![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nearly 50% of this page is taken up with allegations of anti-Israel bias in its news reporting. I know the al-Durrah saga has long generated excitement in blogland, but the Gaza stuff seems utterly at the level of triviality and WP:RECENTISM. I mean, they used a wrong piece of video and then apologised for it? In my view that whole section should go, and the al-Durrah stuff should only be here as a footnote in a much broader article that tells the reader about the network as a whole. Until that happens, this page just looks like an attack piece dominated by partisan commentary (much of it from rival media organisations) masquerading as an encyclopedia article. If I get some time I'll start some research, perhaps others (any French editors?) can help out too. In the meantime this tag needs to be here. -- Nickhh ( talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, for some reason, the Gaza stuff had been inserted: I've deleted it on a) the grounds that the citations did not support the pre-edited text; b) it was irrelevant to the article. 84.65.15.115 ( talk) 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the above comment about deletion was penned by me, an Irish German; work that out. die Baumfabrik ( talk) 01:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- This article is extremely unbalanced. Please compare it to the French-language counterpart of this article in Wikipedia. France 2 is an important institution. It is the main French public channel, the equivalent of PBS in the USA and the BBC in the UK. It is probably the main French-language medium of record. The article gives the impression that France 2 is above all an unreliable medium characterized by an obsession with the Middle East and an intense anti-Israeli bias. While it is true that the dominant attitude toward Israel and the Arab world is somewhat different in France and in English-speaking countries, this difference does not justify such a presentation. Wikipedia should be a source of balanced information, not a party to polemics or an agent covertly engaged in the construction of readers' worldviews in the service of geopolitical goals. Why not start by fully translating into English the much more complete French-language Wikipedia article about France 2? I am a professional French/English translator, and I can perform this translation if needed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Traxip (
talk •
contribs)
05:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The material was significant enough to warrant mention in high-profile reliable sources. Perhaps it can be trimmed down, but please don't simply remove entire paragraphs of sourced material w/o consensus. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we can merge the whole bit into criticism related to an anti-Israel bias. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 05:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Which I did. There are numerous references to France 2's anti-Israel bias. I found this one from the Brussels Journal in relation to the latest Gaza incident, quite succinctly put:
and there is this from the Spectator and Melanie Phillips:
Anyway, on grounds that it is a valid criticism that dogs France 2, just as it dogs the BBC (see Balen Report), I have re-added the information under a specific heading of slanted coverage. Similar allegations are provided on the BBC page, under the "News" section. As I said, the answer is to expand the article with other pertinent information so as not to make the allegations appear so prominent. The BBC page is a good example. I would suggest using that as a template to improve this article, rather than deleting information to achieve balance. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 05:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"France 2 aired a video that purported to show destruction caused by the Israel air force, but was in fact an incident from 2005, when a truck-load of Hamas explosives blew up in the city of Jabalia in Gaza Strip"
This is not an objective fact. As The Guardian and several other sources reported at the time, Hamas blamed the Israeli Air Force, claiming a military aircraft could be faintly heard before the explosion, accusing them of deliberately targeting a mortar-truck; the Israelis denied any involvement whatsoever, claiming it was an accident for which Hamas were solely to blame. Both accounts must be taken into account. [1] Dynablaster ( talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, Etienne Leenhardt (France 2) apologized for the news report, yes, but there is nothing in his statement that acknowledges the validity of one account over the other, only that the report he broadcast was erroneous having hastily been put together.
"France's public broadcaster was forced to apologise to viewers yesterday after it mistakenly used amateur footage shot in 2005 to illustrate a report on the current Gaza conflict." [2]
Secondary sources take Leenhardt's apology as confirmation that the blogger's version of events must also be true, and write as though it were an established fact. Let us clearly separate them, so as not to mislead readers. Dynablaster ( talk) 04:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Is France 2 aired free-to-air on digital satellite Atlantic Bird 3? -- 88.77.255.194 ( talk) 10:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In the section, "2013 report on weapons smuggling from Serbia to France," the main organizer of the event is referred to as Aleksandar M. but then claims he has a cousin by the name of Nenad Mirković. Is this the same "M."? If so, i propose we change all the instances of Aleksandar M. to Aleksandar Mirković. "M." isn't very clear to begin with and I'm sure somewhere in the French sources that the real name is recounted one way or another. What do you guys think? Complete turing ( talk) 01:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on France 2. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
"Privately owned channels such as Canal+ and La Cinq (now superseded by France 5)"
No, la Cinq wasn't related to France 5 at all. Sure, La Cinquième (which later became France 5) occupied the fifth channel a few years after the end of la Cinq, but it was a wholly different project. 2A01:CB00:EB7:2500:551B:D76B:38E0:96D8 ( talk) 10:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nearly 50% of this page is taken up with allegations of anti-Israel bias in its news reporting. I know the al-Durrah saga has long generated excitement in blogland, but the Gaza stuff seems utterly at the level of triviality and WP:RECENTISM. I mean, they used a wrong piece of video and then apologised for it? In my view that whole section should go, and the al-Durrah stuff should only be here as a footnote in a much broader article that tells the reader about the network as a whole. Until that happens, this page just looks like an attack piece dominated by partisan commentary (much of it from rival media organisations) masquerading as an encyclopedia article. If I get some time I'll start some research, perhaps others (any French editors?) can help out too. In the meantime this tag needs to be here. -- Nickhh ( talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, for some reason, the Gaza stuff had been inserted: I've deleted it on a) the grounds that the citations did not support the pre-edited text; b) it was irrelevant to the article. 84.65.15.115 ( talk) 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the above comment about deletion was penned by me, an Irish German; work that out. die Baumfabrik ( talk) 01:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- This article is extremely unbalanced. Please compare it to the French-language counterpart of this article in Wikipedia. France 2 is an important institution. It is the main French public channel, the equivalent of PBS in the USA and the BBC in the UK. It is probably the main French-language medium of record. The article gives the impression that France 2 is above all an unreliable medium characterized by an obsession with the Middle East and an intense anti-Israeli bias. While it is true that the dominant attitude toward Israel and the Arab world is somewhat different in France and in English-speaking countries, this difference does not justify such a presentation. Wikipedia should be a source of balanced information, not a party to polemics or an agent covertly engaged in the construction of readers' worldviews in the service of geopolitical goals. Why not start by fully translating into English the much more complete French-language Wikipedia article about France 2? I am a professional French/English translator, and I can perform this translation if needed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Traxip (
talk •
contribs)
05:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The material was significant enough to warrant mention in high-profile reliable sources. Perhaps it can be trimmed down, but please don't simply remove entire paragraphs of sourced material w/o consensus. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we can merge the whole bit into criticism related to an anti-Israel bias. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 05:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Which I did. There are numerous references to France 2's anti-Israel bias. I found this one from the Brussels Journal in relation to the latest Gaza incident, quite succinctly put:
and there is this from the Spectator and Melanie Phillips:
Anyway, on grounds that it is a valid criticism that dogs France 2, just as it dogs the BBC (see Balen Report), I have re-added the information under a specific heading of slanted coverage. Similar allegations are provided on the BBC page, under the "News" section. As I said, the answer is to expand the article with other pertinent information so as not to make the allegations appear so prominent. The BBC page is a good example. I would suggest using that as a template to improve this article, rather than deleting information to achieve balance. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 05:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"France 2 aired a video that purported to show destruction caused by the Israel air force, but was in fact an incident from 2005, when a truck-load of Hamas explosives blew up in the city of Jabalia in Gaza Strip"
This is not an objective fact. As The Guardian and several other sources reported at the time, Hamas blamed the Israeli Air Force, claiming a military aircraft could be faintly heard before the explosion, accusing them of deliberately targeting a mortar-truck; the Israelis denied any involvement whatsoever, claiming it was an accident for which Hamas were solely to blame. Both accounts must be taken into account. [1] Dynablaster ( talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, Etienne Leenhardt (France 2) apologized for the news report, yes, but there is nothing in his statement that acknowledges the validity of one account over the other, only that the report he broadcast was erroneous having hastily been put together.
"France's public broadcaster was forced to apologise to viewers yesterday after it mistakenly used amateur footage shot in 2005 to illustrate a report on the current Gaza conflict." [2]
Secondary sources take Leenhardt's apology as confirmation that the blogger's version of events must also be true, and write as though it were an established fact. Let us clearly separate them, so as not to mislead readers. Dynablaster ( talk) 04:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Is France 2 aired free-to-air on digital satellite Atlantic Bird 3? -- 88.77.255.194 ( talk) 10:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In the section, "2013 report on weapons smuggling from Serbia to France," the main organizer of the event is referred to as Aleksandar M. but then claims he has a cousin by the name of Nenad Mirković. Is this the same "M."? If so, i propose we change all the instances of Aleksandar M. to Aleksandar Mirković. "M." isn't very clear to begin with and I'm sure somewhere in the French sources that the real name is recounted one way or another. What do you guys think? Complete turing ( talk) 01:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on France 2. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
"Privately owned channels such as Canal+ and La Cinq (now superseded by France 5)"
No, la Cinq wasn't related to France 5 at all. Sure, La Cinquième (which later became France 5) occupied the fifth channel a few years after the end of la Cinq, but it was a wholly different project. 2A01:CB00:EB7:2500:551B:D76B:38E0:96D8 ( talk) 10:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)