Jump to content

Talk:Media Watch (TV program)

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

I thought Tim Bowden was a host in the early days, perhaps even the first host? Ajayvius 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bowden hosted a program in the 1980s called "Backchat". I don't think he ever hosted Media Watch. Peter Ballard 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sour grapes of Murdoch press

[edit]

sources that are relied upon need to be independent of what they are reporting on, Bolt and the Australian's editor are obviously not neutral sources of criticism on this program's coverage of the Murdoch press as opposed to others media organisations. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Whether a source is independent or neutral is irrelevant to whether it should be mentioned (though those factors do affect how it should be mentioned, of course). I suggest closer study of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Please note that coming to grips with the subtleties of those policies is a challenge few Wikipedians have found easy. Cheers, CWC 00:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CWC please remember to keep civil when discussing policies and changes. Also you may want to look at reaching a consensus and not unilaterally changing the article. I notice that you have copped criticism before for your conservative views effecting your neutrality so maybe that is something to think about. - Mike Beckham 01:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which I've been consciously following ;-). Cheers, CWC 06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please don't start lawyering at me CWC by throwing policies at me. Your misrepresentation of the criticism of bias as being from 'critics' rather than from the very organisations and people that mediawatch investigates is an obvious breach of the very policies you point towards. Criticism of a subjectmatter is only relevant if it comes from those who are independent from a dispute, and even if it was notable those 'critics' would have to be very clearly identified. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia, whether criticism of an article's subject is relevant has nothing to do with whether the critic is independent from a dispute, as explained above.
WP:UNDUE says that notable criticism should be reported; other rules (and common sense) say that we have to identify the critics, mention any conflicts they have with the subject, etc. So, yes, we should mention that the ongoing Bolt/MW and TheOz/MW conflicts. Perhaps we could say "Note: Bolt and Media Watch are long-time critics", and describe The Australian as "a frequent Media Watch target". Oh, wait. Someone already did that. And the editor's name seems ... somehow familiar.
WikiTownsvillian, please try very hard to never mischaracterise my edits like this in future. Also, please read Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, paying close attention to the second paragraph of this section. Cheers, CWC 14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep civil you two. Debate the page and changes and stop attacking each other. - Mike Beckham 00:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'critics' cannot be identified as "others" which is a generalisation as if the criticism has widespread support, it does not. I agree that it could be notable criticism, but it is not clearly identified and is not notable enough to be in the lead of the overview section. To include this reference (if an editorial passes WP:RS) we would have to say something along the lines of; Andrew Bolt and the Australian, who are regularly scrutinised by Media Watch, have been long term counter-critics of the show, accusing it of left wing bias. anything more vague than that infers widespread support of the criticism, which there is not, mentioning the 'critics' bias in the footnote is nowhere near good enough. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I agree with Peter Ballard that the sentences that praise media watch for its neutrality and fearless investigations also need to be sourced. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding CWC's accusation of my being uncivil, there is no need to worry, I don't use the phrase 'wikilawyer' lightly and I ask him/her to read the second, third and fourth points in the first part of that essay. WikiTownsvillian 14:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Belated response from CWC:) I don't believe I've accused WikiTownsvillian of being uncivil, and I don't believe s/he has been uncivil in any way. (I also don't believe I was wikilawyering — but then I would say that, wouldn't I?). Cheers, CWC 16:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given this discussion happened several weeks ago I'm not sure what I was referring to either so I will happily take back the comment, I think I was pissed at you referring me specifically to Wikipedia:WikiLawyering#Negative_connotations in what I felt at the time was being condescending, I'm not worried about it now. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources in encyclopedia articles, but they aren't always available. I'm not aware of any usable secondary sources about Media Watch — all we have is people arguing for or against MW, not writing dispassionately about MW. So we have to fall back on primary sources. But we have to be careful to signal to readers that they are not secondary sources.

The specific example I am thinking of is Andrew Bolt's item about MW, Philip Adams and Ron Brunton. This is not valid as a secondary source, so we cannot use it to say that MW turns reports about left-wing stuff-ups into attacks on conservatives. However, it is valid as a primary source, to show that critics have claimed that MW turns reports about left-wing stuff-ups into attacks on conservatives. The distinction is subtle (and I probably haven't explained it very well), but important.

I hope this helps. Cheers, CWC 03:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a primary source isn't significant enough for a secondary source to report on it then how is it notable for an encyclopaedia article? WikiTownsvillian 08:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That question is tied to a fairly deep issue with Wikipedia: How can we write good, encyclopedic articles following our own rules on topics where there are no good secondary sources? The answer so far is that we use secondary sources to judge WP:Notability, and use primary sources in articles only when there are no suitable secondary sources. (At least, that's how we should work.)
In this case, there is very little chance of neutral secondary sources ever appearing, so we're stuck with primary sources. The key thing is to carefully identify where each claim comes from: we have to say that David Salter suggested that "Media Watch sh[ied] away from this nasty tar-pit of issues because it was unwilling to subject Michael Brissenden, a journalist in the ABC's news and current affairs department, to the same level of ethical scrutiny it applies to others", instead of just using the quoted words. CWC 08:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no chance of a neutral secondary source ever appearing to back up your assertions then it is obviously WP:OR. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, WikiTownsvillian, this argument is not valid. In an article about Y, a sentence like "X says that Y disimmentatizes the eschateon.[ref]" is not OR. (Of course, it still has to meet the standards of WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.) CWC 10:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in response to Peter's edit summery "Undo. Andrew Bolt's blog is a RS when it comes to documenting what Andrew Bolt's opinion is" the point isn't whether that is Andrew Bolt's opinion, the point is how is Andrew Bolt's opinion relevant to the article's subject matter (the TV program Media Watch) the only way to establish that his opinion is notable to the subject is by secondary sources, even the statement saying that Andrew Bold and media watch are long time critics of each other needs to be backed up with a secondary source as it is also WP:OR; I would object to this statement because it infers that it is a personal or professional vendetta on both Bolts and Media Watch's part, thus it degrades Media Watch's integrity down to the level of Bolt. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. IMO, the point is that (1) conservatives strongly assert that MW protects bad journalism by lefties while harassing conservatives, and (2) Bolt's item is a perfectly good example of that assertion. The current wording in our article does not endorse Bolt's claim but instead just cites it as an example, which is how we should handle this sort of thing. (I'll find more examples one day, BTW.)
It is an undeniable fact Bolt and MW are long-term critics of each other. Unfortunately, again, I don't have a secondary source for that; primary sources (MW attacks on Bolt; Bolt's attacks on MW) would be relatively easy to find but less than encyclopedic.
(BTW, more than one conservative commentator has concluded that MW does indeed have a vendetta against Bolt ... and against Janet Albrechtsen, and every other conservative in Australian public life. These commentators see MW as shamelessly hypocritical partisan hacks who have no 'integrity' at all. And they have lots of evidence for their conclusions. Some of these commentators are notable in Wikipedia terms, and WP:NPOV requires that this article mention their viewpoint.)
Cheers, CWC 08:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in your first para (1) and (2) are assertions not backed up by secondary sources... your second paragraph is an assertion by yourself that is not backed up by secondary sources... your third para (although not quoting these "conservative commentators" specifically) is just putting forward the POV by those who are obviously not neutral sources as they are complaining about MW's scrutiny of themselves... WikiTownsvillian 08:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those conservative commentators are complaining about MW's apparent campaign against every conservative in the Aus media. No, they're not neutral; but their criticism of MW comes without (or before) MW attacking them individually. (For some strange reason, any conservative who criticises MW seems to then get attacked by MW, often on specious grounds.) Also, whether my assertions on this page are backed up by secondary sources is irrelevant, especially since they're easily verified. Cheers, CWC 10:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they are easily verified then do so! If you can produce a neutral secondary source to back up any of these opinions you are expressing then there is no problem. WikiTownsvillian 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, by "verified" I mean confirmed by checking the primary sources, as opposed to confirmed by secondary sources we could use in the article. Sorry. CWC 09:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to resolve this, our dispute is not over content but our understanding of wikipedia policy regarding notability and referencing, would you be happy to take this to a neutral admin and agree to abide by their recommendation? Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 09:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with CWC's point at the start of this section: there are precious few secondary sources on Media Watch. All we really have is the MW transcripts, and the people (usually conservatives) who complain against it. So unfortunately we need to use those primary souces, because they're better than nothing, but we need to use them carefully. Peter Ballard 11:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. if we relied on Reliable Secondary Sources for this article, then the article would say almost nothing. Peter Ballard 11:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cash for Comment

[edit]

I can't think of any reason to merge this. The Cash for comment affair was a scandal undertaken by a radio presenter. There are plenty of articles about the affair and the ABA got involved so it is notable and its own page is valid. The article is on my shortlist to edit so I will get around to improving it shortly. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it, because it needed a lot of attention and no one give it any for at least five years now. I will be happy to see it turn into a full article, but I don't think there is enough information to get to 20k for a full article. The affair is a good fit with the Media Watch article, since they broke both stories, but if you really think you can improve the article, I will drop the merge suggestion for now to give you time. —[d'oh] 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Media equality on marriage equality?"

[edit]

Media Watch, "can only agree . . . the media has a bias. There’s no question it is pro same-sex marriage"

08:05, 7 September 2015,‎ "removed section - not enough coverage in rs to warrant this degree of focus"

Q.E.D B20097 (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

1. The quote attributed to David Salter: ""unwilling to subject Michael Brissenden…" cannot be found anywhere online except as a derivative of the Wikipedia article. Also, the associated link, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/story/0,25197,22290268-13243,00.html, is dead. I have removed the statement.

2. I have expanded the comment by Robert Manne.

3. Re the last paragraph, the racism story about the Daily Telegraph: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1954733.htm. The two references given that, in return, supposedly castigate Media Watch, are dead (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21959678-10388,00.html, and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/story/0,20867,22058577-7582,00.html). I have removed the entire paragraph. I don't think the article shouldn't be describing tit-for-tat attacks.

Guyburns (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guyburns -- Thanks for the expansion. Re your removals, however if a news source were to be checked and found not to contain the quote, then the quote should be deleted. Otherwise it should be left because WP:OFFLINE and WP:LINKROT apply. Such a news citation is still possible for someone to verify, and could either be left as a deadlink or just as an offline news reference. There are many citations in wikipedia which aren't properly verifiable online (or only by people with certain access).
It's of course reasonable to remove material if it makes the article better, however Salter's criticisms of Media Watch are particularly relevant to MW given his founding role, and the racism paras provide context for why the Australian was (apparently) justifiably critical (in at least once instance) of Media Watch. I'll therefore restore the broad removals. ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 01:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Media Watch (TV program). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Media Watch (TV program). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_Watch_(TV_program)&oldid=1203402575"