Talk:Media Lens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


CE[edit]

Made some edits to remove assertions and replace with descriptions. Synonyms for "wrote" and "said" need to be equally neutral.Keith-264 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, while an effort has been made by other editors to show conflicts of interest in ML critics and supporters*, there ought to be a better way of describing MLs worth than by doing more than listing comments for and against.

  • I write on the ML message board so declare an interest.Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't know if you still watch this page, Keith-264, but the word Pilger currently appears 21 times in this article, while the word Kamm appears only 12 times, respectively 13 and 6 times if one excludes the citations. This number applies to the text and the citations. Just so you know. Philip Cross (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Media Lens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☑Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Media Lens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☑Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A few points[edit]

Rhacodes, the reason someone added the Journalism panel to the this article would have been the presence there of a link to the Propaganda model page which is listed under "social impact" rather than any aspect of the profession. Cromwell and Edwards do not use the journalist self-description, nor is it present in reliable sources, anything else is original research. They are normally described as media activists, an identifier which they do use and is a fair and non-pejorative description.

I don't see Elliott Murphy's relative obscurity as a problem. He is in the same position as their admirers, bar a handful of exceptions. Most of their most serious detractors have long established Wikipedia articles, one or two, such as Andrew Marr, are quite well known, so your argument is potentially to the disfavour of Media Lens, if followed to its logical conclusion. Given Herman and Chomsky's huge influence on the Media Lens editors, I would assume Cromwell and Edwards are less displeased by Murphy's description of them (having "'taken to heart' the hypothesis of Herman and Chomsky 'probably more than any other writers in Britain'") than anything else in the article. I used his point, partly for emphasis I admit, but also because it is a necessary third-party source to establish the notability of the Herman and Chomsky influence. Philip Cross (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Far left[edit]

The introductory sentence was recently amended to state that Media Lens is a “far left” group. A similar amendment was made last year but abandoned after resistance from another editor. Citing a RS which describes someone as “far left” seems fine but can Wikipedia itself take a position on a groups political orientation? If an RS is cited describing an organisation as “far left” would it be more appropriate to do this in the body of the article, e.g. a “response and criticism” section, than in the introduction? Burrobert 14:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talkcontribs)

I've reverted that change; I for one don't consider them "Far Left". They don't advocate for violent revolution, nationalising everything, collectivisation. For what it's worth, I'd guess they're probably anarchists; but I don't think that guesses about their political alignment belong in the lede at all. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the lede is supposed to summarise sourced material from the article body. There is nothing in the body that says they are "Far Left", let alone anything sourced. "Indisputable" is therefore an absurd edit summary. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree; the term "far-left" certainly does not belong in the lead. They satisfy none of the conditions set out in the far left article to which that editor linked; rather their main purpose is to expose the lying in MSM when the latter try to justify war and military conflict. They are also concerned about the dangers of climate change. For real far-left groups, see Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party of Great Britain, and the like. It may be possible to quote someone calling them "far-left" in the body of the article, with attribution, if balanced with other sources for NPOV. --NSH001 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)