Jump to content

Talk:Link TV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms

[edit]

It should be noted that Link TV is quite obviously very liberal in their political viewpoint. I do not have a problem with that. Free speech is a very good thing. However, it is disingenuous to promote themselves as providing "diverse perspectives on world and national issues" when in reality they offer programming from a liberal-progressive viewpoint. This is an objective statement of fact that needs no verification. All one has to do is watch Link TV for a few hours and it becomes clear. Watch several times over a period of several days or weeks to get a better sampling and one would be further convinced. What bothers me most is that their devotees/ employees continue to edit out criticisms and statements about this issue here on Wikipedia. This "article" is nothing but a self-indulgent promotional piece that is fiercely guarded by Link TV's devotees. I have noticed in the history there have been many deletions of statements and criticisms with regard to the liberal bias. The deletions are justified by claiming "subjectivism" by the editor. However, this entire article is obviously subjective in favor of the Organization. "Unsubstantiated Claims" is another reason given for deleting references to the liberal bias; but their own tag line "diverse perspectives on world and national issues" is an unsubstantiated claim. I believe that if the author’s and guardians of this article are as fair-minded as this TV station claims to be, it is incumbent upon them to allow a criticism section in the article which points out allegations of liberal-progressive bias. Censoring such criticism is contrary to their creed and is clearly hypocritical. If they want to be a liberal-progressive voice, that's great; but, they should not pretend that they are not. What say you Mr. Ned Flanders? 05197200k (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the world "diverse" to the word "liberal" for the perspectives that Link TV provides. Everyone knows the Link TV shows nothing that is to the right of Karl Marx. That is not the definition of diverse, communist would be a better description, but to be diplomatic, I said liberal.--Biasbuster07 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page sounds like blatant advertising, or was taken off the channel's website. --Impaciente 17:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a pr piece for one of the most vicious anti semitic, anti US operations this side of Al Queda. Those who revert the edits become fellow travelers of those murderers.Incorrect 05:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right, I've never seen the channel. But, since this is an NPOV encyclopedia and not a blog, you should find some evidence and documentation for your assertions about Link TV. Find some respected sources that discuss and illustrate Link TV's alleged biases. Write THAT up, work it into the article as a 'Controversy' section -- and not only will you have made your point, and made it stronger, but the article will be better for it too.
BTW, it's usually spelled Al-Qaeda. -- ArglebargleIV 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the criticism paragraph should be allowed back into the article, balanced by answers to the criticisms. -- ArglebargleIV 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is very factual. It is an "independent non-commercial American satellite television network providing diverse perspectives on world and national issues" and does provide a "mix of documentaries, global and national news, the music of diverse cultures and participatory programs promoting citizen action." I watch this channel often to get a global perspective on world events and I really don't understand how anyone could possibly consider it the "most vicious anti semitic, anti US operations this side of Al Queda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.27.32 (talk • contribs)

Yeah I wouldn't really call this channel anti-semitic, they also have some interesting features on Russia and Eastern Europe in general. Article's content is fine as it is now but could definitely stand an expansion. —lensovet–talk – 02:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with having a certain viewpoint? Channels aren't supposed to "keep score" and make sure everything is 50/50. If you watch the channel, they air MANY documentaries and films you will never see on other American channels. They don't have commercials, and they don't censor themselves. This is another unique quality. If their programming suffered then donations would stop and the channel would be no more. So LinkTV is simply a source of information/entertainment for the people that donate or choose to watch. If there was a channel about paint drying and enough people donated money to it then that's what you would see. Don't look at Link TV as the "channel for everyone", instead just look at it as filling a niche. Gutch220 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

The ["Tea Party" movement considers LinkTV as being part of the "Soros Files" list, having a socialist and possibly communist anti western agenda. As former carriers of Al Jazeera and other "alternative" stations, they definitely are suspect of these affiliations. Pamela Geller has a whole section of articles against LinkTV and its affiliated broadcasting stations, while a Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star claims that LinkTV is not doing enough to fight the right wing (presumably anti Arab or anti Islamic) bias in the US mainstream media.

IMHO, a criticism section is all rightfully due. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but in order to include a criticism section, it would need to be based on reliable sources as Wikipedia defines the term. Dlabtot (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pamela Geller's website is a good source for saying what Pamela Geller thinks. The Tea Party website is a reliable source saying what they think. And a Lebanese newspaper is definitely a good source to show what they think.
WP:RS reads:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Later the article reads: Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.
So, in this case, when bringing criticism, of course we should expect opinionated material and sources. The WP:RS article continues:
While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.
So, since all three are bringing examples to what they consider bias, this seems to be OK. Most importantly:
Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Gloria Steinem wrote that...", "According the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
And of course that is how the criticism section should be written.
Is there anything wrong with that? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is explicitely noted in the Statements of Opinion section (with my emphasis):
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion... There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pamela Geller's website is without any doubt, not a reliable source for this article anymore than my website would be. Dlabtot (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To put it a different way: if Pamela Geller's opinion of LinkTV were sufficiently noteworthy to include in the article, then her website might be a reliable self-published source for her own opinion. But no sufficient evidence has been presented to indicate that her opinion matters enough to include it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Link TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Link TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Link_TV&oldid=1199520479"