Talk:Xinhua News Agency

message: Xinhua, as a state-controlled news agency, is a controversial one which is accused of photo manipulation, rumors etc. and known in the outside world as a propaganda arm of the Communist Party of China. I made this edit in the lead  to make it clear, but it was reverted by  with this edit summary.
Note the general consensus in media related articles is that if the media organization generates much controversy, that should be reflected in the lead. For example, the article MSNBC mentions in the lead that it is accused of leftist bias, the article Fox News Channel mentions in the lead that it is accused of conservative bias. So I think it is completely appropriate, necessary and NPOV to mention Xinhua is a propaganda arm in the lead. I use two reputed reliable sources for this claim: The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. --Reference Desker (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Xinhua is controversial to those who hate the Chinese regime for one reason or another. Most of the time, it is treated as a normal state-controlled news agency. And I don't know about any instance of photo manipulation from Xinhua, but I do recall an incident wherein outfits such as the BBC and CNN published a photo of Nepalese police beating Tibetan-Nepalese while describing it as a scene of Chinese police beating Tibetan-Chinese. The point is that newspapers (or cable networks) make mistakes all the time, even in the same direction, and usually get away with a correction. Fox News is a mess of an article that has gone through many sui generis discussions, so it is not something to emulate; MSNBC is probably a tit-for-tat from Fox. However, most articles for news organizations do not say that "some people accuse this network of being propaganda for x", much less what you wrote, which is "this network is propaganda for x". "Propaganda arm" does not reflect Xinhua's self-identification or presentation, and does nothing to promote understanding of the subject. A better approach than calling names would be to find sources that put what you think are substandard journalism practices in the appropriate context (i.e., not make this article a coatrack of accusations) up for discussion. Quigley (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment shows your personal bias. WP and WSJ are respected sources, so the references are fine. --Reference Desker (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is referenced, it can stay within the article as a summary of a viewpoint, NOT as a presentation of what you think "what it is" (I've seen that nonsensical, bullshit line elsewhere...). The propaganda accusation should not be in the lede, and certainly NOT in the first sentence. We already have a credibility section, and I believe THAT is the appropriate placement. However, placing it so prominently in the lede makes it clear what you are here for: to push your POV, and more gravely, in an undue manner. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Remedy them? Reference Desker is one of the most notorious serial POV pushers (Most of the edits I make do not pertain to politics) who has not had a block on his record, and certainly has not displayed interest in anything of what you suggested in your second paragraph above. Besides that, again, I would have less of a concern if you were to add that to the credibility section, not the lede. In the lede, I think the mention that it is state-controlled, which we already have, is enough inference to the reader that it is considered to be a propaganda arm. Yes the term 'propaganda' is not all pejorative but to the majority of the public, it has mostly negative connotation. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 10:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda arm 

message: Substituted at 10:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xinhua News Agency. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071009182533/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/03_07/b3820149_mz035.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_07/b3820149_mz035.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xinhua News Agency. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090603185809/http://www.radio86.co.uk:80/china-insight/from-chinese-media/headlines-in-china/10034/china-to-spend-billions-to-boost-media-credibility to http://www.radio86.co.uk/china-insight/from-chinese-media/headlines-in-china/10034/china-to-spend-billions-to-boost-media-credibility
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110920031145/http://www.edigear.com/search/index.php?ag=3 to http://www.edigear.com/search/index.php?ag=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Xinhua Finance should be removed from this article, seem a former employee created a fraud company, (or really connected to Xinhua as special agent but were don't know) which Xinhua News Agency had made a statement on 28 April 2007 that they have no relation.
Here is information i removed from the article:
Bloomberg Businessweek commented on the opening of Xinhua Finance, saying that it would have to overcome the "Xinhua stigma" of being associated with "official propaganda", and suspicions by outsiders of its credibility. Bloomberg, Reuters—and Xinhua? , BusinessWeek, February 17, 2003
 
Matthew_hk tc 19:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Xinhua Finance

message: I recently pointed out that The Diplomat source says the Xinhua fact check only dealt with the testimony of one witness interviewed for a BBC report. It does not say the fact check "denied the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps and other aspects of the Uyghur genocide". The word genocide does not appear in the source. An editor disagreed and referred to a statement, not from Xinhua, but from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin as somehow indicating that the Xinhua fact check covered the whole Xinjiang scenario. The Diplomat source actually says (as the dissenting editor later discovered) "Xinhua’s fact check did not address the bulk of the testimony from other survivors". So, the source is restricting its analysis to a single testimony. Anyway, there was a happy ending. Burrobert (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this about me? How uncivil. Please don't do it again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Diplomat source