Talk:Ray Martin (television presenter)

POV?

This article reads like a press release written by channel 9. I certainly don't consider him a good journalist. Anyone ever actually _watch_ ACA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumnut (talk • contribs) 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

His pay packet and staying power all these years says otherwise. 202.191.107.40 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, he got dropped from ACA due to poor ratings. Against Naomi Robson no less. Are you saying she's a better journalist? He's a presenter, not a journalist. And the amount he gets paid is not any kind of useful metric for how good a journo he is. Personally, I think he's an absolute tosser, but I don't go writing that in the article. As it is, the article gives a pretty glowing description of him, let's not make it an all out glurge. Bumnut 00:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What? Have you actually considered the scope of Ray Martin's career? His career as a journalist has spanded over 40 years, and you dont consider him a good journalist? In my opinion, he is the greatest journalist in Australian television history. A journalist is required to report and present. Ray Martin has been claimed by many to be the "prince of all interviewers." Why would the ledgendary Kerry Packy send this so called "tosser" to interview Prince Charles, or the great Sir Donald Bradman? Furthermore, he did not get dropped from ACA, he left on his own accord because of terrible producers. After a year of firings at channel 9, Ray Martin is STILL there. If he was not good enough for ACA, then why would he still be at channel 9? I agree that ACA is a crap show, and that is why Ray left it. He is simply too good for ACA, and even for 60 minutes for that matter. That is why he is channel 9's senior correspondent - he is the best in the business. I have met this wonderful bloke, and consider him to be among the best in the world. A "tosser" would not have lasted this long at such a newsworthy television station. Packer would have fired him long ago, and you know that. And may i remind you that "Midday" was one of the most popoular shows on Australian television. He is too good for ACA. Better than anyone else. That is why he has won 5 gold logies - for most popular television personality - equal to Graham Kennedy. Get your facts right. Unsigned 22:46, 21 December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.168.58 (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not he is a good reporter is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for expressing opinions. You say 'get your facts right', you seem to be missing the point that this is not an issue of fact, but opinion. Open Encyclopedia Brittanica and you wont find under anyone's biography statements like 'X is widely considred to be...' etc. Statements like that have no place in factual documents. State his achievements and longevity all you like, but leave it for the reader to decide whether or not he is any good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.190 (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Not to anyone reading this, find a better picture of raymartin, it looks like someone used a webcam to snap a picture off their broken TV 202.191.107.40 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A broken tv that had Vaseline spread thick all over it 202.191.107.40 12:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism:

The Criticism para has been re-inserted. The previous editor's deletion on the grounds of potential libel is spurious. The entry complies with Australian defamation law, with the defences of truthful comment and valid literary criticism. Someone is being too precious. The previous editor who removed the entry on the grounds of bias is also being too precious, as the entries regarding Martin's support for Dr Holt's "microwave therapy" are entirely truthful and referenced. Martin falsely raised the hope of those suffering cancer and their families, for which he is being justly criticised.

In the meantime go to the NHMRC website announcing the release of their Report at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/media/rel05/holt.htm

Finally, who is protecting Martin from IP address 58.172.129.216? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogongMoth (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the previous Jon Safran bit edited? It now reads like a Ray Martin fan site. Safran was criminally assaulted by Martin. The episode was catured on film. I've seen it with my own eyes. It is exquisite irony - "Why aren't you at work Ray? It's 9.00 o'clock!" Martin is exposed for the hypocrite he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.172.214 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider including a link to the wiki page re frontline Frontline (Australian TV series). It's obvious that rob sitch was portraying martin in the third series and i agree with others above that this page should better reflect how martin is actually regarded in australia, which can be done objectively with reference to frontline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulb wiki (talk • contribs) 09:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced materials

I like Jpeob's reason for deleting the John Safran section for being unsourced althought this WHOLE article is unsourced and yet Jpeob does not delete the other sections (e.g. Awards, etc). This article smells like an advertisement/press release for Ray Martin as someone suggested. Jpeob, are you Ray Martin or do you work for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.116.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what has happened to the rest of this discussion and I can't be bothered going through the edit history to find out. But can I suggest along these lines that something may need to be done about this ‘pesky’ section on J. Safran, to put it very loosely in Martin's own words, according to this primary source and this secondary source (for those who don't want the paywall)?

Observations:

• It is unlikely that this incident is significant enough to warrant its own section; though maybe it deserves a subsection. Perhaps it could be listed under a section body like Controversy or something similar? This is what I have seen in other Wikipedia articles of a similar biographical nature.
• There are some potentially unnecessary verbs here.
  • “infamous” is a bit risky without sources, unless one of the primary and/or secondary sources I referenced above could be used.
  • “Harassed” is a very strong word for an encyclopedic, non-journalistic point of reference. “embarrass” is equally strong. Something like “confront” would very likely provide a more neutral tone.

This particular article section is awkwardly worded and unhelpful to the Wikipedia community; and ironically, it may also be equally unhelpful to both Ray Martin and John Safran. I would fix this myself but would like some input firsst.

I would even go so far as to suggest that until this whole section can be fixed up propperly, maybe it should be temporarily if not indefinitely removed altogether.

p.s. Can people please stop tamperring with evidence by almost categorically deleting nearly everything in this talk page section on Safran? It's a free community with free content but fair play gives a fair go all round. The last person to comment also didn't provide a signature as per the appropriate convention. Cheers.

Njsch (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

HiLo48, is there anything that can (or even should) be done here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njsch (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Grace, Indigenous

No mention of why he changed his surname from Grace to Martin. No mention of his indigenous heritage. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What? You can't be serious? This bloke actually claims indigenous heritage? What a farce. Just shows he will say and do anything for sympathy, attention and self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.74.30 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

His great-great grandmother was an Aboriginal. I can't imagine why anyone would disbelieve this. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This talk section is no longer necessary as it has been addressed briefly in this article section. The claim from IP address 121.45.74.30 is a slander and looks a bit potentially trollish (clearly they couldn't be bothered to make an effort to make a proper user account anyway). There was an hour-long documentary hosted by Martin, aired on SBS, where he investigated and traced his aboriginal heritage.

p.s. I have fixed up some of the earlier comments which were not appropriately adhering to talk page conventions for replies to comments.

Njsch (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's good that the Aboriginal ancestry issue is now properly addressed in the article. However, we don't normally delete old talk page discussions. They help to explain how the article came to be the way it is today. As for the silly comments from the IP editor, they are well responded to in a non-inflammatory way. They have been debunked. No edits have come from that IP address since those comments above. Again, nothing to worry about. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification HiLo48, I'm pretty new to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njsch (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)