Talk:Gotcha journalism

message: Gotcha journalism seems like good journalism to me.  In journalism they tell you to prepare your questions, ask tough questions, and press subjects for responses to the actual question.  While i think gotcha journalism may refer to a reporter who has it out for someone, such a reporter would often be indistinguishable from an honest reporter who is just asking tough questions.Dmcheatw (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most journalists take that approach, which is the more responsible approach aimed at producing a balanced piece. This article is more discussing the style where the person producing the piece is trying to generate a specific reaction and skew their coverage. Tony Fox (speak) 04:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Gotcha journalism refer to methods of interviewing which are designed to entrap the interviewee into making statements which are damaging or discreditable to their character, integrity or repute. The aim is to capture footage or recordings of the interview which can be selectively edited, compiled and broadcast for propaganda purposes."
The above intro needs to be improved so as to be clear that the term is one used by critics and to be clear that rarely does everyone agree when a costitutes gotcha journalism as apposed to just good journaslism.  Describing it's purpose as that of propaganda is not accurate as I would think it's purpose is more for getting ratings or selling more newspapers or magazines. Also, the charge of selective editing is one made by critics when accusing a reporter of gotcha journalism. Also it is not limited to broadcast news either as print journalist can be accused of it to.
-Cab88 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro problems 

message: "Gotcha journalism" seems to be a term invented by politicians and their supporters to attempt to discredit legitimate journalism and thus evade scrutiny. Balanced references to "gotcha journalism" seem thin on the ground and the etymology is unclear.
Thus I believe the existence of this term and the creation of this page is part of a widespread propaganda campaign against effective political journalism and it should be deleted, or at least completely re-written for NPOV  Pjaymes (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not NPOV - This concept is a politicised attack on journalism 

message: I was expecting to find something about the 1980s and 1990s, which was the time period mentioned in the introduction as related to the rise of this practice or at least this label for the practice? Instead, there are some disjointed ramblings about spring 2020 journalists covering the pandemic response in the United Kingdom. Would someone please clean that up? Unless there is some actual history to put in that section, I'd recommend deleting that entire part of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B000:2FF:EC7C:E31D:AC2D:135B (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. I've removed the Spectator take as WP:RSOPINION (the author does not appear to be a notable commentator), and kept the sourced line about what the British public thought of gotcha polling during Covid briefings, when polled. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "History" Portion 

message: When journalistic ethics decline to a point where news organizations become propaganda machines that are biased in favor of one political party and opposed to the other, you not only have the phenomenon of "gotcha" questions during interviews and news conferences with political figures, but you also have the opposite phenomenon: reporters not asking hard questions of political figures who represent the reporters' favored political party, or tossing "softball" questions to favored political figures to make them look good. That obvious point needs to be brought forward in this article. 
2600:8801:B011:300:59C6:986F:2060:ACB4 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the other half of this article?