Talk:Kenneth Tomlinson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
It seems like this page is entirely devoted to some kind of investigation into Kenneth Tomlinson's activities at PBS. Most of the writing in the article seems highly POV, especially the sentence with the citation leading to Newshounds. Newshounds is such a POV source that I was surprised to find it linked in a wikipedia article. While one may claim that it is only cited to show the kind of accusations being aimed at Tomlinson, it would be better to use a source that is so entirely biased that they could not be trusted to investigate any issue in a NPOV manner. --lborchardt 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.137.30 (talk)
-
- Lborchardt: Tomlinson would probably not merit an entry were it not for his controversial activities at PBS. The remainder of your comment has been the subject of previous discussions, please read them below. Cronos1 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
oh boy, now he gone and done it. running a horse racing operation out of his office. not too smart, kenny boy. [1]
Accusation of Tomlinson turning PBS into a Fox-like right wing network: http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/25/kenneth_tomlinson_wants_pbs_to_get_foxed.php
& another:
http://prorev.com/2006/11/ken-tomlinson-fails-to-make-it-past.htm
- I'm not certain about those refs. Newshounds looks like a blog, so its reliability is questionable. The prorev.com ref links to the WaPo (why not link to that, rather than to the bloggy and questionable "prorev.com?"), which is a reliable source, but it only talks about the horse-racing operation[2]—not any ideological efforts on Tomlinson's part.
- I think it's likely that Tomlinson did intend to Foxify PBS, but you'll need better links if you're going to publish that in the article.--RattBoy 11:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- The issue is not whether Tomlinson intended to Foxify PBS, but whether critics levelled that specific charge as stated in the article. I provided two examples. I'm sure there are many others. I am not 'publishing' that in article, just reverting to the version which included the phrase that was edited out. Moreover, I believe the charge, erroneous or not, belongs in the article to provide context. Cronos1 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Here's a 'non-blog' citation (tho, I don't really think blogs are automatically disqualified) its an op-ed from Broadcasting & Cable, a Television Trade Journal:
-
"When he uses terms like "fair and balanced" in talking about what PBS should be, it is understandably seen as code guaranteed to evoke charges of the "Foxification" of PBS and raise alarm bells with liberals and moderates, as well as with viewers who just don't care about a political agenda at all."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA621465.html?display=Opinion
Cronos1 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There has been another attempt to remove the 'Foxification' charge. This was a charge levelled at KT; it is relevant to the article regardless of whether the charge itself is accurate. If someone wishes to cite KT supporters or other critics who reject the 'Foxification' charge, that would be appropriate, but charge should remain. The WSJ editorial board is well known for being 'conservative', this aspect of the statement should remain. Cronos1 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
One of two things needs to happen. The sentence with the FOX statement needs to be changed, because it's confusing. From my viewpoint, it sounds as if the charge is simply being made that Fox is right wing, not that critics claim it's right wing. So, it either needs to be rewritten to clarify that or it needs to be removed, especially considering the source is Newshounds- a far left blog, which I think is safe to assume doesn't fit as a legit source.
- Please sign your comments. The offending phrase (which I did not write) is 'accusations that he was attempting to turn the balanced content to a right wing agenda similar to FOX television', is the explicitly expressed in the criticisms. If you wish to rewrite, fine. If you do not wish to be revised, you should write it in such a way that conveys the critics charge that KT's efforts were to make the station like Fox News and that the critics think this is an unbalanced Right Wing presentation of the news. Your description of 'Newshounds' as a far left blog would make some think you are coming from a far right POV. There is another source listed above which make this same charge (which can easily be substituted for the Newshounds citation), you may question what end of spectrum the criticisms come from, but you would need to provide some documentation to justify inclusion in the article, if you do not wish to be revised, that is.Cronos1 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
