Talk:Democracy Now!/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Democracy Now!. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edits

Please take what Jersey Devil says with a grain of salt. If such people were allowed to have their way, Wikipedia would be dry and without much substance. Anyone can, at any time edit an entry. Unless they remove that capability and proclaim Jersey Devil the one true authority on all of Wikipedia, there is no reason to take what this person says at face value. Yes, there are problems with people abusing sections. Yes, there are problems with people confusing things.. though "format" is such a vague description of what has been "violated" that the argument seems to be meaningless. People have the right and the ability to add to the section as they see fit. Wikipedia entries change over time. Since Jersey Devil anihilated additions with NO debate and NO discussion and NO actual reason, then that tells me they cannot be reasoned with. All they wish to do is wipe away new additions and have things their own way. Watching Democracy Now! itself has re-enforced my outlook that people like Jersey Devil are part of the problem, not the solution.

Perhaps indeed "Wikipedia is not a Democracy".. but then if it is a dictatorship, who is to be the dictator? How do we decide? I suppose the average person is not allowed to make up their mind? Fancy format or no, there is one thing Wikipedia can always be asked to give: more information... more knowledge, more facts, more history... more, more, more... and then the average person can make up their mind about something. That anyone can edit it is what makes it different from other encyclopedias. If you think the Wikipedia project should not exist, say so. Sometimes I feel like it is a failure, because obnoxious people take over sections.. other times, I feel great pride because I see that people "work out" the facts and opinions and I see brilliant, useful entries. But what Jersey Devil is doing is not the way to have a good wikipedia entry.

I don't even see a photo of Amy Goodman (or her co-host/s) here. I suppose if I added one, Jersey Devil would have removed that as well!

Also, I don't trust someone who says they have "no bias". The corporate media has claimed no bias, and yet has always been biased. Everyone is biased some way. It is natural. The best we can do is to TRY not to be biased. If I had been totally ridiculous I would have added "Truth" as one of the links... but Democracy Now! is not Objectivism, it is not Pravda, it's just what it is. It tries to be something more and something different than corporate media... something more even than NPR (And not even Air America Radio will seriously address US policy in Israel/Palestine). I added the "See Also" section so that people would have "more to go on".. more to help them realize what Democracy Now! was and why it is important. I have seen "See Also" type sections in other Wikipedia entries and I always found them useful, so I added one here. Radical Mallard Tue Mar 14 05:01:46 EST 2006

Please do not change this page back to that page with all the internal links. They have little to do with the articles "what the the left is all about" and a bunch of internal links to "justice" "socialism" etc... is POV and has absolutely nothing directly to do with the radio show and makes the article look bad. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The internal links direct the reader to further reading on what Democracy Now is all about and the devices they use. I wish a consensus on this, so do not revert entire edits by other users. Discuss it here and if consensus wishes to take it out, then so be it. Otherwise it looks fine to me. --Northmeister 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the radio program itself.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Then offer a better wording for See Also if you think so below. We should also let Radical Mallard weigh in as he added the 'See Also' links. --Northmeister 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? Honestly? Is it because of the reverts against the American System links on the other pages? The things is obviously an eyesore and the especially the last part of "New left" "Justice" "Ecology" etc... makes it look bad and has nothing to do with the actual radio program. I've worked on this page for a while and thus have an interest in it. Furthermore, you should know that Wikipedia is not a Democracy.--Jersey Devil 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have followed this article for a long time and saw when Jersey Devil initially deleted the list. When I reviewed what he'd deleted I couldn't argue with it. To simply dump terms into an unexplained heap at the end of the article, including such unrelated concepts as Students for a Democratic Society, Socialism, Liberty, or Local-access television, does not provide any actual information to readers. If these are important concepts then work them into the text, with sources of course. -Will Beback 05:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a tendency to agree with Will Beback and I know wikipedia is not a democracy etc. I wish AGF from all editors of other editors work. If a reverting takes place, it should happen after talking about it on the talk page. This allows Radical Mallard a chance to respond. If Radical Mallard does not, then edit the page as you wish. Following this simple rule of civility and assuming good faith with other editors is what makes wikipedia work as opposed to senseless edit wars that result from reverts without talk. I applaud Jersey Devil's interest in improving wikipedia and the work on this page. I support any effort at improvement. --Northmeister 06:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the reality of how things usually work in Wikipedia and certainly not what is meant by AFG and civility. Be bold requires me to fix mistakes or flaws in articles immediately, if it didn't nothing would get done around here. If a vandal or a new user makes a careless edit am I expected to go to the talk page immediately and look for a consensus? Clearly not. Anyway, I may have gotten overzealous here and I apologize if I made you feel like I was trying to attack you personally at any time. I am only looking out for what is best for the project. I also think that you should read over the policy more carefully, some comments that you have made with regard to policy violation in the past are just incorrect.--Jersey Devil 06:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted and extended to you in any response in haste due to your actions or comments. We have a common goal, "looking out for what is best for the project." We should work together on any disagreement or misunderstanding through AGF. Will Beback or any editor is free to revert back to your reversion as I no longer object considering the arguments above. Radical Mallard of course may have his say as it directly involves his edits. --Northmeister 06:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) --I have reverted my own revert, under self-reverts per the above statement. Radical Mallard, you are free to dispute this if you like, thanks. --Northmeister 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Jersey Devil's rudeness and heavy-handedness undone". Please respect WP:Civility.--Jersey Devil 09:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(There is a difference between describing a person's specific behavior and actually insulting them by calling them names. You are being rude and uncivil, and that is a fact. The article you pointed to addresses things like personal insults. You wiped out a persons additions based on your own POV, and you tried to justify it by saying "Wikipedia s Not a Democracy" .. I am absolutely amazed that soemone would even say such a thing in a place about a news program with "Democracy" in it's name. I honestly don't know if Wikipedia is or is not a "democracy". It simply IS what it IS. -RM 04:28:50 EST 2006)

You are quite rude, and acting closed minded, and you are using your own POV to assume you can make things whatever way you like, despite other people's experiances and relationships with something. I am going to set it back because you have been so rude, and I can see here in this discussion you don't care what other people think and you are even acting like petty dictator (do you have to go out of your way to denounce democracy?). "Wikipedia is not a democracy".. what?" But it DOES let anyone edit something, and the stuff I added allowed people more stuff to think about and talk about. If you are scared of the word "socialism" appearing in relation to Democracy Now! than say so. I realize it's controvertial and nobody would like to see Democrazy Now! blackballed or pigeonholed as a "socailist" project.. and yet there is an aspect or essense of what people call "socialism" that is progressive, even if the Communist Party and the marxist-leninists ruined the idea. I can see that you really know how to make enemies and rile people up for no reason though.. you are extremely rude, and, personally, I think you are acting quite stupid. I'm interested in talking to the people who produce Democracy Now! about this (I was in fact preparing to email them about it while i did it originally) .. but NOT with you. I can see just by the discussion here that you don't belong here. I don't care what Wikipedia is or is not according to you... people like you are rude and obnoxious. Radical Mallard Tue Mar 14 03:54:37 EST 2006

For one thing, you know nothing about my political views and I do that specifically because I think wearing any political view on my sleave would make me seem partisan and would hurt the project. Furthermore, on a personal matter, doing so I think would show that I care more about the image about a view instead of the substance. Second, this has nothing to do with the word "Socialism" it has to do with the fact that what you added is not per regular format and hurts the article as it has nothing to do with the specific program. I suggest you try editing on the WP:Sandbox if you are new here and also reading over Wikipedia policy as you have just broken with WP:Civility and WP:NPA. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 09:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you learn to be more civil and be less obnoxious. I will not do as you say, because it's pretty obvious you're wrong, and I have not "hurt" the article at all, and you seem to think you can turn wikipedia into your own personal dictatorship. No thank you. Additional: I just sent an email off to Democracy Now! and will get their opinion about this. I've had contact with them before and they have always been a lot more civil than you have. - Radical Mallard, Tue Mar 14 04:25:52 EST 2006

That long list of internal links without explanation was puzzling, and w/o context isn't appropriate IMO. As for private communications from DN, they'd probably constitute OR. Sometimes that sort of thing is interesting for personal reference. I mean, I too have as a consequence of using WP solicited information that I can't at present add because it is OR. Esquizombi 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Be bold! Be factual! Cite your sources! Make sure your right, then go ahead! --Northmeister 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, contacting someone and thereby causing a primary source (e.g. e-mail, letter, phone call) to be created in response and then citing to that seems pretty sketchy. If one were writing an article, it would be possible to cite to it; the article would be under one's own name, and the citation would have something like (on file with the author). But how could a private communication to a WP user be treated as a reliable source? Esquizombi 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If it involves the material in question as "Democracy Now!" then it is relevant since Democracy Now! (the organization itself), is a primary source. If the article is someone's original theory, then it would not be acceptable since that person is just interviewing others for their original theory or interpretation of an idea and thus doing 'original research.' --Northmeister 04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're not following me. If I write DN! with a question, and they address it on air, that's one thing - I can cite the program information etc. If they respond in a letter to me, how could I cite that on WP? Esquizombi 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If the material doesn't involve some original theory or interpretation of material, but simply states what "Democracy Now!" is from Democracy Now! the organization and is accessible to all, to research then it is acceptable. Your personal letter would be another matter, I see your point. Since your the sole possesor of that material, you'd have to scan it into your computer, have Democracy Now! verify that it is accurate, and then you'd be able to use it in any normal sense. But, since no mechanism I can see exists here to verify such material as personal letters then it would strike against 'verifiability' and not be acceptable in that sense. That is why published sources that can be accessed by the community are the best material for citation since they are verifiable. If they provided you with a link on their website for your letter (if it is that important) thus verifying that it is accurate and true as a primary source regarding them, then it would be acceptable. --Northmeister 04:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: someone mentioned I made personal attacks on Jersey Devil. I already altered my older comment to refer to their behavior, and not to them as a person. I am sorry for the earlier version of the comments that was ad hominim. I wrote them very quickly at the time without thinking about it that deeply. But I think I could fairly argue that it is a stupid mistake to simply erase changes and then make a speech pointing to some article saying Wikipedia is not a Democracy... is that supposed to scare us from not changing anything when we still can? If we are not to change anything, then the Wikipedia admnistrators should remove the ability for everyone to change anything on Wikipedia. People who ignore the fact that it is possible for ANYONE to change ANYTHING on Wikipedia seem to be lacking something in their thought process. As I have said, I don't know if Wikipedia is or is not "A Democracy", but the fact remains that people can alter articles, and that apparently some kind of agreements between would-be editors do sometimes have to be reached.

Marshall McLuhan once said, "The Medium is the Message". If he meant what I think he meant, he is saying that when we watch television, we are accepting that authorities may communicate their point of view to us without us "speaking back". Television is basically expressing that people who use it accept being passive absorbers of information and entertainment. Since Wikipedia on the other hand allows anyone who reads it to alter it's content, this suggests that there is a message Wikipedia is giving us too... a different message than one expressed by the medium of television or by corporate-controlled encyclopedias. You may or may not call this "democracy". I don't know.

Explanation for why i added the "See Also" section: As for the format of the links I added, I have no problem with people incorporating them into a more descriptive paragraph that mentions the words (but keeps them as links to other Wikipedia sections). We can have a wikipedia entry which simply indicates what Democracy Now! is and does in some sort of dry, analytical way, or we can have a rational explanation for why Democracy Now! exists. It would make sense for any endeavor to at least have some sort of historical and politial context explained.

Here is another example: I am sure that even though individual entries for the US presidency do not explain why we have a president of the USA, there is surely an entry on Wikipedia that does describe why the USA has a president instead of a king. It is not enough to simply say "It's just what we call our head of state" when it comes to an encyclopedia - which has the ability not only to decribe what something is, but why it is. If a given section does not explain the "why", then the section can at least point to further explanations in other entries.

It is not unusual to explain where one can actually encounter or experiance Democracy Now! - some mention of community television, Internet downloading, satellite radio and television, podcasting, etc, is not so far out a concept. It is furthermore not unusual to mention other media that fit roughly into the same unique category as Democracy Now! ... it would seem that Indymedia is one of the few things similar, though people might also compare Democracy Now! to Air America Radio or National Public Radio. The problem with the latter two is that the less indipendant of powerful institutions they are, the less likely they are to cover certain issues that Democracy Now! and Indymedia would cover. Air America Radio is a liberal radio station and a new phenomenon.. but it will not openly criticize Isreali policy. National Public Radio is restricted in it's content to what the Republican Party senators and congressmen generally allow it and the Public Broadcasting System to be allowed to cover (they have been happy to have shows on economics or news with a conservative spin to them, but have tried to replace NPR and PBS's tax-based funding with funding by corporations or phone-based pledge-drives (unlike the funding sources for the military or the police which remain as taxes)). Democracy Now! does not have these restrictions but instead is more difficult to hear or listen to (because it is hard to find and many people do not know where to look, and would not even think of where to begin to look) for the average American. People who understand this are more likely to be able to find things like Democracy Now! or the Atheist Network, or other sources of media that are independant from powerful, manstream institutions, like the government, religious sources, or corporations.

Finally, while people hear words like "liberty" and "democracy" used often, it is not always clear what they really mean and in what context they are being used. "Liberty" has often been a term used by conservative economists and is reserved solely for economic behavior that they favor, whereas there are others who see the term "liberty" in a more social context. "Democracy", on the other hand, is a term that has been misusd by Leninist dictatorship countries like the Soviet Union, German Democratic Republic, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam (and even in religious dictatorships like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait the leaders will claim they already have democracy and don't need any more) ... other people might think "Democracy" is purely a concern of the US Democratic Party, when in fact the term has a far broader meaning which is most likely the definition that Democracy Now! uses.

When I added the "See Also" section, I was trying to give people tools to deal wth these issues. If people still think they could be addressed, but feel that what I did should be presented in another way, that is fine with me. --Radical Mallaerd Thu Mar 16 10:01:13 EST 2006

Editing/Reverting without discussion

Jersey Devil, I see that you have changed some of my new text. I also added back in some text to "See also," which you then removed, and then say it was removed in an agreement with others here. I am looking but do not see where there was agreement, would you tell me where?

While I am new to Wikimedia editing, it didn't take me long to figure out that deleting others' work without first discussing is a no-no. Resolving_disputes#Avoidance: Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.

You must have had a problem with something I wrote? So I want you to explain why you edited my new text without consulting me first, and also to consult with me in the future. You know how to reach me. Until that time, I put my chagnes back. Regards, plausible_deniability 18 May 2006 00:45 GMT

The changes I made where with regard to formatting not content. It is incorrect Wikipedia formatting to make links on words in the article that take you to ther external links, if you wish to cite references simply create a references section with this, <references />, and enclose sources in the article with <ref></ref> and it will automatically create a section of references. Furthermore, please read WP:OWN with regard to your comments that I must "consult" you with regards to further changes on this page.--Jersey Devil 00:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If the problem is that the links are improperly formatted, would you kindly show us how its done, how to formatted them? I would appreciated learning from one who knows. As stated by myself and others, the links are to topics that the show discusses regularly. That is a fact not in dispute, and they belong on the page - removal is not the solution.

And thank you for the information on ownership policy. I would appreciate it if you would consult so that we may reach agreement. Reading around the site, I see that is the Wikipedia way, to find common ground. Otherwise, I can see that we will spend the summer, fall and winter saying "hi" each day in this peculiar way, reverting each others reverts. Regards, plausible_deniability 19 May 2006 04:46 GMT

JD, I have spent some time looking at other entries to get a sense for what you mean about formatting. I see a pattern. While I'd still very much like to hear what you have to say on this, I'm also going to try my hand at what I think you alluded to- incorporating those terms into the body of the article. Let me know what you think. Regards, plausible_deniability 19 May 2006 19:42 GMT

News, Opinion, Left-Wing

I've removed "opinion" from the phrase "news and opinion" - this needs to be clarified beyond basic assertion - the show bills itself as news and interviews.

"The views of its broadcasters are generally left-wing." - Is this confirmed in some way? Left-wing relative to what political system? From what I've heard and read, they have on people of many political persuasions, from many systems, so "left-wing" is vague. Leaving it off until better-defined. -plaus 00:41 1 Jun 06 GMT

I agree on the "opinion" removal but the Pacifica Network, WBAI, and Amy Goodman consider themselves to be progressive and that needs to be addressed some way in the article.--Jersey Devil 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While I tend to have a similar impression about them, scanning the various "about us" pages yields little beyond "independent media" and various positions of the left, such as bringing on anti-war activists etc. Progressive, left, leftist, left-wing, socialist, anarchist, communist - these are all terms that could be used to describe their apparent focus, though I'm hoping to find something that's both succinct and NPOV. Progressive? -plaus 21:30, 02 Jun 06 GMT

I am fine with "progressive".--Jersey Devil 21:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted TJive's reversion of the agreed edit - TJive, please explain? -plaus 17:07 05 Jun 06 GMT

I just reverted because of the word 'progressive'. As far as I can tell, it means 'agreeing with what the writer thinks', and does not really tell a reader anything. I've never heard of the programme, and the earlier version made more sense to me. --Drmaik 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you are asserting a POV in removing that term. Read the Wikipedia entry 'Progressivism'. "Generally left-wing" is vague, as the whole of left-wing includes socialism, communism etc., whereas "progressive" is a more narrowly-defined and accurate term.

Please stop using your IP to make changes and instead use your user name Plausible deniability.--Jersey Devil 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read through all this discussion on terminology, etc. and I think I have come up with a phrase which should be acceptable to most, if not all. Progressive is a decent choice, but perhaps somewhat unclear and open to mis/interpretation. I find the word "leftist" too narrow and implicitly strident. Whereas, "left-of-center is at once broader (more inclusive) than "leftist" and less open to misunderstanding than "progressive". Cgingold 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Page locked

I've locked the page. lease discuss your disagreements here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to discuss the disputed text. The disagreement is over whether the "Democracy Now!" show is "generally left-wing," or "progressive" (as their radio network advertises itself), or something else. Originally it was "generally left-wing" which is very vague, and I changed it to "progressive," as the radio network (Pacifica Radio @ pacifica.org), which puts out Democracy Now!, has called itself that. I figure people want to be described with the words they use to describe themselves, but I dunno. --plaus 12 June 2006

The reference can be included but should not prevail in the beginning of the intro as self-descriptions are hardly neutral, needless to say. I also can not fathom why you are deleting the reference to its being "news and opinion" (emphasis mine). That's rather obvious. 72.65.65.154 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does your information about "opinion" come from, besides your assertion of it being "rather obvious"? Their website doesn't say "opinion," and the show doesn't describe itself as "opinion." --plaus 14:11 13 June 2006 GMT

Also, why are you editing without logging in? --plaus 14:28 13 June 2006 GMT

Here is a proposal: we leave off both "opinion" and any assumed POV about the show's views. Neither of those are very objective info to state about a television program. Everybody will have a different view about what politics *they* think the show has got, so better to leave it out altogether. Yes? Keep the article as information easily known and without dispute: who, where and how, not why. --plaus 00:49 14 June 2006 GMT

I would support a self-description of "progressive" at the end of the paragraph, though I can not fathom why you object to opinion. 151.205.36.69 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can start by providing a basis for why you believe it needs to be there, otherwise it seems to be POV. --plaus 15:19 14 June 2006

I think its important to observe WP:Verifiability. The passage below is taken from that guideline:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Unless a source can be found to say that it is either left wing or opinion it can not be placed in the article. It is not up to us as editors to decide whether the assertions made on the stations own site are right or wrong as is clearly stated above. If you disagree with these policies then your editing style has no place in Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Super Ted 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Genius! However, I am unsure as to how to proceed in verifying that it is "progressive", and that it gives news, without conducting research. That is a horrifying proposition to me now. Perhaps the entire article should be deleted? 151.205.52.68 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, anything unverifiable in the article should be deleted according to Wikipedia guidelines. However, finding verifiable sources isn't as hard as you might imagine. The first line on Democracy Now's website 'About Us' page states:

Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 350 stations in North America.

To confirm its progressive stance, I feel it would be appropriate to quote various stories featured on http://www.commondreams.org/, a progressive news source which frequently cites DN's articles. If everything is sourced in this way, page locks such as what has occured here would never occur. Hope this clears things up.Super Ted 18:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've locked the page. Please discuss your disagreements here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to an L.A. Times article (hosted on the Democracy Now! website) titled Left-wing radio's Amy Goodman takes her views on the road. It mentions "Goodman... has emerged as radio's voice of the disenfranchised left." The whole article seems to take Democracy Now's left-ness for granted.

I also found an article at The Nation titled Amy Goodman's Empire which quotes professor and media critic Robert McChesney as saying "I think it's probably the most significant progressive news institution that has come around in some time." The article also says "...Goodman... has come to be seen by many on the left as a kind of human megaphone for the collective progressive unconscious." It's definitely opinion, but if we can't except The Nation's authority on what the "left" thinks, whose can we accept?

As far as the progressive part goes, I haven't listened to the show in quite a while, but I seem to recall Goodman regularly referring to the show and/or herself as "progressive," so maybe using the term "self-described progressive" in the article wouldn't be out of line (assuming someone finds a link to her saying it. Any regular listeners reading this?).

I do not feel the links to Social justice, Anti-war movement, and Peace movement are appropriate in the See Also section. Yes, these are things many listeners almost certainly feel Democracy Now has a connection to, but they're opinion, they're unneccesary where they are, and they are not mentioned on Democracy Now's own "About" page. DejahThoris 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This article seems to have been protected over a relatively trivial dispute about which there has been no discussion for two weeks. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To,...

Jersey, & all,

Deleting as pov is even worse that than writing as such. My opinion.

Hopiakuta 03:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion information relevant to the article. Wikipedia is not however a "repository of links" and WP:SPAM put's into it's critera of spam as "wide-scale external link spamming". Which is what you put up on this and other talk pages. [1] Please read Wikipedia policy pages and note that any further addition of solely links in talk pages will be removed. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 13:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Horowitz "Criticism"

I just read the Horowitz critique article and I don't think it can be considered a proper source. It's basically a superficial lambasting of a whole host of left-wing critics, movements, "broadcasting awards", without critiquing the content of Democracy Now at all. The sentence "red diaper baby" should be a dead giveaway that Horowitz's claims are purely ideological, slanderous, and shouldn't in anyway be considered a critique of Democracy Now! and Goodman worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, let alone 1/4 of the article. The only substantive claim is his allegations of financial improprieties, which is sourced to Derienzo's article, which is already included in the criticism section. I'm going to delete the Horowitz critique. Aislar 18:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Paul DeRienzo & Amy Goodman

Before I proceed here, I want to say that I agree with Aislar's comments re Horowitz, and would have said much the same myself.

The "criticism" by Paul DeRienzo has no place in this article about the program Democracy Now!, nor does it belong in the article about Amy Goodman -- for the same very basic reason: it is little more than a personal attack by Mr. DeRienzo. As a long-time Pacifica listener who has been on several Pacifica-related email list-serves going back to 1999 (no, I am not an "insider"), I can put it very simply: DeRienzo is far from a disinterested party -- there is very bad blood between him and Amy Goodman, growing out of the extremely intense personality clashes and "politics" at Pacifica's New York station, WBAI (which some would describe as internecine warfare). Whatever one's personal opinion about all of the issues and personalities involved, the bottom line that ALL of us should certainly be able to agree on is that WP is NOT THE PLACE TO SORT IT OUT. Moreover, DeRienzo's attacks amount to a defamatory hit-piece, which IMO violate WP policy re material on living persons. I am therefore removing the entire section. (Honestly, I am amazed that nobody else saw the need to take this action already.) Hopefully, somebody will make the effort to write a short section that addresses the subject of "criticism" in terms of journalistic shortcomings, etc. That would have a real place in this article. Cgingold 14:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Hypocrisy

- *While I agree with this program's anti-war and anti police state stance, its refusal to even mention the human rights abuses of the prison state of Cuba, including death penalty, religious and political persecution and most importantly the imprisoning of its own citizens on the island is nothing less than pathetically shamefull and should be noted.68.230.130.87 15:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Tommy This IS the talk page Jersey Devil. I am making a proposal for an addition to the article. Also, do not delete from the talk page as it is rude and a Wikipedia violation.68.230.130.87 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Tommy

No, you are using this talk page as a discussion forum which violates with WP:NOT. If you want to add something, perhaps a "criticism section" to the main page, and want to use this talk page to make suggestions and get feedback then that is perfectly fine. But that isn't what you did, you said "I feel xxx about this program" not "I think we should add xxx to this article and here are some resources and why I feel it should be in the article". We are here to build an encyclopedia not to discuss political views. I suggest you read Wikipedia guideline and policy pages to get a better understanding of how things work around here. I also would recommend creating an account. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Description of Clinton Interview

I don't mind a description of the interview in general, but in the current state it is clearly not-NPOV.

"Clinton was expecting another in the round of short election-day interviews that his press office had lined up for him. Instead, he found himself confronted with an interviewer who surprised him with a series of questions that forced him to defend his record on a wide array of issues, in an interview that lasted nearly 30 minutes."

The first sentence is an allegation by Amy Goodman before the interview/Democracy Now in the link and not an objective fact. Saying that Clinton was expecting something or other is purely speculative. The same goes with the assertion that he was surprised by the question. It is in no way selfevident from the interview and Clinton didn't say anything about it.

So I believe we should cut the first sentence and the assertion that Clinton was surprised by the questions because they are not based on facts.

--Sirana 16:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your concern for NPOV, which is why I removed the two adjectives -- although both are justified, IMO, but the text reads perfectly well without them, so I took them out. However, as to the rest -- if all you know about the circumstances of the interview is what you read, then you simply aren't aware of all of the facts. Briefly, his media people set up the interview -- but NOT with Amy Goodman. It was only supposed to be another routine, unexceptional SHORT interview (5-10 minutes) in the round of election day interviews he had scheduled for that day. When Amy Goodman learned -- at the last minute -- that Clinton was about to do an interview with one of the WBAI morning news people (sorry, I forget who), she stepped in and took over as the interviewer. Clinton had no idea that he was about to be interviewed by Amy Goodman. And the rest, as they say, is history... Cgingold 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you listen to the interview, Clinton himself points out that the interview has already gone longer than it was supposed to. This is the straight skinny -- nothing POV about it. Cgingold 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reaction. I listened to the interview and read the description on the Democracy Now page. If you have any further documented information that the event took place the way you described it, link it and we can let the paragraph stand.

But I don't think that the two sentences that Amy said about it before the interview do really reflect this view and even if she said this I don't believe we can offer it as an objective fact just because she said it. Regarding the fact that Clinton said that the interview has gone on longer than planed that occured in the 20th minute in the interview, so all you can say from that is that the interview was planned shorter than 20 minutes.

My suggestion how to describe the interview would be the following: "In a longer than planned interview that lasted nearly 30 minutes Amy Goodman confronted Clinton with a series of questions that compelled him to defend his record on a wide array of issues."

I think this would be an objective description of the interview that isn't based on the alleged circumstances of the interview. Additionally I don't think that the circumstances of the interview are really that important, so we won't loose much by cutting it.

Again, if you have any further documentation that the interview took place the way you said, I'll gladly look at it, but otherwise I think the way I phrased it would be a better description. Sirana 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the description per WP:NPOV.--Jersey Devil 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Sirana -

Although I would (in all honesty) have been happier if you hadn't started out by removing the passages you were questioning, I sincerely appreciate the constructive way you've subsequently approached this discussion.

As I said, everything I wrote was factual (not based on surmise or speculation) -- but I can see how that may not have been apparent if your knowledge of the event was limited to the statements on the linked DN! webpage and the interview itself. I learned a good deal about the interview, etc. six years ago, from a number of different sources, including, of course, listening to Democracy Now! on a daily basis -- but I, um, didn't have the foresight to keep a record of everything for future documentation on Wikipedia!

Fortunately, I do still have one article that I saved six years ago, which happens to substantiate my account of what took place. (There may well be more substantiation available, but I haven't gone looking.) These are the opening paragraphs of the article:

Ms. Magazine ~ February/March 2001

Open Mike

by Hillary Frey

Posted on: Friday, February 16, 2001

"When you challenge power, you expect consequences," says radio journalist Amy Goodman, summing up her Election-Day interview with Bill Clinton. On the morning of November 7, just after the airing of her nationally broadcast radio program Democracy Now!, Goodman answered a call from the White House. President Clinton wanted to talk with her briefly, on the air, about voter turnout. "I did on a moment's notice what most journalists prepare a year for," Goodman says.

She kept Clinton on the line for 30 minutes, at every turn breaking the boundaries of what was intended by the White House to be a two-minute pep talk. "My first question related to what Clinton wanted to talk about," Goodman says, "and maybe one or two others somewhat did. The others were off the subject." Challenging the president on issues typically dodged by the mainstream media — ranging from sanctions against Iraq to racial profiling to clemency for imprisoned Native American activist Leonard Peltier — Goodman got a rise out of Clinton, who at one point accused her of being "hostile and combative." The day after the interview, a member of Clinton's staff called Goodman and informed her that because she ignored certain "ground rules" during her interview, she's been banned from the White House.

The wording is a little sloppy on one point, suggesting (wrongly) that Clinton "wanted to talk with [Goodman]" -- but that's a detail that isn't even mentioned in my account.

In any event, there was never really an NPOV issue -- it was actually a straightforward, unembellished account -- but I can see how it might have raised questions of Verifiability. So it would have been a lot better to stick a "citation needed" tag on it, rather than deleting it. Hopefully, I have resolved any doubts you had on that score. Cgingold 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, almost forgot -- a comment for Jersey Devil. I really must object to your poorly-considered decision to jump in and summarily delete the passages in question -- right in the middle of a very civil and productive discussion -- with a spurious justification of WP:NPOV. That was uncalled for and, frankly, obnoxious. There was no compelling need for you to do that -- nothing defamatory, or otherwise requiring immediate deletion -- especially when the issues that had been raised were in the process of being resolved. I hope you'll refrain from that sort of thing in the future. An apology would be appreciated. Cgingold 13:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the commentary again and kept the Ms. Magazine reference. This is an encyclopedia not a place to put our beliefs of how the interview went.--Jersey Devil 14:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

@Jersey Devil: Please don't just change an article if there is a discussion about how it should be changed. State your opinion about the change, but there is no need to make this into an edit war.

@cgingold: I am totally OK with the second sentence of your revision, but I still think the first sentence is out of place. While the article in Ms. Magazine indeed shows that Amy Goodman says that Clinton was expecting a short, standard interview it doesn't show that this is indeed the case. And Goodman's view on this is simply not an objective view. So my problem with this isn't really a problem about verifiability, but about NPOV. The sentence "Clinton was expecting another in the round of short, routine election-day interviews with local news outlets that his press office had lined up for him." cannot be NPOV unless you have an objective observer concluding that this is indeed the case. And it isn't enough that a person that was involved in the interview alleges that it was the case. Additionally I still believe that the circumstances aren't that important and we could loose the first sentence without much harm. Sirana 15:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil: Why on earth would you characterize it as my personal "beliefs"? That's silly -- it's nothing of the sort. I didn't invent any of it, I didn't inject my personal opinions, and other than reporting Clinton's complaint, I said nothing about "how the interview went" -- so your comment is fundamentally non-sensical. I will say it yet again: what I wrote is a straightforward summarization of the context for the interview. Please don't turn this into an edit war.

Sirana: Hello, and thanks again for your efforts at conducting a reasonable discussion (what a contrast!). Okay, so I've read your latest comments, and I'm not sure why you're looking at this as if it was an intrinsically controversial or disputed event that needs an "objective observer" to substantiate the details to the Nth degree of verification.

The Ms. article only summarized those details, but there's no reason to characterize Amy Goodman's basic outline of what happened as merely her "view" of things. Clinton really was doing a round of short, "get out the vote", election day interviews -- is there some reason to consider that "in dispute"? The interview really did take place after DN -- not during DN -- and the interviewer was supposed to be "Gonzalo Aburto, host of WBAI's Alternativa Latina", the guy who's mentioned on the linked DN page. And I assure you, Clinton doesn't do his own scheduling! :) (Very busy guy, I think you'd agree... ) So there's no way Clinton could have suspected that he was about to be grilled by Amy Goodman.

In sum, the basic facts all support the assertion that Clinton was expecting a short, routine interview -- where is the controversy or debatable POV? This seems to me to be utterly non-controversial. So unless there's a credible published source claiming that Amy Goodman invented an entirely false version of those basic facts -- an outlandish notion, IMHO -- I honestly see no reason to consider the first sentence as merely a POV version of what happened. Some things are simple enough that POV just isn't a real issue. BTW, the reason this sentence needs to be in the article is because the circumstances of the interview are an integral part of what made it so notable.

Now, in contrast, I would insist on additional verification for her claims re the phone call from a White House staffer, etc. -- if I was thinking of putting that in the article. Not that I think she's making it up, mind you, but that sort of thing is inherently far more complex -- and therefore, far more subject to interpretation -- than the basic outline of what led up to the interview.

~I just read over all of this one last time before saving these comments, and it occurs to me that the only thing that comes anywhere near being "problematic" is the word "expecting". Even though every known fact here supports the use of that word... very strictly speaking, it could be construed as indicating that Clinton himself had explicitly confirmed that to be the case. So I would be amenable to rewording the sentences to read:

"Clinton was conducting a round of short, routine, election-day interviews with local news outlets that his press office had lined up for him. But in this interview, which extended to nearly 30 minutes, he was confronted... (etc.)".

Or better yet:

"The White House press office had lined up a series of short, routine, election-day interviews with local news outlets. But in this interview, which extended to nearly 30 minutes, Clinton was confronted... (etc.)".

Let me know what you think of this suggestion -- I really think it deals with your fundamental concern here. Cgingold 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this does adress my main concern, so I would be OK with that change. While I still think that the circumstances aren't that important, I don't say that it is necessary to leave them out. Like you, I feel that the second version you proposed ("The White House press office...") is the better one, so lets wait if Jersey Devil or anybody else objects and then change it accordingly.

Sirana 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as there don't appear to be any objections, I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Glad we were able to resolve this -- and I think it's improved over what I originally wrote. Cgingold 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Communism Now!

Does anyone want to mention that the so-called 'exception to the rulers' are still running anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-Israel, and anti-Scooter Libby stories while their hero Hugo Chavez has claimed dictatorial powers in Venezuela? This is a man who Greg Palast has stated on their show as being 'a hero to the people in the West' just last June. I find it interesting that the hypocracy of the aging hippie and her brown beret racist sidekick isn't even mentioned in this article.

Last month, they praised a deceased black panther, who hijacked a plane and flew to Cuba. They refered to this filth as a 'revolutionary.' 74.192.211.157 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sure there's a NPOV way of writing this 74.192.211.157 05:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure. Be sure to mention that whatever his problems, Hugo Chavez is a popular elected leader, and there's good reason to doubt that George Bush was ever elected. I'm sure there's an NPOV way of discussing that, too. -- 198.144.208.84 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How Democracy Now! got it's name

Does anyone know how Democracy Now! got its name? Could it be a reference to the British Labor Party's 1924 program of "socialism now"? Seems like its something that should be on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.4.2 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First Broadcast of Democracy Now!

Do anyone know the exact date of when Democracy Now! first started broadcasting, because I looked in the Democracy Now! Archives and it only goes back to September 1997. If anyone finds a copy of the first video broadcast, please give me a link to it, thanks.--jsalims80 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Are you asking for the date of Amy Goodman's first broadcast as the host/anchor of Pacifica Radio's national news magazine? Or do you want the first program that was aired after the adoption of the name "Democracy Now!"? (Goodman had been the host for a while at that point.) I guess it comes down to which you think is more important.

Your question reminds me that I've been meaning to change/correct the history info in the article, which doesn't really get it quite right. I recall the basic outlines of how it started, but I need to track down the details -- it's mainly just a matter of finding the time to do it. Cgingold 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The first broadcast of DN!, which is the same date that Amy first hosted a daily news program for Pacifica, was on Monday, February 19, 1996. It's online at [2]. Mlc 22:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I saw that the user Cgingold reverted an edit by the user Emerson which added an infobox to the article. [3] I think that the infobox looks good and wanted to see if there might be consensus to keep it. To Cgingold, you might also want to consider how your language on edit summaries appears to other user. Saying things like "reverting sloppy edits..." could be interpreted as hostile.--Jersey Devil 14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I also wondered about the infobox. It seems like a good idea, but there appears to be a lack of concensus. Is it the specific type of infobox (i.e. radio program) that is at issue? ZueJay (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Democracy Now is a radio program. It just happens to be televised via Link TV but so are various other radio programs.--Jersey Devil 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

i replaced the infobox...as dn is indeed a radio program. there is a field in the infobox to indicate its television ties as well. whether or not the infobox 'fits' seems to me to be a POV issue. at any rate, i, too, wish the level of civility could be ratcheted up a bit. --emerson7 | Talk 18:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended, but I used the term "sloppy edits" for a (3-part) reason: 1) your edit summary indicated that you were reverting "revision 115582135 by Zuejay" when you actually reverted my edit, 2) your edit summary gave no explanation of what you had done, and 3) your reversion included restoring the "citation needed" tag, even though I had already explained why it wasn't needed.

As for the infobox: I haven't any objection to having an infobox if it's a good enough match for DN. If the headings in this one were editable we could use it. But I have a serious objection to the use of the term "starring" -- sorry, but that's really peculiar & creepy, IMO. That's what I meant when I said "meant for standard radio fare". I tried to change it to "hosted by", but no go (which was why I ended up deleting it in the first place).

The radio/television issue is also a concern. While I of course agree that it started on radio, and that it's primarily known thru radio rather than television, in recent years it has morphed into an actual television program that happens also to be a radio broadcast as well. It's not merely an audio signal that happens to be available on certain cable & satellite television channels. There is a substantial amount of video tape integrated into the broadcast (in varying amounts) each day. If you haven't ever seen this for yourself, it may be hard to appreciate.

In sum, if these concerns can be dealt with, I have no problem with including an infobox. Cgingold 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So, it is the infobox style that is a concern. Found the original infobox template here and changed the starring to presenter which changed the box to read Host(s). As for the TV thing, still pondering... ZueJay (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Zuejay! It turns out there was enough flexibility in that infobox to adapt it for our purposes. I just made a bunch of modifications and it's lookin' pretty good now. I even managed to find a couple of articles to link to for the genres, that are good matches for DN. Cgingold 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, I love when things can be worked out this way with collaboration. :)--Jersey Devil 04:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cgingold, glad you were able to ponder out the situation. I just learned the other day how to search out templates - they could use significantly greater organization!
And collaboration is the best! ZueJay (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Juan Gonzales

Kudos to all for a great page. Is anyone aware that the link to Juan Gonzales in the summary box at top is linked to a major league baseball player of the same name? I just submitted an edit to fix. 128.231.88.4 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Grant Izmirlian

Background section

I just edited the section and removed the following unsourced laundry list descripiton, and am replacing it with a sourced description from the website, which is more accurate - for example, I dont think the show reports much on "police abuse" - not even sure what that means actually.

related to war and peace; U.S. foreign policy; human rights; democracy, both at home and abroad; and domestic issues such as poverty, worker rights, race relations, and police abuse. Democracy Now! presents stories and perspectives—Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscobiscotti (talk • contribs)

Changes look fine to me.--Jersey Devil 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The War and Peace Report;

The War and Peace Report: i've been able to find nowhere that this is the actual full name of the program. ....might it be just its slogan? e.g Fair and Balanced. --emerson7 | Talk 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is not technically the full name of the program. Goodman usually starts off the show by saying "Welcome to Democracy Now, the War and Peace Report" but that doesn't indicate that it is the full name of the program.--Jersey Devil 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The memory hole

The following criticism of democracy now has been deleted:

==Criticism==

9/11 truth [some left-wing][4] groups have criticized the show for not covering, or not covering accurately, issues they feel are central to world politics, such as Peak Oil, and any potentiality that the Bush Administration may be complicit in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.^[1]

Some conservatives feel that the show presents an extremely biased perspective. Such individuals sight frequent (and almost invariably favorable) interviews with far-left groups (including 60s-era revolutionists, pro-reparations black demagogues and advocates of the welfare state), as well as the failure of the show to provide serious contrasting viewpoints.

Some anchors, such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews [David Gregory?][5] have introduced Amy Goodman as “the host of the liberal radio and TV show Democracy Now.” ^[2]

That said, this is a pretty weak criticism section and probably should have remained removed.

I restored "The views of its broadcasters are generally left-wing." which unfortunatly, I am sure will be quickly reverted. There is nothing wrong with calling democracy now liberal or progressive. most articles in their first paragraph indicate whether an organization is conservative or liberal, this is claringly missing from this article. Travb (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Hey, who took down the part about 9/11 truth groups. That part was NOT weak criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkceaser (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Also please read WP:SOAP.--Jersey Devil 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. This article is definetly not a good source. If you want to criticize DN, find media sources which support this view. Travb (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also don't leave hostile edit summaries such as "don't fuck with me people". If that happens again you will be blocked.--Jersey Devil 05:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll apologize for the hostile edit, but who on earth made some of you the Authoritative High Priest of Wikipedia? As a person who watches this show daily, who owns a blog dedicated to this show, and who regularly receive complaints about this show centered around these issues, I know pretty well what the criticism of Democracy Now is. The articles I sited are perfect articulations for what many other people feels about these issues, that's why i chose those articles. We can go back and forth on this as long as you like, but at least now it's in public record that I'm annoyed.Dkceaser 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Dkceaser

"Generally Left-Wing"

Okay, let's revive this discussion and end the revert war. To me, this asssertion is "generally" unsupported in the article by anything other than opinion, because "generally left wing" is super-broad. The approach I took in this edit was to take this assertion (which is unsupported by any cite):

The views of its broadcasters are generally left-wing.

and reflect the lack of citations by making it a claim, and presenting how the show represents itself on its website:

Some claim that the views of its broadcasters are left-wing, however the show is described by its website as an "independent ... news program."

Without cites that assertion is unsupported. Why is there such a strong desire on the part of Arthur Rubin and Jersey Devil to slap a political label on a news program? That label is more about the opinion of the editors, I think, and it needs to go. --plausible_deniability UTC 07:06 07-Dec-27 —Preceding comment was added at 09:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jersey Devil, adding {cn} at this stage is a mere fig-leaf. Wikipedia is about facts, not assertions. Arthur Rubin, shouting "CLEARLY left-wing" in your posting comment does not change the assertion into proven fact. JD, have you recently read the page linked by {cn}, and did you realize the irony when you applied that label? Read it again, carefully, for it says:

The ... "citation needed" link ... is there because an editor felt that the preceding statement was dubious or sufficiently controversial as to demand "citation". ... If not, please exercise extra caution when using the flagged information.

Clear? You've just indicated that your own, unsupported assertion is "dubious or sufficiently controversial." This assertion has been in the article for well over one year. Get to it, or remove it, "generally left-wing" is vague, over-broad, and at this point unsupported assertion. --plausible_deniability UTC 07:52 07-Dec-27

Pacifica Radio is openly leftist/pacifist and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't know what else there is to say. If we were to go by your standards we'd have to put that "some people argue that George W. Bush has conservative views" in the George W. Bush article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Associating the statement about what they call themselves with any external statements about their views is pretty close to WP:SYN. The statement about what they say they do may be allowable (but see WP:SELFPUB), but not in a context indicating that it really may be what they do. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with the "generally left-wing" comment. It's important to know the bias in ANY news source and anything I've seen, heard or read of Democracy Now! has shown it to have a very noticeable left-wing bias. Again, when you're reading the news, you want to know what the bias is. I'm going to undo the deletion of this sentence that some anonymous user did a couple days ago. MatttK (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own "bias" as to what DemNow's "bias" is is your own POV and doesn't warrant inclusion. I agree that the statement is too broad and needs to be narrowed down before being included in the article. Surely there is a source out there that is more specific. Until then I am deleting.--67.99.231.82 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance of political position

"Democracy Now! is a left-liberal syndicated program of news, analysis, and opinion aired by more than 700 radio and television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America. Democracy Now! serves as the flagship program for the Pacifica Radio network."

I don't feel like having an argument about whether or now Democracy Now! is 'left-liberal', but whatever political tendency it shows, is this really so important that it merits being the first piece of description in the entire article? I'm going to change it to the following:

"Democracy Now! is a syndicated program of news, analysis, and opinion aired by more than 700 radio and television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America. Democracy Now!, which generally maintains a center-left viewpoint on political issues, serves as the flagship program for the Pacifica Radio network."

OBELISK BJM (TALK) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit makes for a slightly more NPOV opening paragraph but there's still something a bit askew. I don't think any unqualified assumptions about a "center-left viewpoint" is warranted in the opening sentence about the program at all. Even the article on the Fox News Channel, which is widely alleged to have an overriding political bias, doesn't state that until further down in the introductory paragraphs and is then referenced to "critics and some observers," as it should be. Right now, the second paragraph under the Background header in the article makes the same point, outlining how that bias affects the program, even providing a source.

Would it be better to just either remove any reference to political bias in the introductory paragraph altogether or should we move parts of the Background section to the introduction, seeing that it doesn't really fit all that neatly into that category anyway? Comments appreciated. Neebe (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Interview Links

User:Arthur_Rubin, why are you deleting the interview links in the 'Notable Guests' section?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plausible deniability (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, you're deleting links. If you were adding links, why is the article getting shorter? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have misread the history page. I will restore the interview links into the *current* 'Notable Guests' section, without altering the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plausible deniability (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So I guess theres no criticism over illegal arrests then?

Almost no mention of the illegal, which is not in dispute, arrests of Democracy Now! members at the Republican rally? Why?

There has been no evidence presented by police at all, even in the "their word against theirs" the arresting officers have not been able to explain why they thought filming others being arrested is grounds for inciting riots. And yet this section of a severe, highly illegal breach of the CONSTITUTION is a tiny paragraph.

I might be persuaded to add some more information to the aforementioned section if you would be so kind as to sign your posts.

Respectfully submitted,

SmedPull 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

^ "Democracy When?". OilEmpire.us. Retrieved 2007-06-18.
^ "Hardball with Chris Matthews". MSNBC. 2005-03-30. Retrieved 2007-05-31.

[1] "Democracy When?". OilEmpire.us. Retrieved 2007-06-18.

[2] "Hardball with Chris Matthews". MSNBC. 2005-03-30. Retrieved 2007-05-31.

[1]

[2]