Talk:Democracy Now!/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism from guests section.

I decided to be bold and added a section of criticisms from guests. I moved President Clinton and Lou Dobbs into that section.

Smedpull (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Adition of Robert Mugabe to notable guests?

In 2000, they showed coverage of Robert Mugabe's speech in Harlem, NYC, along with showing viewpoints mainly on the land reform issue, all pro-Mugabe (except for Dennis Brutus' comment on his homosexuality ban), from some other commentators.[1]

I would say Mugabe is quite notable.--86.162.64.27 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Any criticism?

I mean, by God, you read this and you'd think everybody loves Democracy Now! SOMEONE has to criticize their methods, funding, biases, etc. Correct? TuckerResearch (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree I would say put liberaly slanted as opposed to progressive. There should also be a point of only one side being giving access.Unicorn76 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not change sourced text in the article. If you think the description is inaccurate please provide an alternative source. TFD (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Progressive is not a good description liberally biased is more accurate, please do not change my description.Unicorn76 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:V: You need a source for that. TFD (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy in the news

For the past three and four years,I have been listening to Democracy Now on WBAI and watching the streaming news on line at Democracy Now.org.I believe as an independent news source,Democracy Now has provided substantial information for their listening audiences as well as their streaming viewers. On that note i would like to ask how difficult it has been to retrieve valid and accurate information?

Democracy Now? Accurate? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Democracy Now is not News it is an oppinions show no different than Limbaugh or Ed Shultz . Calling it a news prgram should be removed.Unicorn76 (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are sources calling it a news program:

• LINK TV: Democracy Now! is a national independent news program, hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez and produced out of the Downtown Community Television Center, a community media center in New York City’s Chinatown.
• Yale Law School program for a speech by Goodman: Amy Goodman is an award-winning investigative journalist, syndicated columnist, and author. Her news program, Democracy Now!, airs on more than 800 TV and radio stations in North America.
• Patriotism, Democracy, and Common Sense: a premiere model for alternative media is the national, daily Pacifica network grassroots news program hosted by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now.
• Digital media and democracy: Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 500 stations in North America.

The comparison to Limbaugh is so plainly specious that it does not merit a response. nableezy - 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

left leaning sources call a left leaning show "news" there's a shocker. You might find it insulting but this is much closer to rush/beck then it is CNN Finch590 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice. I provided sources. Do you have any to offer? nableezy - 23:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User Finch590, if you want to have a discussion here you have to provide sources, if you cannot, then you have no argument. Well done for going to the effort of finding sources, Nableezy. ValenShephard (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

call me when dan rather gets arrested this is very clearly the act of a political organization now a valid "news program" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Using "left-wing" in the lead

Redthoreau has removed the accurate descriptor "left-wing" on the basis that use of the term by "a few opinion pieces" is insufficient for inclusion. Out of five references that use "left-wing" to describe DN, exactly ONE of these references is an opinion piece. Redthoreau may not like it, but news pieces are describing DN that way, including the left-leaning LA Times. BTW, the article as currently constituted, assisted by Redthoreau, reads like it could have been written by DN itself. That's not the way an encyclopedia article should read. Drrll (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, your desire is fairly transparent, considering you have attempted to label both Democracy Now! and host Amy Goodman --> seen here as "left-wing". Yes you have located a few minor sources that use "left-wing", however per WP:Undue we should only use such a descriptor if the majority of the reliable sources do so. For example, analogously, I could locate a slew of sources that define Fox News as "right-wing" or MSNBC as "left-wing", but you won't find either of them described that way as an indisputable fact in the first line of their articles per WP:NPOV and WP:Undue (as you have attempted to do here). The sources you are utilizing for "left-wing" are editorial style essays from 3 obscure papers, a LA Times article from DN itself, and a blog posting at The Huffington Post. Your links can be seen here ---> The Washington Times, Phoenix Business Journal, Columbia Spectator, The LA Times, The Huffington Post. Moreover, these articles are not on Democracy Now! specifically, but mention them in passing with a few words. It is obvious that all you did was put "Democracy Now! + left-wing" into google and took a few of the results. This is not the way to gage WP:Undue, which would require you to look at an array of reliable sources and gage how they most often describe the DN. You could also look at the fact that ("Democracy Now! + left-wing") gets you 380,000 articles, while ("Democracy Now! + progressive") gets you twice as many at 742,000 & ("Democracy Now! + liberal") gets you 6,700,000 results. I could also spend the next 30 minutes listing dozens upon dozens of mainstream sources that do not use the moniker "left-wing" for DN - that would show your few obscure essays and blog posts to be WP:fringe in their view. That is not to say that DN does not have a liberal or progressive worldview or focus, but words like "right-wing" and "left-wing" are often used pejoratively, and don't usually belong in the opening lines of the article unless that is the definitive or self-accepted term for the group. Can you show me any single news group in your Wiki-editing history that you have added the opening line term "right-wing" to?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Without checking the other sources, the LA Times article is hosted by DN, but it appears to be a real article, and a WP:RS. (If it were a DN comment, we could say that they call themselves "left-wing".) The Huffington Post one doesn't appear to be a blog entry, but a column. That may not make it reliable. (Shall we try "Democracy Now" + "ultraliberal"?) In any case, "left-wing" may be undue, but "leftist" (rather than "liberal", which would require disambiguation) seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, ("Democracy Now! + ultra liberal") produces 75,900 results, 5 times less than even "left-wing" and 90 + times fewer than ("Democracy Now! + liberal"). As for ("Democracy Now! + leftist") that yields 232,000 - also fewer than even "left-wing". I also agree that if Democracy Now! self-identified as "left-wing" then there wouldn't be an issue, however I can't find any evidence (and have yet to see any) that they do. As for the LA Times, all that article proves is that their entertainment writer and "show tracker" blogger Greg Braxton who most notably tracks TV shows like Law and Order and the Roast of David Hasselhoff finds Democracy Now! to be "left-wing". Forgive me for not immediately stopping the presses for the hypothesis of this obvious socio-political scholar.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are actual left-wing news sources: The Nation, Mother Jones, etc., and describing DN, CNN etc. as "left-wing" is confusing, especially when the term is used differently in the rest of the world. TFD (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, as far as using the descriptor that a majority of reliable sources use, there's not going to be a majority of sources using the same descriptor (and trying to determine this would be a nearly impossible task when you get millions of results that need to be limited to reliable sources)--they use "left-wing", "left", "liberal", "leftist", "progressive", etc. All have the common theme of being leftist-oriented, with the benefit that they accurately describe DN. I doubt there are many/any reliable sources (non-opinion RSs) that characterize Fox News as "right wing" or MSNBC as "left-wing", partly because they are more accurately described as conservative and liberal. In all but the Huffington Post article, the style is as a news story, not an "editorial essay." I'll give you that the Vermont paper is obscure, but everything else can hardly be characterized as obscure (e.g. Phoenix Business Journal has 2nd largest circulation in Arizona). Please do produce some mainstream non-opinion sources that don't use a leftish descriptor for DN. As far as adding "right-wing" to the opening line of a WP article, no--that's what editors on your side are there for. I have added "conservative" to a reference to the Media Research Center. Note that the American Enterprise Institute article does have "conservative" in its opening line. Though I personally prefer "left-wing" and sources support it, as Arthur suggested, maybe "leftist" would work better than the pejorative-laden "left-wing" and certainly work better than the variously interpreted "liberal."

BTW, Braxton may be an entertainment writer, but he is not self-published. At such a large news organization as the LA Times, his work has to make it through multiple layers of editors. And DN obviously doesn't mind that it is characterized as "left-wing radio" since it proudly hosts the article on its site. Drrll (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Question for RedThoreau, are you honestly stating that the flagship station for Pacifica Radio is not in anyway progressive/leftist/liberal leaning? Soxwon (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, please note my statement above: "That is not to say that DN does not have a liberal or progressive worldview or focus, but words like "right-wing" and "left-wing" are often used pejoratively." This conversation can't work if we're not reading each other's statements.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly correct to describe think tank "conservative" because they are typically set up in order to promote a political agenda. But you must provide a reliable source that says there is a consensus that a news show is anything other than neutral in order to enter it. BTW, liberal and left-wing have different meanings. TFD (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pacifica is quite properly reported as "left-wing". As Democracy Now! was produced by Pacifica, and was and is its flagship program, it really shouldn't take much evidence to support it being called left-wing, or, at least, it having been "left-wing" when it was part of Pacifica. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I don't think that the AEI was established to promote a political agenda. Yes, they are right-leaning, but they have partnered with the left-leaning Brookings Institute and have left-leaning Norman J. Ornstein on staff. The Heritage Foundation definitely is a conservative thinktank. There are other reliable sources that show DN is a leftish news organizations. Yes, liberal & left-wing have different meanings--DN fits much better as left-wing than liberal. Drrll (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

One needs sources to support the inclusion of any material. TFD (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

One has sources for Democracy Now! being left-wing. It's a question of how much is needed for a potential BLP situation, given the association with Pacifica, which is left-wing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

On August 23, 2010 when Amy Goodman appeared on CNN’s John King, USA she was simply introduced (00:48-00:53) as "the host of radio and tv's Democracy Now!" with no adjectives about political persuasion.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Then there are news sources that describe DN with no descriptor. There are also sources that describe DN as "left-wing", "left", "liberal", etc. I contend that those sources best represents DN accurately as it is (keep in mind that DN also proudly hosts the LA Times article that uses "left-wing radio" as a descriptor for it). I moved from describing DN definitively as "left-wing" to saying that news articles describe DN that way. Note that it didn't say that "all" or "most" news sources describe DN that way. To not include anything in the lead that DN is leftist or that it is described in a similar way is to mislead readers that DN is a straight news source. The Fox News Channel's lead says that critics say that FNC promotes conservative positions in its news coverage, and FNC is less slanted in its news coverage than DN. Drrll (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, what about my proposal below?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

LA Times

+ Drrll, you are asking me to prove a negative (i.e. prove that sources don't use left-wing) - so since the internet is vast, for starters I just concentrated solely on The LA Times which is your best and main source for this assertion. Well, I found it interesting that you want to rely on The LA Times use of "left-wing" in one article, when The LA Times doesn't agree with themselves on the matter. These are just some of the articles from The LA Times that mention Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! which do not mention anything about "left-wing" ... (in fact, I couldn't locate a single other LA Times article that uses the term)

• March 27, 2005 = "Say what you like about Amy Goodman, host of the national independent news show "Democracy Now!" ... but there's no question she's brave."

• February 11, 2010 = "Amy Goodman, principal host of the U.S.-based "Democracy Now!" radio news program"

• November 30, 2001 = "Journalist Amy Goodman" ... "Goodman has been broadcasting the show--currently called "Democracy Now! in Exile"--from a studio in lower Manhattan, transmitting it over the Internet and satellite."

In fact the only times they do apply an adjective they use: "Liberal-minded" and "On the left"

• November 19, 2009 = "Investigative reporter Amy Goodman has been the fiercely dedicated host of "Democracy Now!" since 1996. In her latest book, "Breaking the Sound Barrier," the liberal-minded warrior goes after corporate media and the voices they've ignored, including community activists in New Orleans, outspoken American soldiers and victims of police brutality."

• December 24, 2007 = "On the left: Pacifica radio hosts Amy Goodman and David Goodman have written "Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times."

They don't even seem to have consensus with themselves.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No one has provided reliable sources for the addition. The first source added by Drrll to the article[2] was from the Washington Times which reported what "Media Research Center's Times Watch reports at www.timeswatch.org".[3] TFD (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

[4] Buffalo News a national show featuring left-leaning Amy Goodman,, [5] Lawrence Journal-World left-wing radical approach , [6] St. Paul Pioneer Press Witnesses said 40 to 50 people were arrested, including Amy Goodman, host of the left-wing radio show "Democracy Now!" , [7] Southeast Missourian viewed as having a left-wing perspective etc. Disparate non-rightwing sources using the descriptor. Collect (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

[8] Bill Moyers says The Journal's PBS broadcast is just as homogenous right- wingers talking to each other. Why not $5 million to put the editors of The Nation on PBS? Or Amy Goodman's 'Democracy Now!' You balance right-wing talk with left-wing talk. is pretty clear. Moyers is not a rightwinger, I daresay. Or the rightwing Village Voice stating [9] left-leaning cable broadcast Democracy Now. Enough? Collect (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, of your refs above ... #'s 3 & 5 require purchasing the article and thus nothing comes up and # 's 4 & 6 are humorously the exact same AP article by Jennifer Jordan (= this is why reading is fundamental). By the way, per the Village Voice, I don't dispute "left-leaning", however I believe that semantic difference is important as many of the topics DN covers would not generally be considered exclusively "left-wing" (i.e. if DN covers genocide in the Sudan, that does not mean only the left-wing is concerned with the matter, as the issue also resonates with Christian evangelicals on the right etc).   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

For instance, I would be fine with the statement:

"Democracy Now! generally, although not exclusively, focuses on issues emanating from the Political left."

which ironically even disambiguates to the article on Left-wing politics. Maybe this could be a possible solution? Thoughts?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "left-wing" sourced to Moyers conveys the general views of people on the middle or left and hence, so attributed to a RS, should be proper here. Seems the simplest solution is to let Moyers speak to the issue in his clear manner. Collect (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, providing a lot of poor sources requiring readers to examine them is not helpful. The AP article does not say in fact, that Democracy Now is "viewed as having a left-wing perspective", it said that Amy Goodman was viewed that way. You must avoid WP:SYN. Rather than searching for support of your opinions, and presenting sources like a 2001 article in the "Lifestyles" section, you should go to sources that describe American journalism and see if informed opinion actually uses the same categories that you use. Also, this article is about DN not Bill Moyers.

Redthoreau, I think we need some kind of source. My understanding is that they provide coverage of topics normally ignored by mainstream media and that are of interest to left-wing viewers and that they invite guests who are similarly ignored. But I do not see that they distort news to provide a left-wing bias and the consensus of the journalistic community is that they do not. Curiously this discussion occurs at other articles, including Fox News, which Collect believes is neutral, and the Daily Mail which he believes is right-wing.

TFD (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, for starters you are probably going to have to revert Collect, as it's clear he is trying to confrontationally draw me into an 3RR edit war (at a time when I am trying to make TP proposals that hopefully we could agree on). I agree with your statement that they are "generally of interest to left-wing viewers" which was what I was trying to covey with the "emanating" proposal above - although I am sure that I could find sources that echo that sentiment if needed. I also agree that they don't "distort" news with a "left-wing" bias; they merely report news usually of interest to the left-wing community that is generally ignored in the main stream media.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, it's not even clear whether Moyer's is calling all 3 or some of the 3 outlets i.e. The Nation, PBS, and Democracy Now! left-wing. Moreover, Moyer's is not the sole arbiter on the matter, to "let him speak" on it. It would be one thing if you were writing that "Bill Moyer's considers Democracy Now! to be left wing [ref]", but you are stating in the opening line that DN is "left-wing" definitively as if it were an indisputable fact, which it is not - as we (and even yourself) have shown above. Plus you couldn't even state my previous Moyer's sentence as he doesn't explicitly say that.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear - he names two specific items and categorizes them as "left-wing." Moreover the Village Voice piece also says "left leaning" which I regard as pretty close as well. Is there any reason to deny that the DN is "left-wing"? Given a reliable source, it is improper to remove the claim. Collect (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I could live with something similar to your proposal, though I prefer saying that news sources call it "left-wing" (or something close to that). As TFD stated, it would probably need to be sourced, however. Drrll (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum to Proposal] --- Drrll, ok that's a start - I think you, TFD, and I may be able to reach some kind of good faith consensus on the issue. I think what all of us agree on is that DN focuses on issues of importance to the left-wing. Perhaps we could add the line, "and thus is sometimes referred to as left-wing" to my line up above, and use the LA Times as a ref. That we are not stating they "ARE" left-wing, but that they are sometimes referred to in that manner (+ it should be at the end of the lead as my line is now, not in the first sentence). Thoughts? Issues? TFD, this applies to you as well and Collect?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I like your proposal with the addendum. After discussion, I have changed my view that DN should be definitively declared "left-wing". The bar for making such a statement should be much higher than even several sources that describe it as "left-wing." Drrll (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the RS is cited correctly, why use weasel wording? Collect (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you are continually showing yourself to be acting in bad faith (i.e. comically trying to template me for edit-warring while I make TP proposals) so I am not sure how genuinely I should take your question. You are trying to create WP:SYNTH and insert your own POV slant by categorically declaring the program "left-wing" in the first 5 words of the article. That is unacceptable, and not supported by the sources per Wp:Undue nor WP:NPOV.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not force anyone to edit war. Really. I do suggest, moreover, that where the LA Times, Bill Moyers and the Village Voice agree, that it is not because they are "tea party" members. BTW, the DM I suggested was "conservative" if you read the talk page on that article TFD. Nor did I opine on Fox News being "neutral" -- I pointed out that the word "conservative" in the lede referred only to "critics" which is quite true. Ledes must summarize articles accurately, and any other claims in the lede must use RS cites. Which is WP policy. BTW Red, "template" has a specific meaning on WP, and I have not "templated" you. Collect (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

General question - is anyone aware of any sources that discuss the "leanings" of DemocrayNow? What I've seen discussed above are generally labels used in passing. Is there anything that talks about this concept? If so we should probably take their lead. If not, maybe the whole idea of using a label is one that we should set aside until such a source is available. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Village Voice specifically described it as "left leaning" and Bill Moyers called it "leftwing" in addition to many sources from the media otherwise using the term "left-wing" about DN. See above for a whole bunch of cites on this from non-right-wing sources. Collect (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw above that there are sources that use an LW label. What I'm looking for is different. Is there a source that discusses DN and it's content? Or only sources like above that use a label in passing? Are there articles/papers/books that talk bout DN in detail? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what we would need, but I do not think there are. There is a distinction between the stories a program chooses to cover and how they are covered. The types of awards DN has won indicate neutrality in its reporting. TFD (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how the LA Times article can be used as a source that DN is "left wing". The source says that the radio station is "left-leaning", which is not the same thing exactly and does not say the program is. It is not clear what they mean by this or whether their opinion is widely held. I would rather use a source that actually says what we agreed is the connection between the program and the Left. The Nation btw, is left-wing, it has encouraged socialist and left-wing writers for the last century and calls itself "The flagship of the Left". Bill Moyers was talking about them not PBS or DN. The term "left" is contextual anyway - Fox News regularly labels mainstream media as "left-wing" or "far left". Editors may wish to look at the Talk:Fox News where various editors have tried to add "conservative". The same criteria should apply here. Also if someone wants to add the connection with the Left then the onus is on them to find sources. TFD (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

[10] Books are wanted? Try this one. Andrea Klamm wrote beam in as if from some alternative left galaxy. LA Times calls Goodman voice of the disenranchised left. [11] also delves into more than just a claim of "left wing." How long, O Cataline? Collect (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source you found does not say that DN is left-wing. The second source, which is not readable in Google Books and is called, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 is not a reliable source. I think their definition of "left-wing" means not a member of Tea Party. TFD (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - you reject the LA Times, the Village Voice, Bill Moyers etc. Are thay all tea party members? Really? Or is this again a case of Cataline? Collect (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect I think you're missing the point. The 1st source says a person is left-wing, not the program. No one has suggested your sources were RW or tea-party, etc. Simply that they don't support your statement that DN is left-wing. That's why I'm looking for a non-trivial source with non-trivial analysis. Someone who is talking about DN in general, and discusses the nature of their programming, not just uses a label in passing. We're not supposed to be laying labels on our own, we're supposed to be following reliable sourcing. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill Moyers: The Journal's PBS broadcast is just as homogenous right- wingers talking to each other. Why not $5 million to put the editors of The Nation on PBS? Or Amy Goodman's 'Democracy Now!' You balance right-wing talk with left-wing talk. is pretty clear. It clearly states that the WSJ is right-wingers, and that Amy Goodman's Democracy Now and The Nation are left wing. I really do not know how much more clearly Bill Moyers could have spoken. Collect (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice the word editors is plural. Left-wing editors talking to each other. TFD (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So again the reference to a short sentence. I take it that the answer to my question is no then, that no one here knows of a source that does an in-depth analysis of the DN content. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not necessary for inclusion of the fact that DN is left-wing. It's not entirely clear to me that we have enough sources to state unequivocally that DN is left-wing, but we certainly have enough sources to report that it's called left-wing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We actually lack any sources whatsoever that call it left-wing. All we have is Collect's original research. TFD (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we have at least 5 sources that call it "left-wing": St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Washington Times, The LA Times, The Phoenix Business Journal, and the The Rutland Herald. Drrll (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source: Santa Fe New Mexican, August 1, 2004 ("Amy Goodman of the left-wing radio show Democracy Now!") Drrll (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, a few things on these "sources": (a) It doesn't do us any good if there isn't a link to them so we can read the way the material is presented, (b) It doesn't do us any good if they are for subscription only and require purchasing an archived article (Collect used several of these), (c) It begins to look desperate when you begin to utilize small obscure local publications instead of national or international sources. What AliveFree is asking for above is for something resembling a journal article that deals specifically with Democracy Now!'s political slant and coverage, not for a small local newspaper that merely mentions the phrase "left-wing" in passing. It could also be helpful if you hinted at how you think the sentence should read - TFD considered my previous proposal a step to far, so maybe we can all agree on something one step back.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau,

(a) I provided links to all 6 articles, except the Sante Fe article, as I was only able to find that article in Lexis-Nexis (I can provide larger excerpts here or the whole article to you by email).

(b) The Rutland Herald link just gives the first few paragraphs of the article, but all that really needs to be seen is the article headline, which calls DN "left-wing." As Arthur said, WP:SOURCEACCESS doesn't require free online access to sources.

(c) The main reason I provided the obscure publications above was to demonstrate to TFD that there are many sources that describe DN as "left-wing", since he claimed that there were none. The LA Times reference you put in there yesterday is preferable and should be enough by itself.

(d) I've looked on Google Books & Google Scholar for such a book or journal, but was unsuccessful.

(e) I like the way you put it in there yesterday, with the addendum (I mentioned that earlier above). How do you suggest we word it "one step back"? Drrll (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All those arguments are faulty (per Wikipedia policies and guidelines), except possibly (c). Wikipedia requires verifiability, not online verification. "We" prefer free, online, publications to non-free or offline, but expensive print-only publications are perfectly allowable as references. (If the editor adding such sources has a reputation for lack of accuracy, we should question the accuracy of new sources added, but I see no evidence of that being a problem in this case.)

And getting back to AliveFree's request, that also is not needed to report DN's political stance. If there were no such articles, we might question the notability of the subject, but, once notability is established, we don't need a source specifically about the subject to reports facts about the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "reporting on issues of interest to left-wingers" (which we all agree is accurate, although not necessarily sourced to other than DN itself), and "having a left-wing position" (which many mainstream and non-mainstream news sources agree to.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My request for a source wasn't based on notability, but to keep us from wandering down the path of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which appears to be where this is headed. Rather than make our own synthesis, I was hoping for a source that discussed the issue we're discussing here, Then this whole conversation is moot. It would be very convenient. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We have sufficient sources for DN being "called" left-wing by mainstream (and some alternative) media. There's no need for the articles to be about DN or to be a systematic analysis of the political leanings of organizations for the inclusion of such material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you removed Redthoreau's addition to the lead with "allegations of bias and distortion of news must be better sourced" as the explanation. What was put in does not allege bias or distortion of news; it just says what DN tends to focus on and that they are sometimes called "left-wing." As to the sourcing of DN being called left-wing, please see my response to you above. Drrll (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The source does not support the text I removed. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS - we need reliable sources to support statements in articles. The correct approach is not to decide what you want in the article and then to datamine for sources and, as Collect did, find some article in a provincial newspaper from ten years ago that might support your belief system, but to look for reliable sources about the topic and reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. We can say something about their (perceived) political orientation even if only few reliable sources (say, 6) comment on it. If other sources describe it as having a political orientation inconsistent with "left-wing", that might be noted, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot present opinions as facts unless there is a consensus for those opinions in reliable sources. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A fact is a statement about which there is no serious dispute among reliable sources." Also opinions presented must be notable. Furthermore, you cannot generalize from the opinion of an individual to infer a bias in a news program. TFD (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is no serious dispute among reliable sources" that DN is "sometimes referred to as "left-wing."" Drrll (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That would still be WP:UNDUE if some reliable sources referred to DN as something incompatible with "left-wing", but I don't see that happening. Agree that, unless some sources to the contrary are discovered, we should include that statement in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No sources calling it left-wing have been presented. TFD (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh? From here it looks like a very substantial number have been presented. I agree with Arthur on this one. Collect (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Read in the above section, your "sources" do not support your views. Please provide one source that supports your point of view. (If you provide more than one I will read and comment on the first one only.) TFD (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I read it all. You made an assertion that "no sources" were given. I disagreed about your assertion, and leave it to others to read the sources given rather than having a Monty Python sketch be re-enacted here. [12] Collect (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are willing to provide reliable sources there is nothing to discuss. TFD (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Above, I gave 6 sources that describe it as "left-wing" (the first one found by Collect), 5 of which you can verify by clicking the links given. Collect provided additional ones. Drrll (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times article for example does not use the term "left" at all, and while it calls Goodman "liberal-minded", it makes no allegations of bias against DN. Bad sources are like manure - stack them as high as you can, it's still manure. TFD (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't determine whether you are seriously questioning these sources or just ignoring the six sources I presented above. If you would actually bother clicking the links and reading the articles, you would see that all of them describe DN as "left-wing" (2 of them actually in the articles' own headlines). The LA Times article you cited is not even the same LA Times article I linked to. Drrll (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to include an observation about how something is sometimes described you need a source that says exactly what you want to include. You cannot conduct your own original research. Even so your sources do not call DN left-wing, that is your orginal synthesis. TFD (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In a textbook, I wouldn't need sources for such a statement. Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are much stricter than academic sourcing requirements, because it assumed that an academic would have checked. I have no doubt that DN is left-wing, because its primary spokespeople are leftists (from clearly reliable sources), and it was the flagship program of Pacific, which is (self-reported as) left-wing. Wikipedia cannot state that DN is left-wing or is claimed to be left-wing merely from those statements, but it is certainly adequate by academic standards.

That being said, we need to be careful to meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. However, 3 of the 6 sources Drrll uses specifically refer to DN has left-wing.

I would refer to other comments in this article, sourced only to DN, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason for inclusion, but to exclude the other comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with sources

1. The Washington Times article doesn't seem to use the word "left".
2. The Phoenix Business Journal article seems to be a blog post.
3. The Columbia Spectator article refers to the show in the phrase:

   Listeners committed to leftist political debate on the award-winning radio show, Democracy Now!.

4. The LA Times article refers to Amy as left-wing, rather than "Democracy Now!".
5. The Rutland Herald refers to Democracy Now! as "progressive". (Headlines are not reliable for much of anything.)

If the later text of the Rutland Herald or Santa Fe Times articles refer to DN as "left wing", we can use it. TFD is right as to those sources, although I have no doubt that we can find reliable sources that DN is "left wing", "leftist", "left of CPUSA", or other left-leaning words. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Here is an extended quote from that article:

After his antiwar commencement tirade at Rockford College in Illinois, New York Times reporter Chris Hedges went on left-wing radio and likened the hostile graduates to war-crazed animals, the Media Research Center's Times Watch reports at www.timeswatch.org. In the interview last week on Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now" program..."

2. It is a blog post, but WP:RS allows for blogs in limited cases: "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control"

3. That wasn't a source I used. Rather, it was The St. Paul Pioneer Press. Note that the link probably can't be used within the DN article itself, although the reference to The St. Paul Pioneer Press can be.

4. I believe that "left-wing" is modifying "radio" rather than "Amy Goodman"

5. I wasn't aware that headlines of articles couldn't be used. I couldn't find WP policy that states that headlines are not reliable. Please point me in the right direction.

6. The Santa Fe article uses "Amy Goodman of the left-wing radio show Democracy Now!" within the text of the article. Drrll (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a specific reference, but the general impression I get on WP:RSN is that, in newspapers and similar publications, article titles and subtitles are the responsibility of the managing editor, and correctness is not at issue, only the absence of potential lawsuits. The article text is often considered reliable, but not the titles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's correct. Especially with news agency stories, the editor who writes the headline may have barely read the article. Even if they have, the careful qualifiers of the reporters text may be tossed out to make the words fit and to make a catchier headline.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is a blog post, but WP:RS allows for blogs in limited cases". Labelling news programs is not one of those limited cases. Drrll, please read up on WP:OR and WP:RS. TFD (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

If we eliminate the 2 articles that describe DN as "left-wing" in article titles, and forget about the newspaper blog (which I still contend is a good source according to WP:RS), we still have 3 sources that describe DN as "left-wing" in the article body. Do we have consensus that The St. Paul Pioneer Press is a good source to use to state that DN is sometimes referred to as "left-wing"? (excerpt: "Witnesses said 40 to 50 people were arrested, including Amy Goodman, host of the left-wing radio show “Democracy Now!”") Drrll (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You link for The Saint Paul Pioneer Press links to Poor Vago's Almanack.[13] Please learn to distinguish between news and blogs, facts and opinions. TFD (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does, as I alluded to the fact that "the link probably can't be used within the DN article itself, although the reference to the St. Paul Pioneer Press can be" above. The link is there for convenience only in the discussion here on the Talk page, as a regular link to the article is unavailable (available only through Lexis-Nexis). Convenience links are not a requirement for use in WP articles, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Please learn to actually read what editors write in discussions instead of trying to take cheap shots and learn to actually address the facts at hand, even if you find those facts inconvenient to your arguments. Drrll (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A more prominent paper than the St. Paul Pioneer Press would be helpful. I would shoot for national publications like the The New York Times, Washington Post etc or national magazines like Time, Newsweek etc.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for more prominent publications, though my initial searches didn't reveal any except for The LA Times article with its headline-based description. There is The Washington Times reference, while not a prominent publication, is largely nationally-oriented in focus and provides a convenience link to the article for easy verfication. I know it's conservative, but it is a reliable source. Perhaps use 3 references instead of 1: The Washington Times, The St. Paul Pioneer Press, and The Santa Fe New Mexican?

You should not search through all the articles about Democracy Now to find a source that backs up a fringe view. Find a source that discusses the alleged ideological bias of DM. In a similar case, an editor found an article in a Kenyan newspaper about Obama, written when he was elected to the U. S. senate, that said he was born in Kenya. TFD (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As Collect said, when the sources that do describe the ideological placement of DN agree that it is "left-wing" or another term along those lines, unlike the Kenyan example you cited, it is not a fringe view. DN is not prominent enough to warrant a notable source that discusses in-depth its idelogical bias. Surely you would not say that the idea that the Fox News Channel or The Washington Times are conservative is a fringe view, would you? Drrll (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe view" when all the sources which place it on any spectrum agree? Nope. Indeed, I suggest that you should try to find a source which places DM on the right <g>. Now that would be a "fringe view"! Collect (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, it may be that in your world everything is either left or right, although you also say those terms are meaningless, but news programs aim for objectivity, i.e., providing neither a left nor right wing slant on cold objective facts. TFD (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You said it was "fringe" to call DM "left wing." I pointed out that, since we have found precisely zero sources calling it "right wing" and a fair number calling it "left wing" that your use of "fringe" was errant. BTW, your assertions as to my position are inapt here or anywhere. Collect (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The belief that everything in the world can be classified as either left or right is fringe. No one for example calls Plymouth Rock left-wing but that does not mean it is by default right-wing. I would be very interested if you could provide me a source that informs your Weltanschauung. TFD (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. However, Pacifica is clearly left-wing, and so its "flagship program" would be probably political, so it makes sense to speak of its political orientation. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's necessarily fringe to call it non-political, as Collect does, but it certainly isn't fringe to call it "political", and hence "left-wing". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if Pacifica is left-wing it is synthesis to conclude that DM is left-wing. Here is a reliable source (The Globe and Mail) referring to the "right-leaning U.S. network Fox News". That does not mean that the Fox Report is right-wing. In fact it does not even mean that we can call Fox News Channel right-wing. TFD (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's true. However, it means it requires fewer reliable sources to include the information that it is left-wing. According to Drrll, we have three. I haven't checked all of them, but three mainstream newspapers, even if small-town, seems adequate, provided it's confirmed that the statements are in news articles, rather than in feature columns or editorials. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are three news articles from The Washington Times, The St. Paul Pioneer Press, and The Santa Fe New Mexican. Let me know if you need to see the full Santa Fe article (links to the other two are above). I also found the book Television Goes Digital that describes DN as "left-wing." Drrll (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to make a statement of fact in an article you must show that it has general acceptance. Find an rs that says, "most scholars consider DM to be left-wing" and explains what that means. Otherwise you only have opinions and must show their notability. TFD (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if we made it a statment of fact that DN is left-wing, then we would need to show general acceptance of that idea, but what's at stake is stating that "DN is sometimes referred to as left-wing." Can you point to specific WP policy language that requires that reliable sources' notability must be established? Drrll (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

NOR and Weasel

See WP:NOR: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." No rs says that some sources say that DN "is sometimes referred to...." Also, see WP:WEASEL guideline. TFD (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the text reading The Washington Times, The St. Paul Pioneer Press, and The Santa Fe New Mexican consider DN to be left-wing, if you insist on not drawing mathematically precise conclusions. It looks absurd, but DN is absurd, so.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my statements, which is disruptive editing. I did not say anything about "drawing mathematically precise conclusions", merely requested that you provide reliable sources for statements you wish to make. I am merely saying that the article should be neutral based on reliable sources. I notice your user page says that you have an academic background and would ask that you observe the same standards in this article as you would in writing a first year level textbook. I would hope that you would not find a couple of off the wall statements published in obscure sources and confuse your students by introducing them into a textbook. TFD (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of confusing readers...that's exactly what's being done currently in the article by representing DN as simply a straight news source. Drrll (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that way then please find a reliable source that discusses the quality of news coverage. TFD (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, I believe you might be working in reverse i.e. starting with the conclusion that DN is "left-wing" and then trying to find any source, regardless of how obscure to fit your already decided upon conclusion. The correct route (rather than searching for "DN + Left-wing") would be to simply search for how national sources refer to DN at all, and then from that draw a conclusion per WP:Undue of how they are commonly referred to.

Arthur Rubin, if you resent DN enough to categorically consider it "absurd" (as you state) then you probably shouldn't be attempting to edit the article on the subject, as no objectively written summary will ever satisfy your belief.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) IOW, reliable sources do call it "left wing" but unless a peer-reviewed journal calls it "left wing" the idea that DN is "left wing" is only "fringe"? That does not agree with WP policies and guidelines. WP, in fact, pretty much requires that widespread opinions concerning the topic of an article be correctly presented, not swept away as "not peer-reviewed." Collect (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, Newsweek called DN "liberal"; The Washington Post wrote "Amy Goodman and her radio show, "Democracy Now!," beam in as if from some alternative left galaxy" and "a genuine voice of the left." To me, "left-wing" encapsulates these descriptions the best, but I suppose we could state something like "it is sometimes referred to as "left-wing," "left," or "liberal."" Drrll (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I have shown where your comments should be changed in order reflect what I have already said to you numerous times. "IOW, reliable sources do call it "left wing" but unless a peer-reviewed journal [or other reliable source says that some people] calls it "left wing" the idea that [some people call] DN is "left wing" is only "fringe"? That does not agree with WP policies and guidelines [except for WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe and WP:WEASEL]. WP, in fact, pretty much requires that widespread opinions concerning the topic of an article be correctly presented, not swept away as "not peer-reviewed." [And we determine what opinions are widespread by consulting reliable sources, not by conducting our own original research.]"

Drrll, left-wing and liberal do not mean the same thing.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that they don't mean the same thing. I suggested that we may want to include "liberal," as well as "left," in addition to "left-wing" because that what the prominent sources Newsweek and The Washington Post use. Drrll (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD - kindly actually read what I wrote. And "OR" refers to making conclusions from "original research." It does not refer to normal WP practice of using reliable sources to support specific claims made by those sources. as for using lots of WP pages for your position -- the problem is that they do not support your position, making all this a Monty Python sketch. Collect (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Look you can find find sources for any POV you wish by data mining. Here I typed in "far right" + "george bush", and got 8,950 hits from news sources. If I were a tendentious editor I could argue that reliable sources call Bush far right. Of course I would not do that because it would be WP:POINT. How is this any different? TFD (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Use the New York Times for a non-opinion article making that statement (That Bush is "far right"), and it is fair game. Google counts, however, prove little. Note that I found precisely ZERO news sources calling DN "right wing" in any shape, manner or form. Collect (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TV newsmagazines are not supposed to be left or right wing. 60 Minutes for example is described neither as left or right wing. You need strong sources to impeach the integrity and objectivity of a news program. TFD (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that TV newsmagazines are not supposed to be left or right wing. However, DN is left-wing, and is so reported by reliable sources, making the fact notable as well as reliably sourced. Fox News is generally right-wing, and we can probably find adequate sources for that, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are some users trying to attach a label to Democracy Now? I am not sensing NPOV on their part, they do not seem to be doing it because they want to make the article accurate and informative, but because they see the label 'left wing' as derogratory, and wish to damage the standing of DN. It is always better to let the reader decide these kind of things from an understanding of the coverage of the news outlet, not a simple label. An ideological label is a very opinionated thing, and as it stands there are more reliable sources talking about DN which do not call it left wing, or even mention an ideology (and some mention "liberal" in passing). So why should we focus on the opinion of the editorials that call it left wing, when most don't, wouldn't that be undue weight? ValenShephard (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Fox News Channel. Lots of editors have wanted to assert that Fox News Channel is conservative, and there are far more sources for that than for DN being left-wing, but no one has provided any good sources for that. But that is not a good comparison. A better one would be between DM and the Fox Report. TFD (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about asserting that DN is left-wing; we're talking about asserting that news publications sometimes refer to it as "left-wing" [and "left" and "liberal"]. And yes, the Fox News Channel article does have something similar in its lead: "Critics have asserted that both Fox's news reporting and its political commentary promote conservative political positions." Drrll (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You oversimplify the other issue entirely. FNC has news shows and opinion shows. The claim that the opinion shows, on average, are "conservative" is reasonable. The claim that the news shows, as such, are biassed, has problems, especially since some reliable sources state that the news shows are less biassed than other network news shows. I think your statements here are at best disingenuous on the issue. [14] shows the problem - the body of the article there states that the view of critics is that FNC is conservative - yet you argue that the word critics is not needed in the lede. [15] argues "we need to describe the ideology of political groups in the lead." [16] is a revert by the same editor which says the John Birch Society "is a radical right-wing" group. Without the requirement of "peer-reviewed articles" I might point out <g>. So we are left with a clear "IDONTLIKEIT" as the rationale here for not pointing out that sero sources place DN on the right, and a multitude of RSs place it on the left. Emerson's hobgoblin is clearly applicable. Collect (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I argued for the description of the John Birch Society as radical right because according to books published by the university and academic press, that is how they are normally described in the academic press. I opposed calling them far right because these same sources said that that term was normally used to describe neo-fascist organizations, even though other editors found numerous (mostly non-academic) sources, including the NYT, that consistently called them far right. I expect you to follow the same standards here. (Since you have complained about the source used in the JBS article, I will change it.) One could argue btw that the Fox Report is conservative because of the stories it choses to cover and the same argument could be made for other news media. But for some reason you choose to single out this one program. TFD (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The SCLC is "peer reviewed"? Interesting sort of claim, that. So since you do not require perr-review there, you ought not require it here. Note also that I said calling JBS "right wing" was sufficient - no one is arguning that DN is "radical left" as far as I can figure! Note further that I do not edit on the basis of what I WP:KNOW but solely on the basis of reliable sources and weight thereof. Which is how we are supposed to edit articles. Collect (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the source I have put in is from a paragraph on taxonomy in a 2010 book about the U.S. far right published by the University of Georgia Press. "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society...."[17] Now please find a similar source to use for this article. TFD (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated proposal

"Democracy Now! is variously referred to in some news articles as "left-wing," "liberal," and "left"" [4 sources for "left-wing", Newsweek source for "liberal", and 2 Washington Post sources for "left"] Drrll (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, I'd still prefer the line: "Democracy Now! generally, although not exclusively, focuses on issues emanating from the Political left."   Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I would actually prefer to have that line in there as well, in addition to the line I proposed (or combined as a single sentence, similar to what you had before in your amended proposal). I believe someone challenged the sourcing above, so I wonder if it would survive without sourcing. But I would like to see it in there myself. I changed the amended part you had to reflect that news articles use the descriptions, and per your suggestion to use the descriptions used in prominent sources. Drrll (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See my reply to Collect above. Please find the same type of sources as those used for claims about the JBS. If what you want to add is correct and significant, then that should not be hard to do. TFD (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I do in fact use an academic source for "left-wing." There is a scholarly book among the four sources that I use. The author "has been a Senior Fellow at the Columbia Institute for Tele Information (CITI), Columbia University Business School since 1997 and presently teaches Digital Television at New York University." The publisher, Springer Publishing, is a "Publisher of professional and scholarly books, journals and encyclopedias in nursing, gerontology, psychology, and social sciences." BTW, it is important to note that since you were definitively labeling the JBS as " radical right-wing", as opposed to saying how it is described in sources, there is a much higher standard for sourcing.

If you peruse the talk archives at JBS you will see that I presented reliable sources explaining the use of terminology that should determine how the article should describe the JBS. The proper way to determine how organizations should be described is to read through the literature and determine how they are normally described. Conspiracy theorists, cranks and polemicists however will search for sources that support their point of view, which is absolutely the wrong way to approach any subject. The fact that you have found a rs that used the term left-wing is irrelevant. Another editor found a newspaper article from Kenya saying Obama was born there and wanted to use that as a source. TFD (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How in heck is Obama relevant here? For the JBS, the choices included "far right" and "extreme right" which were found in the equivalent number of sources as "radical right" but you have insisted on maintaining "radical right" -- seems that "right wing" was sufficient there, and "left wing" is sufficient here. Added adjectives are worthless where multiple differing adjectives are found. Elsewhere [18] you aver that you WP:KNOW what is meant by "left-wing" with refard to an article so titled in part. Without providing your "peer reviewed journals" as a source <g>. In another [19] you assert knowledge of what is meant by "neo-conservative." Again sans "peer reviewed journals." In short, Emmerson's hobgoblin has a field day with your past positions <g>. Collect (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you're comparing an unnamed Kenyan newspaper with a scholarly book?? Drrll (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to point out mainstream views in talk pages without presenting sources, so longer as one already has presented those sources or is able to do so. For example, if someone suggested that the Republican Party was far right, it would not be wrong to correct that delusion as I did here. What is wrong is to push fringe views which cannot be supported and even worse to add misleading information into articles. Editors of course are human and may err, but that does not mean we lower standards. If may be that you know that DM is left-wing but we do not add text based on what we know, we look for reliable sources. Please find a reliable sources that explains how DM is normally perceived. (No the newspaper actually has a name, The Standard, and the story was sourced to AP.) TFD (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) I specifically have made no claim at all as to whay I "know" as you are aware. What we are left with is is a group of reliable sources which unanimously place DN on the left side of the spectrum. Nary any dispute among them. Nor, by the way, does WP require "peer reviewed journals" for such a statement. Collect (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, as you know, anyone can Google mine for sources that support their point of view. Crackpots, cranks, nutters, etc. do it all the time. In this case someone found several "reliable sources" that called DN "left-wing". Most of these sources were articles from provincial newspapers written years ago. You should read all the conspiracy theory articles that explain the "reasoning" that these people show. Your sources may belong in an article about PBS conspiracy theories, although when one types this in it goes to 911, JFK, Oklahoma, RFK, Diana Princess of Wales, etc. TFD (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the sources given for Fox being conservative you can see that these are not simply sources that mention their slant but examine and analyse it. Do we have any sources that analyse the ideology of Democracy Now! or we just have, as TFD explained, a few mined sources that mention its supposed slant in passing, or don't explain why or how they came to that conclusion? ValenShephard (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "left" is ambiguous. In the U.S. it is often used a synonym for "liberal" or "Democrat", while it academic writing it usually refers to socialism and related ideologies. (Yes there are sources for this if required.) We cannot use this label without clearly indicating the meaning, which btw is why we do not label the JBS as "right-wing". TFD (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh? We (notably per reversions by TFD) do label the JBS as "right wing" as is clear in the article itself! Wanna try a different rationale for rejecting reliable sources? Collect (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you have long argued that the linear political spectrum was meaningless, as shown here:

Fact: That the validity of a simple "spectrum" was derided by :Schlesinger in 1948, five decades before 1999, and that he is considered a substantial expert in the field

Is this disputed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[20]"

While I do not agree with you on this, it is important that we use these terms in a precise way. In the case of the JBS it is commonly called "radical right", even by scholars who consider it neither radical nor right. TFD (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you accurately referred to my statements. I only "know" what reliable sources say -- and Schlesinger stated that a linear spectrum for the purpose of defining Fascism was not useful. I stated he was a reliable source - and you insisted he was not a reliable source on such a topic! As for yor insistence that JBS is "radical right wing" when you aver above that scholars call it neither radical nor right - that is a matter for your own conscience. My position is the same as in all articles - we must follow reliable sources (not the phantom "peer reviewed articles" which are found in very few WP areas at all. Collect (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, the term "left"/"left-wing" and "liberal" are the terms used by the reliable sources that Collect and I presented. While I don't know of a WP policy or guideline that requires we do this, to make them less ambiguous, we could link some or all of these words to Left-wing politics, as Redthoreau has in his proposal at the beginning of this subsection. Do you suggest a different WP article link or do you have alternative wording to our proposals? Drrll (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion

If I can make a general observation, or two, this is one of those conversations that occur all too frequently on Wicklypedia that I have to confess that I find wryly amusing. As the story goes we’ll have a group of people on one side of the political spectrum trying to slap a loaded description onto the subject of the article with those on the other side trying just as hard to keep it off because, IMHO, they fear the description may be accurate. The thing is, it really makes no difference what the political slant of whatever the subject is as both groups will take their appropriate pro/con description rolls on the discussion page, with requisite trotting out of “reliable sources”, the meticulous splitting of ideological hairs as they alternately proclaim the subject to be neo-nut, radical-nut, paleo-nut, contra-nut, etc… In general I find, and I think most will agree, that a lot of the usage of political descriptions tends to be POV driven as opposed to a genuine desire to inform the curious public. As such, I usually favor keeping such descriptions to a bare minimum. Unless the subject self identifies with a specific extreme ideology or there is a preponderance of evidence of nutjobness, I believe we should keep the political labels unobtrusive, simple, and honest; and in some cases non-existent.

With respect to this article, I find it a bit POV, and somewhat disingenuous, the attempts to portray DN! as something other than what it is, which is a left of center news and commentary program as a function of the American political landscape. Anyone who has watched/listened to the show will have little trouble distinguishing the “supposed slant” of Amy Goodman from that of Rush Limbaugh. However, I agree with the comment above from LeRougeThoreau that directional-wings are often used pejoratively and should be avoided, and therefore I side with those against the use of the term “left wing”.

I would like to propose the following for the lede paragraph:

Democracy Now! is a national, daily independent syndicated program of news, analysis, and opinion aired by more than 700 radio, television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America. The award-winning one hour "War and Peace Report" is hosted by progressive broadcast journalist Amy Goodman and investigative journalist Juan Gonzalez. Democracy Now! serves as the flagship program for the progressive-themed Pacifica Radio network. The program is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations and does not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting, or government funding.

I really believe that in this case it is not necessary to try label the show and continue to argue over the reliability of sources presented, although personally I think that the sources are sufficient. But then I also think it is sufficient to simply show the persuasions of the hosts which I took from their current wiki-articles. (The Pacifica Radio article also calls it left-wing but again, I don’t favor wings.) This should be more than enough for the casual reader to understand which way the wind blows in DN!town and know that Amy ain’t gonna be subbing for Rush any time in the near future.

One additional note: We’re not here to shill the program and we’re not TV Guide. All that stuff in the lede that I just took out was at best inappropriate. Hammersbach (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2Italic text010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh outlook on this situation. I can live with that solution. The only thing I would change is to say that Juan Gonzalez is progressive, as he is also a progressive political activist. If anyone is not convinced that he should be labeled as a progressive, take a look at the title of a Democracy Now! press release on January 7, 2002:

"Democracy Now! Returns to the Pacifica Radio Network;

Democracy Now! Returns to the Pacifica Radio Network Monday, Jan. 7 with Leading Progressive Thinkers and Celebrities including Dick Gregory, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Juan Gonzalez;

The Award-Winning Radio Show That Broadcasts Blocks from Ground Zero Even As It was Banned from the Airwaves of its Parent Organization for Five Months, Returns to Pacifica Radio Stations Throughout the United States" Drrll (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else support Hammersbach's proposal or oppose it? Drrll (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m good with it, so I changed it. Now back to Oktoberfest!

In München steht ein Hofbräuhaus,

Eins, zwei, g'suffa...

Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording slightly, as Goodman and Gonzalez are equally "progressive", and removed the word from appearing twice in back to back sentences. Other than that I am fine with how it currently stands.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Number of listeners?

Can someone who knows the # of listeners to Democracy Now add this information to the article? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.34.146 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Theme Music

Does anyone know the title of the theme music? This may be interesting, at least to me. —Telofy (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Quotes

First, it is wrong to have a supporting quote in the awards section. It is not an award. Second, self-congratulatory quotes are not a proper part of the background. They may be in Wikiquote or if they illustrate something else in the text. But a free hanging quote without context is not encyclopedic.Miradre (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to add WP:BALANCE by adding criticism or opposing points of view. Formatted quotations are well-used throughout Wikipedia; see MOS:QUOTE and WP:QUOTE. Additionally, please use help find sources or use citation-needed tags rather than removing material. Thanks, Rostz (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:QUOTE: "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." Also, quoteboxes are discouraged. I have added citation needed tags. However, unsourced material can be challenged and removed.Miradre (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You have also abruptly removed readily-sourced material; please consider adopting a less contentious and more courteous editing style. Per WP:V, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." Rostz (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rostz, the quotes are fine and not overdone.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:QUOTE quoteboxes should not be used and quotes should be worked into the text.Miradre (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting WP:QUOTE: "Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article." The current WP:CONSENSUS is that the placement of the quotes, at the beginning and to the side of sections, does not inhibit the article's pace, flow, or organization. Rostz (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For balance, should we include quotes like "Far left media outlets such as Democracy Now are not so much actual media outlets as they are pro Muslim propaganda machines for the spread of radical Islam"? I hope your are not arguing for only self-congratulatory adulations at the beginning? Miradre (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not, because that quote does not come from a reliable source. It comes from a website called the "Alternative News Report." The full quote reads:

click to read
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Democracy Now’s pro-Muslim and anti-Christian bias shows again in their lopsided reporting on events in the Ivory Coast. If you hate Christians and support all Muslim actions, no matter how radical or violent, then you will love the reporting that issues from Democracy Now. Far left media outlets such as Democracy Now are not so much actual media outlets as they are pro Muslim propaganda machines for the spread of radical Islam globally. A more appropriate name for what they are doing might be: 'Global Jihad Now' as every single news item which covers the Mideast out of this portal is strongly slanted in support of the global Islamic cause."

It is a racialist rant. Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Point being that one can find numerous critical quotes. Quotes by Democracy Now are from a self-published source and not more reliable than many of these critical views.Miradre (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why even mention a source which is almost as bad as Stormfront? It is clear that this kind of highly negative material causes a huge amount of offense and is obviously a major BLP violation to the living individuals who work for "Now Democaracy!" Mathsci (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We can take Meretz instead who accuses Goodman of having of having an "extreme anti-Israel bias".[21]Miradre (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

One person's opinion from a blog? BLP material can't be written using sources like that on wikipedia. Please read the BLP banner at the top of the page. Mathsci (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source with the same view that we can quote: [22] Miradre (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have the intention of adding material of that kind about Amy Goodman to wikipedia, the only place to discuss this is at WP:BLPN, where you could seek guidance. I couldn't see anything like that in her article at the moment. These things are taken extremely seriously on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article comments on Democracy Now also.Miradre (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an Op-Ed to me. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Press is certainly preferable as a source to self-published self-congratulations by Democracy Now.Miradre (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Miradre, you started out by reproducing part of an unacceptable racialist rant on this page. Now you propose adding negative information, by hook or by crook, about a small group of identifiable living individuals. That is against BLP policy and that is why there is a banner at the top of this page. Please go and read it! Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Religions are not races. Adding criticisms against a TV program is not against BLP.Miradre (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of that remark, Miradre? You've lost me there. Please spell out what you mean. Mathsci (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding a criticism against a TV program without even naming a specific person cannot violate BLP.Miradre (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct and that is why there is a banner at the top of this page which you seem set on violating. Since there is a doubt, please find a proper source and ask your questions at WP:BLPN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think that adding a criticism of a TV program without naming a person violates BLP, then please contact the appropriate noticeboard.Miradre (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I am not proposing to add material of that kind. Anything you add that violates WP:BLP will be reverted on sight as it says at the top of the page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not add anything violating BLP.Miradre (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that Miradre views this as a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Now he is scouring a range of racist sites and blogs trying to find any quote that shows DN in a negative light. However, all of these thus far violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. But NPOV certainly requires that also criticisms should be included and not just self-published self-congratulatory quotes.Miradre (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

First you need to provide information from a WP:RELIABLE source. Then if that information is inflammatory, you need to show that it does not violate WP:UNDUE by showing that the specific criticism is repeated often throughout the reliable media. Negative information about an organization has a higher threshold than their own mission statements etc. However, your recent attempts and sources show that your objectivity on this issue in highly suspect.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a reliable source: [23]. Certainly at least as DUE as self-published, self-congratulatory quotes.Miradre (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) This article is not about Amy Goodman, it is about Democracy Now!. (2) An orthodox-Jewish weekly editorial declaring Goodman (who is Jewish, lived in Israel, had family die in the Holocaust etc) a "promoter of anti-Semites and anti-Zionists of nearly every stripe", and accusing her of "helping a terrorist … dedicated to the destruction of Israel" - can hardly be seen as a disinterested news source. Now if you can locate these allegations in several mainstream newspaper reports (not solely editorials), then perhaps they could be included.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article makes statements about the program also. I fail to see how the largest Jewish weekly is less reliable than self-congratulatory, self-published quotes? Miradre (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You started this particular line of discussion by suggesting the use of material from "Alternative News Report" (see the collapsed section above). You seem to be claiming that everything written there was reasonable. Is that correct? Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No. But it is not more unreliable than the self-published, self-congratulatory material that are now in this article without opposing views.Miradre (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary it was hate-speech partially reproduced in your edit, possibly for some kind of shock-jock effect. I don't see what this has to do with reliability. Just edits in violation of WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? What was the "hate speech"? Miradre (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If anybody of their own volition wrote on wikipedia what is in the collapsed section and defended it, they would be banned indefinitely. Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the Criticisms of Christianity and Criticisms of Islam articles with subarticles.Miradre (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you wrote what is in the collapsed box as your own opinion on wikipedia and continued to assert it, you would be blocked.. In this context you would be straying not only onto WP:BLP violations but also would probably also be subject to WP:ARBPIA. Mathsci (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything an anonymous editors asserts on his own is not a WP:RS. You can find much, much worse than the statement above in the Criticisms article. BLP discussed above. What part of WP:ARBPIA would apply? 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Miradre (talk)

Anything you insert that is a BLP violation either here or on the article page will henceforth be reverted. WP:ARBPIA would apply not here but rather to unsubstantiated third-part allegations of being pro or anti Israeli/Palestinian. If you wish to include unsubstantiated negative information, even from hate-speech sites like "A;ternative News Report", please seek clarification at WP:BLPN. If you want to post potentially libellous attacks on small identified groups of individuals on the web, other websites are better adapted to that than wikipedia, where it is against policy. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing the The Jewish Press is posting libellous information? Miradre (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a biased Op-Ed, written in extreme language, which would not be permitted per WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that you removed the single critical material in the article: [24]. But your claimed reason is wrong. The article is also about the show.Miradre (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy Goodman is what the title says and indeed the article is about her and her work, with lots of biographical details (father, religion, etc). If you can find a non-partisan source describing DN! and its activities that would be fine. Already using the tax declaration was a flagrant violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Mathsci (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy limiting sources to topic identical with the title. The article is also about the show.Miradre (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Making BLP violations cannot be justified by evasive wikilawyering. The last edit you made was a misuse of a BLP source. Please do not misrepresent sources like that. Also please don't add tags to the article just because your edits are not verifiable. They are just very poor quality edits. If you want to add additional commentary, please try to find appropriate sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

Take it the the BLP board if you claim there is any violation. Read the what the tag says. It should not be removed while there is an ongoing dispute.Miradre (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are evidently set on finding negative statements to include in the article, wherever you can dig them up. In the first place you reproduced something from a hate-speech website; then a blog; and then a partisan Op-Ed. If you want to include criticisms within wikipedia policies then you must find them in appropriate sources. An Op-ed whose sole purpose is to attack Amy Gordon is not acceptable. Why not look for a non-partisan secondary source reporting on DN! and use that? Surely the NYT has commented. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your descriptions are incorrect. Also, why would even a blog be less reliable than self-published, self-congratulatory quotes that are now in the article? There is nothing wrong with the Jewish Press. It criticizes the program which is what I cite. There is no requirement that title must be same as the article topcic.Miradre (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a published peer-reviewed academic article evaluating DN! [25] (this is the first page which is publicly viewable). An early full version of a working version of the document is freely available here. This is the kind of source to use when writing articles like this. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See nothing there contradicting the criticism by The Jewish Press.Miradre (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That article evidently satisfies WP:RS. Exactly the kind of article responsible editors would use for writing this article. Indeed it is the first such article that has been produced so far. I don't quite understand why you are not leaping with joy to find such an article. The Op-Ed you produced is a polemic and attack-piece on Amy Gordon which is evidently unusable. Mathsci (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I may use your source also. But the Jewish Press is of course a WP:RS. Again, if you claim BLP, take it to BLP board.Miradre (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

POV issues alllll over.

There is an obvious POV issue here. As someone else said, this reads as a brochure for "Democracy Now!" The so called "peer reviewed" article that was posted is NOT peer reviewed and should NOT be used as a source even if it does get "peer reviewed" (who are the "peers"? Creation Science articles are "peer reviewed" too). Did anyone actually read the article? Their criteria for non-bias, "diversity," and what that "diversity" entails - are absolutely pseudo-scientific. How can any criteria such as "pure foreign news stories", "fewer elite sources", or "more grassroots sources" be worth anything if they don't investigate *WHO* (as in personality, biases, etc...NOT external traits such as skin color, sex, or ethnicity) those sources are and the *CONTENT* given by those sources? For example: Fox News might have all white males doing their reporting but they might report MORE FAVORABLY towards women (how anyone would quantify this I don't know). Or another example: Democracy Now! might have a "grassroots" source (how is "grassroots" defined?) but they get to choose *WHO* that source is and what the *CONTENT* will be so they choose, for example, an anti-war activist because it fits the Progressive agenda. Hence, Democracy Now! could be extremely far Left (or Right for that matter), could have every story tainted by extreme bias, and still get labeled as LESS biased because they are more "diverse." I can't believe a paper like this can even get published, but maybe it hasn't been because it's such a joke. Another concern with the paper are the authors involved. For example Robert Mcchesney: Does a radical Marxist/Communist sound like an objective source on the subject? Maybe he is, but his political affiliations should definitely make everyone read a little more closely.

"He is also a former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review, which has a fifty-year history of supporting Communist movements and regimes."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2227.

72.92.6.243 (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We have articles about news organizations which have obvious agendas. We use the best sources available. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The article you complain about, in The Nation, is a lengthy, well-researched article written by a professional journalist. The Nation's bias is obvious, but is a professionally edited journal. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A quotation from a progressive such as Robert_W._McChesney#Political_views is a reasonable source evidencing praise by progressives of the program. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition

Their definition of "democracy" must be included in the article. It's another of those POV issues. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democracy Now!. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rfkmemorial.org/legacyinaction/1993

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Massive Purge

On the 19th of July, 2016 an editor purged 19,202 characters from the article (all from the section on Notable Guests -- diff). I wonder on what basis decisions could be made as to whether someone were a notable guest or not. It seems that previously the criteria was that the guest at least have a Wikipedia page, be President of a country, be a respected historian, writer, or academic, an award-winning journalist, head of a journal, etc. Looking at Charlie Rose to compare I see that page fails to document the many powerful figures interviewed, which is a shame given that there is a great deal of history in these longer-format interviews with world leaders (among others).

Does anyone think we should formally request comment on this major purge? Rather than purging would it have been better to call for further referencing, or establish notability criteria? I've added a link for Studs Terkel (one of Amy Goodman's inspirations) and a link to a book on Studs Terkel which references one of the (many) videos included in the retrospective on his life. SashiRolls (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Links to the following interviewees, it seems to me, should be restored based on the following extract (available in full text here) from Le Monde Diplomatique: Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, Arundhati Roy, Edward Said (décédé en 2003), ainsi que MM. Ralph Nader, Evo Morales et Hugo Chávez, ont ainsi participé à l’émission.

References

Please balance this article

This whole article reads like an advertisement for Democracy Now! I came here to find out what Democracy Now! is, but found only this sales brochure. I don't know enough to balance it, but plead with those who do for some help. At least add a "Criticisms of" paragraph to add some perspective.

I agree. A bit of a puff piece, if you ask me.Arlesd (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there should be a "criticisms" section as there are on many Wikipedia pages. The thing that stands out for me would be the article that Vice magazine did on internships in December of 2013. RipcordJones (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article is long overdue for an objective edit! It currently reads like a brochure. CanyonMan (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Advert tag

I don't understand the basis for the recently added advert tag. 216.189.189.32, Please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed this (very) generic tag for now. Explanations should be provided on the talk page by the person who added the tag, so that the sections under dispute, if any, can be improved. --Edcolins (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if reliable sources for the info here at GaryNull.com exist but if so, it's certainly appropriate for a Criticism section and justifies the advert tag! Perhaps it's a massive hoax? Excerpts: "An email from Steven Brown: Dear WBAI Supporter – A significant part of Pacifica’s current financial difficulties stem from the debt it owes to Democracy Now, which is owned by Amy Goodman’s corporation." ... "Amy Goodman wrested Democracy Now away from Pacifica"... "The dollar amount that Democracy Now gained (and Pacifica lost or forwent) after it was given away to Amy Goodman’s corporation in 2001, is ... approximately $77.2 million." ... "how Amy Goodman can justify making Pacifica pay her corporation approximately $630,000 a year for the right to air Democracy Now, when other stations can air the program free of charge, for the first year, and then pay only $2,000-$5,000 per year thereafter[?]" --Elvey^(t•c) 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I find the large debt bit confirmed (" Much of this money is owed to Democracy Now!") in this long Nation piece on Pacifia's woes but that's it. I think it probably is a massive hoax, given that this LA Weekly piece says: Reese's opponents accuse her of incompetence and scheming to turn over control of the organization to Gary Null, an alternative-medicine guru and longtime Pacifica host, who sells his own vitamins and nutritional supplements during pledge drives — for which he takes a healthy cut, according to several board members and managers who spoke to the Weekly.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Converting notable guests, interviews, and on-air debates to tabular format

As-per the To-do list on this talk page, I've converted the unordered list of notable guests/episodes into a tabular format (Democracy_now#Notable guests, interviews, and on-air debates). Now I handled items 1 and 2, but due to the ambiguity of that original list I opted to show the first appearance of a given guest/their notable topic. As for item 3, I'm unsure how to proceed in formatting to link to archive.org since Democracy Now! maintains permalinks. Any help to shore up the table to be in its best format would be appreciated. —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 19:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Democracy Now!. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222032513/http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2009/07/06/democracy-now-broadcast-studio-targeting-leed-ci-platinum-at-207-west-25th-street/ to http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2009/07/06/democracy-now-broadcast-studio-targeting-leed-ci-platinum-at-207-west-25th-street/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140131052916/http://www.ers-inc.com:80/index.php/projects/sustainable-buildings/leed-certification-democracy-now to http://www.ers-inc.com/index.php/projects/sustainable-buildings/leed-certification-democracy-now
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708050530/http://www.rightlivelihood.org/goodman.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/goodman.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902173612/http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/loophole/archive/2008/09/democracy_now_host_amy_goodman.shtml to http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/loophole/archive/2008/09/democracy_now_host_amy_goodman.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Mention YouTube Channel in Article

See https://www.youtube.com/user/democracynow --2003:86:4741:A3EC:6457:2A90:B22D:5D9C (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democracy Now!. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116170844/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F10%2F12%2F1347208&mode=thread&tid=25 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F10%2F12%2F1347208&mode=thread&tid=25

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democracy Now!. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rmi.org/DemocracyNowGoesGreen
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714164952/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F12%2F04%2F1523254&mode=thread&tid=25 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F12%2F04%2F1523254&mode=thread&tid=25
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160920102911/http://www.thedailycall.org/?p=83873 to http://www.thedailycall.org/?p=83873

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is "Democracy Now!" an American leftist or progressive alternative radio or television program

Concening our back-and-fourth in Alternative media (U.S. political left), I thought it would be best if we discuss whether Democracy Now! meets the criteria to be listed. You asked me to move the discussion to the DN talk page, so I did. It seems to me that the critera to be met are being:
1. American media

• From Wikipedia's Democracy Now! article, "Democracy Now! is an hour-long American TV, radio and internet news program," meeting the criteria for American, radio, and television.

2. Alternative media:

• From Wikipedia's Alternative Media article, "These media disseminate marginalized viewpoints, such as those heard in the progressive news program Democracy Now!..."
• Democracy Now! is listed by Kathleen D. Rickert, a reference librarian at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, Minnesota, in "Media and Democracy: Resources for alternative news and information," published by The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association in College & Research Libraries News Vol 72, No 1 (2011). This indicates that democracy now is considered an alternative news resource.

3. Progressive/leftist:

• From Wikipedia's Progressivism in the United States article, "In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice."
• From Wikipedia's American Left article, "Leftist activists in the United States have been credited with advancing social change on issues such as labor and civil rights, civil liberties,[3] peace, feminism, LGBT rights, minimum wage and environmentalism, as well as providing critiques of capitalism."
• From Wikpedia's Democracy Now! article, "[Democracy Now!] combines news reporting, interviews, investigative journalism and political commentary with an eye toward documenting social movements, struggles for justice and the effects of American foreign policy." and "[Democracy Now! is] described as progressive by fans as well as critics..."
• Democracy Now! is linked to three times in Wikipedia's Progressive talk radio article.

Given the evidence, it is my opinion that the answer to the above question is yes. If you believe there are additional criteria to be met or that Democracy Now! does not meet these critera, please explain.
The main article for DN does claim that it is "progressive" and it is generally considered leftist by political bias rating websites. The reason I don't cite political bias rating websites is because I don't consider them reliable sources. Alternative media like DN might shy away from labels such as "leftist" and "progressive", but I doubt DN could be categorized as centrist, right-wing, extremist, or third-way. I don't know where I would look for a "reliable" claim that DN is leftist. Many of the media Doug Weller removed are described as "progressive" in their parent articles. Common Dreams and TruthOut, both described as "progressive" were removed. The top article in Common Dreams as of the time I write this is https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/30/ignoring-climate-threat-and-economic-realities-trump-brags-about-building-fleet-lng and for Truthout is https://truthout.org/articles/graduate-student-workers-organize-against-sexual-harassment-on-campus/. Issues of combating sexual harassment via campus activism, being anti-trump, and climate change are considered issues of the left in the US. I don't want to cite a Quora article, and although Allsides and MediaBiasFactCheck rate DN as leftist, I am unsure if they count as reliable. --Talib1101 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It all boils down to the fact that we can't make our own judgements as that would be original research which editors aren't allowed to do. I agree with you entirely about those media bias websites. Our articles aren't reliable sources and sadly too many of them don't comply with policy and guidelines. Our criteria for this should be WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

here's a couple sources עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Well, that AllSides thing sure is interesting. Their "About" page reveals nothing at all about who funds them, what they do, how they do it, who runs it, etc. No mention of editorial oversight, or an editorial board. Is it really a site where you can vote on whether you agree with some assessment? That makes it user-generated content, perfectly unacceptable, and in this case the rating is modified by "Confidence Level: Low or Initial Rating". So you don't have a couple of sources--you have at most one. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

here's another one with a chart rating most news sources עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

BTW my fingers are itching to remove that "Notable guests, interviews, and on-air debates" stuff. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would classify it more as an opinion show, as they only give one side air time on issues.American Zionist (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit war in Criticism section between Jaydoggmarco and 141.126.156.55

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Hello @Jaydoggmarco: and @141.126.156.55:,

I've noticed that there is an edit war in Criticism between Jaydoggmarco (talk) and 141.126.156.55 (talk).

This has already gone beyond the three-revert rule. As Dr. Swag Lord stated,

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I implore both of you to completely cease editing this page before you are blocked from editing, as Lard Almighty warned.

I've noticed that the Jaydoggmarco has been accused of edit warring both on January 2021 as well as July 2021. This seems to constitute a pattern of disruptive behavior. Well I'm the user may have the best of intentions, blocks are preventative, not punitive.

141.126.156.55, meanwhile, is not logged in to a Wikipedia account. Please make one, as it could help improve communication, and will prevent your entire IP address from being blocked, which would also prevent others on your network from editing Wikipedia. Please consider creating an account.

I'd like to ask both of you to talk it out here. It's possible some sources in the section are reliable and others are not, so it's not necessarily true we need to either keep or remove the section in its entirety. I believe this edit war could be fueled in part by political biases. Please stop before you are banned.

Sincerely, Talib1101 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I just saw this right after I reverted. Jaydoggmarco blanked an entire section with the rational of "piss poor sourcing". It seems to me that due to his other edits (one of them concerning deleting a category to "pander to trumpers and anti-vaxxers" in his own words. It seems to me that Jaydoggmarco based on his edits is running afoul of WP:AGENDA. I also feel like it's straight up vandalism to blank an entire section, ESPECIALLY a criticism section of a political party of which he belongs. Again, I JUST saw this after reverting, but will refrain from doing so again.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: This [[26]] is the edit I was referring to in the above statement. There is also this thread [[27]] that I could not link because the exact edit is crossed/greyed out, but Jaydoggmarco says and I quote ""Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot" Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke)." Taken as a whole this is extremely problematic.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Amy Goodman is not a Democrat, The section has very poor sourcing from self published conspiracy theorist sites. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about you editing trying to push your own political viewpoint in the articles you revert/blank. The sources are just fine and are not labeled in Wikipedia as unreliable. So it's your opinion versus three sources.141.126.156.55 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• • Hello all, apologies for the late arrival to the discussion. I am the original author of the 'Criticism' section that has now been repeatedly removed. (Note: On the subject of my creating an account, there is no need as I am the only user at this IP address, so I prefer to remain anonymous.)
  • On the section and the edits themselves, I originally wrote the 'Criticism' section years ago because I was aware that legitimate, verifiable, criticisms of Democracy Now! exist and are widespread enough to warrant being mentioned (just as countless other Wikipedia entries mention such criticisms of other subjects or public figures). Over the years, various automatic flags and requests for changes of the section have come forward and I have meticulously re-edited the section to address those concerns. The current text remained intact for several months with no automatic flags or requests for changes.
  • The latest complete removals of the Criticism section were done without leaving public edit notes and so were cryptic. Since I am not a frequent editor, I am only just now figuring out how to use this talk page.
  • It is clear that the sources I have cited in the Criticism section are *not* barred by Wikipedia and therefore the challenge of those sources is simply not valid.
  • It is important that the Criticism section be left intact unless the editor removing it can show valid justifications for the removal. This article needs to be comprehensive and unbiased. Both praise and criticisms of Democracy Now! need to be shown in line with the proportions of those opinions in the general public, and that is what the section accomplishes. It is neither biased, nor poorly sourced.
  • The single opinion to the contrary seems to be at odds with the prevalent view on this talk page.--142.254.114.23 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The criticism section has piss poor sourcing.

Dissident Voice, Black Agenda Report and Resumen are not reliable sources, They are Assadists, Who believe that the chemical attacks in Syria are false flags, Editor of Black Agenda Report Ajamu Baraka was revealed to have been paid $120,000 dollars by the Syrian government. [28] Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because you dislike the people the article sources doesn't make them unreliable. There should be a list somewhere of sources that are generally considered unreliable, are those three on that list? I would be all for rewording with different sources if the sources are the problem, but come on, you can't just blank an entire criticism section for Democracy Now, it's very suspect when taken in conjunction with your other edits.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial sources lists all the sources that the community has considered to be reliable or unreliable. Unfortunately, none of those sources are on that list. So I suggest you ask at WP:RSN for other eyes to give them a look and an assessment. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sources and they are not barred from use in Wikipedia. The sources have a political view (just as does Democracy Now!) and that political view is not any indication whatsoever of incorrect facts. The statements the sources make are cross referenced and fact checked. Jaydoggmarco, you are attacking sources instead of content. If you are going to remove content, you need to explain how the content itself is not factual. You did not do so. Here is the section, please explain how any of its sources' factual claims are incorrect:

Removed Criticism section

In 2017, Democracy Now! was criticized by anti-war organization Veterans for Peace Chapter 162, and subsequently in news reports by independent news outlets Black Agenda Report and Resumen Latinamericano who reported that Democracy Now! newscasts on Syria had strayed from the program's progressive roots in a way that supported U.S. interventionist politics. Black Agenda Report has since published reports criticizing Democracy Now! on similar grounds regarding its reporting on Libya, Nicaragua and China. The watchdog group SourceWatch has collated similar criticisms of Democracy Now! made previous to 2017, including critiques of its reporting on Pakistan and its treatment of interns. --142.254.114.23 (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Further discussion of sources

Courtesy notice to @Jaydoggmarco:, @Calton:, and @Ceoil: The three sources are now being discussed at RSN. WP:RSN#Black Agenda Report, WP:RSN#Dissident Voice, and WP:RSN#Resumen Latinamericano. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, thanks for the prompt attention and due diligence on the RSN entries. Much appreciated, and very helpful. I'll wait a bit for other assessments on RSN and then draft a revised 'Criticism' section. --142.254.114.23 (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And thank you for bringing them to RSN. I had not formed any opinions about these sources until I examined them closely today as a result of you creating those RSN discussions. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

To the ip address 142.254.114.23 most of what you posted is debunked conspiracy theories, That article from The Independent was written by Robert Fisk who was notorious near the end of his life for being a Assad apologist and chemical attacks denialist, All of what he wrote on that topic has been debunked. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Jaydogmarko, First, anyone who does thorough research from all possible sources on these issues will learn that what you are saying is simply not correct, and that the assessments of gas 'attacks' in Syria definitely remain in question, as the Associated Press article makes absolutely clear. Is it your intention to also question the reliability of the Associated Press as a source? Fisk himself is also a rock solid source, while Snopes has rarely been a reliable source on political and foreign policy matters involving the DNC and Democratic presidential administrations. The recent scandal around Snopes' founder suggests why. I am thinking that you would be better served to consult more highly diverse independent news sources in order to triangulate your assessments for greater accuracy.

Far more importantly, I am citing these sources because they are putting forward their own honest assessment of Democracy Now's *reporting*. I am *not* citing those sources to in any way suggest whether their assessments of Syria, China, etc, are better or worse than those of Democracy Now. The purpose of the section and the citations is *only* to show differing views from other progressive news sources, about Democracy Now's reporting, *not* to establish what Assad or Assad opponents did, or did not do. Therefore my sources *accurately* serve the purpose for which they are intended (to show honestly differing assessments of Democracy Now's reporting) and therefore your critique and debate over details in the Syrian war, which even the AP shows are disputed, is not material to that purpose. When I redraft the section, I will be certain to make this distinction between assessment of DN vs the assessment of conflict details, more clearly.--142.254.114.23 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of this paragraph. First, even if the sources were reliable (let's see what the RSN says) the paragraph would be unlikely to pass a bar for due weight (WP:DUE) unless a reliable, independent third party had commented on the fact that these three or four fairly obscure sites (only one, Sourcewatch, effectively a hosting site for user-generated content, appears to be notable enough to have its own WP article) have criticised DN. Second, the wording above is misleading. These are not reports by Black Agenda Report etc; they are opinion pieces posted or aggregated by the sites attributed here, written by just two authors. The "report" attributed to Resumen,[29] for example, is an opinion piece by Danny Haipong aggregated from the American Herald Tribune, a conspiracy theory site; Haiphong is also the author of the "report" (opinion piece) in BAR. If there was a consensus for including this material, we'd have to word it something like "Ann Garrison, Danny Haiphong and one chapter of Veterans for Peace have criticised DN!---" BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)