Talk:Amy Goodman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Controversy

I've taken down the 'Controversy' section, as the linked article makes no claims regarding any *amount* of funding from the Ford Foundation. Meanwhile it makes outlandish claims about her salary, ownership of the DN! program, and is largely uncredible. The removed text:

Goodman has received criticism from the right-wing for receiving large yearly grants from the Ford Foundation in the six figure range (reportedly $150,000) to fund her journalism.[1][unreliable source?]

The earlier edits which claimed Goodman receives one million dollars per years are also baseless w/r/t the linked article. If you read the source for that article's, the editor ends the article with "[Editor's note: This compensation may cover the cost of producing DN!]" In other words, it is just as likely that she, and the dozen or so producers and assistants working on the Democracy Now! television program, are all being paid from the $1MM per annum. -plaus 22:00, 07 Aug 2006 (GMT)

I just read the Democracy Now! Productions Inc. IRS Form 990 for 2004. According to the Form 990, Amy Goodman's salary is $58,000 a year. The "hr/wk" section is filled in, "As required". Other salaries and wages are $600,000. Democracy Now!'s gross receipts are $3 million; $2 million comes from "Direct Public Suport", $26,250 comes from government grants, the other $1 million comes from program service revenues, which is mostly $675,000 documentary and broadcast fees, $292,000 distribution and tape sales income. Nbauman 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Dispute

How does this article not identify Goodman as a left wing ideologue? Imagine if one were to refer to Michael Savage as an "alternative journalist". This is ridiculous!

Quote: "..., and other countries. Goodman and Democracy Now! are known for their left wing views. Criticism of the corporate media, and regular coverage of topics related to the antiwar and anti-globalization movements are hallmarks of Goodman and Democracy Now!". There you go. Oh, and Savage isn't a journalist. He applied to be a dean of journalism and got rejected flat out. Thats his extent of journalism experience. From what I can tell, Amy Goodman has actually gone and preformed in a journalist career and function. --OMG LAZERS 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
agree with OMG. Her political stance is clearly noted. Besides, the word "idealogue" connotes an opinion of her, not a fact. Savage is an entertainer, not a journalist. Not even closenut-meg 08:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This biography is somewhat fluffy, using vague descriptions such as "progressive" (which in addition has different connotations around the world). Some would consider "radical" or "radical left" more descriptive. "Coverage of the peace and human rights movements — and support of the independent media" are described as "the hallmarks of her work", overlooking that she is an active participant of these movements rather than an objective observer. Her political stance is NOT clearly noted, although informed readers can probably make an educated guess. The article recognizes her scathing critique of the Bush administration, followed by noting her hostile interview with President Clinton, a juxtaposition which readers could mistake for an indication of impartial and even-handed journalistic inquisitiveness. However no indication is given that "911 truthers" and Goodman do not see everything eye to eye. The Pacifica Radio conflict of 2000 is only alluded to in a superficial and partisan way. No critics or criticism of Goodman's work or views are mentioned, giving a rather one sided view of the subject. A good example is the hyperbolic quote by Goodman's friend Robert McChesney from an article in The Nation, while a more enlightening quote in the same article by John Dinges is left out.

Andresm 12:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Complaints

WHOAMG, positive names for a government-supported conflict = state media! I suppose she'd prefer Operation Butcher Arabs, or Operation Rob Oil for more "objective" material. J. Parker Stone 07:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This does not attempt to respond to the subject of the quote.

Goodman continues to reflect animus against America, Jews, Israel and the West. One of the most prominent fellow travelers of Al Queda, her venomous broadcasts make her a leading memeber of the "hate america" brigade, ranking right up there with Prof's Churchill, Chomsky and Finkelstein. Incorrect 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--I don't intend to edit. I just want to respond to her "animus against jews". What a joke that statement is. Goodman has never criticized jews as an ethnic group and is in fact jewish herself. Also Chomsky and Finkelstein are both jewish as well. Basically if you're a journalist and have never criticized the American or Israeli governments, well, you're not a journalist(STL)

[edit] Indonesia

I just don't see how it makes any sense for the Clinton administration to be deliberately selling weapons to the Indonesian Army to crush the independence movement when the U.S. had already voted Yes on a U.N. resolution that expressed concern over Suharto's human rights record. The same for Haiti. These people are trying to find links where there are none. J. Parker Stone 21:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone: you changed
Goodman and journalist Jeremy Scahill documented the cooperation in human rights abuses in Nigeria between the Chevron Corporation and the Nigerian army.
to this:
Goodman and journalist Jeremy Scahill alleged complicity of the Chevron Corporation in a Nigerian military confrontation...
If for any reason you doubt the quality of the evidence discovered by an investigative journalist like Goodman, the proper response would be to cite a countervailing point of view, preferably not a Chevron PR person, with a citation.
Also, you added this text:
It is unclear whether the corporation knew for sure that the military would use lethal force against two protesters; its primary concern was likely stopping potential damage to its equipment.
and this text:
However, whether this was meant as an endorsement by the U.S. government for repression of the East Timorese is questionable, as it would run contradictory to the Clinton administration's human rights concerns over the Suharto regime
is editorializing; you must attribute this POV to someone. -- Viajero 09:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

once again, like the FRAPH thing, this alleged support for Suharto after the end of the Cold War runs contrary to official admin policy, and we shouldn't give off the impression that the U.S. and Indonesia were unquestionable allies in the mid-90s. J. Parker Stone 05:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone's changes seem largely to be original research, based on his claims about what makes sense if one believes politicians. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

you're not making any sense here. how does the Clinton admin. benefit at all from supposedly lying about its concerns over Suharto's human rights record? J. Parker Stone 01:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand the point; it isn't a question of following your argument, it's a question of its being your argument — Wikipedia:No original research. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

ok, it's a fact that Clinton backed a U.S. Yes vote in the U.N. based on concerns over Suharto's human rights record. furthermore, American military aid was cut off to Indonesia by 1993, the year Clinton took office. given these _facts_, Goodman's claim of U.S. support in the mid-90s should be treated as just that, a claim, not an undisputed fact. J. Parker Stone 03:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC) my argument stands. the POV warriors are trying to make it sound like U.S. support for Indonesia never changed after the Cold War. J. Parker Stone 05:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Reverting back and forth from one version to another does not help to build a consensus. In a recent exchange we had things like "Quotes" versus "Quotations" reverted. Surely we can agree on many items like this. Let's only change the things we don't agree with and leave those that are NPOV, rather than wholesale reverting. If we can narrow the focus of the dispute then we'll have a better chance of developing a stable version. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

For some reason user:Trey Stone has been reverting back to a version which has some grammatical, formatting, and Wiki errors, instead of simply fixing the problems with the text. I've cleaned up most of them. I hope that in his future reverts he'll at least go back to a clean version. Better yet, simply make the changes that are needed. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
He does the same on a number of articles; it would appear that he's not interested in the quality of the articles, he only wants to make sure that they reflect his point of view. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
well put, in a nutshell. — Davenbelle 08:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Many consider

  • Though she is Jewish, many consider Amy Goodman to be a self-hating Jew, due to the anti-Israel nature of her show.

Many? Can we provide some sources to confirm this? I'm removing it pending confirmation. -Willmcw 10:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with confirmation. It is libelous and should be deleted anyway.nut-meg 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote/said this needs to get there definitions straight. She may be anti-zionist but that doesn't neccesarily mean she is anti-semitic. --154.20.62.186 05:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As Rev. Martin Luther King said, "Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews - make no mistake about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.252.44 (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"self-hating Jew" is the bigoted canard used to deflect criticism Jews make of Israeli policy, whether or not that policy carried out by people who are Jewish. If the critic is not Jewish, the bigoted canard used is "anti-semite." Then there is the conventional definition of "anti-semite" as someone fundamentally bigoted against Jews, but such people have nothing to do with reflective criticism of Israeli policies. People who employ such bigotries exploit Jewishness for their own political purposes, and so, in fact, are deeply anti-semitic, but that view can't currently be tolerated in widespread media.JimmyTheSaint 15:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interview with Clinton

I remember hearing this interview when it was first broadcast, and it stunned me: Clinton was brilliantly articulate, smart as a whip, and forthcoming. My respect for him went way up; he was already known to be a smart guy (Rhodes scholar and all), but this was never a possibility for his (or any recent president's) public persona. There was one brief moment where he became flustered and lost his temper a bit at Goodman's "interrogation," but I thought how great it was to have politicians giving real answers to real questions instead of hearing nothing but boilerplate. Clinton only classified it as hostile or disrespectful because he was so unused to an inquisitive public interview as president regarding political policy. It was pathetic how, even at that late moment of the 2000 campaign, the best the Democrats could offer was an attack on progressive politics and anyone to the left of themselves, which is everyone on the left, in the middle, and a little to the right, and showed himself as "Republican lite." But if all our national figures laid themselves out like that, the better informed electorate would pull them back to the interests of the many instead of the few. I've even heard GWB, in debates with Ann Richards, articulate himself smartly and sharply, but that's always been suppressed on the national stage, and even his "left" critics consistently play into the trap by calling him dumb.JimmyTheSaint 15:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on the Clinton interview, since it was one of the most memorable interviews I've ever heard. (I've linked to it on journalism lists as an model of how an interview should be done.) I basically paraphrased Goodman's own description from the DN web site. I didn't realize it had already been added and removed with some controversy until I reviewed the history. What was the problem? I don't understand why it was deleted. Nbauman 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

The reason I reverted the previous article with this phrase:

However, Goodman has been criticized by some on the Left for allegedly being a gatekeeper.[2]

Is because it is in fact POV. It was added on, by Herschelkrustofsky, a Larouchite who in the past has been accused of making POV edits, to promote a neologism "gatekeeper". [3] The article for the term itself was created by the same poster and is up for deletion (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics)) and the same poster has used vote stacking (See [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) to try and stop the article from being deleted. Furthermore, a simple claim from a small group of people does not make it neccessary for us to add on the claim onto a wikipedia article. In the past I have seen Larouchites go around in articles writing "synarcist agent" and that wasn't allowed even though a small group people people believed it, what is going on in this article is the equivolent of that.--Jersey Devil 20:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate too. The "left gatekeeper" idea (if I understand it correctly) is that Goodman is actually a right-winger, funded by right-wing corporations to pretend to be a left-winger and co-opt the left movement, keeping "real" left thought suppressed. They have not made their case for that. However, I would have no problem if sound information was added to the article about sources of money for her or her program, but they really must be verifiable, not speculation. Esquizombi 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


I attempted to add a sourced quote calling Goodman an anti semite - it was virtually instantaneously reversed. the quote stated that goodman: happens to be a promoter of anti-Semites and anti-Zionists of nearly every stripe.

So who reverted that quote - a fellow anti semite? a protector of Goodman's reputation? a bigot? a vandal? You read the quote, you decide. Another indication that wikipedia sucksIncorrect 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Knock off the personal attacks. You didn't present a "sourced quote" -- well, maybe it was, but I had to do my own web searching to understand that by The Jewish Press recently said of her: She also happens to be a promoter of anti-Semites and anti-Zionists of nearly every stripe you were actually saying that The Jewish Press ran an editorial by Jason Maoz making that allegation. Otherwise, the sentence simply asserts that the Jewish press (whatever that is) is making the allegation. The reason your stuff is being reverted on sight is that you seem unaware of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as well as Wikipedia's requirements for verifiable reliable sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


JP, sorry, but I just don't understand your point - the Jewish Press is a legitimate on line weekly magazine that represents the viewpoint of the orthodox Jewish community - and yes, it was an editorial position, but any statement of that nature almost by definition has to be an editorial position - and there is no such policy that only neutral matters may be posted in articles, if YOU read the wikipedia rules sourced material if expressing a pov may be posted - that approach appears in MANY articles - now, would you mind reversing your reversion? Thank youIncorrect 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue with using information put out by pro Israeli groups in any Palestinian article or any person or organization seen to support Palestinians, see various other articles Incorrect is editing, Special:Contributions/Incorrect, Talk:Palestinian_people#Middle_East_Forum_link, and Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Unaddressed_Questions. Arniep 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm actually sitting here in disbelief - your point (which I hadn't noticed but now believe to be correct)above is that if any article is written by a muslim, pro palestinian, or anti semite, then no source that is pro Jewish or pro Israeli may be quoted in that article? Wow, I believe we have now hit the all time height of prejudice, bias, and anti Jewishness. There is nothing more I can say, except Wikipedia is a fraud!Incorrect 03:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Until you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies such as NPOV, reliable sources, and verifiability, whether you think Wikipedia is a fraud or not is irrelevant, because you don't understand Wikipedia's principles at all. For example, you didn't comprehend in the least that your presentation of the "Jewish Press" quote wasn't removed because of its content, but because it wasn't presented as a verifiable reliable source. I had to do a lot of digging around to determine that you were actually quoting a source rather than just expressing your own opinion (as you've done previously by simply inserting "XXX is an anti-semite" into multiple articles). The everyday reader, the target audience for Wikipedia, would not have been able to do that. If, on the other hand, you'd presented the quote correctly, it might have been moved in the article, as the desired prominence of the opinion would have been argued, but it would have more likely been accepted. Don't expect others to do your work for you; if you want to include pejorative assertions, you'll need to back them up. Same thing would have applied if you'd said "Amy Goodman is a space alien" or "Amy Goodman is a ailurovore"; it has nothing to do with prejudice, bias, or anti-Jewishness. You should note that an approximately equal number of critics think Wikipedia is a Zionist propaganda mill as think that Wikipedia is a hotbed of anti-Semitic fervor. So we're doing something right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A question on POV, from a Wikipedia newbie, if I may? First, some A wikipedia entry is a place to gather information about its subject. Information that, by consensus of the editors, is relevant, and factual, and of NPOV. In the case where an editor adds a quote to an article about a person that says "According to the opinion page of journal Z, X is anti-Martian." That Z's opinion page had said that about X is fact - they did say that, only it's Z's opinion, right? Whether X is anti-Martian is not established fact, in this context, based on that quote - yes?

So, what is established, is that journal Z has an opinion about X, but that info is a fact about Z, not about X. Therefore, does it make sense to include this fact about Z in an article of facts about X? Shouldn't that fact belong in an article about Z? To the point, does it seem that Incorrect's desire to include the fact of the Jewish Press's opinion about Goodman - can this be taken as an attempt to assert non-factual POV about Goodman? Is that a reasonable take on this type of edit? It seems to be a common situation on Wikipedia, and I'd like to learn how to deal with it. Regards, --plaus 23:33 / 21 May 06 GMT

  • Good question, and I'm not sure I can give anywhere near a complete answer. I agree with you completely that the info is about Z, not X. So what needs to be looked at is how important is it to an understanding of of X? I think WP:NPOV#Undue weight might bear on this. We have to make judgement calls; part of editing Wikipedia involves determining whether or not writer Y's opinion (or writer Y himself) is important enough to warrant mention in an article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accomplishments

Both Ms Goodman and her style of journalism, are not dedicated to lighthearted spoofs. She (to my knowledge) has never been employed by MTV:News infact I would go so far as to say that the very nature of her work is designed to be inflamitory and arguementative. It should be the job of any author contributing to her article, to present facts about her and her work. Not pass judgement upon it. Wikipedia, for it's own sake, can not take sides in this. If something seems too volitile to include in an article then by all means we should exclude it untill such time as we can enter it objectively. This should not be used as a soapbox to promote personal ideas and moral values. --Dashhammer 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sept 11

The article indicates that that the DN! broadcast was pulled by Pacifica on Sept 11 2001. Are we *sure* it was actually pulled - the firehouse is not far from thm the WTC, and power failures or other problems may have caused the blackout. I seem to recall hearing at least part of the program that day, but I may be mistaken. JXM 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I second your concern. The source that is cited doesn't say relate DN!'s hiatus to Sept 11. Doubleplusjeff 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Such a thing is not so simple to prove with web references, but personal observations may not be enough. Remember that more important events were being recorded that day. As a former DN! worker, I was working in the firehouse on 9/11, and we were definitely pre-empted. The show ordinarily goes on at 9:00AM EST, and the planes started hitting the WTC shortly before then. We had power that day (and throughout the post-9/11 time period, too - different part of the power grid than the WTC, on the other side of Manhattan.)
I personally believe that WBAI made the choice to go with live coverage from WBAI reporters on the street, as the buildings were coming down. The catastrophic events of the day brought on the decision, IMO, but you never know. Mind you, at the time, DN! and AG were on the opposing side of a very public struggle to control Pacifica's board, and as a result were quite unpopular with WBAI management (Utrice Lied, who took control of WBAI in the wee hours of the morning, during the so-called Christmas Coup, was no friend of AG.) WBAI lost power on the uplink to the Empire State Bldg transmitter later in the day. For what it's worth, WBAI pulled DN! altogether for a period during 2001, and Pacifica stopped all funding too (we were unpaid on 9/11, and for a number of months prior.) plaus 03:59, 29 Nov 06 GMT.

[edit] Jewish

I hate to open up this can of worms again, but this article is in Category:Jewish-American journalists without this fact (the Jewish part) ever being stated in the article itself. I believe a case can be made that it is relevant enough for inclusion, as long as it can be tied to some genuine controversy or some relevant point that Goodman has made about herself (apparently she mentions her Jewish ancestry in at least some of her public speeches). - dcljr (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this makes the case? Nbauman 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Journalist’s work inspires many to social activism

COMMENTARY BY IRIS KELTZ[10]

Before Amy Goodman speaks of Israel and Palestine, she shares her?impeccable Jewish credentials – that her grandfather was an orthodox rabbi, that there are Holocaust?survivors in her family, that she spent part of her youth in Israel.? And then she gives one of the few media voices to the Palestinians.?Through cell phone conversations she brings us inside the church of the?Nativity while it is under siege. We meet Adam Shapiro and his Palestinian-American fiancé, part of the international witnesses who got caught in?Yasser Arafats¹s bunker. We hear the voice of Edward Said, a leading?Palestinian intellectual and literature professor at Columbia University.?Hanan Ashrawi speaks on behalf of her people suffering under a long-term?brutal occupation. I cry when Ashrawi thanks and acknowledges an?international group of Jews who gathered in Chicago under the banner “Not in?My Name,” because I was one of them. In Jenin, she interviews witnesses, ?journalists and local residents, trying to uncover the truth about what is?happening inside the refugee camp.? She did not delve the harsh details of the Palestinian?occupation during her recent Popejoy appearance. She did, however, identify herself as Jewish and share her?horror of having seen the sacred Star of David hanging from Israeli tanks?and from bulldozers used to destroy homes and olive groves.? On Jan. 18 Goodman was focused on preventing a war against Iraq. She?reminds us that innocent Iraqi civilians, not Saddam Hussein, are?suffering the consequences of U.S. sanctions and the Gulf War. To her they?are not “collateral damage.” She knows all too well what price the people?have already paid, that hospitals are filled with children dying of cancer?or born with horrible birth deformities, that there is not enough medicine,?drinking water, food or electricity, that the civilian population of Iraq?will not survive another U.S. onslaught. “Democracy Now” has brought us?inside Baghdad and allowed us to hear their voices and eyewitness?accounts from doctors, journalists and international witnesses.? Some people read the Torah and bow before a paternalistic God who judges?and declares “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Others understand?that “Never Again” means never again remain silent in the face of?witnessing a holocaust of any people.? Amy Goodman¹s words connect me to the ancient path of social justice.?They remind me that if we treat our neighbors justly, we can turn our swords?and weapons of mass destruction into plowshares and sit in our vineyards and?olive groves enjoying a sustainable life style. Now that¹s my kind of?Judaism!

[edit] "The Truth"

Stanley011 claims that it is "The Truth" that Goodman is "left-wing". Oddly enough, even though some people feel it is "The Truth" that Bill O'Reilly is "right-wing" or "conservative", Stanley011 instantly deletes such descriptors from O'Reilly's wikipedia article. I also don't see Rush Limbaugh described as "right wing" or a "Republican propagandist" in the lead paragraph of his wikipedia article (it simply notes that he is a self-described conservative), although many would argue that these two descriptors are undeniable truths. There are many other examples to cite but I think the idea should be obvious: we don't slap people with political labels unless that label is self-described or absolutely undeniable and verified by a notable source. Simply claiming that its The Truth or that "everyone thinks so" isn't good enough. I've provided a compromise here that does not violate wikipedia NPOV policy, by adding a line noting that a headline in a notable newspaper once referred to Goodman as "left wing", with a link to that article. I don't believe it is necessary to do so, as any reader should be able to make up their own minds from the article as to Goodman's political leanings, but I've done this simply to appease those who insist that "left wing" be inserted somewhere into the lead. If that isn't satisfactory, please explain your reasoning here on the talk page. Thanks.--Hal Raglan 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that your contention here is valid. Here's my two cents: avoid the 'left-wing, right-wing' thing altogether, and just call her what she certainly is, which is progressive. Some of Goodman's views may clash with both mainstream 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' perspectives, depending on the issue, and by calling her 'progressive' we adopt a more flexible term that is less frequently used inappropriately to pidgeonhole or dismiss somebody's views. I will give this a shot and see if it sticks. Any input is appreciated. --Jackbirdsong 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Progressive" is far too vague. She is certainly more commonly known as left-wing, as the LA Times, hardly a bastion of conservatism, makes clear. Stanley011 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, then lets do two little things: 1)Leave the description of her as progressive, which she certainly is, combined with the Times reference to her left-wing views, but 2)fix the Times ref so it reads more like: "Goodman and Democracy Now have been described as having left-wing views", as we can see who this is attributed to in the references section. --Jackbirdsong 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you go to the wikipedia pages of various pundits that are known because of their political leanings: e.g. Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, etc. etc. etc. you'll notice that the intro sentence is devoid of a political descriptor, even though all of these folks are, as stated above, well-known for a definite political leaning. There's no reason to break that trend with this article. Stanley011 03:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I am mistaken. Randi Rhodes did have a poliitcal descriptor in the intro when I wrote the above paragraph. Stanley011 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
OK... I found a proper place for that info as I did some slight rephrasing of the opening for more fluidity of content. Nothing was erased, just reorganized.--Jackbirdsong 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Stanley011, why are you engaging in an edit war over a valid description of Goodman and DemNow!? Multiple sources have called Goodman and DemNow! 'progressive', and a little research will tell you that the causes that she sympathizes with and discusses on the show are widely considered to be 'progressive'. The edits you made between mine here all seem to be purely dedicated to removing the term 'progressive' from the article. This seems to me to be an odd reason for engaging in an edit war.--Jackbirdsong 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny criticism, given that I actually left the "progressive" descriptor in tact--I simply condensed both of the quotes into a descriptor, and not a direct quote, for the sake of accuracy and concision, because if we leave the entire quotes in place, the sentence then has to be structured so that attribution is given to the quote, which becomes to cluttered. Care to try another criticism? Stanley011 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The adjective "progressive" is subjective and relative to a particular point of view or frame of reference.Lestrade 00:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

(unindent)You removed direct quotes for the sake of accuracy? Thats intriguing...the concision aspect makes more sense, but in such a diminutive article brevity seems less important, IMHO, than accuracy. I have no desire to fight about this really, it just seemed silly to me to avoid describing her in terms that multiple credible refs have, thats all. And of course the term is subjective: any political descriptor is surrounded by some degree of relativity, i.e. 'liberal', 'conservative', etc. This does not mean it cannot or should not be used to describe somebody's political ideology in general terms. Nontheless, I am going to stop editing this article for now, as this seems futile.--Jackbirdsong 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal" and "conservative" are not subjective adjectives. They have conventional meanings that are objectively applied to political groups. "Progressive" may mean one thing to one group and another thing to another group, depending on the group's goal and purpose. Whatever advances toward that particular goal is progressive.Lestrade 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Just to respond to this last comment, ""Liberal" and "conservative" are not subjective adjectives"? So there aren't multiple schools of liberalism and conservatism that may conflict at times? "Liberal" means the same thing to different parties? To paint these terms as objective is absolutely incorrect, for if they were there would not be multiple branches of these ideologies. Also, you are mixing the Dictionary definition of 'progressive' with the political ideology, which is more specific. Progressivism is a movement that began in late 19th century America (see: progressivism) with specific ideologies and tenets such as 1)environmentalism 2)social justice 3)corporate regulation 4)efficiency of the democratic process. Teddy Roosevelt started the 'Progressive Party' with these specific goals in mind, and progressive has been a term applied to this set of mostly left-wing ideologies ever since.--Jackbirdsong 03:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the Braxton quote with the Publishers Weekly quote because using the Braxton quote in the intro draws attention away from Goodman to the allegedly "disenfranchised left." Since the article is about Goodman, I felt the Publishers Weekly quote is more appropriate quote to use in the intro. Stanley011 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to quibble over something so minor, but after some consideration its my opinion that because the publishers weekly quote is not as specific as the original LA Times quote, and mention of the "disenfranchised left" does not really distract from the subject of the article in any significant way, there is no real reason not to use the Times ref'd statement. --Jackbirdsong 04:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Met a person today who claimed

Goodman won an Edward R. Murrow Award.

If this isn't the case should we alert people that this is a falsehood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rawheadrex (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Why? Is it a commonly held falsehood? We don't need to correct one person's mistake, do we? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalist and anti-capitalist

88.36.237.121, I don't understand what "Capitalist and anti-capitalist" means in this context. You can find the term "capitalist" on DemocracyNow.org with a Google search, but here it sounds funny. "Anti-capitalist" has different meanings to different people, most of them POV, and some of them ironic. Finally, the source that I gave is an example of balanced coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but it's not an example of balanced coverage of the capitalist/anti-capitalist conflict. Can you find a citation? Maybe you could say "corporate and anti-corporate," or "establishment and progressive" (which I would prefer). Nbauman 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy journalist

88.36.237.121, why did you take out this line?

"She is an unapologetic advocacy journalist, and supported Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns."

I think everyone would agree that she's an advocacy journalist.

I heard her speak at a pro-Nader rally at the Ethical Culture Society during the 2000 election. I heard her say that the Democratic and Republican parties were both moving further to the right, and the Democratic party was telling us that we have to vote for them or else the Republicans would appoint anti-abortionists to the Supreme Court. She said that if we accept that argument, we're going to continue to move to the right with both parties, and the only way to avoid that move to the right was to vote for Nader. (I probably have notes somewhere.)

I think that's significant because many reporters in the major media are advocacy journalists themselves, but don't admit it.

I also think that's significant because it demonstrates that an advocacy journalist can produce better, more objective news than a New York Times or Washington Post reporter.

Can anybody give me a reason not to put it back in? Nbauman 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cgingold, why did you take out the part about giving both sides of the story? It's not unsourced -- if you follow the links, you'll see that they support that statement, giving both critics and supporters of the Israeli government. Nbauman 02:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Nbauman - First, check the edit history again, and you will see that that was removed by Jersey Devil -- hopefully, he will explain his reasons for that deletion. What I deleted was a completely different paragraph, which was (as I said) "unsourced opinion" -- iow, it was the anon. user's personal opinion, not appropriate for Wikipedia. In general, it is a bit tricky to describe certain aspects of Amy Goodman's approach to journalism -- things which are readily apparent to regular listeners. The only way to stay clear of personal opinion or original research is by judicious use of cited sources. Hope this helps a little. Cgingold 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think I see what you mean. I'm going to put it back in, for the reasons given above. If you want a source for "avowed standards of traditional balanced journalism", that would be A. Kent MacDougal's Interpretive Reporting, or Bernstein's Headlines and Deadlines. Nbauman 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The source given for "standards of traditional balanced journalism" is herself. Self-praise is not a hallmark of balance. Besides, this is pure POV: many do not consider her anywhere close to be neutral/balanced reporter, but rather a political activist. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the standard of traditional, balanced journalism does not come from Goodman herself. There are standards which are generally accepted by journalists Objectivity (journalism). If you like I can get you a specific quote. Any journalist, whatever their POV on other things, would look at the sources from Democracy Now! that I linked to and conclude that she meets that standard.
I didn't say she's neutral, nor does she claim to be neutral, nor is she neutral. I said she's balanced. I agree with you that she is a political activist, and she would agree too. Everyone, no matter what their POV, would agree that she's not neutral and that she's an activist. Even you agree. So what's the NPOV problem if I say so? Nbauman 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how "she's not neutral and that she's an activist" is compatible with "her reporting also follows the avowed standards of traditional balanced journalism". ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why I wrote that — because many people don't understand how non-neutral activists can nonetheless follow the standards of traditional balanced journalism, and Amy Goodman is important because she's an example of a reporter who can.
One of the most important standards of traditional balanced journalism, which she must have learned at Columbia journalism school, is to get both sides of the story, not just the one you agree with. In that link I gave, she interviewed a critic of the Israeli government, and also had a former Israeli ambassador on the air with them to rebut him.
For that matter, the Wall Street Journal isn't neutral, nor are most American newspapers, nor do they always claim to be. They support the U.S. in the war in Iraq. When a WSJ reporter in Afghanistan found an al-Qaeda laptop, he shared it with American intelligence. Yet, when the WSJ writes about the war in Iraq, they follow the standards of traditional balanced journalism, which many of their reporters learned at Columbia journalism school, along with Goodman.
Do you understand now how she can be an activist and still follow the standards of traditional balanced journalism? Nbauman 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope my just-added line in the intro section about Goodman refraining from interjecting her personal views on-air meets with approval -- I worded it as carefully as I could in hopes of keeping it NPOV.
I agree that the article should discuss Goodman's approach to journalism, and I also agree that she frequently invites people with opposing or contrasting viewpoints (though not always, to be sure). But as I suggested above, it's a complex issue that needs to be laid out carefully, with any conclusory judgements coming from cited sources, rather than reflecting our personal opinions on the matter. This is all the more true when it comes to the issue of "advocacy journalism", a term which is very much open to interpretation -- especially for the average reader with little or no background in journalism.
Cgingold 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Cgingold, thanks for the effort. OK, let's discuss it with some care. I agree it's complex and has to be laid out carefully. Let's do that.
It can be NPOV to describe someone as an advocacy journalist. You agree with that, don't you?
I think it's both NPOV and important to describe Goodman as both (1) an advocacy journalist who (2) follows the standards of balanced journalism (that they teach in Columbia journalism school and preach in the New York Times style book). This is a big debate in journalism (the NYT Public Editor wrote several columns about it recently), and she's on one side of it — which is as important as her particular politics.
I don't think it's correct to say that she refrains from interjecting her personal views. When she asks a government official, "Why are you continuing to give military aid to East Timor in view of their human rights violations?" that's interjecting her personal views. If you listen to the Bill Clinton interview, it's clear what her personal views on each issue is.
The advocacy journalists say that you should be upfront about your personal views — it's dishonest not to be. If you say she refrains from interjecting her personal views, that's actually accusing her of being dishonest.
The 2 things that distinguish Democracy Now! from similar news media are her politics and her style. Her style is advocacy journalism that beats the major media at their own game of traditional balanced journalism. I think that's important because it demonstrates to advocacy journalists that you can follow the journalism rules and still be effective.
I think we should call her an advocacy journalist and give a Wiki link to advocacy journalism. Read advocacy journalism. They characterize journalists as advocacy journalists with as much evidence as we have for Goodman. Nbauman 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In sensitive matters like that it is doubly important to WP:ATTRIBUTE our statements. From my limited experience, she interjects her personal views all the time, her choice of guests is peculiar (to put it mildly), her interview questions are loaded and suggestive, but I won't add this without attribution. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Humus sapiens, do you agree that Goodman is an advocacy journalist, as described in advocacy journalism? Nbauman 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if you agree, and I agree, and everybody else agrees, and nobody is likely to challenge it, then you should have no objection to including it in the entry. Nbauman 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do we proceed?

Ha! I told you this was going to be tricky! LOL

I knew somebody was probably going to take issue with my choice of words. But for reasons I can't explain rationally, I went through with it anyway (just to see what would happen, I suppose).

Well, it crossed my mind that I could discuss the (indisputable) fact that listeners can -- for the most part -- easily infer her views, and what she cares about, from the content of her questions and her priorities in terms of issues and guests. But that is not the same thing as directly interjecting her views in the way that the typical radio personality does. And, no, I do not agree that that amounts to accusing her of dishonesty. Don't be ridiculous. What Goodman does is, she makes a point of interjecting a lot of facts in her questions, in contrast with the softball, "fact-lite" approach favored by so many mainstream journalists. Unquestionably, the facts that she chooses to marshall are determined by her views & concerns -- just as they are for any other journalist.

At the same time, I am continually struck by the low key, generally restrained approach she maintains during the course of the program each day. This is even more apparent when you watch her utter lack of facial expression -- don't forget, the program is broadcast on television, too. (She would need to be subjected to some radical form of retraining & reprogramming before she could ever get hired by a mainstream tv network!)

Now, there have been exceptions -- most notably, I think, the Clinton interview, where she adopted something of a "take no prisoners" approach. But that was atypical -- probably because she had to wing it with no advance preparation, since it happened after she had just finished that day's Democracy Now! broadcast.

Both of these basic aspects of her on-air style & approach to journalism stand in stark contrast to her public speaking style. When she's giving an address to a room full of people, she doesn't observe the same constraints that she does when she's on-air. She holds forth freely & passionately on all the obvious issues, and most amazingly, she even shows signs of having a sense of humor!

Okay, so having said all of this, the problem is that hardly any of it could go into the article because it's mostly "Original Research" -- unless it's been written up and published in a reputable publication that can be cited.

I haven't even touched on the issue of advocacy journalism or the question of journalistic balance -- both of which are far more complex than has been alluded to so far here. Nbauman, I'm a little concerned about your eagerness to insert both of those assertions into the article. I happen to agree, in general terms, that Goodman can fairly be described as an "advocacy journalist", and that in many (though not all) cases she makes a serious effort to adhere to the standard, "balanced" model of journalism -- but that's not good enough.

The fact that you can make the case to your own personal satisfaction here on the talk page simply doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Any discussion of those issues in the article needs to be extensively sourced, and each requires a good deal of elaboration in order to convey the nuances & complexities. Otherwise, readers will simply substitute their own notions of what's meant by "balance" or "advocacy journalism".

I'm not by any means suggesting that these subjects should not be addressed in the article. I am simply saying that it needs to be done right. The first step is to find the sources and identify the specific passages that directly support every assertion. Otherwise, every statement is going to be torn to shreds. And bear in mind that, in discussing those issues, the article will need to reflect the views of critics as well as supporters. (I believe that's known as "balanced journalism". :)

Cgingold 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As a journalist myself I've learned a lot from listening to Amy Goodman, and I've recommended her techniques on journalists' email lists. I think everyone who wants to write about politics on the Internet should understand what she's doing. And I think her Wikipedia entry is a good place to explain it. And it can be done -- it can only be done -- in a NPOV way.
It would be a waste of time to fill an encyclopedia with a million and a half entries, each of which is a string of unconnected facts. One of the criteria for Wikipedia is importance. The entry has to convey some important ideas.
What's the important information about Goodman that makes this entry worth reading?
I think the most important information is the facts that illustrate why her work is good journalism.
The Internet has made everyone a journalist and a publisher. But now that they have that power, most people don't know how to use it effectively.
People write for Indymedia, for example, and are eyewitnesses to demonstrations on the ground, and see police brutality and crime that the New York Times doesn't print. But instead of writing about their own eyewitness experience that would captivate their readers, they write bullshit manifestos about corporate power that Chomsky already does better. Instead of interviewing people who understand what corporations are doing better than they do, they write their own term-paper ideas about corporations.
Goodman knows how to do good journalism. She learned it at Columbia journalism school. When I, as a journalist, listen to her interview people (and I've interviewed thousands of people, from friendly to hostile), I can see how she uses her training and experience to get important ideas across to her listeners. The most important journalism-school rule she follows, for example, is to get both sides of the story, and to confront the people on the other side with the ideas of the left (which Indymedia almost never does).
For example, the radio program This American Life once had a piece about some activist who was living in Europe, talked his way into a press conference, and had a chance to ask George H.W. Bush a question. The guy just stumbled something out about nuclear power and the environment, and Bush (who has been confronted with questions like that a hundred times) of course answered, "Yes, we are concerned about the environment, and that's why we're creating this agreement...." and completely disarmed the question. Most activists don't know how to ask questions like that, Goodman does, and journalists can learn a lot from listening to how she does it.
Instead of giving her own ideas (which she can do well enough) she lets other people speak for her. The most important thing I've learned from her recently is that I've noticed her pauses. She'll ask somebody a question and just wait. She waits a lot longer than I do. That's very effective.
Another thing she does is get two people from different sides together in a room and let them talk it out. She'll let the Israeli ambassador give his position. But she'll have Norman Finkelstein there to check the ambassador's facts point by point. She'll say, "Well, ambassador, what do you say to that?" And just wait.
Another thing she does is acknowledge the flaws of her "own" side. She was interviewing an animal activist who was going to jail. She asked him about the charges that the organization he was involved in was engaged in violence (which they were).
We can get everything we need to write the entry from Goodman's own works and from secondary sources on the Internet. Including her critics improves the story, and makes her case stronger, I think.
An encyclopedia is a kind of history, and history has a purpose. The most important purpose, I think, is to compile useful information. The useful information about Goodman is her politics and the techniques she uses to advance her politics. That's information Internet journalists can use. The school she went to, or the places she visited, or the effusive adjectives heaped on her by commentators, aren't useful unless they support that purpose.
If the entry doesn't get across a few clear, useful ideas, there's no point in writing it. I think that her politics, and the way she uses Columbia journalism school techniques of news reporting to advance her politics, are the clear, useful ideas that give a purpose to this entry. If you want to write this entry, go to the [Democracynow.org] web site and ask yourself what's important about Amy Goodman. Then start writing. Nbauman 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Nbauman, you've said a lot of things that I agree with. (Especially your comments about folks at Indymedia.) But there's one real problem, which basically comes down to a mismatch between what you are attempting to accomplish and the constraints imposed by Wikipedia's groundrules. Here it is in a nutshell:
"We can get everything we need to write the entry from Goodman's own works and from secondary sources on the Internet."
That would amount to Original Research par excellence. Very frustrating, to be sure -- but there's no getting around it. So unless we can locate published material that happens to describe & document the sorts of things that we want to put in this article, we're pretty much out of luck, as I see it. Cgingold 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paralyzed right side of face as of 10/1/07 DN! program

What's this about a stroke? Amy asked me to delete this section; it's not true. I'm delaying due to the principle of not having people edit their own pages, but I'll delete it unless someone explains. Mlc 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you know her personally, why not offer accurate information rather than just delete? Clearly something happened so what's the point of pretending otherwise? Ignore the malicious ass below. --76.193.164.168 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The debate is moot, since the anonymous editor 66.82.9.82 didn't give a source, and it must be deleted for that reason alone. It must also be deleted under wp:blp. Adding information based on personal knowledge would violate wp:nor.
66.82.9.82's Special:Contributions/66.82.9.82 other postings appear to be mostly vandalism and are often abusive. Nbauman 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the source would be her drooping face as seen on DN! 10/01/07. Mlc, Please offer more accurate information so the issue can be addressed in a specific manner. It is an innocent and newsworthy request.
Look at the consistent abuse in Special:Contributions/66.82.9.82. This is vandalism. If 66.82.9.82 posts that false, unsupported claim again, I'm going to get an admin to have his account blocked. Is there an admin following this? Nbauman 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you watch the show? It is neither false nor unsupported. Re-inserting. The account in question is a shared dynamic IP satellite internet account and does not represent my legitimate contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.15 (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007/oct/video/dnB20071001a.rm&proto=rtsp 69.19.14.15 05:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have re-inserted this information, with a source. Hopefully this will resolve the policy violations -- Bill Huston (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is true that Goodman said today that she had Bell's palsy, a temporary condition. I played it back on streaming video. I didn't see it in the show transcript. So 172.166.122.59 was correct.
However, she did not have a stroke. Making that claim without a source violated WP rules against WP:RS and WP:OR, both of which are enforced strictly in biographies of living people re WP:BLP Nbauman 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why Bell's palsy is significant enough to include in the entry. It's not life-threatening, like Dick Cheney's cardiovascular problems, which could kill him (and change the White House chain of command) at any time. It's not disabling, because it doesn't affect her voice (I hear her on the radio and I've never noticed it), unlike Diane Rehm, whose voice was affected by a minor neurological condition. It's purely cosmetic. I don't think she wants it in her entry, and under wp:blp we shouldn't include embarassing personal details unless there's a purpose.

I recommend deleting it, unless someone can give us a good reason for keeping it. My main objection is that it's frivolous and unimportant. Nbauman 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I for one came to this page to see whether there was mention of Ms. Goodman's facial problem, which I had seen but not heard explained like others here. It's not malicious, it's a stated fact confirmed by the host. When Ralph Nader had it he was up front with it, as was/is Diane Rehm of public radio with her verbal condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.95.233 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is totally ultra-PC behavior that some people want to pretend there is nothing wrong with her face. I saw a recent clip and the whole side of her face is paralyzed. Guess what? It happened and people want to know what happened. People who are trying to censor this information are completely misguided. JettaMann 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We're not trying to censor it, we're following the Wikipedia rules against original research.
When you watch the program, and draw your own conclusions based on your own observations, that's original research. You're not allowed, in Wikipedia, to do original research. This is a way of ensuring accuracy. There are many WP editors who monitor entries, especially biographies of living people, and remove original research.
You're free to include something about her face -- if you can find a reliable source to attribute it to. Nbauman 13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Now that you've got a reliable source, it will stay in. Nbauman 03:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Goodman is Jewish, but not religious.'

I don't see how Goodman being Jewish is in any way relevant to this article (especially since she isn't actively religious). I'm going to remove this statement as irrelevant - if someone wants to add it back, please provide some sort of argument why Goodman's Jewishness is worth mentioning. Terraxos (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodman describes herself as a secular Jew, a Jewish American, and the granddaughter of an Orthodox rabbi. She has relatives who died in the Holocaust and spent part of her youth in Israel.[1][2]
Whether or not she is actively religious depends on how you define "religious." Many Jews (including me) believe that following the Jewish religion means that you must fight for social justice.
But even if she isn't religous, she is still a secular Jew, and that is significant, because secular, progressive Jews also fight for social justice.
Her commitment to social justice affects the subjects of her reporting -- for example, in her coverage of Israel, and her interviews with progressive Jewish political activists like Michael Lerner, and her challenges to the Jewish establishment. It also affects the style of her reporting.
Goodman is an example of a prominent Jew who does not support the pro-settlement Israeli position. Many progressive Jews admire her, and conversely many right-wing Jews despise her, for that reason.
Because of her commitment to social justice, she challenges the claims of the corporate and political establishment, and defends the oppressed -- as in her coverage of New Orleans.
Many people whose relatives died in the Holocaust draw the lesson that they should fight to prevent anyone, Jewish or non-Jewish, from dying like that again.
Her news coverage regularly emphasizes international law and the U.S. Constitution. This reasonably reflects Jewish teaching of respect for law.
I wonder if you believe that any secular Jews should be identified as Jewish in Wikipedia. If so, what are your criteria? Albert Einstein wasn't a religious Jew either. I doubt that you will delete his Jewish identification from his WP entry. How about Emma Goldman?
Do these arguments satisfy you? If you have no objection, I'll put it back in. Nbauman (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood. She did a thesis for her BA at Harvard and she converted it to a series of articles. The thesis had to do with depo-povera.