This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GB News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
@ DeFacto: Why do you believe the Reception section is so 'undue' and 'cherry-picked' that it must be removed wholesale rather than have constructive edits made to expand it? Sam Walton ( talk) 06:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on
this BBC article, I've added that GB News is set up with an explicit political orientation to the lead. This is contradicted by
GB News § Programming, which states GB News has not explicitly indicated a political allegiance
, sourced with
[1]. While I am not completely sure whether GB News has not explicitly indicated a political allegiance
can be sourced from the article, it does mention that GB News' CEO has claimed to be "committed to impartial journalism". How can we fix this?
15 (
talk) 11:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue the BBC isn't a very reliable source in this case and should be removed since its whole purpose is to go against them, not to mention they have made it very difficult for GB news before it was launched. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1449320/BBC-news-GB-News-public-events-footage-launch-day-Sunday-gb-news-channel-launch Eck ( talk) 04:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The Article referenced to make this assertion is purely the opinion of the BBC journalist, and includes no references as to how he arrived that the opinion. Actual views broadcast aside, it was never set up with a mission statement to be of a particular leaning, so this assertion is false. Vote to remove. ianwakes87 ( talk) 18:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Adverts from Kopparberg, Grolsch, The Open University and Nivea have been pulled from GB News. [2] [3] I am waiting to add this as there are serious concerns about WP:UNDUE in previous versions of this article, so I would prefer to gain consensus for the inclusion of the adverts being pulled before making any edits. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with the correct edit rights add to GB News#Broadcasting that HD signal in the satellite distribution is in the 1080i/25 ( MBAFF) format? [1] Thanks.
2001:569:51F9:1300:95AF:2924:EA3F:3DFE ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
More added. 79.76.228.53 ( talk) 15:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Updated. 79.76.225.31 ( talk) 00:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Politics and content aside, is this a true news channel? There's very little news more talk-show, conversational, guest speaker, interview, panel type style rather than a news channel as most would understand it. It's more of political affairs or current affairs discussion channel. Obviously other news channels do these too, but more of a filler for actual news reporting which makes up the vast amount of air time, this seems to be the other way round Abcmaxx ( talk) 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Press Gazette reported that other companies and organisations including Nivea and drinks brand Grolsch had also distanced themselves from the news channel within 48 hours of its launch.[5] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
"GB News has been described as right-leaning." Why isn't this sentence written simply as "GB News is right-leaning." There are a broad spectrum of sources saying this including The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial Times as currently cited in the article. It's therefore verifiable isn't it? 80.41.95.252 ( talk) 22:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi DeFacto, can you help me understand why GB News' political leaning is a "subjective opinion" and why we must attribute it to "some of its competitors"? A large number of RS attest to its political orientation, which is not an opinion - "right-leaning" is different from "awesome" or "bad". That The Telegraph, Guardian and FT are GBN's competitors (which seems implausible given that they are not news channels) should not really matter, see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? for a related discussion. If you are worried about its political leaning being undue, there is a host of sources talking about its politics and it is arguably a big part of GBN's branding. Thoughts? 15 ( talk) 08:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
after its first few days on air, Vice News, The Atlantic and The Telegraph have characterised the channel's output as right-leaning"? -- DeFacto ( talk). 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
GB News is right-leaning. 15 ( talk) 16:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
after its first few days on air, the channel's output has been characterised as right-leaning".-- DeFacto ( talk). 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
is. I'm happy for the time to be included as a compromise, if others believe that to be best. Pinging everyone who has contributed to this section: Sam Walton RWB2020 Abcmaxx Solipsism101 The Anome LittleDwangs. 15 ( talk) 15:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Worth noting that one of the reasons the channel doesn't explicitly (and perhaps proudly) state it is right wing is that as a broadcaster legally it needs to be abide by "due impartiality", as regulated by Ofcom. Unlike,for example, newspapers expressing a particular political tendency or allegiance could get them into a fair bit of trouble. LittleDwangs ( talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Strongly oppose any allegation of political leaning in the introduction. It is inappropriate when the organisation does not itself describe it in such a way and whilst other news organisations such as sky news and bbc are not described with their leanings implied. It does not belong in the opening sentence or introduction at all. Making clear in the article it is alleged to be right leaning by certain news organisations is fine but it should be attributed to who is making the claim. But its totally unacceptable to put it in the introduction that its right leaning which is making a statement of fact when it is simply opinion. It would be misleading, factually inaccurate and politically biased to do that. Especially after just a few days of the channel broadcasting to forever more brand the channel "right leaning" is clearly unreasonable. RWB2020 ( talk) 05:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely do not need to shove it into the lead sentence, at least for the moment. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Does the article really need the "how to guide" sentences for accessing Astra 2F with a large dish that aren't actually about the channel itself? TubularWorld ( talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this correct language for an encyclopedia? "Undeterred and redoubling his efforts, Neil continued on into the teeth of the gale". Seems a little bit sensationalist, and factually incorrect - there is no gale or wind of any kind.
As per DeFacto's reverts of my edits ( [6] [7]): is it undue to include the technical mishaps, pranks etc. in the public response to GB News section? I'd argue it isn't, since they have been reported in numerous reliable sources, both in and outside of the UK. The New York Times piece (cited), for example, is mentions them and @GBNewsFails. It is a fairly good even-handed account of the channel (and could be used elsewhere in the article), and is not sensationalist.
My second edit included Lady Colin Campbell's comments on Epstein's ephebophilia (as if that makes child sex trafficking ok somehow?), which I also think should be included in the article. Although I will admit that "Public response" is perhaps the wrong section for that. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 18:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It can be reported and genrally considered to have a poltical bias, but the organisation has not confirmed themselves, so I would argue the word 'explicit' is out of place here? I am aware some sources state this, but the Chairman and the overall organsation are not explicitly saying they are. HelpfulPi ( talk) 11:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with rights add this info? From source: "The output will be a full audio simulcast with the television station, meaning no special programmes or content will be made for the radio channel." 75.154.234.98 ( talk) 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Chairman Andrew Neil talked about expansion to new markets with their own regional programming if GB News launch successful. Can registered contributors add it if it's something that should be here? 2001:569:51F9:1300:318C:B4A1:6191:DA75 ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions streaming only on the iOS app. The Android app has streaming as well. 2001:569:51F9:1300:318C:B4A1:6191:DA75 ( talk) 17:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I removed the claim in lead Upon its launch in June 2021, it was the first channel that is generally viewed to have established a political orientation in the United Kingdom.
(here). I did this because the BBC article we used previously to say there was an explicit political orientation, to my mind, refutes this claim. It says GB News has been talked up as Britain's answer to Fox News, but the validity of that comparison is limited. It is not the first channel to be set up in Britain with a strong worldview - RT, formerly known as Russia Today, has done that for years. But GB News is the first to be set up with an explicit political leaning.
[8] Pinging
DeputyBeagle who reverted this removal.
Solipsism 101 (
talk) 22:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
They are only 31,000 now.
79.76.240.201 ( talk) 21:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
On Wednesday the viewers had fallen to 93,000, three times that of Sky and 24,000 more than BBC News. It was more than double the channel’s average number of viewers, which was 44,000 over the same period.[12] Including cherry-picked stats, rather than suggesting any editor did it. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Several editors seem to be intent on keeping any mention of political leaning out of the lead paragraph. I find this surprising. Not only is this the single most salient point in media coverage of this channel, it's explicitly the channel's unique selling point according to its creators. @ DeFacto and Czello:, can you please justify your edits removing this highly salient information from the lead para? -- The Anome ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
“People have said about the new channels ‘Oh my god, isn’t this awful’. We’re alive to that debate. Both are seeking to come from a right-of-centre perspective and there’s nothing in the code that prohibits a broadcasters coming from a particular perspective.”
Personally I'd go against it being the lead at all for the reasons I've explained above and to echo those elsewhere on this talk page. I think another point that needs mentioning is that the lead to this article is very small (only 3 sentences right now). Shoe-horning their supposed political views into an otherwise-neutral lead again seems WP:UNDUE. Presently it's mentioned in Background, which is the first section in the article -- that seems enough to me. — Czello 12:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the mixed reception part: RS say that its reception was mixed, not that it was bad. We can add more reviews of GB News, there are quite a few of its launch. See Talk:GB News § 'Undue' reviews for a discussion. 15 ( talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
If it is, it is time to supply reliable sources saying so, per
WP:WEASEL which lists "it is widely thought
" as potential weasel words and states: "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the
Wikipedia:No original research or
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies
". It is not good enough, per
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH, to draw our own conclusion from the five sources simply opining that it is right-leaning. All that those five sources do is support the opinions of five individual commentators.
If it genuinely is "widely described" as such, then there will be reliable sources drawing that conclusion which we can use to support it. Pending the finding of supporting sources, I have removed it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 06:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
GBNEWS is not on channel 216 on Satellite in the UK! That channel is Dave. 2A00:23C4:CA07:900:B182:C55C:58FF:EC7D ( talk) 15:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a section or new linked Wiki entry on All Perspectives Ltd. (also Liberty Global PLC and Discovery Communications Europe Ltd.) could be created, to give more idea of the people behind this venture. As of August 2021, according to Companies House, the following are the Officers / Persons with significant control...
Risk of WP:OR with this approach. Either this has been reported by reliable sources and it can be included, or we should leave it out. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 19:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Companies House should be an acceptable source under the terms of WP:PRIMARY - certainly for the information listed above without falling fould of WP:OR. This could then be supported by articles such as [ This one in The Sun] If you add in talk of international expansion [ Bloomberg News Dec 2021] there could be scope for an All Perspectives article.
Jpmaytum ( talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Neil was said to be the chairman of GB News, but what exact entity was he chairman of? Was it All Perspectives Limited, or some other entity, such as an editorial board? -- The Anome ( talk) 11:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It is always in the interest of a country to know the sources (esp. in terms of nationality) of financing and ownership (CEO) of its news stations. For example if you look at the Wiki entry of Ruptly or Euronews, the owners and financiers are clearly mentioned within the first few paragraphs. Just by calling itself ‘GB’ does not make GB News immune to the relevance of this information.
Therefore clearly sourced information as to the Australian leadership of GB News ( Angelos Frangopoulos) and the Emirati financial sources of GB News are relevant additions to the article. That is, that GB News (despite its name) be neither British owned nor financed, is very relevant. Just as much as knowing that Ruptly UK is neither British owned nor financed. Again, this is not a 'non-constructive' addition, since, if, for example, the BBC or ITV-News or Channel 4 News or Sky News UK were financed by non-British sources, then that would be very relevant to readers of their respective articles too. Drusus 0 ( talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Surprised there's nothing here about it yet. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/14/farage-factor-gb-news-eyes-brexit-party-associates https://fullfact.org/health/covid-vaccines-heart-disease/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/gb-news-dan-wootton-complants-ofcom-b1867041.html SmartSE ( talk) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to compare the YouTube subscribers of a television news channel like GB News with the YouTube subscribers of a talk radio station like LBC? Surely it would be better to compare with another TV news channel like Sky News? Jpmaytum ( talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I am requesting a discussion for a consensus on the status of GB News in regards to whether it should or should not be used as a source for citations. I'd request another editor then please add GB News to the sources section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with whatever consensus is arrived at, as I'm not clear on how exactly to go about doing this.
Please add your thoughts and views to the relevant section of this linked page here. Helper201 ( talk) 20:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Darren Grimes states on
Twitter that he is on vacation and will be back on his show on Saturday. What credible source is there to prove that Darren Grimes is in fact a "former on air staff" member?
Kingjeff (
talk) 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You can not answer all my questions 87.74.216.200 ( talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
The expression "further arrested" has appeared in the last few days. Surely the correct terminology is "rearrested"? 79.73.3.174 ( talk) 08:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
You are surrounded to be the peoples Chanel that’s why I watch you you have got so toxic feel so let done 92.30.224.226 ( talk) 19:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Does Carol Vorderman dress code really matter to this news Channel and allow guest speakers to comment on her “tits hanging out” Absolutely violating and discriminating 86.25.171.208 ( talk) 02:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Page is misleading, inaccurate and makes light of what GBNews is doing. It categorically is not a news channel, has been fined by Ofcom more than once and is tanking in the ratings. Remove your personal bias and call a spade a spade, not a news channel. 2A01:4B00:D307:D500:7CDD:88D3:45D0:AE42 ( talk) 19:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GB News article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
@ DeFacto: Why do you believe the Reception section is so 'undue' and 'cherry-picked' that it must be removed wholesale rather than have constructive edits made to expand it? Sam Walton ( talk) 06:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on
this BBC article, I've added that GB News is set up with an explicit political orientation to the lead. This is contradicted by
GB News § Programming, which states GB News has not explicitly indicated a political allegiance
, sourced with
[1]. While I am not completely sure whether GB News has not explicitly indicated a political allegiance
can be sourced from the article, it does mention that GB News' CEO has claimed to be "committed to impartial journalism". How can we fix this?
15 (
talk) 11:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue the BBC isn't a very reliable source in this case and should be removed since its whole purpose is to go against them, not to mention they have made it very difficult for GB news before it was launched. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1449320/BBC-news-GB-News-public-events-footage-launch-day-Sunday-gb-news-channel-launch Eck ( talk) 04:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The Article referenced to make this assertion is purely the opinion of the BBC journalist, and includes no references as to how he arrived that the opinion. Actual views broadcast aside, it was never set up with a mission statement to be of a particular leaning, so this assertion is false. Vote to remove. ianwakes87 ( talk) 18:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Adverts from Kopparberg, Grolsch, The Open University and Nivea have been pulled from GB News. [2] [3] I am waiting to add this as there are serious concerns about WP:UNDUE in previous versions of this article, so I would prefer to gain consensus for the inclusion of the adverts being pulled before making any edits. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 16:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with the correct edit rights add to GB News#Broadcasting that HD signal in the satellite distribution is in the 1080i/25 ( MBAFF) format? [1] Thanks.
2001:569:51F9:1300:95AF:2924:EA3F:3DFE ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
More added. 79.76.228.53 ( talk) 15:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Updated. 79.76.225.31 ( talk) 00:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Politics and content aside, is this a true news channel? There's very little news more talk-show, conversational, guest speaker, interview, panel type style rather than a news channel as most would understand it. It's more of political affairs or current affairs discussion channel. Obviously other news channels do these too, but more of a filler for actual news reporting which makes up the vast amount of air time, this seems to be the other way round Abcmaxx ( talk) 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Press Gazette reported that other companies and organisations including Nivea and drinks brand Grolsch had also distanced themselves from the news channel within 48 hours of its launch.[5] Solipsism 101 ( talk) 16:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
"GB News has been described as right-leaning." Why isn't this sentence written simply as "GB News is right-leaning." There are a broad spectrum of sources saying this including The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial Times as currently cited in the article. It's therefore verifiable isn't it? 80.41.95.252 ( talk) 22:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi DeFacto, can you help me understand why GB News' political leaning is a "subjective opinion" and why we must attribute it to "some of its competitors"? A large number of RS attest to its political orientation, which is not an opinion - "right-leaning" is different from "awesome" or "bad". That The Telegraph, Guardian and FT are GBN's competitors (which seems implausible given that they are not news channels) should not really matter, see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? for a related discussion. If you are worried about its political leaning being undue, there is a host of sources talking about its politics and it is arguably a big part of GBN's branding. Thoughts? 15 ( talk) 08:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
after its first few days on air, Vice News, The Atlantic and The Telegraph have characterised the channel's output as right-leaning"? -- DeFacto ( talk). 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
GB News is right-leaning. 15 ( talk) 16:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
after its first few days on air, the channel's output has been characterised as right-leaning".-- DeFacto ( talk). 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
is. I'm happy for the time to be included as a compromise, if others believe that to be best. Pinging everyone who has contributed to this section: Sam Walton RWB2020 Abcmaxx Solipsism101 The Anome LittleDwangs. 15 ( talk) 15:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Worth noting that one of the reasons the channel doesn't explicitly (and perhaps proudly) state it is right wing is that as a broadcaster legally it needs to be abide by "due impartiality", as regulated by Ofcom. Unlike,for example, newspapers expressing a particular political tendency or allegiance could get them into a fair bit of trouble. LittleDwangs ( talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Strongly oppose any allegation of political leaning in the introduction. It is inappropriate when the organisation does not itself describe it in such a way and whilst other news organisations such as sky news and bbc are not described with their leanings implied. It does not belong in the opening sentence or introduction at all. Making clear in the article it is alleged to be right leaning by certain news organisations is fine but it should be attributed to who is making the claim. But its totally unacceptable to put it in the introduction that its right leaning which is making a statement of fact when it is simply opinion. It would be misleading, factually inaccurate and politically biased to do that. Especially after just a few days of the channel broadcasting to forever more brand the channel "right leaning" is clearly unreasonable. RWB2020 ( talk) 05:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely do not need to shove it into the lead sentence, at least for the moment. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Does the article really need the "how to guide" sentences for accessing Astra 2F with a large dish that aren't actually about the channel itself? TubularWorld ( talk) 23:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this correct language for an encyclopedia? "Undeterred and redoubling his efforts, Neil continued on into the teeth of the gale". Seems a little bit sensationalist, and factually incorrect - there is no gale or wind of any kind.
As per DeFacto's reverts of my edits ( [6] [7]): is it undue to include the technical mishaps, pranks etc. in the public response to GB News section? I'd argue it isn't, since they have been reported in numerous reliable sources, both in and outside of the UK. The New York Times piece (cited), for example, is mentions them and @GBNewsFails. It is a fairly good even-handed account of the channel (and could be used elsewhere in the article), and is not sensationalist.
My second edit included Lady Colin Campbell's comments on Epstein's ephebophilia (as if that makes child sex trafficking ok somehow?), which I also think should be included in the article. Although I will admit that "Public response" is perhaps the wrong section for that. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 18:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
It can be reported and genrally considered to have a poltical bias, but the organisation has not confirmed themselves, so I would argue the word 'explicit' is out of place here? I am aware some sources state this, but the Chairman and the overall organsation are not explicitly saying they are. HelpfulPi ( talk) 11:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with rights add this info? From source: "The output will be a full audio simulcast with the television station, meaning no special programmes or content will be made for the radio channel." 75.154.234.98 ( talk) 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Chairman Andrew Neil talked about expansion to new markets with their own regional programming if GB News launch successful. Can registered contributors add it if it's something that should be here? 2001:569:51F9:1300:318C:B4A1:6191:DA75 ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions streaming only on the iOS app. The Android app has streaming as well. 2001:569:51F9:1300:318C:B4A1:6191:DA75 ( talk) 17:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I removed the claim in lead Upon its launch in June 2021, it was the first channel that is generally viewed to have established a political orientation in the United Kingdom.
(here). I did this because the BBC article we used previously to say there was an explicit political orientation, to my mind, refutes this claim. It says GB News has been talked up as Britain's answer to Fox News, but the validity of that comparison is limited. It is not the first channel to be set up in Britain with a strong worldview - RT, formerly known as Russia Today, has done that for years. But GB News is the first to be set up with an explicit political leaning.
[8] Pinging
DeputyBeagle who reverted this removal.
Solipsism 101 (
talk) 22:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
They are only 31,000 now.
79.76.240.201 ( talk) 21:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
On Wednesday the viewers had fallen to 93,000, three times that of Sky and 24,000 more than BBC News. It was more than double the channel’s average number of viewers, which was 44,000 over the same period.[12] Including cherry-picked stats, rather than suggesting any editor did it. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Several editors seem to be intent on keeping any mention of political leaning out of the lead paragraph. I find this surprising. Not only is this the single most salient point in media coverage of this channel, it's explicitly the channel's unique selling point according to its creators. @ DeFacto and Czello:, can you please justify your edits removing this highly salient information from the lead para? -- The Anome ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
“People have said about the new channels ‘Oh my god, isn’t this awful’. We’re alive to that debate. Both are seeking to come from a right-of-centre perspective and there’s nothing in the code that prohibits a broadcasters coming from a particular perspective.”
Personally I'd go against it being the lead at all for the reasons I've explained above and to echo those elsewhere on this talk page. I think another point that needs mentioning is that the lead to this article is very small (only 3 sentences right now). Shoe-horning their supposed political views into an otherwise-neutral lead again seems WP:UNDUE. Presently it's mentioned in Background, which is the first section in the article -- that seems enough to me. — Czello 12:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the mixed reception part: RS say that its reception was mixed, not that it was bad. We can add more reviews of GB News, there are quite a few of its launch. See Talk:GB News § 'Undue' reviews for a discussion. 15 ( talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
If it is, it is time to supply reliable sources saying so, per
WP:WEASEL which lists "it is widely thought
" as potential weasel words and states: "Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the
Wikipedia:No original research or
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies
". It is not good enough, per
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH, to draw our own conclusion from the five sources simply opining that it is right-leaning. All that those five sources do is support the opinions of five individual commentators.
If it genuinely is "widely described" as such, then there will be reliable sources drawing that conclusion which we can use to support it. Pending the finding of supporting sources, I have removed it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 06:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
GBNEWS is not on channel 216 on Satellite in the UK! That channel is Dave. 2A00:23C4:CA07:900:B182:C55C:58FF:EC7D ( talk) 15:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a section or new linked Wiki entry on All Perspectives Ltd. (also Liberty Global PLC and Discovery Communications Europe Ltd.) could be created, to give more idea of the people behind this venture. As of August 2021, according to Companies House, the following are the Officers / Persons with significant control...
Risk of WP:OR with this approach. Either this has been reported by reliable sources and it can be included, or we should leave it out. Solipsism 101 ( talk) 19:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Companies House should be an acceptable source under the terms of WP:PRIMARY - certainly for the information listed above without falling fould of WP:OR. This could then be supported by articles such as [ This one in The Sun] If you add in talk of international expansion [ Bloomberg News Dec 2021] there could be scope for an All Perspectives article.
Jpmaytum ( talk) 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Neil was said to be the chairman of GB News, but what exact entity was he chairman of? Was it All Perspectives Limited, or some other entity, such as an editorial board? -- The Anome ( talk) 11:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It is always in the interest of a country to know the sources (esp. in terms of nationality) of financing and ownership (CEO) of its news stations. For example if you look at the Wiki entry of Ruptly or Euronews, the owners and financiers are clearly mentioned within the first few paragraphs. Just by calling itself ‘GB’ does not make GB News immune to the relevance of this information.
Therefore clearly sourced information as to the Australian leadership of GB News ( Angelos Frangopoulos) and the Emirati financial sources of GB News are relevant additions to the article. That is, that GB News (despite its name) be neither British owned nor financed, is very relevant. Just as much as knowing that Ruptly UK is neither British owned nor financed. Again, this is not a 'non-constructive' addition, since, if, for example, the BBC or ITV-News or Channel 4 News or Sky News UK were financed by non-British sources, then that would be very relevant to readers of their respective articles too. Drusus 0 ( talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Surprised there's nothing here about it yet. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/14/farage-factor-gb-news-eyes-brexit-party-associates https://fullfact.org/health/covid-vaccines-heart-disease/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/gb-news-dan-wootton-complants-ofcom-b1867041.html SmartSE ( talk) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to compare the YouTube subscribers of a television news channel like GB News with the YouTube subscribers of a talk radio station like LBC? Surely it would be better to compare with another TV news channel like Sky News? Jpmaytum ( talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I am requesting a discussion for a consensus on the status of GB News in regards to whether it should or should not be used as a source for citations. I'd request another editor then please add GB News to the sources section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with whatever consensus is arrived at, as I'm not clear on how exactly to go about doing this.
Please add your thoughts and views to the relevant section of this linked page here. Helper201 ( talk) 20:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Darren Grimes states on
Twitter that he is on vacation and will be back on his show on Saturday. What credible source is there to prove that Darren Grimes is in fact a "former on air staff" member?
Kingjeff (
talk) 18:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You can not answer all my questions 87.74.216.200 ( talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
The expression "further arrested" has appeared in the last few days. Surely the correct terminology is "rearrested"? 79.73.3.174 ( talk) 08:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
You are surrounded to be the peoples Chanel that’s why I watch you you have got so toxic feel so let done 92.30.224.226 ( talk) 19:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Does Carol Vorderman dress code really matter to this news Channel and allow guest speakers to comment on her “tits hanging out” Absolutely violating and discriminating 86.25.171.208 ( talk) 02:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Page is misleading, inaccurate and makes light of what GBNews is doing. It categorically is not a news channel, has been fined by Ofcom more than once and is tanking in the ratings. Remove your personal bias and call a spade a spade, not a news channel. 2A01:4B00:D307:D500:7CDD:88D3:45D0:AE42 ( talk) 19:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)