Talk:John Pilger

message: On April 20th, two comments were inserted after Pilger's criticism of the Guardian's reporting the MH17 catastrophe:
'In fact, the interim report of the Joint Investigation Team of international prosecutors concluded the Malaysian airliner had been brought down by a missile fired by pro-Russian separatists. Aaronovitch wrote in September 2016 that Pilger "needed little prompting from the Russians to" falsely "conclude that all was not as it seemed", having put "a Nelsonian eye to his telescope" in looking for evidence (in the September 2014 article) which contradicted Pilger's assertions.' (explanations given were: Pilger got it wrong' and '2016 response to Pilger's 2014 article mentioning the MH17 crash'.
Now, what the JIT may have concluded in 2016 is not entirely relevant to what Pilger accused the Guardian of in 2014, namely that "Without a single piece of evidence, the US and its Nato allies and their media machines blamed ethnic Russian 'separatists' in Ukraine and implied that Moscow was ultimately responsible". Even if the assumptions of the JIT can be shown true at some point in the future, it doesn't take away from the fact that at the time of the propaganda campaign in 2014 not 'a single piece of evidence' was presented' by the Guardian, or anybody else for that matter. Neither was Pilger's allegation proven wrong, nor is the additional information provided by the edit even relevant since it does not refer to the allegation itself.
This is even more obvious with the second edit. Why should anybody care about what acerbic remarks Mr Aaronovitch may come up with about anything? OK, he writes for the Guardian and he doesn't seem to agree with Pilger, but Mr Aaronovitch is hardly an authority about the measure of 'prompting' Pilger gets from anywhere. In addition, the added sentence doesn't even make sense literally. What 'contradicted Pilger's assertions'? The 'evidence' in the September 2014 article? What evidence? Or was the edit made to point out that Pilger in his 2014 article was looking for evidence (which was nowhere to be found) and is now 'contradicted' because his assertions at the time are no longer valid since the JIT found a smoking gun, several years later? Even the JIT, though, is loathe to present their alleged scores of witnesses, photos and whatnot. We shall see if the small piece of metal with a number on it can prove their theory to an extent that a court of law will follow. And make no mistake, Pilger will probably still be around to point out that the same thing was happening to al-Megrahi in a previous century.
Therefore I am going to delete this passage and recommend that notable comments on Pilger's media criticisms or refutations be improved in such a way as to refer directly to what he actually said and to point out its possible flaws and inaccuracies instead of reflecting irrelevant opinions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.101.27 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the mainstream media

message: I will try and find an email Pilger circulated on left wing media, justifying the Bali bombings, saying that the tourists who go to Bali did not respect Indonesian culture.
Noel Ellis 
11:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Bali Bombings 

message: Hi, I've noticed that Pilger is a virtual quote machine on Wikipedia (as well as quotes about Pilger) in both this bio and elsewhere.  Generally when I see this kind of thing, it means we don't have a Wikiquote page setup, but in fact we do in this case.  With that said, I think some effort should be made to move a lot of these quotes to that page, if they aren't already there. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: John Pilger died yesterday, the 30th of December 2024. I'm surprised that there isn't an obituary up here yet.
Fustbariclation (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Why all the quotes from others COMMENTING about Pilger's documentaries rather than quotes from the documentaries themselves?  Is this page a criticism of Pilger or an actual record of HIS work? 202.172.123.89 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Pilger's documentaries 

message: It may be a small detail, but wasn't Pilger's 70s documentary series for ITV called "The Pilger Report" and not just "Pilger" as the page states.
It's been a little difficult tracking something down to support my memory, but I did find https://archive.org/stream/DocumentaryScreensNonFictionFilmAndTelevisionKeithBeattie/12_Documentary+Screens+-+Non-Fiction+Film+and+Television_Keith_Beattie_djvu.txt this page on the internet archive which states "Pilger's first documentaries were 30 minute
programmes produced for the ITV series The Pilger Report 
(1974—77). " Jim Skea Jimskea (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pilger" or "The Pilger Report"? 

message: The present article reads like a hagiography written by Pilger's fans. To at least start to meet NPOV, this article needs to mention incidents such as Pilger's publication of a fake story about a Thai slave girl he bought for £85, documented in reliable sources (e.g., The Times obituary). FOARP (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why haven't YOU added it to the article yet? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did? FOARP (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagiography