Talk:Journalism ethics and standards/Archive 1

message: Substantially addressed issue of "limited geographic scope" and so removed that tag, please review.  Also did extensive editing on lead and links.  BBC, CBC, European Press and Al Jazeera codes of ethics now included.  I  think it's a much better article now. Calicocat 15:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that the article doesn't capture different ideas of what "journalistic standards" are in different countries.  I've heard, for instance, that many popular British newspapers take a particular political view (though I'm not sure whether that's just editorially or if it also affects news reporting), on the theory that competing outlets will have different biases, and the public can sort things out for themselves.  As I've explained on Talk:Advocacy journalism, there's also a substantial community of journalists in the U.S. that reject objectivity as an appropriate or even possible standard. Clearly, the standards outlined here also don't apply to certain state-owned media where the controlling governments have different rules.  NPOV seems to demand that we not declare that the mainstream Western standards are the One True Journalistic Standards, and accuracy seems to demand that we not pretend that all news media do or even try to follow them. I'd like to hear more about journalistic standards in developing countries, and about objectivity in Britain, before declaring this article well-rounded.  Beyond that, it should probably also cover various controversies about lack of adherence to these standards. -- Beland 02:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: P.S. - I should also say, Calicocat, thank you for your substantial work on this article. And thank you for your comments here and on Talk:Advocacy journalism. Your help is greatly appreciated. -- Beland 02:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: I'd like to hear more about journalistic standards in developing countries, state-controlled media, and objectivity in the British press. -- Beland 03:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beland, I don't understand why this tag appears on this page? The article as it stands features a global view of media ethics and presents ample examples from around the world.  How can it be of limited geographic scope?  Since the tag is part of one of your comments, perhaps you might 1) expand it and answer the question you ask or 2) remove the tag.  I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, so don't know what's what with regard to the implications of this tag being placed on this talk page, but something about it seems wrong?  Would you please explain? Thanks, Calicocat 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't have the necessary expertise to answer my own question.  This tag is here to help attract the attention of editors outside the U.S. or content experts who might be able to. I rather doubt that the "mainstream media" in Ghana, Iran, China, India, Indonesia, Bolivia, and North Korea or Tuvalu all share a common ethical code with CNN and Al Jezeera. -- Beland 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Has anyone from outside the US even touched this article?  I'd like at least one two perspectives "on the ground" before moving on.  I mean, these ethical codes are all well and good on paper, but how do they translate in practice?  Does Ghana have its Dan Rather equivalents, or are the media criticism issues there completely different? Restoring the tag for now. Perhaps we should advertise on some of the foreign country Wikipedia message boards. -- Beland 04:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: If you looked, you'd see the answer is yes and one of them is also a member of the systemic bias project.  You ask questions you yourself should find answers to. Find some journalists in other countries and invite them to take a look at the article via e-mail or do as you suggest with regard to adverts on other Wikipedia message boards. When I found the article is was more or less a lift from one US source, and had a two sentence, POV, lead. Working together, we have made valuable contributions to this article, expanding it to cover virtually the entire world.  I worked especially hard on this, so it was good to have the "attention tag" then, but I think it's time is well past to that point where having it remain is just inaccurate and misleading. Calicocat 21:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited geographic scope

message: These standards are not universally endorsed by all journalists, especially objectivity. -- Beland 03:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, same question for  Beland.  Why place this tag here? As far as NPOV goes, the article is very much in keeping with NPOV policy, it is a well sourced article and decidedly not POV.  You make an unsubstantiated claim that these standards are not "universally endorsed," however, if you read the article you'll see that's factually untrue, if you can cite some sources with back-up showing that, I'd like to see them included.  I think however, those places where these codes are not accepted are more likcly places where wikipedia itself is not even accessable -- are there such places? I'm confused by your comment here, perhaps you might add to the article in some way to address your concerns rather than placing this tag here which seems to lend negative implications to the article.  Calicocat 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just written a major expansion to the article on Advocacy journalism which should be an excellent primer on how "objectivity" is not universally accepted as a journalistic standard, even in the U.S. and Canada. -- Beland 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent edits have addressed my NPOV concerns enough to remove the tag. -- Beland 06:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: * Journalistic standards and ethics → Journalism ethics – {1) unnatural, ambiguous adjectival name violates letter and spirit of policy of article naming conventions, 2) redundantly includes "standards," a subset of journalism ethics, 3) previous move of page was made unilaterally by User:Charles_Matthews cutting off on-going consensus building discussion resulting in inappropriate name choice, 4) name not in keeping with generally accepted useage in professional journalism.} — Calicocat 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~    
*Support "Journalism ethics and standards."  For reasons given above and for all the many previously given herein as noted.Calicocat 00:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
Further comments by Calicocat 14:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: ::Add any additional comments
Further comments by Calicocat 14:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. After an extension to the deadline there was no support to move this article. violet/riga (t) 10:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: Editors, please note that Wikipedia uses downstyle headers, which means only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)) -- Beland 04:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization in headers