Talk:Journalism scandals
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] New entries
I have added a great number of legitimate journalism scandals, starting with Walter Duranty in the 1930s, to others from the Associated Press, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sacramento Bee, Los Angeles Times, and elsewhere. I am in the process of adding more, such as the aforementioned "Monkeyfishing" article that ran in Slate.
--User:Lord Zoltar 1 Mar 2005
[edit] Sky News
I've removed the Rupert Murdoch's part from Rupert Murdoch's Sky News. He does not have any direct involvement in the running of the channel. He runs a company that owns part of BSkyB; the network is not his as such.
[edit] Article title
I moved this to journalistic fraud, since that phrase is grammatically correct, whereas journalism fraud is not. Perhaps more importantly, the latter phrase doesn't seem to be used much except on Wikipedia. --Delirium 04:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
This would be better called "journalism scandals," that's how people would look it up. Maurreen 10:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Janet Cooke
The Janet Cooke entry needs a bit of clarification. She confessed that the "Jimmy" of her articles was a fabrication. She claimed that he was a composite of several real individuals, but I do not believe that the Post ombudsman was ever able to verify that she ever had any contact with any real child heroin addicts. This should be checked against the ombudsman's article in the Post which appeared shortly after she was stripped of the Pulitzer. 19:34, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I checked and updated: Cooke never met any real youth addicts -- she had heard about "Jimmy" but could not find him, so she created him. Also added more about how she was first exposed. --User:Lord Zoltar 17:28, 1 Mar 2006
[edit] Fraud / Scandal
The CNN section is not necessarily fraud. It is not "fraud" to withhold stories, but it is fraud to fabricate stories. Removing and replacing here for discussion:
[edit] CNN (2003)
- In the April 11, 2003 edition of the New York Times, CNN chief news executive, Eason Jordan, wrote that CNN had suppressed information about atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime against its own people in order to protect CNN staff stationed in Baghdad.
--Admbws 17:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am considering putting it back up. CNN is in the business of sharing information, and advertises itself as a beacon of truth (the "without fear or favor" from the NYT). Withholding stories from the public, when you have pledged not to do so, is very much fraud. --User:Lord Zoltar 1 Mar 2006
[edit] Al-jazeera / Iraqi spies
Additionally, there is not a lot of evidence to back up the claim the Iraqi spies did infiltrate the Al Jazeera television network, or held any position where they could significantly affect reporting - stating so. I would recommend this for removal if no further evidence appears. --Admbws 17:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Al-jazeera speculation removed
The latest edit removed a section with the summary "al-jazeera speculation removed". I do not understand why this was removed, but I also don't know whether it's proper to restore it. Does anyone have more information?
Acegikmo1 06:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Hoax
Despite the disclaimer, this doesn't belong here. If someone wants to preserve it somewhere, then how about a page like Famous hoaxes.
- === Orson Welles (1938) ===
- In 1938 Orson Welles broadcast a radio adaptation of the science fiction story The War of the Worlds, causing panic as many mistook the fictionalized account of a Martian invasion of the United States to be an actual event. Strictly speaking, though, Welles' broadcast more properly qualifies as a hoax rather than an instance of journalism fraud.
-- Viajero 11:03, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Add
other stuff u need to add:
the thing with that british dude, about the poison gas the US army was using in vietnam or something. tailwind scandal? something like that. peter arnett was reading cue cards and he got fired.
another thing was the time 60 minutes didnt air some tobacco story or something
a minor one documented in Harry Wu's books, one of them, was about when a reporter made video of graves of people killed by the chinese govt, but it was actually the wrong graves or something.
im sure there are a million of these. good page. good article.
[edit] Mike Barnicle
There is a stub for the columnist Mike Barnicle, how is a link created to it?Scranton 01:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Entry for Mike Barnicle added by User:Alkivar on Dec 16, 2004.
Why do so many of the instances of fraud involve liberal/left-wing reportage vs. so few of a conservative/right-wing reportage? Just curious, actually. 68.77.93.174 13:33, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
And why are they all US (with one exception), and one piece of what I presume is black propaganda - the Al-Jazeera (2003) entry. I wonder if they retracted it later - the image that the independent arab media is a front for the "bad guys" sticks however. Secretlondon 13:38, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
- Sorry but that accusation is false. There is a very LARGE section on Brit James Forlong (noticeably larger than the rest). Any other major scandals have simply not made it there yet. Alkivar 01:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Monkey fishing?
Anyone still remember the monkey fishing hoax by Jay Forman of Slate.com? -- Toytoy June 30, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
- Yep. Brilliant. · Katefan0(scribble) June 30, 2005 03:44 (UTC)
[edit] Fake "GI rape" photographs (2004)
Added new data. Seems to be lots of new allegations coming up.
However, recent reports suggest the rapes may in fact have been real, but only taken down and labelled as "fakes" to avoid a scandal. Other sources implicate US intelligence officers or Israeli Mossad agents (in collaboration with key members of the Jewish porn industry). Human rights investigations have also recorded victims testinomies that are credible.
Starting this paragraph with 'However' implies a paradox of whether being in this section is a contradiction. This segment refers to ambiguous sources and has no valid citations. Most Wiki articles seem over-cited however this segment seems to violate NPOV standards by not listing credible sources. Using lines like 'recent reports suggest' and 'Other sources implicate', without citing, or even naming such sources seems like an innapropriate way of inserting conjecture, into an already heated subject, under the guise of third party suggestion.--Jgreat 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Jgreat
I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE BIGOTRY OF THIS PORTION
The sentence reading "(o)ther sources implicate US intelligence officers or Israeli Mossad agents (in collaboration with key members of the Jewish porn industry)" is clearly hate speech. What, pray tell, is the Jewish porn industry? Who is alleged to be involved and who is making the allegations? This sort of bogus disinformation is clearly rooted in bigotry and does not belong in this forum.
Adam Holland 18:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rigoberta Menchú should not be in this page
Iven if you call her case an "antropological fraud", Menchú is not well located in this page of journalism fraud. It is not fair with her--an indian woman, not american, not journalist, and, plus, a victim of a civil war--to be compare with the people that appears in this page. Plus, her book is based actually in her interviews with Elisabeth Burgos an antropologist from Venezuela. The book was primarly a "testimonio", not journalism, and both Menchú and Burgos are implicated in the so-called "fraud". The problem with Menchú book is not one of journalism true, but in any case antropological, historical and comunitarian true. There are, therefore, a serie of problems with Menchú not present in the other cases.
- That may be your point of view. Whether or not it was meant to be a true account or historical fiction, it was presented as one. I hardly think it's "not fair" to question the veracity of the autobiography of a person who won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for her account, which was presented as a true autobiography. Whether actual fraud was committed or, as you suggest, it is merely a cultural misunderstanding, there can be no denying that fraud was perpetrated in this instance. Saying otherwise is merely apologizing for that fact. It's POV, and it doesn't belong here. - Guido del Confuso 09:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
David Stoll recognizes that Menchu´s account is basically true. Her family actually suffered the atrocities, murders and tortures from the goverment forces. She is not in the same position that a journalist of, say, The New York Times that comit fraud. What Stoll seems to discuss is the ideological use of Menchú by the leftwing organizations. That discussion is not new, and begun when her testimonio was included in Stanford canon of mandatory readings. But, again, she does not belong to this page about Journalism Scandals. Maybe would be better to put the debate regarding the veracity of her testimonio on a page about Antropological truth or something like that.
UPDATE (3 March 2006): I have moved Menchu to this page and off of the Wikipedia entry. What Menchu did was in fact fraud, but it was clearly not journalistic fraud, as is the focus of this entry. Menchu's entry is no more appropriate here than the fabrications of James Frey's "Million Little Pieces" book. If there is an article on book fraud or researh fraud or anthropological fraud, Menchu's tale would best go there. -- Lord Zoltar
[edit] Rigoberta Menchú (1999)
In 1983, Guatemalan activist Rigoberta Menchú published an account of her country's bloody civil war called I, Rigoberta Menchú. In 1992 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Several years later anthropologist David Stoll conducted a series of interviews with Menchú's former acquaintances for a follow-up book. During this time he discovered that much of her account was fabricated. Specifically, Menchú was not self-taught (she received a middle-school education) and the land dispute in which her father was killed was with family members, not the government.
[edit] Revert
is very VERY VERY VERY angry,,! revert: 14:13, 24 February 2006 by User:Alkivar, and the "REASON" is "Reverted edits by Off! (talk) to last version by Alkivar". I can not be bold in updating pages, edit reverts with strange reasons is Wikipedia' tactic --Off! 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New York Times Abu Ghraib photos (2006)
While this matter sems to have involved some mistaken reporting, and even sloppy editing, how does it qualify as a scandal? -Will Beback 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] US focus
I think this page should be renamed "Journalism scandals in the United States". ¶ 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. This seems to be completely focused on american media outlets, or at least only sources known in the US. It should be moved so that other pages can be started for other countries/localities (expanding this article would not be advisable as it is already over the recommended page size. --DDG 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gropegate and MEChA NPOV
who had ties to the radical Latino group MEChA.
Labeling MEChA "radical" is not WP:NPOV. Suggest that this simply say "who had been a member of the Chicano student group MEChA" or something similiarly neutral. --Kynn 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
