Talk:Guerrilla News Network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. 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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale. | |
[edit] Criticism section
There really should be a section on criticism. GNN spends most of it's time in a constant maelstrom of arguments between it's members, half being an egomanical ruling class of veteran members, the others being anyone else, and anyone with the nerve to criticse in any small part GNN or one of those veteran members publically. The amount of bile and abuse thrown about is really quite staggering. It has less a sense of community than any site I have ever, and I mean EVER, encountered - you'd expect it of Stormfront, but not of a supposedly liberal and social minded site.
So far this article represents none of this. It's not hard to find criticism of GNN - half of all blogs and forum posts consist of nothing but it, followed by torrents of abuse from the establishment. Aggregate the general opinion of those discontent and represent them, that is what wikipedia is for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.74.130 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
- Unfortunately, forum and blog posts are not considered reliable sources, and thus we can't include anything from either source in articles. If you have verifiable sources criticizing GNN, point them out and it's certainly something that could be considered. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy section
I've taken the new rewrite live with this section removed because of sourcing problems. If someone can come up with a good, non-trivial reliable source for the accusations, this can certainly be moved into the main article - but only with sources.
In October 2006, a small group of GNN site members posted their beliefs that GNN is in fact an American intelligence disinformation operation.[1] Their statement suggests that editors and producers with the GNN have worked with groups such as the USIA and CIA, as well as with other organizations such as Israeli companies with ties to the military. The critics also stated that funding from the Ford Foundation, which had been tied to the CIA in the past, had been received for "American Blackout." GNN editors have denied the accusations as speculative, and suggest the accusers, most of whom have remained anonymous, are engaging in speculation and may be engaging in personal agendas.[citation needed]
What's "trivial" about the source of the accusations itself? The article cites most of its sources, and only its conclusions are disputable... Everything else, as far as I have seen, has been acknowledged as being true and accurate by both sides involved in this debate.
This just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
-CurtainCall29
- Please go and read the pages on verifiability and reliable sources regarding the need for verifiable, non-trivial secondary sources to be included in articles. The sources you provided were primary sources or reprints of the primary source. If/when a news outlet or other reputable outlet covers this item, then we'll have a good reference to use for this section. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Without going into all the myriad problems associated with these accusations, I think it might be helpful to just focus on the basic logic behind them. First off, they specifically claimed we were CIA. The "evidence" to back that up is that I once had a six week grant from USIA to help Palestinians learn how to shoot video. There is no evidence that I was recruited by the CIA, and if I was I certainly didn't know it. The simple fact that I worked for USIA is pretty weak to state I was recruited by the agency - especially when I've been forthcoming about the job for years. Then there is the accusation that Stephen's Nigerian radio show was allegedly called a CIA front by a former CIA connected dictator. The source for that accusation is Stephen himself, based on a conversation with one of his former partners years after the event. In other words, sketchy at best. Then there is the accusation that Ford is a CIA "front." There is evidence the CIA tried to influence the foreign "democracy" programs of various organizations during the Cold War, but there is no evidence that they are today. Again, these accusations were limited to foreign programs. And why would the CIA support American Blackout anway? It champions one of the agency's most vocal critics. Finally, there is the fact that Ian worked for a company whose CEO used to be in the Mossad. Again, so what? What is the connection? And if there was, where does the CIA come into this? In addition, how do the accusers explain the fact that the CIA is involved in overseas covert operations. The FBI handles domestic programs. So the entire premise, that we are CIA, is illogical. It was literally pulled out of thin air. If anything, we'd be an FBI program. But my intuition is that this sounds less sexy so they decided on the CIA. In other words, the accusers themselves are ill-informed at best, and paranoid fantasists at worst. Finally, what evidence is there to back up the explicit charge that we somehow seek to control people's minds and make them more "moderate"? Well, as I have shown this is plainly false. If you refer back to the previous posts I have provided examples to show how off-base the specific charges concerning 9/11, protests and "illegal action" are. On numerous issues, we simply have tried to show several sides to the story. It's called journalism. The other bizarre implication of the accusations is that we are somehow "pro-Israel," when if you take two seconds to do a search on our site, you'll find exclusively critical articles and blogs about Israel's policies, including exclusive dispatches from Lebanon. Anyway, I hope this helps. I apologize if I'm being repetitive. Please contact me directly if you have any other questions. AL - GNN
