Talk:Press TV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Press TV is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

1 Press TV on Current Events
2 Request for Wiki third-opinion
3 Criticisms???
4 Link to new French and German articles
5 Please be vigilant for edits by User: Perspicacite
6 Similarity with the BBC
7 Using the word independent in the block
8 Just to review...
9 Michael Petrou article
10 Fair use rationale for Image:PRESSTV LOGO.gif
11 MAKING AN OUT REACH IN NIGERIA
12 Propaganda in this article
13 Criticisms?????

[edit] Press TV on Current Events

Editors here may be interested that some users believe Press TV cannot be referenced on Current events page. See Discussion here: [1] ... Seabhcan 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Wiki third-opinion

Dear Wikipedia,

I am trying to update the article for Press TV, but user Perspicacite prevents me from adding a list of programs. I'm trying to add entries describing four programs hosted on Press TV. The programs are: (1) The American Dream - A news commentary program hosted by Mark Levine in the United States. (2) Four Corners - A news commentary program. (3) Middle East Today - A news commentary program hosted by Shahab Mossavat. (4) Between the Headlines - A review of the day's headlines hosted in the United Kingdom.

In addition, he insists that the top of the article say the network is funded and run by Iran, even though this is uncited and contradicted by cited sources in the article. Press TV is funded by the government in the same way as is the BBC, but it is not run by the government as described in the vision section.

I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to stop Perspicacite. Please advise.

Sincere thanks. --Vitalmove 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You can view the channel by typing this into your internet explorer mms://217.218.67.244/presslive , if you would like to view the channel before providing an opinion. --Vitalmove 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion - Initiated

As your additions seem to be a little controversial, everything added should be cited for reliable sources. If it's reliably cited, there can be no argument, unless there are opposing sources, in which case both verified facts can be included. I'll check back here to see what you have to say. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which edit is controversial? I made two edits. My first edit was to add the names of four programs and their hosts. The second edit was to remove Perspicacite's uncited claim that the station is run by Iran. In the article you see a cited source explaining the station is funded by Iran (like the BBC is funded by the UK's government) but run independently. I also made some minor edits (removing spaces, linking Yvonne Ridley's name to her Wikipedia entry.) --Vitalmove 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is nothing on the IHT link that suggests that the government exerts editorial control. There is nothing about it being independent either. So the comparison to the BBC should not stay, as it might be misleading. Hornplease 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where in the IHT article does it say Iran exerts editorial control over the station? I'm not sure if you have read the Press TV Wikipedia entry yet, but it has a section devoted to the station's funding and management, which quotes the station's head (with citation.) That source also notes the similarity to the BBC's funded but not managed by the government structure. --Vitalmove 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should include some bit of a intro in the "programs" section. Perhaps it might seem as though adding four shows to the program list is uncontroversial, but ideally, no information should be added to wikipedia without being sourced. So while the majority of edits do not include sources (including many of my additions), citing sources would undoubtedly strengthen your claims to vandalism, as unsourced material may be removed at any time. Try finding some website or program guide to substantiate your claims that these programs do in fact appear on the station. Please don't get me wrong...I'm not saying they are objectively controversial...I'm just giving you some suggestions, as you asked for, to protect your edits. Hope all is well, as I see your edits restored and your co-editor has not reverted them (yet). Good-day. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add sources for the shows eventually. I assume there is no doubt these shows exist. You can confirm their existence by watching the channel, either via satellite or the internet stream. mms://217.218.67.244/presslive

Please also point out any statements in the article which are uncited or controversial.--Vitalmove 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okie...here are some suggestions on generating an improved article:

Press TV has stated three mission statement:

Source this.

Here: [2]Please add it as a citation.--Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy makers of Press TV believe that since the 9/11 attacks, the world's media had divided into two camps: On the one side was the perspective offered by Western media, while the other side (al-Jazeera) was pro-Taleban and pro-al-Qaeda. The stated mission of PRESS TV is to offer a different view, unlike Al-Jazeera and western media (such as BBC and CNN)

This paragraph is a bit confusing. The first sentence suggests that there are two camps, inhabited by the west and AJ, respectively. The next sentence asserts that the objective of Press TV i to offer a "different view, unlike AJ and the west." This last sentence is a non-sequitor, as it contends that Press TV offers this "different" view, in contrast to these other two, who you state 'do not offer different views,' yet it is not made clear what 'different views' are. It could also be interpreted that AJ and the west are not offering different views of each other, which is not true, as per the first statement. Thus, if you you mean to say is that "Press TV will offer a third perspective, either between the two polarized camps, or unrelated to the two camps," what is written doesn't necessarily convey that message with clarity.

I didn't write that paragraph, but I'm going to leave it alone. I thought it was clear and well written, but thank you for your opinion. It's sourced here [3] If you want you can add some of the quotes from that article. --Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Like other nationally funded news networks, such as the BBC, Press TV is funded by the government.

Source this (and perhaps be a bit clearer as to which government -- your mention of the BBC may lead to some believing that the British government might be involved, in that perhaps this is similar to the BBC not only in government but in which government)...

It's stated in the interview linked at the end of the paragraph. It's also sourced here [4], which you can add if you want. If you want further proof of the BBC's government funding (very common knowledge in the UK) you can google the words BBC government funding for thousands of links.--Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Sarafraz, head of the new channel, said most of Press TV's 30 journalists were non-Iranians, and included many Britons as well as Americans.

...and this.

It's sourced in the interview noted above and the station's website. --Vitalmove 04:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As for your suggestion that the reader substantiate your as of yet uncited, unverifiably confirmed information him or herself is, as per policy, this is an unsuitable proposal -- the burden of verifiability lies on the contributing editor, not the guy who can watch the show and see for himself what is and what is not in the program. Clearly, every reader can confirm any statement by researching the topic or interviewing a celebrity him or herself, but that's not how Wikipedia works. I hope you do not get discouraged. I remember when I first joined Wikipedia, and everything I did seemed wrong and I was almost reverted out of existence. People were sarcastic to me too, but no one suggested that I change my user name...haha!! I'm still here, and I hope you stick around, too. PS - perhaps putting some info, a picture, a little something on your user page will make it seem like you're a bit seasoned and not a push-over -- your non-linking user name every time you post gives you away as a new user. Please don't hesitate to drop me a line whenever. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this seems to violate the common sense rule. You can easily watch the shows to verify their existence - I obviously didn't make the shows up. The fundamental rule on Wikipedia is to use common sense, if I recall correctly. Also, although the station is only a few days old, I'm sure eventually there will be other articles on the shows which can be cited. --Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the second part of your paragraph before writing my entry. Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't want to turn into a Wikipediaer. All I wanted to do was to add a little to the Press TV article, but now it's taken up way too much of my time. Wikipedia needs to make it easier to add information to articles.--Vitalmove 05:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia as an entity can do anything. The forum has been established...and people have picked it up and ran. It is now whatever they make of it. In a sense, they, me (and even you) are Wikipedia. It's like an election. In a comprehensively large one, and especially one with an electoral collage, one vote wil rarely if ever make a difference, and anyone who denies this is simply delusional, but the many delusions put together end up with a resolution based on the majority of voters. Although one voice here is very little, and it may seem like one can never accomplish anything, one would be surprised at how much one contributor can add. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms???

All news agencies/tv stations get things wrong, and in a world where opinions collide and where there is no official bias to a story, it is against guidelines to call such things as criticisms. Isn't it ironic to source a criticism with a citing from a rival and opposite winged news source? E.g. using an article from a news outlet against anothers? There is a wikipedia policy against such writings. I will digg it out.

To close the case, in retrospect, criticisms on news based media sources such as PressTV according to Wikipedia are meant to be on continuing problems, not something that occurs once or twice and is news in origin. E.g. If someone reports to the BBC or PressTV Michael Jackson has cut his nose off, which later turns out to be wrong, and the news channels decide to broadcast this as true, cannot be a base for criticism. Now BBC may take longer than PressTV to report the untrue/errorenous report, but neither is to be criticized on here based on the aforementioned.

The world of news changes every second and what might be right today may be wrong tomorrow. Stop unfairly bullying PressTV, the western media moguls have far more karma on their back than anyothers put together. Cut the slack, its about time someone somewhere brought a breathe of fresh air in the world of news, as people are drowning in the dumbed down pro-Israeli news channels in the Western World. Thank You PressTV for allowing me to see the world from a real angle. Watching you for 10 minutes, I learn more than watching CNN for a whole week. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to new French and German articles

Dear english-speaking editors,

I just created french and german versions of this article, taking the minimum, *not-yet-controversal* content as a baseground. I hope it will create a nucleus for further contributions. Please add the links to this english version if you are an administrator, or switch the article in semi-protection so I can do it myself. The links are:

de:Press TV fr:Press TV

BTW, dear admins, when do we get a single multi-language user in wikipedia ;)

Regards,

89.48.253.194 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please be vigilant for edits by User: Perspicacite

About a month ago, this user prevented me from expanding the article. I was trying to add a list of shows and a funding and management section, both of which he repeatedly deleted. I requested a 3PO, and discussed the issues with an admin. However, when the admin invited perspicacite to discuss he refused [5]. He responded by wiki-stalking me. The examples of wiki-stalking are described here. [6]The article was locked to prevent further edits. Eventually it was unlocked and he has gone back to deleting the funding & management section and deleting the list of shows - see his edits on August 3 [7] and August 5 [8]. I have reported him to WP:ANI. --Vitalmove 18:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity with the BBC

This network's funding is not explained. For this reason, I think it's inappropriate to say that it's like the BBC or claim that it has independence like the BBC. The BBC's independence is clearly explained by its corporate structure, but all of these citations seem to merely assert that the network is and will be independent. We need something better than that to put it matter-of-factly in the lead block, I think. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to limit this discussion to one thread. See the original discussion below. --Vitalmove 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using the word independent in the block

If you look at the BBC's Wikipedia article, you will see that they have both ownership by the government, and independence, in the block. Since the BBC article mentions its independence in the block, the Wikipedia article should be allowed to do the same. Shouldn't it? --Vitalmove 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources seem to be self-descriptions, so I think we should leave it out of the main block until a third party authority confirmed actual independence. Actually, I didn't mean to revert that change. You had added it in since I started editing, and I didn't want to remake the same style tweaks. Incidentally, I think there's no reason to source the BBC funding. It's obvious, and the link might give the erroneous impression of synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's impossible. There is no independent third party which grants the seal of "independence" to a station. Every news station, whether the BBC, Fox News, NY Times, WSJ is alleged to be biased in some way. This seems like a simple matter of fairness. The BBC has the word independent in its block. Also, the BBC's ownership & independence sentence is near the bottom of its block. So shouldn't Press TV get the same treatment? --Vitalmove 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The independence of this station will be controversial, so we need an explanation for it; a third-party evaluation. The BBC's independence arises from it's trust fund and separate directors. PRESS TV's corporate structure is not apparent like the BBC. Cool Hand Luke 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The BBC's indepdendence is also controversial and is a topic in the United Kingdom. Here are two stories I googled in only a minute. [9] [10]. --Vitalmove 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Insofar that the BBC's independence is controversial, it should not be flatly asserted in the lead block there. That does not excuse the line here. You'll notice that the BBC lead only says it's an independent corporation. That's different from editorial independence. The corporate structure of this network is entirely unclear, so any analogy to the BBC is inappropriate. Cool Hand Luke 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I know of corporate law and a corporate structure is by no means proof of independence. Corporations are very easily controlled by the people who fund them (the shareholders.) The BBC requires annual government funding to survive. If you want to take independence out of the BBC article then that is fair. This is a minor disagreement any way. I think we are generally in consensus. --Vitalmove 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to leave this alone, and keep independent out of the block. Thank you for the discussion. --Vitalmove 19:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A press agency should be considered independent, unless proof otherwise, not vice versa, we do not assume the worst of the subject. As for proper citation, Vitalmove, you should attempt to find a single source that says PressTV is independent, and you will be all set. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just to review...

Consensus: Press TV is unreliable and not independent. Why are we still debating this? Perhaps we could get the opinion of the editors who already commented on this? Zntrip, TheDJ, Tbeatty... Perspicacite 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That was not a discussion as you wiki-stalked me [11] and if I recall correctly, you also targeted another person's username. Even Zntrip abandoned you. [12] With all due respect, you make me very uncomfortable. --Vitalmove 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are either under the impression that I am incapable of posting diffs you believe I am too lazy to contact other users. Either way, it really makes no difference. I'll remind you again of the WP:3RR rule. Perspicacite 19:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to get at above is that the BBC is at least corporately independent from the government. We cannot even claim that here: the only thing suggesting independence is PRESS TV's own assertions of independence. The network also positions itself as being some sort compromise between the BBC and Al Jazeera, but I think this language should be removed from the article. Most sources seem to find the network less credible and independent than Al Jazeera. See e.g. this editorial and this quote that implies Iran launched Press TV because Al Jazeera was "too neutral" on the Middle East. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I described above, corporate independence is an illusion. Corporations are not independent of their shareholders in any way. I know of corporate structure. Google BBC independence and you will find hundreds of articles calling it into question, two of which I linked above. --Vitalmove 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That editorial is from the weekly standard. The comment under the article summarizes the absurdity of their position when it states "Oh no! Iran has been using the same one-sided, shameless propaganda tactics as FOX! That's SO unfair. Could anything be more hilarious then the Weakly Standard complaining of the lack of a "foundation of media objectivity" in Iranian TV? Posted by roger_inkart at 10:39 AM : Jul 30, 2007"

Re: the quote about Al-Jazeera being too neutral. Press TV has come out and said that Al-Jazeera is too close to (neutral with) the Taliban/Al-Qaida.

The problem is, as described in the discussion above that every press organization is viewed as biased by some group. There is no such thing as a perfectly independent press agency. My question for you is, why are you only targetting the Press TV news agency's article? --Vitalmove 20:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias and media independence are completely different things. You wanna self-revert any time soon? Perspicacite 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a false dichotomy intended to perpetuate, rather than resolve, a dispute. It doesn't add anything to the discussion but ill will. As noted in my multiple ANI complaints against you for stalking and cyber-bullying, your style make me very uncomfortable. --Vitalmove 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You know I was going to be nice and ignore your violation, but since you continue to resort to personal attacks I'm going to see this through. Perspicacite 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Cool Hand Luke 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to own the article. That's why I'm discussing it with you. --Vitalmove 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't ask others to quit contributing to the article. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but he shouldn't just revert everything back to his last edit. Also, I have a disturbed history with this person, which I describe in a cyber-stalking ANI complaint linked earlier. Don't worry about it though. --Vitalmove 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'm not claiming that the BBC is free of bias, just that they have one easily verifiable measure of independence (corporate independence), which is all that article asserts that they have. This network seems to have no verifiable independence in any matter whatsoever. Surely when the BBC article only claims corporate independence, this article can't claim independence itself on no reliable sources. This is a controversial subject, and I think the section should deal with it, but we should leave sweeping conclusory sentences out of the lead block.

Your interpretation of Al Jazeera's "neutrality" appears to be original research. It's clear from the context of the article that Al Jazeera is being criticized for not having enough of a Middle Eastern bias. Al-Qaida is not mentioned in the article, and Variety is more of a reliable source than a self-reported PRESS TV release. To clarify, I'm not saying that the article should say that PRESS TV is biased, just that the material in relation to Al Jazeera seems to be self-serving promotion among other things. Cool Hand Luke 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your desire to not put "independent" in the block. Are you saying that the journalists own claims of independence should be removed from the article? One of the journalists, Mark Levine, goes to great lengths to assert that he is independent and not censored. It's cited under the "funding & independence" section. Are we supposed to listen to the Weekly Standard's opinion, over that of someone actually working for the station?

"It's clear from the context of the article that Al Jazeera is being criticized for not having enough of a Middle Eastern bias." There is no indication, in the Variety article, of what Al-Jazeera neutrality is being discussed. Since Press TV has previously criticized Al-Jazeera for being pro-Al Qaida/Taliban, the only conclusion is that Press TV here too is discussing their neutrality towards Al Qaida. I challenge you to find one source stating that Press TV ever said Al-Jazeera was too pro-western. Not to beat this to death, but "Mr Sarafraz said Press TV would offer an unbiased view, unlike al-Jazeera, which he said had supported the Taleban and the regime of Saddam Hussein." [13] That article goes on to state that Press TV views Al-Jazeera as being on the polar opposite side of western media. "Since the 9/11 attacks in the US in 2001 the world's media had divided into two camps, he said. On the one side was the perspective offered by Western media, while the other was pro-Taleban and pro-al-Qaeda, Mr Sarafraz said."--Vitalmove 21:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked at that. You're right about their stance toward Al-Jazeera. The Variety quote is very ambiguous, like you point out. The thing that bothers me about the article is that it's almost entirely composed of their own assertions: their POV about Al-Jazeera, their supposed goals, their purported independence. I just think it reads too much like a press release. If I have time, I'll look into finding some more third-party sources. Cool Hand Luke 21:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but please keep in mind that every news agency is alleged to be biased, or controlled, by some group. If you're interested in exposing media bias, then please consider doing it for more than just Press TV. By the way, I don't doubt that some reporters on Press TV have a pro-Iranian bias (they're Iranian after all.) I hope you don't think I'm presenting them as perfectly neutral. I just think things like Press TV are a very important tool with which people can learn about other perspectives, and thus gain the whole picture. I enjoy watching their shows and you might want to check them out (they have a free interenet stream on their website.) You might be surprised.--Vitalmove 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Most news source articles discuss their alleged biases at length; if I'm interested in "exposing" media bias, this is the article that needs the most work. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true. For example CNN [14]Fox News [15] and BBC [16]. Maybe just add a criticism section and link to the Weekly Standard article. --Vitalmove 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Petrou article

Cool Hand Luke added criticism of Press TV from this article. [17] That's fine. As we agreed earlier all TV station articles have a criticism section.

However, this particular article goes on to say "Only five days after launching, Press TV invited me to take part in a televised panel discussion about journalism in the Middle East. I argued that the biggest challenge facing journalists in the region is a lack of freedom and cited, among other examples, the case of Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photojournalist who was raped, tortured and murdered by Iranian officials after she was arrested for taking photographs outside the Evin prison in Tehran. To his credit, the host and chief press officer, Shahab Mossavat, did not interrupt or silence me. He called my comments "offensive" to Iran but pointed out that I was given free rein to say what I wished by Press TV. He then steered the conversation toward obstacles confronted by journalists in Israel."

Thus the author demonstrates that Press TV let him criticize the Iranian government, which contradicts his prior claim that Press TV censors content. If we're going to add the parts of the article which criticize Press TV, shouldn't we add one sentence about how the article also praised Press TV? What do you think?--Vitalmove 23:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the Petrou article to be the most knowledgeable critique of PRESS TV so far because he is a journalist (Maclean's is Canada's largest news magazine) and because he's actually spoken on the network. He seems skeptical that a truly free channel can exist in Iran—that's the whole point of the article—they might let him speak as a guest, but the network does not cover domestic turmoil well. I think citing to this as an example of freedom would be undue weight on this part of the article. Perhaps it would be better to use the LA Times article that says the network has surprised some viewers. "Reports include relatively neutral updates on violence in the Middle East and Iraq, as well as on noncontroversial subjects such as an art gallery in Tehran or living conditions for Muslims in Russia." Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PRESSTV LOGO.gif

Image:PRESSTV LOGO.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAKING AN OUT REACH IN NIGERIA

It has been interesting watching Press tv all these days. The problem we face in this part of the woreld is that most of your programs do not cover this place. I just want to let you know that we Nigerians are highly in support of Press tv and its bold fit in revealing things that are secret. Over the years now CNN has been feeding us wrongly and now we wish you to continue your good program. WE LIKE YOU! From Agbomah Onyeka Festus, Agbomahonyeka@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.119.165 (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda in this article

The part about Propaganda in Somalia has serious issues. It's sounds like it was written by someone who supports Ethiopia and the TFG. I'll give you some examples.

The Iranian media's Somali reporters are widely believed to be Shabelle Media Network reporters whose license was revoked years ago by the Somalia government after the government accused them of reporting extreme bias in favor of the insurgents and the insurgent leadership based in Asmara, Eritrea

This is wrong and anybody who has been keeping tabs on Somali news can tell you. The government is anti-Press. They have attacked Shabelle offices and looted from them after Shabelle reported news that weren't flattering to the government. There was an outcry internationally by freedom of press activist.

The second example is linking to Africanpath. Just checking around the guy whos article has been linked is very Pro-Eithiopia and he even denies the human rights violations that occured in the Ogaden region.

Oh and the worst part of it all is this.

After Somalia arrested and extradited members of the ONLF in May 2008, Press TV made up stories that civilians were extradited instead.

First of all there is no Somalia. The Puntland was behind the arrests and the extraditions. The people arrested WERE civilians. The first batch were non-fighting members of the ONLF. The second batch were Ethiopian Somalis who fled from the Somali Region during the Governments crackdown.

Also I can't find any evidence of a BBC photo being reused. The only picture I see in PressTV article linked is a woman crying.

One last thing before I leave. This part should be cut out. Iran was one of the few countries that the UN Security council accused of arming and supporting that Islamic Courts Union group that threatened jihad on Ethiopia.

That came from the same report that Iran was buying Uranium from Somalis,Somalis fought Israelis in the Lebanon. The report which has been discredited a long time ago. Furious Stormrage (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

please leave it for now... The whole part points out that those are Ethiopian allegations, and thus its NPOV. All allegations can stay, but it must be written that it's only an allegation. Then we do no harm. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

oh, I didn't see a couple of things: I will remove the unsourced claims AND the thing regarding the BBC photo usage. That may be not propaganda, just an error.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms?????

All news agencies/tv stations get things wrong, and in a world where opinions collide and where there is no official bias to a story, it is against guidelines to call such things as criticisms. In addition, Isn't it ironic to source a criticism with a citing from a rival and opposite winged news source? E.g. using an article from a news outlet against anothers? There is a wikipedia policy against such writings. I will digg it out.