Talk:Al-Jazeera: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David Finn
(→‎Bias: concur)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
Line 6: Line 6:
'...reaching & exceeding the standards...': I think, Martin, you've removed one bias and replaced it with another! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
'...reaching & exceeding the standards...': I think, Martin, you've removed one bias and replaced it with another! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:Well, although it is my professional opinion, we could also quote Hillary Clinton who expressed similar sentiments recently -- when arguing for money to support the American global media, as Al-Jaz was providing better coverage. I don't have the citation to put in, though. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:Well, although it is my professional opinion, we could also quote Hillary Clinton who expressed similar sentiments recently -- when arguing for money to support the American global media, as Al-Jaz was providing better coverage. I don't have the citation to put in, though. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:You are correct, Ro. The removed phrase was "''That strategy means that it focuses on meeting the demands of its principal viewers, which are not necessarily those of a Western news service.''". That is to say, the removed phrase stated that AJ catered to its audience. That does not seem such a biased thing to say about any news service, or indeed any company. Nonetheless it was unreferenced. Replacing it, however, is the phrase "''Al-Jazeera English is increasingly being accepted as a global player, reaching and even exceeding the standards of established broadcasters such as the BBC and CNN.''". That seems quite a bold statement and one that may not be universally held, and is unreferenced. The suggestion is that we ''could'' reference it, but that reference would need to come in a form other than the personal opinion of a single person, whether that person be a CZ author or a politician, or else it should be labelled as opinion. Either way, maybe we could find an Editor who could shed light on the matter. For now I have removed the "''and even exceeding''" part which, in the absence of any references, seems unduly promotional. I would note that I came to this article by way of the article on [[Qatar]] which displays a similarly promotional tone regarding AJ, stating that Qatar has "''distinguished itself''" with the introduction of this news service, whilst providing no reference to show that is a widely held opinion. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:You are correct, Ro. The removed phrase was "''That strategy means that it focuses on meeting the demands of its principal viewers, which are not necessarily those of a Western news service.''". That is to say, the removed phrase stated that AJ catered to its audience. That does not seem such a biased thing to say about any news service, or indeed any company. Nonetheless it was unreferenced. Replacing it, however, is the phrase "''Al-Jazeera English is increasingly being accepted as a global player, reaching and even exceeding the standards of established broadcasters such as the BBC and CNN.''". That seems quite a bold statement and one that may not be universally held, and is unreferenced. The suggestion is that we ''could'' reference it, but that reference would need to come in a form other than the personal opinion of a single person, whether that person be a CZ author or a politician, or else it should be labelled as opinion. Either way, maybe we could find an Editor who could shed light on the matter. For now I have removed the "''and even exceeding''" part which, in the absence of any references, seems unduly promotional. I would note that I came to this article by way of the article on [[Qatar]] which displays a similarly promotional tone regarding AJ, stating that Qatar has "''distinguished itself''" with the introduction of this news service, whilst providing no reference to show that is a widely held opinion. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, I have some data, but it was not published, but only done as part of a consulting contract. Perhaps some academic there would like to reproduce the work, which was done, at the time, on Foreign Broadcast Information Service translations from the Arabic.
::I took 189 consecutive A-J news reports and presented them to a panel of 10, using standard opinion research methods. They were asked to categorize articles from 1 (strongly anti-Western) to 5 (strongly pro-Western).  When I did the data reduction, I was surprised to see an essentially normal distribution, skewed slightly to the anti-Western side, but with a median of 2.6 or so.
::My guess only is that would be a considerably more neutral distribution than Fox News.  As a stray comment, the neutrality of CNN appears to vary significantly if one sets the US version option versus the international version. I read the international.
::Hmmm...I wonder if there is an idea here, presenting possible research and publication projects to our Eduzendium academics? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:39, 19 March 2011

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Commercial television news provider specializing in the Arab world. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Journalism [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Thanks, Ro, for adding to this. For some reason, this is an article I have had trouble starting. --Howard C. Berkowitz 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, hard. One thing you might mention later is how AJ English has poached a number of journalists from the BBC (Pedrosa, Omaar, Cole...) Ro Thorpe 20:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias

'...reaching & exceeding the standards...': I think, Martin, you've removed one bias and replaced it with another! Ro Thorpe 00:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, although it is my professional opinion, we could also quote Hillary Clinton who expressed similar sentiments recently -- when arguing for money to support the American global media, as Al-Jaz was providing better coverage. I don't have the citation to put in, though. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, Ro. The removed phrase was "That strategy means that it focuses on meeting the demands of its principal viewers, which are not necessarily those of a Western news service.". That is to say, the removed phrase stated that AJ catered to its audience. That does not seem such a biased thing to say about any news service, or indeed any company. Nonetheless it was unreferenced. Replacing it, however, is the phrase "Al-Jazeera English is increasingly being accepted as a global player, reaching and even exceeding the standards of established broadcasters such as the BBC and CNN.". That seems quite a bold statement and one that may not be universally held, and is unreferenced. The suggestion is that we could reference it, but that reference would need to come in a form other than the personal opinion of a single person, whether that person be a CZ author or a politician, or else it should be labelled as opinion. Either way, maybe we could find an Editor who could shed light on the matter. For now I have removed the "and even exceeding" part which, in the absence of any references, seems unduly promotional. I would note that I came to this article by way of the article on Qatar which displays a similarly promotional tone regarding AJ, stating that Qatar has "distinguished itself" with the introduction of this news service, whilst providing no reference to show that is a widely held opinion. David Finn 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have some data, but it was not published, but only done as part of a consulting contract. Perhaps some academic there would like to reproduce the work, which was done, at the time, on Foreign Broadcast Information Service translations from the Arabic.
I took 189 consecutive A-J news reports and presented them to a panel of 10, using standard opinion research methods. They were asked to categorize articles from 1 (strongly anti-Western) to 5 (strongly pro-Western). When I did the data reduction, I was surprised to see an essentially normal distribution, skewed slightly to the anti-Western side, but with a median of 2.6 or so.
My guess only is that would be a considerably more neutral distribution than Fox News. As a stray comment, the neutrality of CNN appears to vary significantly if one sets the US version option versus the international version. I read the international.
Hmmm...I wonder if there is an idea here, presenting possible research and publication projects to our Eduzendium academics? Howard C. Berkowitz 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)