff is really relevant for the lead, but perfectly fine for the body. I'm iffy on the misinformation bit, all news organisations make mistakes, and I'm not sure how much weight should be placed upon it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that reliable sources characterize ANI's spread of misinformation to perennially align with the incumbent government's POV. That's probably not true for the average newspaper which fucks up once in a while but is still reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think "has been accused of repeatedly spreading misinformation alligned with government objectives" is maybe OK? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems okay to me. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss rewordings later. But I am not bargaining here. If you want any part of the first sentence removed, you need to justify. "I think it is UNDUE" doesn't cut it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia talk page, you don't need write like you're a Delhi court judge where your opinion is the most important and that you are the final arbiter of article content. People are free to express that they feel certain content is not necessary to include in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you will discover that Wikipedia is a lot more stringent than the Delhi court. You edit-warred on a high-profile, contentious page, based on you own personal opinion, and got the page locked. Now you are trying to wiggle out of any discussion. You better come up with policy-based justifications for your claims. Your own opinions are worthless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3, you're in a contentious topic. It is even more important that we discuss edits, not editors. And you seem to be declaring you aren't willing to work collegially? That's actually necessary here. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ftr: the edit war was a round-robin type by multiple ECR editors experienced enough to know how to prevent an actual violation. No one person is to blame for the article being protected. If there was one person edit-warring, the solution would have been a p-block from the article for that one person, not full protection. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of my comments since the page protection have shown that I'm fine with most of the content being added back, thanks to the additional sourcing that has been unearthed. Most of my concerns now are about phrasing rather than actual content. I am fine with the page being unprotected if anyone wants to request that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support restoring the content as well. "It's negative" is meaningless criticism; if sources report negative things on a subject, we reflect that in the article. That the content should "better discussed in the body" is nonsense. The lead follows the body, and this should be in the lead paragraph because it is also in the body. Information on propaganda, misinformation, and legal issues makes up most of the article, so this has to be in the lead paragraph as well. Cortador (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Ratnahastin (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, obviously. Also, while not the issue at hand, it may be arguable whether the inclusion of revenue output allegation makes the excerpt a little less fluent; merging the rest with the second paragraph makes it too jumbled. However, it still remains indisputable that it all should be included because it highlights ANI's bread and butter.
On another note, the second paragraph's last line should be changed to "spreading pro-government and anti-Pakistan/anti-China propaganda", as the report does mention about China. Lunar-akaunto／talk 09:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All I'm seeing at Caravan is a few short paragraphs -- is the part about employees mentioned in a paywalled section? Ditto The Ken. Can anyone provide the text of what they're saying about employee mistreatment? If it's a single sentence in a feature article, probably not important enough for the lead. If it's extensive coverage, maybe. Valereee (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my view, whether it not the mistreatment of employees should be included is entirely dependent on the prominence in the coverage. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the body, not to simply restate everything said in it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That contradicts MOS:LEAD. It is necessary to summarise the content on lead once it has been described well on the article body. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS lead says: The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. I think the mistreatment of employees is much less important than the government mouthpiece/fake news allegations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is among the most important aspects of this news agency and it makes them unique, regardless of how much importance you want to give. It is valid to mention it as per your quote. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can agree to disagree about this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is among the most important aspects of this news agency and it makes them unique - Mistreating its employees is certainly not what makes ANI unique; I know of top-tier newsrooms in USA which are equally—if not more—poor in the regard. So, whether this allegation goes into the lead depends on the contents of the NL article that I linked to above; we need to have multiple corroborations. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2 sources were already cited for the information that about the treatment of employees.[3] Here is one more source about ANI citing non-existing sources. That paragraph is fine for lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but many of us can't get to either of those sources to verify. K kindly sent me the Caravan piece, and the section seems to be based on quoting former employees unhappy with how they were treated, quoting family members of employees who feel the company didn't offer them enough aid after their family member died in service, quoting current employees who are unhappy with company policy, and unless I missed it it doesn't say anything about revenue. Haven't seen The Ken yet, but based on Caravan does this belong in the lead? Certainly we can place it in the body, with attribution, but I'm not convinced it goes in the lead. If it does belong in the lead, I wouldn't think it should say "It has also been accused of favouring revenue output over ill-treated employees." Maybe something like "Former and current employees have complained about the company's treatment of them." Valereee (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the objection to attribution

[edit]

I'd like to drill down on one point of contention, avoiding tangents: the question of any attribution in the lead.

When an assertion is not simple fact but contains some element of opinion, I believe we should attribute. At a contentious topic, I believe that attribution should include for such assertions made in the lead. I am wide open to discussions of how many sources to attribute to and which ones, and I don't want to let that derail us on this question: I feel like I'm seeing some objection to including attribution in the lead at all, and that's what I'd like to get at in this section. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need for the attribution on any of the content that was on lead. The reason is simple. Those facts are undisputed and have been reported by multiple reliable sources. There is no reliable source that has offered any rebuttal for those facts. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the allegations ought not to be aired in wikivoice but I do not offer any opposition to such an approach shall it be the majority-view. However, I emphasize that the allegations shall not be attributed to one/two/three/... source(s) for there's too many of them. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "opinion" do the cited sources contain? Cortador (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer questions about my own opinion, but I'm going to try to avoid responding to people's explanations of their own opinions, in pursuit of trying not to go off on tangents.
@Cortador, we cannot state as fact that ANI is a propaganda tool of the government in the same way we can state as fact that ANI was founded by Prem Prakash. Many, many people may agree with that characterization, but that doesn't make it fact. This is why we don't put it in wikivoice. What is fact is that others are saying this, which is why why we attribute it in the sections. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That won't really make enough sense unless you provide a reliable source that disputes this fact. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can state that ANI is a propaganda tool as long as that is sufficiently sourced.
That said, you have not answered my question: what "opinion" do the cited sources contain? Cortador (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again answering a direct question in order to clarify my opinion -- rather than trying to convince others their opinion isn't correct -- in aid of not going off on tangents. I did answer, Cortador. "ANI is a mouthpiece for the government" or government propaganda or amplifier of fake news or whatever it is we're saying in the lead right now are opinions. That is what we're citing to the sources: opinions. That is the opinion the cited sources contain. It may be an opinion generally held by many, many people. It may be opinion held by nearly everyone who has actually looked at them critically. But that doesn't make it not an opinion. It doesn't make it a fact. Valereee (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fact　[fakt]　noun—information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
opinion　[əˈpɪnjən]　noun—a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Lunar-akaunto／talk 20:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained why this is supposed to be an "opinion". Is the information from op-eds? Is it froma blog?
Also, it doesn't matter what you consider a fact, what matters is what sources do. You repeatedly posting "It's not a fact!" isn't relevant. Cortador (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: But do note that the edits did stay up for around 5 years presented in wikivoice, though. It is only after the lawsuit that things have changed.
The citations have analysed and found ANI to have deliberately fabricated fake news to match the government's objective. Prem Prakash also admitted to his connections to the government, quoting from the Ken: While they maintained connections with the Congress during its time in power in the 1980s and 1990s, they were quick to court the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) when the tide seemed to be shifting. A point, ironically enough, highlighted by no less than Sanjeev Prakash himself. There's other reports as well that reflect the same. If you have read both of those, you must have seen they also contain statements from ex-employees and government officials. Quoting: "At this point, ANI has more access to the government than Doordarshan and the Press Trust of India. It works well for them. Whatever needs to be covered and conveyed nationwide can be done with a single company." said a senior government official.
We can also pick any interview of ANI; it is blatantly obvious: Smita just goes on about asking, "Were these elections just a formality?" then goes about sugarcoating the incumbent government, and literally no counter-questions were asked even when Mudiji was lying straight through his teeth, lying about facts to be precise. I don't understand. What more proof can there be? Lunar-akaunto／talk 17:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go off on a tangent, so I'm going to respond to just the question that seems relevant here: What more proof can there be? The fact you can see no other explanation doesn't turn whatever we're saying/you're implying into a fact which we can present without attribution in wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I think absence of evidence is what you're looking for. Lunar-akaunto／talk 20:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't examined this article in detail in a while, so I take no position on the wording as yet. But YESPOV provides explicit guidance in cases such as this - when the preponderance of reliable sources examining a certain question agree on an analytical conclusion, we not only can state it in Wikipedia's voice, we are required to by policy. And we routinely do so elsewhere - we note that governments are authoritarian, we note that media propagates misinformation, we note that certain policies damaged economies. The specific label of "propaganda" is a loaded one but the idea that ANI propagated misinformation in service of the Indian government's objectives isn't really in dispute. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Valereee's suggestion that anything less objective than Sun-rises-in-the-East cannot be said in Wikivoice goes against practice and policy. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, if I'm in the minority here, I'm in the minority. :) Valereee (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal poll: treatment of employees in the lead section

[edit]

Should the lead include details about ANI's alleged mistreatment of employees?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reponses

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Please discuss here rather than doing back and forth in the responses section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal poll: attribution

[edit]

Should claims such acting as a propaganda outlet for Indian government, fake news websites, misinformation, etc, be attributed to the relevant sources (Caravan, Ken, etc.) in the lead section? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]
  • Yes for mouthpiece for Indian government, No for fake news websites, Yes for misinformation. I think that the claim that ANI serves as a mouthpiece for the Indian government is something that it best attributed to the sources making the claim, but there is no real doubt that ANI did amplify the fake news websites so there is no need to attribute. I also think the misinformation should be attributed given the wording in news sources discussing the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to all, per K3, V93 and others. Atleast until people find a non-comical way to attribute five high-quality sources—Mint, Ken, Caravan, Newslaundry, and Wire—or bring sources that contradict such a characterization of ANI about purveying government aligned propaganda. Or, a way to attribute about a dozen sources—Diplomat, BBC, Politico, Le Monde, Al Jazeera, and others—about amplifying disinformation. Or, ... TrangaBellam (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't like the framing of this question - "mouthpiece" is a subjective moniker, and we can make the point in plainer language - but I do think the use of Wikivoice is necessary and justified, per above, having now looked at the sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't mean to frame the question contentiously, it's just that "mouthpiece" is the current wording in the article. Do you think it's worth creating another poll about the "mouthpiece" claim specifically? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general yes if we can find a way to do it without making the lead hard to read. I get that there are differing opinions here on whether this is such settled opinion that we can treat it as fact. But unless we are sure this is absolutely otherwise uncontested by any independent RS -- which I'm not in nearly as good a position to assess as others here may be due to familiarity with the sources and for some the ability to search in other languages/alphabets, but I will AGF on that -- I argue we'd treat it as widely held opinion but not as fact. Valereee (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to all. Per norm and above discussion. Lunar-akaunto／talk 20:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. We have a sufficient number of sources to state this in wikivoice. Listing sources in this case looks like casting doubt. However, the term "mouthpiece" specifically should indeed be avoided or attributed. Cortador (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Like I said, I don't see any need for the attribution on any of this content. Those facts are undisputed and have been reported by multiple reliable sources. There is no reliable source that has offered any rebuttal against those facts. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I think the lead could simply say that several Indian news sites and non-Indian research groups have found that ANI has published misinforation, used fake websites to promote some of that misinformation and called ANI a source of propaganda for the Indian government. Then put details in the body. Splitting hairs somewhat, but I don't think the lead needs to exactly attribute, but also should not be using Wikivoice on the claims. Ravensfire (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, we could add cite-bundles to the lead, like at Palmer Report current cite #3. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the amount of discussion here, it's a somewhat controversial claim so sources in the lead would be helpful. Like the idea of using a bundle for supporting this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Please discuss here rather than doing back and forth in the responses section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: mouthpiece...yeah, I'd agree it's an inherently negative word. Unless we're directly quoting, we should be describing, not namecalling. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal poll: Mouthpiece

[edit]

Should ANI be described as acting as a "mouthpiece" of the Indian government (regardless as to whether this description is attributed or not)? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Please use this section to discuss ideas for alternatives. Personally I have no strong opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, full protection

[edit]

@Valereee or other admin watching, can you please add this ref and text after "On 21 October, the Wikimedia Foundation suspended access to the article for Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation due to an order from the court."

This was probably the first time an English Wikipedia page had been taken down after a court order.[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm way too involved to edit through protections except for something no-brainer, like fixing a broken ref or typo. Hey man im josh?
Ooh, but is that the first instance of coverage outside India? It's really a good article. Valereee (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be, so I think we should get it in there. Marked "BBC Hindi" but I don't think that matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I typically don't like to edit anywhere that's controversial, so I'm going to be a bit nitpicky. I'm not in love with the phrasing "This was probably...", the uncertainty of the phrase leaves it a bit too open ended. For what it's worth, my edits on this page have consisted of ref formatting and updating. Would it be crazy to say something like, Based on transparency reports by the Wikimedia Foundation, published and available from 2012 onwards, this was the first time an English Wikipedia page had been taken down after a court order.? That phrasing doesn't feel perfect in my mind, but to me it seems more accurate than saying "this was probably". Hey man im josh (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC says "probably" and The Print[2] says "reportedly". Valereee (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, why can't we automatically create citations in talk pages? No idea what I broke there. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try using this tool. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, useful! Valereee (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I went to an article and created them there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "According to the BBC and The Print, this may be the first time an English Wikipedia page has been taken down in response to a court order"? Valereee (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take the BBC:s word on "probably" myself, I don't think this needs in-text attribution. The village-pump thread pretty much agrees. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Probably" is directly from the source, so I'm good with it. This source (which we can use when we can use it), also indicates that they're not sure: "Wikipedia then took down the entire article on the defamation lawsuit— the first English article in the encyclopedia’s history, according to news reports."[3] It's a long but interesting text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency reports published by the Foundation since 2012 show that in about 5,500 content takedown and alteration requests globally, it had complied with less than 10, and none of them were for the English website.

Interesting. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It's harder to know for sure if anything happened in the 2001-2012 period. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd like to see now is PolitiFact or similar to do a fact-check on this WP-article and the one about the case. They have to pick a specific version, but still. The reporting I've seen barely touches on "Is WP pretty much correct about ANI?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref can also be used to update "as of 2019, it is the biggest television news agency in India." to "as of 2024, India’s largest newswire service", though I'm not really sure what "newswire" means in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newswires are a news agency that provides a wire service, transmitting reports to subscribers (usually media outlets) electronically, historically over a telegraph wire, but now most often over the internet. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Poddar, Umang (30 October 2024). "Wikipedia v ANI: Why the online encyclopaedia has landed in legal trouble in India". BBC. Retrieved 30 October 2024.
  2. ^ Mandhani, Apoorva (2024-10-30). "In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India's tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice". ThePrint. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  3. ^ Mandhani, Apoorva (30 October 2024). "In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India's tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice". ThePrint. Retrieved 30 October 2024.

The Newslaundry investigation

[edit]

Quotes

[edit]

Courtesy Kautilya3, I have got a copy of the paywalled Newslaundry investigation into ANI —

[edit]

  • For payments ranging from Rs 48 lakh to Rs 1.5 crore per year, ANI deploys a team for each chief minister who’s signed up and covers all events involving them. It also promises to globally promote said chief ministers' image by "leveraging its partnership with Reuters".

    For instance, on August 9, 2016, Asian Films TV Private Ltd sent a proposal to then Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao [KCR] offering its services for Rs 1.5 crore per year ... Newslaundry has a copy of this email. Gaur [an ANI official] said Mittal [Telangana’s information and public relations commissioner] wanted "more" from the ANI contract and had allegedly asked how the news service could help build KCR's "image" in India and abroad. In his email to Ishaan [director of ANI; editor of its feed], Gaur wrote: "ANI can dedicate one camera team with CM for his publicity...and send important messages and statements to various regional and national channels." A former employee of ANI confirmed to Newslaundry that ANI’s camera team subsequently tailed KCR and covered key events involving him and his government ...

    In Uttar Pradesh, the information and PR department signed a contract with ANI, a few months after Yogi Adityanath became chief minister in 2017. In Rajasthan, two officials confirmed that the former Ashok Gehlot government had also signed a "PR package" with ANI ... In Chhattisgarh, the former Bhupesh Baghel government signed a similar contract with ANI when he became chief minister in 2018 ...

    They [Newslaundry's sources] also pointed out that, at the end of the day, ANI is all about business. "UNI and PTI are run by trusts. But ANI runs a business like the Ambanis, Tatas or Birlas," they said. "It has made it clear that they are not devoted to journalism but business. They follow the money. You give it to them, they can do anything." Yet two sources in the Congress [primary opposition to the incumbent BJP government] complained that such agreements were limited to states. "We wanted ANI to give positive coverage to our central leadership too. But because of ANI's proximity to the central government, it did not happen."

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ANI also has short-term deals with companies and union ministries, according to two former employees. An internal email from 2016, accessed by Newslaundry, said ANI would cover the Confederation of Indian Industry's events – project launches, press conferences, agreement signings, and others – for Rs 8 lakh per event. Additionally, ANI offered to live-stream CII events on the union power ministry’s Facebook page – just another instance of its proximity to the central government.

    To sweeten the deal, the news agency said it would leverage its Reuters partnership for international publicity ... Newslaundry asked Reuters if it was aware of such "PR packages" and how it verified ANI's videos were not publicity material. Reuters said it "selects and verifies a small amount of globally relevant ANI videos for its video service, which is made available to customers via our wire". It’s not clear how it cross-checks "PR" videos of ANI.

    Reuters did not answer Newslaundry’s question on whether such contracts violated Reuters' Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and Trust Principles. The code says journalists "must not accept any payment, gift, service or benefit" from a news source of contact. The code demands the highest standard of integrity and ethics and is applicable to business partners (ANI, in this case) too.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

[edit]

  • It's worth mentioning that ANI worries about the Prakash family’s public image too.

    Newslaundry learned that in 2022, Ishaan held a meeting with content curators of Wikipedia to discuss "positive" descriptions of ANI on the open-source platform. He allegedly expressed his displeasure that whenever a "positive" detail was added to ANI's Wikipedia page, someone would cite the 2019 report from The Caravan magazine on how ANI "reports the government’s version of the truth".

    At the time of publishing this story, ANI's Wikipedia page says the news agency has been criticised for "having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news website, and misreporting".

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "Ishaan held a meeting with content curators of Wikipedia" even mean? Valereee (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee My unsubstantiable guess is that Ishaan contacted some people who are active in the Wikimedia movement in India — that is, those who show up for editathons, hackathons, tech summits, etc. — and mostly edit sister Wikipedias. The overall sentiment at WikimediaIndia-l (thread: Court Verdict on Wikipedia) is interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecking Wikipedia

[edit]

  • The alleged bias [mentioned in Wikipedia's lead] in covering its clients manifests in ANI’s tweets.

    Newslaundry analysed two of ANI’s regional accounts on X – the first for Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan, and the second devoted to Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. All five states are governed by the BJP. The key finding is that every second tweet from the two handles is on chief ministers. Opposition voices find little space on both timelines ...

    At the national level, ANI’s YouTube channel posted 92 video packages between March 31 and April 2. More than half (49) featured BJP leaders and pro-government voices. Only 13 videos had bytes of opposition leaders ... Finally, we looked closer at Smita Praksh’s ANI Podcast. With 155 episodes since September 2022, she’s invited 70 BJP and pro-government personalities so far. Seventeen were opposition leaders or anti-establishment ...

    The news agency is clearly selective in what it chooses to cover – and what it reliably skips. When activist Sonam Wangchuk held a 21-day fast for Sixth Schedule safeguards in Ladakh [against the BJP government], ANI only tweeted once, when Wangchuk ended his fast. On February 24, the Uttar Pradesh government [run by BJP] cancelled a recruitment exam for 60,000 police constable posts due to a paper leak and rescheduled it for six months later. Candidates held outraged protests over the cancellation. But on X, ANI posted two videos that day in the span of two hours. The first showed students celebrating the announcement and the second had interviews with them, with the caption "Yogi ji ne maang puri ki" [lit. "Yogi Ji has fulfilled our demands"] as candidates had "crazy celebrations" over the cancelling of the exam. There was no post on the protests preceding celebrations ...

    ANI’s star with Modi seems to be on the rise. The news agency had around 10 camera teams, including from Delhi, in Ayodhya on January 22. Smita Prakash, Ishaan and Naveen Kapoor were among the invitees there that day.

    It’s also the only non-government media organisation to travel abroad with Modi. When former PM Manmohan Singh went to Myanmar for his last foreign tour in March 2014, he took along 30 journalists apart from Doordarshan. When Modi went on his first foreign trip to Bhutan that year, he took only four journalists from PTI and ANI. Four years later, only one journalist – from ANI – was allowed to fly with Modi to Argentina. Additionally, Smita has interviewed Modi three times in 2014, 2019 and 2022 – an enviable record for her considering the prime minister has never held a press conference in India.

    A former ANI journalist told Newslaundry that ANI is “the most loved child” of the BJP government.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the words of a former employee, ANI and the Prakash family have no permanent foes and friends. During the JNU protest and arrests of student leaders in 2016, ANI blacklisted Shehla Rashid from being interviewed due to her "fiery views against the government". Rashid, who has of late been praising Modi for development in Kashmir, was interviewed by Smita in November last year.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communal Bias

[edit]

  • ANI is also guilty of selectively revealing the religions of people accused of crimes. In other words, it tells readers if the perpetrators are Muslim, but doesn't extend the same courtesy to perpetrators who are Hindu.

    For example, in June 2023, a woman's throat was allegedly slit by her Hindu boyfriend in an autorickshaw in Mumbai. In another case in November that year, a woman was allegedly murdered by a married Muslim man in Chandigarh. ANI tweeted the name of the accused in the second case, but not in the first. And it's done this many, many times.

    An ANI employee blamed this on "lack of clarity" from editors. "There are no clear editorial directions on whether we need to mention names of all accused," they said. Given this, the source suggested that young employees tweeting from the handle choose a path that aligns with their bosses' 'pro-government' stance.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

[edit]

  • But while all media houses inevitably make the occasional mistake, ANI’s often seem deliberate.

    For example, when Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal was arrested last month in the excise policy case, his minister Atishi held a press conference. She said companies connected to another accused in the case, P Sarath Chandra Reddy, had donated electoral bonds worth Rs 55 crore to the BJP after Reddy turned approver. ANI tweeted a 3.55-minute video of Atishi’s press conference. But the video cut off the portion where the minister alleged a quid pro quo arrangement between Reddy and the BJP. The tweet skipped it too.

    Similarly in February, Congress leader Syed Naseer Hussain was elected to the Rajya Sabha. The BJP claimed "pro-Pakistan" slogans were raised by his supporters and filed a police complaint. ANI turned a claim into reality, alleging Hussain and his supporters did in fact raise pro-Pakistan slogans. In 2017, ANI tweeted that 15 men were arrested in Madhya Pradesh for "raising pro-Pak slogans and bursting crackers" after Pakistan beat India in a cricket match. It presented these details as fact, though all the men would be acquitted by a court six years later.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI's response

[edit]

Before proceeding to publish the article, they had asked a set of 21 questions to ANI; ANI's response can be read here. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a classic Deny, Deflect and Distract response. Ravensfire (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&oldid=1255107141"