Talk:Democracy Now!

Lannan Foundation, Ron Glaser & Air America

"At least $350,000 in grant money has been accepted by Democracy Now! since 2001 from the Lannan Foundation that was set up by the family of former ITT board member J. Peter Lannan. Over $100,000 in grants have also been given to Democracy Now! It's done by former Microsoft VP and Real Networks CEO Rob Glaser's Glaser Progress Foundation in recent years."

Can we have a reference for these numbers? -plaus

"Glaser was also a major investor in the financially ailing Air America radio network."

I've removed this bit, it's something for an article about Ron Glaser or Air America, it's unrelated to DN. -plaus

Is "Democracy Now!" an American leftist or progressive alternative radio or television program

Concening our back-and-fourth in Alternative media (U.S. political left), I thought it would be best if we discuss whether Democracy Now! meets the criteria to be listed. You asked me to move the discussion to the DN talk page, so I did. It seems to me that the critera to be met are being:
1. American media

• From Wikipedia's Democracy Now! article, "Democracy Now! is an hour-long American TV, radio and internet news program," meeting the criteria for American, radio, and television.

2. Alternative media:

• From Wikipedia's Alternative Media article, "These media disseminate marginalized viewpoints, such as those heard in the progressive news program Democracy Now!..."
• Democracy Now! is listed by Kathleen D. Rickert, a reference librarian at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, Minnesota, in "Media and Democracy: Resources for alternative news and information," published by The Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association in College & Research Libraries News Vol 72, No 1 (2011). This indicates that democracy now is considered an alternative news resource.

3. Progressive/leftist:

• From Wikipedia's Progressivism in the United States article, "In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice."
• From Wikipedia's American Left article, "Leftist activists in the United States have been credited with advancing social change on issues such as labor and civil rights, civil liberties,[3] peace, feminism, LGBT rights, minimum wage and environmentalism, as well as providing critiques of capitalism."
• From Wikpedia's Democracy Now! article, "[Democracy Now!] combines news reporting, interviews, investigative journalism and political commentary with an eye toward documenting social movements, struggles for justice and the effects of American foreign policy." and "[Democracy Now! is] described as progressive by fans as well as critics..."
• Democracy Now! is linked to three times in Wikipedia's Progressive talk radio article.

Given the evidence, it is my opinion that the answer to the above question is yes. If you believe there are additional criteria to be met or that Democracy Now! does not meet these critera, please explain.
The main article for DN does claim that it is "progressive" and it is generally considered leftist by political bias rating websites. The reason I don't cite political bias rating websites is because I don't consider them reliable sources. Alternative media like DN might shy away from labels such as "leftist" and "progressive", but I doubt DN could be categorized as centrist, right-wing, extremist, or third-way. I don't know where I would look for a "reliable" claim that DN is leftist. Many of the media Doug Weller removed are described as "progressive" in their parent articles. Common Dreams and TruthOut, both described as "progressive" were removed. The top article in Common Dreams as of the time I write this is https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/30/ignoring-climate-threat-and-economic-realities-trump-brags-about-building-fleet-lng and for Truthout is https://truthout.org/articles/graduate-student-workers-organize-against-sexual-harassment-on-campus/. Issues of combating sexual harassment via campus activism, being anti-trump, and climate change are considered issues of the left in the US. I don't want to cite a Quora article, and although Allsides and MediaBiasFactCheck rate DN as leftist, I am unsure if they count as reliable. --Talib1101 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It all boils down to the fact that we can't make our own judgements as that would be original research which editors aren't allowed to do. I agree with you entirely about those media bias websites. Our articles aren't reliable sources and sadly too many of them don't comply with policy and guidelines. Our criteria for this should be WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

here's a couple sources עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Well, that AllSides thing sure is interesting. Their "About" page reveals nothing at all about who funds them, what they do, how they do it, who runs it, etc. No mention of editorial oversight, or an editorial board. Is it really a site where you can vote on whether you agree with some assessment? That makes it user-generated content, perfectly unacceptable, and in this case the rating is modified by "Confidence Level: Low or Initial Rating". So you don't have a couple of sources--you have at most one. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

here's another one with a chart rating most news sources עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

BTW my fingers are itching to remove that "Notable guests, interviews, and on-air debates" stuff. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would classify it more as an opinion show, as they only give one side air time on issues.American Zionist (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The criticism section has piss poor sourcing.

Dissident Voice, Black Agenda Report and Resumen are not reliable sources, They are Assadists, Who believe that the chemical attacks in Syria are false flags, Editor of Black Agenda Report Ajamu Baraka was revealed to have been paid $120,000 dollars by the Syrian government. [1] Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because you dislike the people the article sources doesn't make them unreliable. There should be a list somewhere of sources that are generally considered unreliable, are those three on that list? I would be all for rewording with different sources if the sources are the problem, but come on, you can't just blank an entire criticism section for Democracy Now, it's very suspect when taken in conjunction with your other edits.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial sources lists all the sources that the community has considered to be reliable or unreliable. Unfortunately, none of those sources are on that list. So I suggest you ask at WP:RSN for other eyes to give them a look and an assessment. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sources and they are not barred from use in Wikipedia. The sources have a political view (just as does Democracy Now!) and that political view is not any indication whatsoever of incorrect facts. The statements the sources make are cross referenced and fact checked. Jaydoggmarco, you are attacking sources instead of content. If you are going to remove content, you need to explain how the content itself is not factual. You did not do so. Here is the section, please explain how any of its sources' factual claims are incorrect:

Removed Criticism section

In 2017, Democracy Now! was criticized by anti-war organization Veterans for Peace Chapter 162, and subsequently in news reports by independent news outlets Black Agenda Report and Resumen Latinamericano who reported that Democracy Now! newscasts on Syria had strayed from the program's progressive roots in a way that supported U.S. interventionist politics. Black Agenda Report has since published reports criticizing Democracy Now! on similar grounds regarding its reporting on Libya, Nicaragua and China. The watchdog group SourceWatch has collated similar criticisms of Democracy Now! made previous to 2017, including critiques of its reporting on Pakistan and its treatment of interns. --142.254.114.23 (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit war in Criticism section between Jaydoggmarco and 141.126.156.55

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Hello @Jaydoggmarco: and @141.126.156.55:,

I've noticed that there is an edit war in Criticism between Jaydoggmarco (talk) and 141.126.156.55 (talk).

This has already gone beyond the three-revert rule. As Dr. Swag Lord stated,

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I implore both of you to completely cease editing this page before you are blocked from editing, as Lard Almighty warned.

I've noticed that the Jaydoggmarco has been accused of edit warring both on January 2021 as well as July 2021. This seems to constitute a pattern of disruptive behavior. Well I'm the user may have the best of intentions, blocks are preventative, not punitive.

141.126.156.55, meanwhile, is not logged in to a Wikipedia account. Please make one, as it could help improve communication, and will prevent your entire IP address from being blocked, which would also prevent others on your network from editing Wikipedia. Please consider creating an account.

I'd like to ask both of you to talk it out here. It's possible some sources in the section are reliable and others are not, so it's not necessarily true we need to either keep or remove the section in its entirety. I believe this edit war could be fueled in part by political biases. Please stop before you are banned.

Sincerely, Talib1101 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I just saw this right after I reverted. Jaydoggmarco blanked an entire section with the rational of "piss poor sourcing". It seems to me that due to his other edits (one of them concerning deleting a category to "pander to trumpers and anti-vaxxers" in his own words. It seems to me that Jaydoggmarco based on his edits is running afoul of WP:AGENDA. I also feel like it's straight up vandalism to blank an entire section, ESPECIALLY a criticism section of a political party of which he belongs. Again, I JUST saw this after reverting, but will refrain from doing so again.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: This [[2]] is the edit I was referring to in the above statement. There is also this thread [[3]] that I could not link because the exact edit is crossed/greyed out, but Jaydoggmarco says and I quote ""Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot" Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke)." Taken as a whole this is extremely problematic.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Amy Goodman is not a Democrat, The section has very poor sourcing from self published conspiracy theorist sites. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about you editing trying to push your own political viewpoint in the articles you revert/blank. The sources are just fine and are not labeled in Wikipedia as unreliable. So it's your opinion versus three sources.141.126.156.55 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• • Hello all, apologies for the late arrival to the discussion. I am the original author of the 'Criticism' section that has now been repeatedly removed. (Note: On the subject of my creating an account, there is no need as I am the only user at this IP address, so I prefer to remain anonymous.)
  • On the section and the edits themselves, I originally wrote the 'Criticism' section years ago because I was aware that legitimate, verifiable, criticisms of Democracy Now! exist and are widespread enough to warrant being mentioned (just as countless other Wikipedia entries mention such criticisms of other subjects or public figures). Over the years, various automatic flags and requests for changes of the section have come forward and I have meticulously re-edited the section to address those concerns. The current text remained intact for several months with no automatic flags or requests for changes.
  • The latest complete removals of the Criticism section were done without leaving public edit notes and so were cryptic. Since I am not a frequent editor, I am only just now figuring out how to use this talk page.
  • It is clear that the sources I have cited in the Criticism section are *not* barred by Wikipedia and therefore the challenge of those sources is simply not valid.
  • It is important that the Criticism section be left intact unless the editor removing it can show valid justifications for the removal. This article needs to be comprehensive and unbiased. Both praise and criticisms of Democracy Now! need to be shown in line with the proportions of those opinions in the general public, and that is what the section accomplishes. It is neither biased, nor poorly sourced.
  • The single opinion to the contrary seems to be at odds with the prevalent view on this talk page.--142.254.114.23 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Article full-protected

To preserve the stability of this article, I have protected it for 10 days due to edit warring. Work it out here on this talk page. I have no opinion on the merits of the paragraph being added and removed other than to note that it seems to rely mostly on a single publication. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a 'work it out' solution. It is clear from the discussions and citations above that Jaydoggmarco is making biased revisions to remove a legitimate section based on personal political biases, and that Jaydoggmarco has been flagged and even blocked for such editing excesses in the past. I would ask that you restore the article to its most recent edit before Jaydoggmarco began repeatedly deleting the 'Criticism' section. That section has existed for months with no automatic flags or substantive challenges.--142.254.114.23 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, on both my and 141.126.156.55's talk page Anachronist, you stated (EMPHASIS ADDED) :

"The burden is on you, the person who wants to add material that is being removed by 'MULTIPLE EDITORS' to support your position on the talk page. The burden is not on those removing your addition, it is on you."

It appears to me from the discussion above that there is only *one* editor who is removing the added content not 'Multiple Editors'.--142.254.114.23 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Look at the recent history. MULTIPLE editors, three different editors have removed that content: Jaydoggmarco, Calton, and Ceoil. Two anonymous IP addresses have added it. This is a content dispute, and the burden is on the person who wants it added to support its addition, per WP:BURDEN. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the disputed content. I note that the last citation is a wiki and cannot be included. The others may need to be reviewed at WP:RSN. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In 2017, Democracy Now! was criticized by anti-war organization Veterans for Peace Chapter 162, and subsequently in news reports by independent news outlets Black Agenda Report and Resumen Latinamericano who reported that Democracy Now! newscasts on Syria had strayed from the program's progressive roots in a way that supported U.S. interventionist politics. Black Agenda Report has since published reports criticizing Democracy Now! on similar grounds regarding its reporting on Libya, Nicaragua and China. The watchdog group SourceWatch has collated similar criticisms of Democracy Now! made previous to 2017, including critiques of its reporting on Pakistan and its treatment of interns.

References

• • Ok, now that I have figured out how to look at the history, what I see is that two of these three 'editors' (Jaydoggmarco and Calton) are clearly approaching the material with extreme political and ideological bias, *both* have been sanctioned multiple times for inappropriate edit-warring in the past, and they also apparently work together to crusade through Wikipedia to engage in such biased ideologically-driven editing.

• • For the only other editor who removed it (Ceoil) I can see no reasons stated for removing it at all - unless the claim that the final source of the section is supposedly a wiki was the reason. In that case, it is a consumer watchdog site published in a wiki format. Regardless, if that was the only issue why didn't the editor just flag that source instead of deleting the entire section? Are Ceoil's reasons for the deletion recorded anywhere?

• • Honestly, the reasons for siding with these editors (especially the first two) look pretty slim to me. There need to be some basic standards to ensure that, any editors who are repeatedly overreaching and getting *warned* for doing so, are not rewarded for it.