Interesting question from Chris.
On 9 February 2017 at 15:57, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Which leaves the question of "why blacklist the
Daily Mail not even worse
sources?" If anyone can suggest an answer to that which would keep a journo
happy I'd be interested to hear it .... ;)
I think the answer is NPOV and systemic bias.
For several years I've been resisting the urge of other editors to prohibit
the use of "tabloid" newspapers in the context of establishing notability
of subjects in cultures whose primary language isn't English. I see it as a
necessary trade-off to address systemic bias.
Case in point: Some AfD editors don't like Apple Daily as a reference. But
they are the only major news outlet in Hong Kong that is openly critical of
the political establishment and supportive of the (perpetual) opposition.
I guess I'm just adding to David's comparison:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
compare -
* not right-wing-ness - e.g. the Times and Telegraph are both serious
papers that lean right
* in fact - The Sun is not OK and the Times is, even though same politics
and same publisher, because one's a tabloid and one's a serious paper
So:
- If blacklisting a tabloid source which sometimes produces questionable
journalism would mean a significant POV gets purged, we allow the lesser
evil of citing sources by lower-quality publishers.
- If the same publisher produces different publications that vary in
journalistic integrity, we treat each item differently.
Deryck