text:
Peter Oborne

Peter Alan Oborne (born 11 July 1957) is a British journalist and broadcaster. He is the former chief political commentator of The Daily Telegraph, from which he resigned in early 2015. He is author of The Rise of Political Lying (2005), The Triumph of the Political Class (2007), and The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism (2021), and along with Frances Weaver of the 2011 pamphlet Guilty Men. He has also authored a number of books about cricket. He writes a political column for Declassified UK, Double Down News, openDemocracy, Middle East Eye and a diary column for the Byline Times.

He sat as a commissioner for the Citizens Commission on Islam, Participation and Public Life. He won the Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2012 and again in 2016.

Early life and career
Oborne was educated at Sherborne School and read history at Christ's College, Cambridge, graduating with a BA degree in 1978. After abandoning work on a doctorate, he joined NM Rothschild's corporate finance division in 1981, and stayed there for three years.

He began working for Robert Maxwell's now closed Financial Weekly magazine in 1985, being taken on by the editor Mihir Bose. In between two spells on the Evening Standard, the second being more extended, Oborne joined The Daily Telegraph in 1987 for what turned out to be five months. During his second period on the Standard, he was sent to Westminster in 1992 as a junior political journalist by Paul Dacre, then the Standard's editor. After moving to the Express titles in 1996, where he was taken on by Sue Douglas as a political commentator, he accepted voluntary redundancy in April 2001 at a time when the titles' new proprietor, Richard Desmond, was attempting to reduce losses.

Oborne is the author of a highly critical biography of Tony Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell, published in 1999, and a biography of the cricketer Basil D'Oliveira (whose selection for England to tour South Africa in 1968 caused that country's apartheid regime to cancel the tour). Oborne is also a vocal critic of the late Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe, and author of a pamphlet published by the Centre for Policy Studies about the situation in Zimbabwe, A moral duty to act there.

From 2003 to 2006
As a television journalist, Oborne made three polemical documentaries with filmmaker Paul Yule: Mugabe's Secret Famine (2003), Afghanistan – Here's One We Invaded Earlier (2004), and Not Cricket – The Basil D'Oliveira Conspiracy (2004). When the paperback of Oborne's book on the D'Oliveira affair, Basil D'Oliveira, Cricket and Conspiracy: The Untold Story was published in 2005, Owen Slot wrote in a review in The Times, that Oborne "sets it up beautifully: one gentle, conservative Cape Town coloured man versus apartheid at its most rabid, the odds stacked heavily against the former". Robin Marlar in The Sunday Times thought "the positives in this book have it by a mile, the good guys are praised, and the others revealed". The book was written with D'Oliveira's involvement and won the William Hill Sports Book of the Year award in 2004.

In an edition of the Channel 4 Dispatches programme in November 2004, "The Dirty Race for the White House", broadcast just before the re-election of George W. Bush, Oborne asserted: "This US presidential election is about using the darkest tools of political persuasion — fear, lies and black propaganda — in order to target an amazingly small but utterly decisive group of largely ignorant voters". The historian Andrew Roberts wrote in The Times that such claims by Oborne as the country's voters being "ignorant beyond belief" was a "staggeringly snobbish, anti-American generalisation" and that "it can hardly be blamed on the candidates that they engage the electorate in the vernacular in which they are best likely to be understood".

In April 2005, Oborne presented the Channel 4 programme in the Election Unspun series, Why Politicians Can't Tell the Truth, that examined how major political parties in Britain allegedly pursue an agenda designed to appeal only to a narrow band of floating voters expected to play a decisive role in the UK general elections of 2005. In a Dispatches broadcast in November 2005, Iraq — The Reckoning, he commented that the 2003 invasion was "the greatest foreign policy disaster since Munich. And our Government has reacted in precisely the same way: by going into denial. Denial about the role our troops are really playing in Iraq. Denial about the true nature of the emerging Iraqi state. Above all, we're in denial about the fact that the invasion of Iraq, as conceived by President Bush and Tony Blair, has failed."

From 2006 to 2009
In April 2006, it was announced that Oborne was taking up a new position at the Daily Mail as a political columnist, while retaining his connection with The Spectator as a contributing editor. He had been The Spectator's political editor since 2001, and was replaced in that role by Fraser Nelson of The Scotsman.

Oborne's book The Triumph of the Political Class was published in 2007. Simon Jenkins, in a review for The Sunday Times, summarised Oborne's thesis "in his latest diatribe against Britain's ingénue ruling class" as "Out have gone mandarins, independent advisers, political parties and ministers with experience of life. In has come a tight network of loyalist apparatchiks, quango-crats, lobbyists and City consultants" in the era of New Labour. Jenkins observed: "Amid all this sound and fury, it is sometimes hard to discern Oborne's real complaint from his aloof moralism. Much of what he attacks predates Blair". Oborne wrote some years later: "Blair falls into the tradition of [ Robert ] Walpole and [ David ] Lloyd George", who greatly enriched themselves in office, although Blair's "exploitation of the office of prime minister came after he left Downing Street".

In July 2008, Oborne presented another Dispatches programme made for Channel 4 called It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim. In this film and the accompanying leaflet Muslims Under Siege co-written with television journalist James Jones, it was argued that the demonisation of Muslims has become widespread in British media and politics. The pamphlet was serialised in The Independent. In an October 2006 Guardian interview with James Silver, Oborne was against the "litany of condemnation" of Muslim women who wear the veil from government ministers and considered it an "anti-Islamic crusade". In his opinion, New Labour had "given up on the Muslim vote after the Iraq war, so it's now bashing Muslims to get back the white working-class vote and the veil row is a very carefully orchestrated political strategy".

Oborne was on the Orwell Prize's Journalism shortlist for 2009.

Israel, the EU, and other issues
In collaboration with James Jones, Oborne wrote the pamphlet "The Pro-Israel Lobby in Britain", which outlined the alleged influence enjoyed by pro-Israeli media and political lobbyists in the United Kingdom. The article asserted that while the lobbying efforts of groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), Labour Friends of Israel, and the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) are within the law, their funding is often untraceable, their operations are not transparent, and media seldom declare the influence of junkets arranged by these pro-Israeli entities on the tenor of their writing. Oborne and Jones conclude that changes are needed "because politics in a democracy should never take place behind closed doors. It should be out in the open and there for all to see." On the same issue. Oborne wrote and presented an edition of Dispatches titled "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby", featuring interviews with people mentioned in the pamphlet and commenting on the BBC's refusal to broadcast the 2009 DEC Gaza appeal. In December 2012, he argued that the Conservatives' unwillingness to criticise the Israeli government threatens the prospect of a permanent peace in the region.

In collaboration with Conservative Member of Parliament Jesse Norman, Oborne produced the pamphlet Churchill's Legacy – the Conservative case for the Human Rights Act in the summer of 2009. Published by Liberty, the pamphlet attempted to show how "the Act is not a charter for socialism but contains the most basic rights from 900 years of British history".

In September 2011, Oborne and Frances Weaver co-authored the pamphlet Guilty Men for the Centre for Policy Studies written, according to Denis MacShane in The Guardian, with Oborne's "characteristic rococo exuberance". According to Oborne and Weaver in a covering article, "the pro-Europeans find themselves in the same situation as appeasers in 1940, or communists after the fall of the Berlin Wall". The report sought to identify the politicians, institutions and commentators who the authors felt had tried to take Britain into the European Single Currency. The Financial Times, which "has been wrong on every single major economic judgment over the past quarter century", in the covering article is accused of a "vendetta" against Euro-sceptics. In the report, the FT, BBC and CBI are accused of being "villains" and considered the "propaganda arm for the pro-single currency movement". MacShane wrote that the authors' made false claims in the report against the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and he dismisses the idea that the British media "have been suborned into aiding and abetting a pro-Europe line" because the press is dominated by a right-wing euro-sceptic agenda.

Following the pamphlet's publication, Oborne made frank comments on the BBC programme Newsnight on 28 September 2011. In the debate about the Greek debt crisis and its effects on the eurozone, he referred to the European Commission spokesman Amadeu Altafaj Tardio as "that idiot in Brussels" which, after he used the phrase for a third time, resulted in Tardio walking out of the studio. (Tardio, spokesman for European Union economic and monetary affairs commissioner Olli Rehn, was speaking from a studio in Brussels.) Oborne was mocked by Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman for "gratuituous rudeness" after Paxman had himself asked for a response from, "Mr Idiot in Brussels".

On 10 May 2012, on the BBC's Question Time programme, Oborne commented following the jailing of a Rochdale sex trafficking gang, who had been convicted of rape, sexual activity with children and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children having raped, physically assaulted and sexually groomed girls as young as 12. Oborne said the victims had "accepted the advances" of their attackers and added: "What does it tell us about what's happened to our society that we have 12 year old girls, 13 year old girls, who are happy to give up their affection and their beauty to men in exchange for a packet of crisps?" Some, such as Vicky Allan of The Herald, have claimed that this type of rhetoric amounts to victim blaming, saying that: "there is a prevalent conviction that young girls are somehow asking for whatever they get as soon as they begin to behave in a sexual manner, or choose to involve themselves with men".

Oborne has been critical of the state of Saudi Arabia–United Kingdom relations as he considers that Saudi Arabia has too much influence over British politicians' decisions due to the value of arms they buy from British-headquartered companies like BAE Systems. In October 2014, his Daily Telegraph column criticised the British government for launching an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood, apparently on the say-so of the Saudi Arabian government and the Arab lobby. On the Arab lobby, he said: "Unlike the Pro-Israel lobby (with which it is, nevertheless, very closely allied) there are few obvious institutional structures or pressure points. The British Arab lobby is inchoate. It is powerfully represented at the heart of the British military and intelligence establishments, while its connections with the oil and defence industries remain profound. Relations with the British monarchy run very deep. " He also called on the British government to end its support for the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.

A Dangerous Delusion: Why the Iranian Nuclear Threat is a Myth
Written with David Morrison, Oborne's book A Dangerous Delusion: Why the Iranian Nuclear Threat is a Myth (2013) sought to dispel what the authors see as a common misconception of a malign intent behind Iran's nuclear power programme, and objects to the current sanctions against Iran and argues against any military intervention. The Times leader writer Oliver Kamm disagreed with the authors' notion that Ayatollah Khomeini was "one of the greatest theologians of all time" whose "teaching contained insights which went far deeper than anything the rationalists and materialists of the United States could imagine" suggesting those insights fall somewhat short of the proposals of Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. On a podcast involving the authors, Douglas Murray asserted that Morrison, with the acquiescence of Oborne, made disingenuous claims about President Ahmadinejad's history of Holocaust denial.

Oborne, responding to his critics in an article for The Spectator's 'Coffee House' blog, complained of the "scale and (in some cases) virulence that I have never encountered before" of his and Morrison's opponents. He rejected Kamm and Murray's claims about his co-author, who "fully accepts" the veracity of claims against Ahmadinejad. Oborne wrote that "not one of our critics have even tried to deal with the central, factual points of our short book: that Iran isn’t in possession of nuclear weapons and isn’t building them". Michael Axworthy thought that "For the most part, Oborne and Morrison are right and their arguments are strong". A review by Con Coughlin for The Jewish Chronicle speculated that Oborne's "unhappy descent into the world of international fantasy" owed much to his association with Morrison, and accused "the authors" of "alarming ignorance about the rudimentary principles that underpin the current Iranian regime" and reports from intelligence sources and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Resignation from The Daily Telegraph
Oborne had re-joined The Daily Telegraph in May 2010 from the Mail to write for the newspaper from the following September.

On 17 February 2015, Oborne resigned from The Daily Telegraph. In a letter posted to the online news website, openDemocracy, Oborne criticised his former employer for the allegedly unscrupulous relationship between their editorial and commercial arms. Specifically, Oborne outlined how the paper would suppress negative stories and drop investigations into the HSBC bank, a major source of their advertising revenue, which, in his opinion, compromised their journalistic integrity calling it a "form of fraud on its readers". He also alleged that The Telegraph's coverage of stories relating to British supermarket chain Tesco, shipping company Cunard and the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong had been influenced by commercial considerations. He added, "There are other very troubling cases, many of them set out in Private Eye, which has been a major source of information for Telegraph journalists wanting to understand what is happening on their paper".

The Telegraph group responded to Oborne's claims in a statement: "We aim to provide all our commercial partners with a range of advertising solutions, but the distinction between advertising and our award-winning editorial operation has always been fundamental to our business. We utterly refute [sic] any allegation to the contrary."

Michael White wrote of Oborne at the time: "What makes him unusual, however, not just among journalists, is his powerful sense of right and wrong".

Career from 2015
In July 2015, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a report by Oborne in which he and producer Anna Meisel investigated the closure a year earlier of HSBC bank accounts belonging to British Muslim institutions and individuals. He had originally begun his investigation whilst working for The Daily Telegraph, but the newspaper had refused to publish the resultant article, which had been critical of the bank's decision, triggering his decision to resign.

On 30 June 2015, it was announced that Oborne would rejoin the Daily Mail with a weekly political column starting in the autumn and write a weekly column in Middle East Eye.

During the nomination process for the 2016 United States presidential election, Oborne said that, while Hillary Clinton "for me is a warmonger" as "[t]here's never been a war she hasn't supported", the eventual US President Donald Trump "in terms of his foreign policy is actually quite sensible. He doesn't want to get involved." In his opinion, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin and several other governments in the world have "been converted into a form of pillage by a ruling family, individual or ruling elite".

Though previously a "strong Brexiter", Oborne wrote an article for the UK-based political website openDemocracy on 7 April 2019, and suggested that the Brexit decision needs to be rethought: "So I argue, as a Brexiteer, that we need to take a long deep breath. We need to swallow our pride, and think again. Maybe it means rethinking the Brexit decision altogether."

In October 2019, Oborne wrote an article about how journalists and the media are being used by Downing Street to get their false news out, saying: "It's chilling. From the Mail, The Times to the BBC and ITN, everyone is peddling Downing Street's lies and smears. They're turning their readers into dupes." The article was rejected by The Daily Mail, The Spectator, and Channel 4's Dispatches, and Oborne published it on openDemocracy. Oborne said: "This article marked the end of my thirty-year-long career as a writer and broadcaster in the mainstream British press and media. I had been a regular presenter on Radio 4's The Week in Westminster for more than two decades. It ceased to use me, without explanation. I parted company on reasonably friendly terms with the Daily Mail after our disagreement." In an interview with Channel 4 News, he said that the journalists being used by the UK government include BBC News's Laura Kuenssberg and ITV News's Robert Peston.

In 2021, Oborne's book The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism was published by Simon & Schuster. The book examines the measures taken by Boris Johnson and his ministers in order to win the 2019 United Kingdom general election and force through Brexit. Reviewing the book for The Guardian, William Davies wrote that "Oborne is clinical and merciless in his account of Johnson's mendacity, building up his case item by item, footnote by footnote."

In March 2024, Oborne featured in Channel 4’s ‘The Rise and Fall of Boris Johnson.’

Personal life
Oborne describes himself as a "regular Anglican churchgoer", and his wife, Martine, is vicar at St Michael's Sutton Court in Chiswick, west London. The couple have five children. Martine Oborne is also a writer and illustrator. He is a friend of Craig Murray, whom he described as "one of the greatest truth-tellers of our time".

Awards and honours

 * 2004 William Hill Sports Book of the Year, Basil D’Oliveira
 * 2005 British Sports Book Awards (Best Biography), Basil D’Oliveira
 * 2012 Society of Editors Press Awards Columnist of the Year (Broadsheet)
 * 2015 Wisden Book of the Year, Wounded Tiger: A History of Cricket in Pakistan
 * 2016 Society of Editors Press Awards Columnist of the Year (POP)

Books and pamphlets

 * paperback reprint: Time Warner, 2005. ISBN 978-0-7515-3488-7
 * The Pro-Israel Lobby in Britain (Co-written with James Jones) Channel 4 Dispatches & Open Democracy, 2009
 * The Children that Britain Betrayed. (Co-written with Lynn Ferguson) Channel 4 Dispatches,
 * Guilty Men. (co-written with Frances Weaver) Centre for Policy Studies, 2011
 * The Pro-Israel Lobby in Britain (Co-written with James Jones) Channel 4 Dispatches & Open Democracy, 2009
 * The Children that Britain Betrayed. (Co-written with Lynn Ferguson) Channel 4 Dispatches,
 * Guilty Men. (co-written with Frances Weaver) Centre for Policy Studies, 2011
 * The Pro-Israel Lobby in Britain (Co-written with James Jones) Channel 4 Dispatches & Open Democracy, 2009
 * The Children that Britain Betrayed. (Co-written with Lynn Ferguson) Channel 4 Dispatches,
 * Guilty Men. (co-written with Frances Weaver) Centre for Policy Studies, 2011
 * Guilty Men. (co-written with Frances Weaver) Centre for Policy Studies, 2011

Radio and television documentaries

 * Mugabe's Secret Famine (Channel 4, May 2003, produced by Paul Yule, Juniper TV)
 * Afghanistan: Here's One We Invaded Earlier (Channel 4, May 2003, produced by Paul Yule, Juniper TV)
 * Not Cricket: The Basil D'Oliveira Conspiracy (Channel 4, June 2004, produced by Paul Yule, Berwick Universal Pictures)
 * The Dirty Race for the White House (Channel 4, November 2004, produced by Ed Braman, Juniper TV)
 * We’re All Criminals Now (Channel 4, January 2005, produced by Zoe Hassid, Mentorn in association with Raw TV)
 * Election Unspun: Why Politicians Can't Tell the Truth (Channel 4, April 2005, produced by Richard Sanders, Juniper TV)
 * Dispatches: Gordon Brown – Fit for Office? (Channel 4, May 2007, directed by Simon Berthon)
 * Dispatches: Iraq – the Betrayal (Channel 4, March 2008, produced by Marc Perkins, October Films)
 * Dispatches: It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim (Channel 4, July 2008, produced by Chris Boulding, Quicksilver Media)
 * Dispatches: Iraq – the Legacy (Channel 4, December 2008, Richard Sanders, October Films)
 * Afghanistan: Waiting for the Taliban (Channel 4, May 2009, produced by Alex Nott, Quicksilver Media)
 * Philippines: Holy Warriors (Channel 4, October 2009, produced by George Waldrum, Quicksilver Media)
 * Dispatches: Iraq – the Reckoning (Channel 4, July 2009, directed by James Brabazon, Juniper TV)
 * Dispatches: The Children Britain Betrayed (Channel 4, July 2009, produced by Lynn Ferguson, First Frame TV)
 * Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby (Channel 4, November 2009, Produced by Ed Harriman, Hardcash Productions)
 * Conserving What? (Radio 4, October 2009, produced by Sheila Cook)
 * Nigeria's Killing Fields (Channel 4, April 2010, produced by Andy Wells, Quicksilver Media)
 * Tabloids, Tories and Telephone Hacking (Channel 4, October 2010, produced by Sally Brindle and Jenny Evans, Blakeway Productions)
 * Pakistan: After the Floods (Channel 4, November 2010, directed by Simon Phillips, Quicksilver Media)
 * Pakistan: Defenders of Karachi (Channel 4, April 2011, directed by Edward Watts, Quicksilver Media)
 * Dispatches: The Wonderful World of Tony Blair (Channel 4, September 2011, directed by James Brabazon, Blast!)
 * Libya: My Week with Gunmen (Channel 4, June 2012, directed by Richard Cookson, Quicksilver Media)
 * Dispatches: Murdoch, Cameron & the £8 Billion Deal (Channel 4, June 2012, Blakeway Productions)
 * HSBC, Muslims and Me (BBC Radio 4, July 2015, produced by Anna Meisel)
 * Peter Oborne's Chilcot Report (BBC Radio 4, October 2015, produced by Hannah Barnes)
 * Al Qaeda in Syria (BBC Radio 4, December 2015, produced by Joe Kent)
 * All Out In Pakistan (BBC World, May 2017, directed by Paul Yule, Berwick Universal Pictures)
 * Oborne and Heller on Cricket (Chiswick Calendar, 2020-ongoing, podcast)

title: Peter Oborne


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Norman

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus, therefore keep. moink 03:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Russell Norman
A political candidate is not inherently notable and a google search doesn't turn up much on this guy. Delete. Andypasto 21:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and the entry does no harm whatsoever. As he's ranked tenth on the Green Party's list, he has a significant chance of getting into Parliament — the Greens won nine seats last time, so an increase of just one seat would see him elected. The fact that his name doesn't show up on Google probably has something to do with the fact that I misspelled it — I won't try moving it until this is resolved, though.
 * Fair enough, but could you at least tell us the correct spelling so we can research his notability? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The correct spelling is "Russel", with one l. Google search here, 232 hits. -- Vardion 22:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's still a hard one because it's a pretty common name. I added "Green" to the search and pulled 47 Google hits, and even then roughly half were other Russel Normans, making the actual score somewhere around 20-25 Google Hits (and keeping in mind that this is the New Zealand version of Google here).  I'm going to have to vote delete for now, though obviously that will change if he actually gets his seat. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  22:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. I would just like to note, though, that the NZ version of Google uses the same database as the others — I think perhaps the algorithm is different (ranking NZ-relevant things higher, for example), but the number of hit isn't inflated by using the NZ version. (Perhaps that's not what you were implying, though. If not, sorry for the misunderstanding). -- Vardion 22:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A just-now emerging political figure in small New Zealand is not likely to Google-test well, but his high place on the electoral list of one of the world's most successful Green parties makes him quite notable. Keep, and I will resubmit it for vfd myself if he doesn't win the seat on the list of a party in the election rumoured for late July, and no later than September this year. Samaritan 23:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, if, as per Vardion, the guy has a half-decent shot at getting into NZ parliament .Meelar (talk) 23:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but move to the correct spelling. His chances of election may not be as high as suggested above, but they're certainly not zero, and we're not in the business of predicting the election results. Whether the article is worth keeping can be debated after the election. Note that Vardion is adding short bios of all candidates in this election with a non-zero chance of being elected, and I think that's very worthwhile for us to have.-gadfium 00:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that I'm writing bios for "all candidates in this election with a non-zero chance of being elected", but I'm trying to make sure that anyone who eventually is elected isn't a red link when it occurs. Personally, I would like to include all candidates (after all, what harm would it actually do?). But that's probably not going to happen. -- Vardion 01:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What, even if they're of the level of Tarquin Fintim-Limbim-Whimbim-Lim Bus Stop-F'Tang-F'Tang-Olé-Biscuit-Barrel, who stood in the Corby 1981 by-election in the UK? (He took his name from a Monty Python sketch, and yes he was a student) Average Earthman 18:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that someone like that would actually be more worthy of an article, as he sounds considerably more interesting than most other by-election candidates. Basically, my view is that including minor candidates doesn't in any way hurt Wikipedia, and so just so long as the information about them is verifiable and NPOV, it might as well be included. If there's someone willing to create the articles, of course — I certainly wouldn't consider the lack of complete coverage to be a gap or flaw in Wikipedia. But there's no need to worry that I'll be attempting something like this — I doubt most Wikipedians would share my view, and I'm quite prepared to abide by the consensus. (Although I still think that Russel Norman fits well within the scope of Wikipedia — he actually stands a chance of being elected.) -- Vardion 20:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep because wikipedia isnot paper Yuckfoo 01:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. GrantNeufeld 02:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not elected = not notable. Also agree with Andrew. Radiant_* 09:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep wikipedia is not paper, but move to correct spelling. - Drstuey 00:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but without prejudice against re-creation if he wins the election. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete political hopefuls--nixie 03:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Journalism ethics and standards/Archive 1

Substantially addressed issue of "limited geographic scope" and so removed that tag, please review. Also did extensive editing on lead and links. BBC, CBC, European Press and Al Jazeera codes of ethics now included. I think it's a much better article now. Calicocat 15:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find the lead to be much improved, however, I have concerns for the remainder of the article, with the exception of the "external links" section to which I added significant details on the subject. I think the rest of the sections are unfocused and unclear and do not substantially address the topic of the article, but rather just summarize language contained it most Codes of Ethics you'll find. I will revisit this as time allows. Calicocat 18:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm concerned that the article doesn't capture different ideas of what "journalistic standards" are in different countries. I've heard, for instance, that many popular British newspapers take a particular political view (though I'm not sure whether that's just editorially or if it also affects news reporting), on the theory that competing outlets will have different biases, and the public can sort things out for themselves.  As I've explained on Talk:Advocacy journalism, there's also a substantial community of journalists in the U.S. that reject objectivity as an appropriate or even possible standard. Clearly, the standards outlined here also don't apply to certain state-owned media where the controlling governments have different rules.  NPOV seems to demand that we not declare that the mainstream Western standards are the One True Journalistic Standards, and accuracy seems to demand that we not pretend that all news media do or even try to follow them. I'd like to hear more about journalistic standards in developing countries, and about objectivity in Britain, before declaring this article well-rounded.  Beyond that, it should probably also cover various controversies about lack of adherence to these standards. -- Beland 02:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. - I should also say, Calicocat, thank you for your substantial work on this article. And thank you for your comments here and on Talk:Advocacy journalism. Your help is greatly appreciated. -- Beland 02:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope
I'd like to hear more about journalistic standards in developing countries, state-controlled media, and objectivity in the British press. -- Beland 03:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Beland, I don't understand why this tag appears on this page? The article as it stands features a global view of media ethics and presents ample examples from around the world. How can it be of limited geographic scope?  Since the tag is part of one of your comments, perhaps you might 1) expand it and answer the question you ask or 2) remove the tag.  I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, so don't know what's what with regard to the implications of this tag being placed on this talk page, but something about it seems wrong?  Would you please explain? Thanks, Calicocat 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I don't have the necessary expertise to answer my own question. This tag is here to help attract the attention of editors outside the U.S. or content experts who might be able to. I rather doubt that the "mainstream media" in Ghana, Iran, China, India, Indonesia, Bolivia, and North Korea or Tuvalu all share a common ethical code with CNN and Al Jezeera. -- Beland 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed tag on limited geographic scope which is been well taken care of and I think leaving it in place is just inaccurate at this point. (--attributed to Calicocat)

 * Has anyone from outside the US even touched this article? I'd like at least one two perspectives "on the ground" before moving on.  I mean, these ethical codes are all well and good on paper, but how do they translate in practice?  Does Ghana have its Dan Rather equivalents, or are the media criticism issues there completely different? Restoring the tag for now. Perhaps we should advertise on some of the foreign country Wikipedia message boards. -- Beland 04:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If you looked, you'd see the answer is yes and one of them is also a member of the systemic bias project. You ask questions you yourself should find answers to. Find some journalists in other countries and invite them to take a look at the article via e-mail or do as you suggest with regard to adverts on other Wikipedia message boards. When I found the article is was more or less a lift from one US source, and had a two sentence, POV, lead. Working together, we have made valuable contributions to this article, expanding it to cover virtually the entire world.  I worked especially hard on this, so it was good to have the "attention tag" then, but I think it's time is well past to that point where having it remain is just inaccurate and misleading. Calicocat 21:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
These standards are not universally endorsed by all journalists, especially objectivity. -- Beland 03:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, same question for Beland.  Why place this tag here? As far as NPOV goes, the article is very much in keeping with NPOV policy, it is a well sourced article and decidedly not POV.  You make an unsubstantiated claim that these standards are not "universally endorsed," however, if you read the article you'll see that's factually untrue, if you can cite some sources with back-up showing that, I'd like to see them included.  I think however, those places where these codes are not accepted are more likcly places where wikipedia itself is not even accessable -- are there such places? I'm confused by your comment here, perhaps you might add to the article in some way to address your concerns rather than placing this tag here which seems to lend negative implications to the article.  Calicocat 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just written a major expansion to the article on Advocacy journalism which should be an excellent primer on how "objectivity" is not universally accepted as a journalistic standard, even in the U.S. and Canada. -- Beland 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Recent edits have addressed my NPOV concerns enough to remove the tag. -- Beland 06:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expansion
This article should probably cover various controversies about lack of adherence to these standards. -- Beland 03:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Free free to make additions as you think fitting. I don't think the article needs to cover various controversies, that's not its point. It is an encyclopic article about the standards and ethics that exist in much of the developed world. You might look into Asia and South America, but I'm pretty sure the press in places like Japan, South Korean, Brazil, Venezuela, and other nations, have similar codes of ethics in place and I know for a fact that members of the press of other nations are also memebers of some of the organizations mentioned in the article (this also speaks to your geographic issue). I think the article does a nice job of being informative with many free and external links to guide a reader into other related areas. In general, I find "controvery-izing" to be one of the more Weaselish flaws in Wikipeida and think the over emphasis it is given makes for unuseful entries in the project.  This seems to be a what wikipedia is not issue. Help me out here?  Calicocat 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. To Beland, thanks for the kind word on my edits, being relatively new to Wikipedia, a kind word is most appreciated. Calicocat 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not necessarily a geographic issue, though those are also interesting. For example, it seems almost criminal to highlight Al Jezeera's ethics code and not mention the controversy that produced it.  Accusations of slanted coverage of the Iraq War, of promoting Arab nationalism and anti-Americanism, of sensationalism and irresponsible reporting, and not to mention the counteraccusations of anti-Arab bias in the U.S. media, etc.  Much more central to the core content is the question of how the standards that the article summarizes are obeyed (or not) in practice.  There are a number of journalistic scandals that could be mentioned (I'm thinking of things like Jason Blair, staged car crashes, disclosure of private information like the names of jurors and rape victims, and controversies about bias).  The point would be not to sensationalize "violations", but to illustrate that the practice of journalism sometimes falls short of  the ideals of the profession.  Of course some less sensational illustrations of that point would help moderate the coverage and also be informative, I'm sure.  There's also the issue of the tabloid press - they don't really adhere to mainstream journalistic standars...but then again, are they pretending to?  Should we demand that they shape up, or do we want to keep reading unsubstantiated rumors about celebrities?

 * While all of these issues seem relevant to this article, full coverage for every one would make it too long and unfocused. Some of them are probably already covered in some detail in existing Wikipedia articles, so a good first step would actually be to find them and link to them from here.  Some articles might need to be created or expanded so they can be linked in. -- Beland 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed tag on "expansion." The article has been substantially expanded since that tag was added.

Ethics
Stuff I wrote about ethics in the usual sense has been edited out. I think it is important, for two reasons.

Firstly, it is a question of focus - the article may mainly be about the news and its handling, but one can't sensibly discuss the way the media operates in an ethical vacuum (the link to undercover journalism has been cut, what about cheque-book journalism ...?)

Secondly, the current article is very much US-centred. Journalistic standards is not just a question of professionalism in journalism as understood by Americans. See another's comment above. Also what is said about libel is Anglo-American law, but not (according to slander and libel) universal: so the defamation issue is more complex than is suggested currently.

Charles Matthews 09:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Charles Matthews, I found this article in what I thought was a very sorry state and edited the heck out of it to bring it to where we have it now -- greatly improved, useful, informative... However, I think it should be titled "Journalism Ethics" or perhaps "Media Ethics," so it will fall specifically under the umbrella of Ethics, a subject richly covered within the Wikipedia project. It's really a sub-set of articles that deal with the subject of Ethics. However, that said, this article's focus is, as you correctly observe, specifically on ethics as they relate to the practice of journalism and so, to my eye, it is not in an ethical vaccume -- containing ample free and external links leading into deeper questions of the broad subject of ethics.

 * As far as its limitations with regard to geography, I disagree. The article covers much of the developed world; moreover, if you follow the links within the article, you will see a number of the organizations named have international membership. So I have to reject the claim of georaphic limitation and, as always, we can expand articles about which we have questions as to scope.  As it stands, someone coming here from, say, the U.K., is guided to BBC standards, someone from the Middle East will find links back there and so on. There are more similarties than differences in Codes of Ethics in general, some of the other things you metion would best be handled with "see also" references.

 * Someone, I think maybe Beland, said they found the lead a bit short and abrupt. I didn't understand that critique. When I found this article, the lead was two or three POV sentences. Initially I had more information up front which someone -- I think wrongly -- placed in a subsection and now...I don't know..I still think it is fine.  Not all entires need have a long lead, brevity has its place too.  As far as I'm concerned the article is imformative, well-sourced, NPOV and global in scope.  I'm certainly very pleased with where it is in comparison to where it was when I first found it...

 * Lastly, if we're going to move it or whatever -- something I've never done with a Wikipedia article -- let's discuss that first here on the talk pages and build consensus as to its title... Help me out here? Thanks, Calicocat 19:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the title: Journalistic standards seems fine to me, but if you prefer journalistic standards and ethics, then that is also a good title. Move Page is easy to use.

On the spread - look at it this way. Where I come from - the UK - most people would assume that the whole emphasis would be on the tabloids. Those are not quite as extreme as supermarket tabloids, one might say; but they have their moments (making up interviews is a good one). We have a Press Complaints Commission as a result of concern. Those guys would anyway just laugh at the BBC's code, as just irrelevant to them. So, I think there is POV in the article. At least in part it is because it is all about self-description of journalists, self-regulation, and so on. Charles Matthews 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a note of interest, the ethics adviceline for journalists, has a phone number ending in "Dilemma" external like added. Calicocat 00:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lead section
I really don't understand why this article gets so much effective reverting. For example I made the introductory paragraph short and tight, and put the heavyweight discussion of codes in a section following. This is entirely in line with the general policy of 'news-style': make the first para or two a good short summary - and put details further down the article. Charles Matthews 10:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To User:Calicocat: these are quotes from the policy page Guide to writing better articles

''The lead section is the section before the first headline. It is shown above the table of contents (for pages with more than three headlines). It should establish significances, large implications and why we should care.'' … ''Then proceed with a description. The definition should be as clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter allows. If the article is long (more than one page), the remainder of the opening paragraph should summarize it. '' …

If the article is long enough to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. … ''The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs.''

Your edit removing the section has moved away from this. Charles Matthews 10:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Charles Matthews: I wasn't reverting, per se, just editing as I felt it was needed. I like the way the article is looking now and I'm glad you've taken an interest in it. I think it was just a question placement of things, but, again, I like how it's organized now and think we've arrived at a good consensus. Forgive me, but I was just being, perhaps, a bit too bold which we're also encouraged to be in editing. My best, Calicocat 18:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I agree the article is moving in the right direction. Charles Matthews 18:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * However, I still have a problem with this: Throughout history there have been any number of errors and abuses by the press, but there have also been abuses of the press by publicity seekers, public relations firms, corporations and government agencies all of which may seek to bias coverage in any number of ways. Undoubtedly true. However, the slant is a little bit off, I think. A publicist who is paid to get Britney Spears's name in the press is not really behaving unethically, on the face of it. If a newspaper prints untruths, knowingly, ethics has been violated. So that currently reads just as if the editor of a newspaper was being defensive about things. Perhaps it should go the other way round: PR folk, spin doctors and others are (increasingly) paid to influence the content of media and therefore - something about the onus on the press. Charles Matthews 18:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Lead is now poor. I've not had time to look at this article for several days and returned to it to find the lead all very changed and I think made much worse than it was and without any dicussion here. It has moved away from standards of brilliant prose and introduced some rather odd language, in addition, there are rather obvious grammatical errors. I don't know why it was so greatly changed espeically after Charles Matthews's complaints. I did some substantial research to draft the original lead and worked to build consensus, now, it has all changed...seems kind of odd to me... I am disappointed since the lead was in good shape -- informative, accurate, fact-based -- when I last looked. I have to wonder if editors are writing on this article without bothering to investigate the subject for themselves. I suggest spending some time following the many external links I added to this article and informing themselves better about the subject before making changes to it. Calicocat 04:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it really so different from what it was a week ago? The changes since 11 April don't seem so substantive to me. As for the categories business, the Category:Journalism will have been removed to prevent this appearing in a category and a subcategory. I'm not one who thinks that this has to be enforced universally, but as a general rule it makes sense. I don't agree that the lead is 'poor' - that seems to be querulous. No doubt it could be tightened up'; most things can. Charles Matthews 07:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Not meaning to be querulous, sorry about that...I've enjoyed co-editing this with you and Beland as well. I guess it's just a question of where it was and where it is now. I'll try to give it some attention. Overall, I think this article is looking good -- especially given where it was. The article is clearly focused, not overly broad, informative, covers the world and deals with some difficult issues in a neutral tone. The External Links section, while perhaps a bit longish represents a lot of work on my part, so I hope there's no issue there...

 * As far as the Category, that's something I didn't understand however it seemed odd to remove it from such an appropriate category. I don't have an issue with it being referenced in both places, why not make it all the more easy for someone to locate?

 * I still think we should move this to Journalistic Ethics, the word "standards" is just not exposivite. There were departments of "Standards and Practices," which delt with other things beyond the Ethics of Journalists. I've opened a section on this question. My best, Calicocat 02:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the intro is pretty fluffy, so I haven't been paying that much attention to it. I don't remember complaining about it myself before, but maybe I did. Anyway, after reading the complaints here, I read it closely, and I could see why some think it needed a bit of polishing. So I took a stab...I think I actually made it shorter, which is unusual for me, but a nice, tight intro is probably what you want if it doesn't have that much informative content. Feel free to fold, spindle, and mutilate as needed.-- Beland 05:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The edit of the lead section of 24 April moves right away from: As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs. I am not happy with the material inserted into the lead, either. Charles Matthews 10:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. It's growing longer and I don't understand why. I had a brief parenthetical about "nonprofessionals," which has now twice been turned into what is ostensibly full paragraph on its own not appropriate to the lead. It also moves down the basic tenets paragraph and other things. In a lead like this, I think the best method would be more an inverted pyramid style. Should we just take the lead back to the April 24th, 2005 version? I'll take a look as well. I'm a big fan of concision. I'd lose the whole "nonpros" thing. Also, in one of my earlier drafts, I had "harm reduction" as two included in the chain of basics in the sentence, someone expanded that to a full paragraph. Calicocat 13:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Article Move
The article substantially addresses the subject of Journalism Ethics and I find the term "standards" to be non-expositive. I'd like to propose this be moved to "Journalism Ethics." I think both words should be capitalized since both represent significant terms. If one does a search on google for "Journalism Ethics," you'll find we're in the universe covered in the article. I don't like three word titles, like "Ethics in Journalism." Grammatically, the adjective "journalistic" is awkward for a title. Comments? Calicocat 02:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Naming conventions says, Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun... "Ethics" is not a proper noun; therefore it should not be capitalize.  I do agree that this article is about both standards and ethics, but I think there are arguably some standards which don't really relate to ethics.  So I would support a move to "Journalistic ethics and standards" or "Journalistic standards and ethics". -- Beland 04:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Journalistic standards seems fine to me. It's a good overall title for the area. If the coverage of ethical points ever becomes preponderant on the page, we can follow usual practice and give ethics their own separate page. No upper case, please, except in cases like proper names. Charles Matthews 10:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The creator of this article confused the concept of "Standards and Practices" in network television and other industries with "Journalism Ethics," they are not the same and this is a root failing of the article. The correct and clear name for this article should be "Journalism ethics." Again, Standards and Practices is not Journalism Ethics. Journalism standards just further confuses the issue and just does not reflect what the bulk of this article is about nor how the concept is understood generally throughout the world. Reference on Standards and Pratices However, confusion on this point is even evident within the field. I'd rather keep things clear. If there are no sound, valid objections, I'm going to move this article to "Journalism ethics." Calicocat 15:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find many Google hits for 'journalistic standards' (I don't know why you write journalism standards here). For example, to take one site, it talks about ethics and journalistic standards. If you are correct that there is a separate article on ethics of journalism to be written, I suggest you write it. I don't know how 'throughout the world' can be justified by any one on us. I suspect this has something more to do with taught courses on journalism, which are a way into the profession in some places, and not in other countries. I could be wrong. I notice that the Canadian CBC has a code named Journalistic Standards and Practices. You can tell me that that is something other than journalism ethics. I am actually trying to understand the point here. Charles Matthews 16:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's do it by the numbers. Do the searches yourself to verify these results for yourself (your mileage may vary). Also view the results you obtain with such searchs. The hits for "journalism ethics" point directly to leading organizations and refernces on the subject and google news results appear as well. Our article is about "journalism ethics," not "standards and pratices," a distincition I made clear. While it might be true that "journalism standards" and even the less appealing "journalistic standards" are used, the title "Journalism ethics" is still the best choice if we want to be honest, clear and informative. As to "grammar being a standard and not ethics" I might argue that writing with good grammar and brevity is itself part of the overall ethical consideration. Clear, well written communication is one of the goals of ethical journalists. In fact, writing that's "too good" has actually been an ethical failing — putting style over substance, more "selling" than "telling." Crafty language has, too, and to often been used to confuse, manipulate or bias rather than inform. "Journalism ethics" is actually the more macro, not the micro point of view as well. Calicocat 22:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Google Searches conducted 22 April 2005, 5:45 P.M. EDT
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 3,160,000 for journalism ethics
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 2,910,000 for journalism standards
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 577,000 for journalistic standards
 * The search for "journalism ethics" yields 250,000 more hits than "journalism standards" (an alternate title proposed by Charles with which I disagree).
 * journalism ethics yeilds 2,583,000 more hits than "journalistic standards"
 * Journalistic standards," lowest of all with 577,000 hits.
 * (All seraches in lower case, no quotes around terms.)

 * Why not get some more meaningful numbers, by searching for exact phrases? I have just done that for for each of the four phrases ''journalism/journalistic ethics/standards". I find that each has between 60,000 and 70,000 Google hits; which looks to me like nothing to choose here. As for ethics, sorry, I find this

 * Our article is about "journalism ethics," not "standards and pratices," a distincition I made clear.

 * to be unconvincing. If the page title is journalistic standards, why not try to keep on that topic? Instead of accusing the page creator of confusion (you know about that?). ...writing with good grammar and brevity is itself part of the overall ethical consideration.' Only if you get agreement to your definition of ethics. Calling 'brevity' an ethical standard goes well beyond ordinary usage. Please support your view on that with some source and we may be able to take this forward.

 * Well, I am moving the page to journalistic standards and ethics. I don't think this closes anything down. Such a page can either make different usages clear, and lead to two other pages; or be a unified discussion. Either would be a good solution, depending on what consensus we can get out of this discussion.Charles Matthews 08:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm shocked at your action given your background in Wikipedia and disappointed in you for taking this action. I most strongly disagree and object to you making the move without completing the discussion first here and dislike your unilateral choice. This is no way to build consensus! I am highly dissatisfied with your choice. You simply side stepped my arguments, made some weak points of your own and did not respond honestly to me or address what I was saying. I expected better of you. I find your choice both aesthetically ugly and logically unsound. I feel you have done this article and the project a disservice and have not acted in good faith. I'm not sure what my remedies might be for this, but I will be looking into it. Calicocat 12:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't accept this. I have read everything you have posted here; I just disagree that you have the complete truth. I find myself much closer Stevertigo's position, for example. Charles Matthews 13:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, see Naming conventions.
 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature (emphasis added)
 * Charles Matthews, unilaterlly chosen name fails this test. See following:

Prefer singular nouns
 * Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). Rationale and specifics: See Naming conventions (pluralization)

 * Charles Matthews', unilaterlly chosen name fails this test. Journalism noun, singular + ethics noun, singularis in keeping with standard naming convention.

 * Redirect adjectives to nouns
 * Convention: Adjectives (such as democratic) should redirect to nouns (in this case, democracy). Rationale and specifics: See Naming conventions (adjectives)
 * Charles Matthews', unilateral chosen name fails this test.

Be precise when necessary Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings. Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation
 * Charles Matthews', unilateral chosen name fails this test. As I have pointed out, there are various ambiguities to the title "journalistic standards and ethics."

 * Word Definition: journalistic Quoting from source: "Main Entry: jour-nal-is-tic Function: adjective: (emphasis added) of, relating to, or characteristic of journalism or journalists

 * Charles Matthews', unilaterlly chosen name fails all tests; user fails to build consensus; belittles my substantial and real concers as "overly dramatic." Editors should acutally do research on articles they are writing. The two word title "Journalism ethics" is clearly the choice most in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Standards of "style" and so on are covered in other Journalism articles and at best tangentially related to this article with the exception of unethical "style over substance" issues and bias or propaganda masked by style. Calicocat 15:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following much of this. I don't see that anything written above overrides the basic idea that we choose the most common name in a title. Journalistic standards is a good title, the current one is; you are free to put any content into journalistic ethics that you want, by unpicking the redirect. What is more, the article is a good article. Now, if you don't mind, I'll go and edit something else. Charles Matthews 15:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not following it, huh? You mean you are not interested in keeping to established Wikipedia policy? Calicocat 16:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about Ignore all rules? Which says use common sense. And its corollaries? Charles Matthews 16:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles, common sense would be to follow established policy. Calicocat 16:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The proposal to move the article, really to rename, it still stands and I'm disappointed in Charles Matthews' unilateral decision on this. He failed to build concensus and his chosen title violates wikipedia naming convention policy (see above). Calicocat 22:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lead paras
I have some issues with the latest changes. For example, I don't see that the standards are limited to the ethics; I don't see why the comment about deriving from practice as well as the codified forms has been removed; the sudden appearance of the position of freelances seems misplaced - it would be useful further down the article. Charles Matthews 10:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The standards are ethical standards. Again, I think the article's title is just wrong and should be called "Journalism ethics" and again suggest we make that move. I don't want to be bold and just do that without some agreement...but it really needs to be done to get away from this confusion. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I think the creator of this article confused departments known as "Standards and Practices" in network television with Journalism Ethics, they are not the same things and this is a root failing of to the article.

 * Ethical codes were actually put in place to move journalists away from some rather bad practices and to help the industry self-regulate rather than having government attempt intervention (unconstitutional in the U.S), arguably the primary purpose of Journalism ethics are to keep journlists focused on their primary mission, which is to serve the public interest As the SoPJ's code states: " ...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility."

 * Again, since the ethical standards evolved primarily from the failure of journalists and publishers to be ethical, maybe the article needs a rewrite to reflect that evolution, however, rather than a tome on journalism ethics, I'd rather see a concise treatment of the current state of the field. Ref: Poynter Institute's sections on ethics..

 * The examples given in the previous lead on "limitation of harm" evolved to conflate things that were not reflective of what harm limitation mens in terms of JE and was thus changed to bring it into line with what journalists mean when they speak of the principle. As to freelancers...its lack of inclusion seemed a failing of the article since a vast number of freelancers are employed in the industry and many reporters start out as freelancers. Calicocat 15:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't see that the requirement to write clear English, or even to put matters in context, can be called an ethical standard. I know you think that ethics should be in the title. I resist this because I am clear in my mind that there are journalistic standards that matter, that are not ethical. Imagine for example a journalist changes newspapers. A change in standards might easily be required - which was not a change of ethics. So I resist what I think is an attempt to constrain what this article says.

In fact it seems an odd logic to say the title is 'wrong'. It may be well worth explaining that there are different things involved. But why insist on writing the lead to a 'journalistic ethics' article, if that's not the article title?

And forgive me, I didn't say 'don't include freelances', I said putting them in the lead section is putting the complex ahead of the simple. That point should go in later. No doubt a fully-fledged article would get into some quite fine points.

Charles Matthews 15:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that Calico was approaching this "standards" topic from the micro POV, rather than a macro one, which might instead see broader "ethics," as a materail ideal within standards. I can understand the view from the inside that these ideals or ethics are real, and therefore have permeating influence, but that doesnt really take into account the influence of business, etc.

I was tempted to comment on Calicocat's changes last night, but decided to wait. I too dont see the need to fork, nor to rename or retitle the page, but the balance between the terms "standards" and "ethics" rests on the fact that there are no formalized ethical standards to date, and "journalism" is by and large a catch as catch can mix of business interests, demographic marketing, etc. Somewhere in there is news and journalism. Somewhere in the news-journalism mix are standards and ethics. I agree with Charles - that the ethics are more implied, rather than inherently ethical. To say that these evolved from institutional pressures is also off the mark, perhaps - institutions put just as much pressure against what should be called journalistic standards. Again, its honestly debatable, but from observation we can see that things today, though perhaps more broad or "independent" in certain respects than decades ago, still bear a complex relationship to both institutions and ideals. Ethical independence is a real ethical standard, but by Calico's description of instituionally instituted standards are in conflict with the "real" ethical ideal. From there we can argue whether practicalist/idealist views of ethics are correct - I would assert that practicalism by definition ties up and ball-gag's ethics, but thats just me.-SV|t|add 18:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's something from a web site about Harold Evans: From 1967 to 1981, Evans redefined the standards of British investigative journalism by founding The Sunday Times’ famous Insight unit of investigative reporters and backing them through a long series of scoops. I don't think this means ethics: I think it means something else. It would certainly be useful to have an authoritative or textbook definition of journalism ethics. If it is really being said that JS is a misnomer and JE is the correct term, then I understand the argument while not necessarily agreeing wity it. Charles Matthews 18:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After having moved the page, I have rewritten (without, I hope, introducing any substantive change of content) the three lead paras by Calicocat. I now like the way the article reads. Charles Matthews 08:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, maybe Journalism standards and ethics or Journalism ethics and standards? "Journalistic" is an -ic, whereas we tend to use -ism's, no? -SV|t|add 17:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Standards and ethics in journalism, ethics and standards in journalism are both good for me. Charles Matthews 20:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terms and title, cont.
I disapprove of the proposal to move to a title with only "ethics" and not "standards". When I originally started the article "Journalistic standards", I did so because I did not see an explanation of what professional journalists call "good journalism" vs. what they see as "bad journalism". Having worked as a student journalist, "journalistic standards" was the most natural term for me to use to describe the collection of things we worry about, including objectivity, accuracy, proper sourcing, etc. I consider "ethics" to be things like treating other people as you would like to be treated, which involves things like not hurting other people and not lying. While there are ethical issues in journalism, I feel they are only a subset of the professional standards in the field. However, many people use the term "journalistic ethics" to refer to those standards, whether or not they are referring to what I would consider an ethical dilemma. After I finished drafting the article, I discovered an article on "journalistic ethics" which contained very similar material, so I merged them under the "standards" label. I don't feel there's enough difference in the way that people use these terms in practice to justify separate articles. Now we have both "standards" and "ethics" in the title, with redirects from both old articles. I feel that this is a good compromise. "Standards and Practices", as a euphemism for censorship, has to do with editing for taste and appropriateness. I don't know of anyone who means just that when they say "journalistic standards", but it is a subset of that. "Journalistic ethic" or "Journalistic standard" would be inaccurate; there is more than one principle we're talking about here. I don't know about the UK, but "ethics" is the preferred form of that word in the US. I don't care whether it's "journalism" or "journalistic", or whether it's a prepositional phrase or adjective-noun. -- Beland 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Beland. That is, "Ethics" falls under the more-general umbrella of "standards."
 * Off the top of my head, here are a few examples related to standards but not ethics: multiple sources, inverted pyramid, and style. Maurreen 07:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I don't know why this discussion was moved to a new section when a section exists on the proposal to move the article, but be that as it may, I will respond here. )

Technical standards such as which type of cameras are "broadcast quality," what kind of paper stock or printing presses should be used and so on, have ethical considerations of their own: environmental consideration of paper waste and pollution caused by ink for example, But these questions are largely that, technical, they are not questions of journalism ethics, pre se.

Grammar, brevity, clarity, are questions of standards, yes, but they are ethical standards. A story that's more "sell" than "tell" is unethical since it's a slippery slope to bias, sensationalism, propaganda, deliberate manipulations of concepts and so on -- fudged science stories being a good example of that, unbalanced political reporting another.

Where the technical impinges on the content of the reportage you have journalism ethics questions which can be, and, in part, are addressed within this article; for example the "unkind shot," a badly lit interview, laughing in the background of an interview (laughter acting as a "laugh track" even inadvertently is, in my opinion, unethical), staged or "recreated' "B-roll." But, technical standards should not be confused or conflated with journalism ethics. So, technical questions have, themselves, ethical dimensions, but those questions are, in the main, ethical questions of a technical nature not questions of "journalism ethics."

Consider the question of color photos and headlines in news papers. It has both journalism ethics dimensions (is it sensationalism, are we doing it only increase circulation without regard to news worthiness?) and questions of a technical nature, some of which have ethical dimensions (can we afford it? does use of color printing increase environmental harm, does it wash windows as well as B&W print (joke? no joke), is it recyclable, biodegradable), but as to standards, as far as this article is concerned, the technical questions might be mentioned but the focus would be on the ethical use of color in newspapers.

Another issue with the word "standards" is that it might be confused with Standards and Practices, which is a major question within an even larger universe of overall media ethics. Standards and Practices apply mostly to TV and Radio and is related to Journalism ethics in that it deals with community standards and censorship, but in and of itself is not really a question of journalism ethics (unless one is writing a story about Standards and Practices itself). See reference:

So, we might reduce the article name to, at minimum, "Journalism ethics and standards," but in the interest of keeping to the spirit of the policy on article names (naming conventions), and since the standards here treated are ethical standards, drop the unneeded word "standards" and just name it, "Journalism ethics," and certainly not, journalistic standards and ethics, which has an adjective in the title and puts the cart before the horse. This name for me doesn't pass a kind of Holmesisan "puke test" with regard to the real world of article names.

In summary, standards are a sub topic of ethics, not the other way around and inclusion of the word creates an unnaturalness to the article's name. Minimally acceptable is the redundant "Journalism ethics and standards" which is most in keeping with naming conventions policy. I'm disappointed in Charles for making a unilateral move before this discussion was complete, but he did. I find the current name an offense to good taste and in violation of the spirit and letter of the policy on naming conventions See: naming conventions. Calicocat 16:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, others have found it a reasonable thing to do. Phrases like puke test and offense to good taste seem, what, disproportionate? I suspect you may be assuming 'consensus' means you have a veto. Well, no one has.
 * By the way, I don't see this at Requested moves.
 * Charles Matthews 16:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * A veto? No one has a veto but you it seems. I was the one who initiated the name change conversation and was attempting to build consensus on this, you are the one who cutoff discussion of this and made a unilateral and I think bad choice, selecting a clumsy adjectivally name with misplaced terms. So, Charles, if anyone has taken a veto on this it's you and in so doing you've gagged not only me, but the rest of the editors on this article. (re: notice, I didn't understand how to place a notice there, but have now done so. Thank you for pointing that out.) Calicocat 20:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope, I don't gag anyone; and I just use my discretion on WP. See my comment at the Requested Moves discussion re adjectives, which in such as medical ethics are long-established. Long before hacks had any such pretensions. Don't hector me about the English language on such tenuous points. Charles Matthews 05:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calicocat, I can certainly see why, from the perspective of a broad notion of what ethics encompasses, one would see "standards" as a subset of "ethics". Others, including myself, see "journalistic ethics" as a subset of "journalistic standards". For example, there are examples of unprofessional behavior (such as unpolished presentation) which I would consider falling short of certain professional standards, but which I don't really feel have ethical implications. Given this duality, it seems appropriate to let the article not take a position on which is a subset of the other. Or if we did want to say that one is usually considered a subset of the other, we should find some evidence from the world of professional journalism. -- Beland 21:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Responding to some claims for the use of principled "ethics" to mean practical "standards"
 * Well, again it depends on if you look at it from a micro perspective of 'Im a little fish in a big industry full of precise technical "standards,' or the macro perspective of 'Im a detached self-righteous critic with an eye toward the promised land of exhalted integrity and values.' Like I wrote above, these tend to default to the age olde argument between practicalism (Standards are what are) and idealism, (standards are what should be) and thats off on another subject. The reason why I did the taxoboxes was (the same as with any other wide topic) to give some cohesion to the scattering of articles, and to define (assert, preach) a heirarchy where journalism is the ideal, and news trade is the reality.

 * You Margaret and Beland both seem to making the practicialist mistake of confusing the two. If someone like Barbara Walters (Ill start editing her article in a bit) wants to call herself a journalist, as if by some stretch of the imagination she were somehow on a par with a Sy Hersh or Robert Fisk, anyone with any respect for the "profession of journalism" should object, and point to the imporatant caveats. Of course its typical that the Barbara Walters and Geraldo Riveras and Tom Brokaws of the world want to see themselves as being at the pinnacle of their art, that would not be a neutral pov, and it would certainly not be mine. Hence the important thing is to regard them as the profession of "journalism" and the related "news trade" and consisting of a heirarchy of integrity, which goes from Hersh and Fisk all the way down to Yellow journalism and VNR's. Yes journalism (profession, ethics) is a part of the news trade (business, standards), but the heirarchy is an ethical one. -SV|t|add 22:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very intersting points SV|t, it opens up some interesting points, which perhaps should be moved to a section for dicussion. It appears the article has been renamed to "Journalism ethics and standards," while I find that redundant, it's at least in keeping with standard naming conventions and so more natural and does not put the cart before the horse. Calicocat 23:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Another way to look at this: From this discussion, it's evident that views vary concerning the relationship and meaning of "ethics" and "standards." So it makes sense to me that the most clarity would be achieved by including both in the title. Maurreen 06:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Moved from WP:RM(Philip Baird Shearer 23:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC))

 * My comment - there was no consensus to go to journalism ethics, anyway, as the talk shows. The page has now been renamed journalism standards and ethics (by a third party). I don't see why: it's medical ethics and legal ethics, not 'medicine ethics' and 'law ethics'. Charles Matthews 05:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * On the talk page of the article, it appears that Calicocat is a minority of one concerning the article's title. "Journalism" or "Journalistic" isn't a big deal to me. Calicocat has not given any references for the points cited. As Beland explained on the talk page, ethics is a subset of standards, standards essentially distinguishing good journalism from poor journalism. Spelling, for an example off the top of my head, has nothing to do with ethics. Maurreen 06:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Maurreen, that is flat out untrue! I initiated the proposal to move the page and gave many sources as to why it was needed. I've written more on it than most. To any who care, discussion of article move may be found hereand now here as well.  You confuse standards of good writing, which would be covered in news, grammar, writing, style, note taking, etc. articles, with this --  focusing on ethical standards and pratices -- article.

I was the one who initiated the proposal to move/rename the article. I was seeking to build concensus and championing wikipedia policy guidelines with regard to naming convention; I was seeking general agreement from the active editors (or anyone that wanted to comment) as to the article's name. Charles, you are the one who made a bad decision to unilaterlly change the name, cutting off the process. Now, it's "medical ethics," for that field, "Journalism ethics" for that field. That's just a question of what is natural to the fields, and I'm not suprised to find better grammar from Journalists than doctors, scientists or even lawyers. In any event, its moot now. The article (which I think we'd all agree is good.) has been renamed to Journalism ethics and standards, not what you said above. It's a fine name, if redundant. The words "standards," "practices," and "principles," are in common use in journalism ethics, and naturally appear where needed. This is evident to anyone following and reading the many links and refercnes within the article, let alone reading any of the books in the bib... I think there was ultimatly concensus, if not toally among the editors, then in the dialogue of the Page with the Project and that's fine with me. And now that's all, I hope, any of us will have need to say on this topic. It's been put to bed. Calicocat 09:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you can type and push a POV: but as for I'm not suprised to find better grammar from Journalists than doctors, scientists or even lawyers, I think any lawyer who couldn't write or argue better than you would starve. Charles Matthews
 * Why the ad hominem attack on me here? This matter is closed, the article's been correctly, if redundantly, renamed and the issue has been put to bed. You were wrong in what you did with cutting off the conversation on the rename and unilaterlly renaming it yourself, as you did do. Yet, now, after all is said and done, you make issue over it here, with a personal attack? Very strange. I have no wish to fight with you, but I reject your assertions that that I was pushing any POV. (Anyone who wants to see the conversation on this rename (To any who care, discussion of article move may be found hereand here.Calicocat 21:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is very unclear to what or what has not been decided so please use this standard WP:RM format to decide the issue (Philip Baird Shearer 23:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)):

Requested move

 * Journalistic standards and ethics → Journalism ethics – {1) unnatural, ambiguous adjectival name violates letter and spirit of policy of article naming conventions, 2) redundantly includes "standards," a subset of journalism ethics, 3) previous move of page was made unilaterally by User:Charles_Matthews cutting off on-going consensus building discussion resulting in inappropriate name choice, 4) name not in keeping with generally accepted useage in professional journalism.} — Calicocat 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ''Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~

 * Support "Journalism ethics and standards." For reasons given above and for all the many previously given herein as noted.Calicocat 00:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Journalism ethics", support Jouralis{tic,m} {ethics and standards}, {standards and ethics}. Views differ on what is the best term, so including both is a good compromise. - Beland 01:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -SV|t

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Further comments by Calicocat 14:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) Prior discussion on article name may be found here and then later here
 * Regarding "ethics and standards." If there is no agreement as to which is the cart and which is the horse, then put the terms in alphabetical order, however, terms -- standards, principles, pratices -- naturally come up in discussing Journalism ethics.
 * Wikipedia on naming conventions says to use nouns, not ajectives, so Journalism better than Journalistic, on basis of policy and industry standard useage (see article's external links and bibliography).
 * Standards such as "good writing, grammar, broadcast production values and techniques, are not ethical standards, execpt as to relevancy within the frame work of ethical considerations with such issues as -- sensationalism, a story that's more "sell" than "tell," style over substance issues, bias, propaganda, the "unkind shot," background noise or laughter during an interview, re-creations of actual events or re-created "b-roll" and so on.
 * Technical standards such as writing style, formulas like the Inverted pyramid are best dealt with in articles about -- news writing, style manuals, technical broadcast production considerations, cameras and lense types, audio engineering equipment, sat. trucks, general production budgets and staffing and the like.
 * The "standards" dealt with here, are the ethical standards, pratices and principles. The name "Journalism ethics and standards" is fine, if redundant, and at least puts the two terms in alphabetical order.
 * Ethics and standards might be confused with "Standards and Pratices," a different subject (see previous discussion for references).
 * Industry standard usage. In other fields usage may be different, but see references in the external links and the article's bibliography for varification of industry standard usage in journalism. Jounalism ethics is preferred term in common use. Calicocat 14:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decision
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. After an extension to the deadline there was no support to move this article. violet/riga (t) 10:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"Harm Reduction" Disputed
I'm sorry, but this section just gets it wrong -- "timely tactical military information," "Images or graphic details," and "refrain from reporting on early results," -- really have nothing to do with "harm reduction" as the term is standardly used in the field. The section seems to have confused "community standards" and "standards and pratices" and "ethical dilemmas" with which what journalists mean by "harm reduction." Harm reduction has more to do with limiting the harm caused by reporting -- reputations, 3rd parties, sources. Certainly, reporting on "troop movement" might cause a bloodly hell of a lot of harm, that is not but is not typically how term is standardly used. [See http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp SOPJ code for reference], I'll refrain from putting a section POV tag on there in good faith this will be addressed. I can't be bold and do it now, sorry, but it needs to be corrected. I've been wanting to mention this for some time, just got around to it, I kind of hoped someone, maybe Maurreen, might have cleared it up. Yours, Calicocat 20:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Is "harm" a term of art among journalists, or do they use it more casusally, just like everyone else? (If so, I will be surprised.)  When I created that section, I just put together a bunch of stuff that was related to not hurting people.  The source you cite does not put military security or election-day restraint under a different moniker; in fact, it does not cover those issues at all.  Perhaps there are other, more authoritative sources. -- Beland 02:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You said, "I just put together a bunch of stuff that was related to not hurting people." That's the error, that's POV,Beland. You said, "The source you cite does not put military security or election-day restraint under a different moniker; in fact, it does not cover those issues at all." Exactlly right. Get it now? Coverage of military movments is more an ethical dilemma, "election day results" is a kind of U.S.-centric question dealing with a few things, none of which are "harm reduction" as the term is used in Journalism. The section is about what Journalists mean when they say "harm reduction," not about what you think it is. Wikipedia is not an editorial forum. SoPJ says exactlly what it means about harm reduction, use the external links and read more. The section, as it stands is not correct, it's POV and factually inaccurate in terms of what the term means to professsional journalists.  I'll POV tag that section to help draw attention to it. Also, the posting here was not to create yet another extended conversation on this point. This is a very basic thing, let's be NPOV and fact based. Section should be an easy matter to correct. Yours, Calicocat 05:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corrected section, removed tags, bold edit, but it was way off the mark as it was. My best, Calicocat 01:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SoPJ does uses neither "harm reduction" nor "harm limitation". If writing the former is POV, then surely writing the latter is as well. When I constructed that header, I did not intend to assert that "harm reduction" is the term that professional journalists use to describe everything under that header, any more than they use "harm limitation". I have yet to see any evidence that "harm reduction" has any particular meaning to journalists. Coverage of military operations is a huge ethics/standards controversy which is no longer covered in this article at all, not to mention leaks and the crime beat. This section now gives extraordinary weight to one source. I will attempt to broaden it and restore the deleted information. -- Beland 05:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I should add that the United States is not the only country where coverage of election results while the election is still taking place is frowned upon. I'm not sure there's a free country in the world where the practice isn't at least a little controversial.  I will advertise on regional Wikipedian notification boards around the world and ask for comments. -- Beland 05:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You are just getting this one wrong, Bland, SoPJ uses the term "Minimize Harm." They state, "Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect." You are seeking to jam in things where they just do not belong and I don't know why. You are just off the mark on this with how these things are understood in the universe of Journalism ethics. Please concult SoPJ and the many references in the external links before putting your interpretation on them. Those things you added do not, repeat do not have anything to do wtih "harm limitation" as it's used by professionals.

I took a look at some of the documents found in our external links. I found that the content varied widely, and that many of the suggestions of the SoPJ are not consistently codified, as the section on harm limitation suggests. However, these principles are very common in mainstream practice. I will change the article text to reflect this.

 * The Canadian Association of Journalists here mentions crime and privacy issues, but does not use the word "harm". does use the word "harm" in association with privacy, criminal, and personal-harm issues.
 * Al Jazeera does not mention the word "harm".
 * The CBC "Journalistic Standards and Practices" does not mention the word harm in any of the pages that discuss privacy, crime, and violence issues.
 * The poynter.org uses this term in a vague fashion when talking about the side-effects of reporting
 * The Detroit Free Press doesn't address these issues.
 * The Icelandic Press Conference doesn't address these issues.
 * The NPR "Code of Ethics and Practices" uses the term "harm" in ambiguous way.
 * The Code of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation does not use the word "harm" when referring to issues of privacy.
 * NYT's "Guidelines on Our Integrity" does not address these issues.
 * The San Francisco Chronicle uses the word "harm" in association with disturbing content, but not when talking about privacy, anonymity, or crime issues.
 * The Washington Post "Standards and Ethics" uses the word "harm" in association with anonymity issues only.

I do not see here a clear usage for the word "harm" that is any more specific than the genral dictionary definition.

Given this mixed bag, I do not find support for the idea that ethical codes "emphasize the principle of limitation of harm" as the article claims, though many of them do include some points about not doing things that have negative consequences. From the content of these codes, it seems more emphasis is placed on accuracy and bias reduction. I will change the word "emphasize" to "includes" and eliminate the term "central" from the harm reduction section.

I am retitling the harm reduction section "privacy and disturbing content" because these are the only topics it deals with, and this title should be less confusing to readers who might not realize there is allegedly a special meaning for the word "harm" in journalism. -- Beland 03:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Other sections of the article deal with some aspects of privacy and non-disclosure so that title is unclear. This section deals with limiting the harm caused by reporting with specific reference to the items mentioned in that section. I don't know why you dont' understand this. It seems odd.
 * Well, if this section is about harm reduction, why shouldn't it cover all of the situations in which harm is a consideration, and not just these? I'm leaving the title alone for now, but I'm fixing the capitalization. -- Beland 02:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization in headers
Editors, please note that Wikipedia uses downstyle headers, which means only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized. (Manual of Style (headings)) -- Beland 04:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
A. H. Albut

Alfred Hubert Albut (1849–1916) was an English candy salesman best known for being the first full-time employee of Newton Heath, the club now known as Manchester United. He was made club secretary in 1892 and, in that capacity, took responsibility for all team affairs. Albut has been credited with keeping the club afloat during a lean financial decade.

In 1893, Albut helped the team move from North Road to the Bank Road ground.

He conducted his work from an office at 33 Oldham Road, Newton Heath, near the club's North Road ground. Albut remained in the post until 26 May 1900 and was eventually succeeded by James West after a search period. Prior to working for Newton Heath, Albut had been in the employ of Aston Villa, although in an unspecified capacity.

title: A. H. Albut


text:
Lane Frost

Lane Clyde Frost (October 12, 1963 – July 30, 1989) was an American professional rodeo cowboy who specialized in bull riding, and competed in the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA). He was the 1987 PRCA World Champion bull rider. Frost was also the only rider ever to score a qualified ride on Red Rock, the 1987 PRCA Bucking Bull of the Year. During a ride in 1989 nicknamed "The Last Ride", Lane sustained fatal injuries when the bull Takin' Care of Business struck Frost with his right horn. He was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Early life
At the time of Lane's birth, his parents lived in Lapoint, Utah. His father, Clyde, was on the rodeo circuit as a saddle bronc and bareback rider. His mother, Elsie, went to stay with her parents in Kim, Colorado, and he was born in the hospital in La Junta. He had an older sister, Robin, and a younger brother, Cody.

Frost started riding dairy calves around age 5–6. His first rodeo awards were won when he was 10, at the "Little Buckaroos" Rodeos held in Uintah Basin: first in bareback, second in calf roping, and third in the "bull riding" (calf riding) event. He also competed in wrestling in junior high school. The family then moved to Oklahoma and he attended Atoka High School in Atoka. In Oklahoma, he was the National High School Bull Riding Champion in 1981. He was the Bull Riding Champion of the first Youth National Finals in Fort Worth, Texas, in 1982.

On January 5, 1985, Frost married Kellie Kyle (born 1965), a barrel racer from Quanah, Texas, west of Wichita Falls.

Career
Frost joined the PRCA and began riding full-time after graduating from high school in 1982. In 1984, he qualified for his first National Finals Rodeo (NFR). In 1986, he won the NFR bull riding average title. In 1987, he became the PRCA World Champion bull rider at the NFR at age 24. He went on to compete at the Rodeo '88 Challenge Cup held as part of the Cultural Olympiad in association with the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. In his lifetime, Frost made it to the NFR for five consecutive years from 1984 to 1988.

Challenge of the Champions
Sometime in 1988, John Growney pondered a special competition between the two 1987 Champions. Red Rock had never been successfully ridden during his four-year professional career, despite rodeo cowboys making 309 attempts to ride him. It was decided that Frost and Red Rock would have seven showdowns at different rodeos in states across the West. The event was titled the "Challenge of the Champions." Red Rock was brought out of retirement and Frost rode him to the eight-second whistle for a scoring ride for four of the seven matches.

The Last Ride
On July 30, 1989, at Cheyenne Frontier Days in Cheyenne, Wyoming, after completing a successful 85-point ride on a Brahma bull named Takin' Care of Business, who Bad Company Rodeo owned, Frost dismounted and landed in the mud. The bull then turned, knocked Frost over, pressed his right horn on Frost's back, and pushed him against the muddy arena floor. Frost initially rose to his feet, took a couple of steps, waved for help, and then fell to the ground; dying on the arena floor from massive internal injuries. He was 25 years old. No autopsy was performed. He posthumously finished third in the event. It was assumed that when Takin' Care of Business pushed Frost against the mud, the bull's entire body weight was at the end of his horn, breaking some of Frost's ribs, which then severed a main artery. Had he lived, he would have made it to his sixth consecutive NFR.

Takin' Care of Business had previously appeared at NFR. His last outing was at the 1990 NFR. He was then retired and put out to stud until he died in 1999.

Frost is buried near his hero and mentor, Freckles Brown, in Mount Olivet Cemetery in Hugo, Oklahoma.

Legacy
Frost's best friend and traveling partner Tuff Hedeman won his second PRCA bull riding world championship at the NFR in 1989. He successfully rode his last bull for the full eight seconds, and rode him an additional eight seconds in memory of Frost.

After Frost's death, Cody Lambert, another one of his friends and traveling partners, created the protective vest that professional cowboys now wear when riding bulls. Later, in 1996, the Professional Bull Riders (PBR) made protective vests mandatory, and subsequently all bull riding organizations did as well.

In 1994, the biopic based on Frost's life, 8 Seconds, was released. Luke Perry played the role of Frost. Stephen Baldwin was cast as Tuff Hedeman.

Since 1996, the PBR has awarded the Lane Frost/Brent Thurman Award; presented to the bull rider who scores the highest-marked single ride at the PBR World Finals. It was named for Frost and Brent Thurman, who died six days after suffering serious injuries at the 1994 National Finals Rodeo. The Lane Frost Health and Rehabilitation Center in Hugo is dedicated to his memory.

Country music star Garth Brooks paid tribute to Frost in the video for his 1990 hit single "The Dance". Rodeo announcer Randy Schmutz wrote the song "A Smile Like That" about him. The 1993 song "Red Rock" by the Smokin' Armadillos is about Frost, and he is mentioned at the end of the video for Korn's 2007 song "Hold On". Aaron Watson's 2012 album, Real Good Time, included the single "July in Cheyenne". Kings of Leon's 2013 music video for "Beautiful War" pays homage to Frost. In 1994, Billy Dean wrote and sang "Once in a While" which appears on the 8 Seconds soundtrack.

Frost's parents have authorized Cowboy Bible: The Living New Testament, with a sketch of him on the cover. A documentary titled "The Challenge of the Champions: The Story of Lane Frost and Red Rock" premiered in 2008. It covers the match between them.

After surviving an accident on the last lap of the 2015 Coke Zero 400 at Daytona International Speedway, NASCAR Cup Series driver Austin Dillon waved to the crowd with a similar gesture to that of Frost's; he later stated that it was in tribute to Frost.

Country music star Zach Bryan's middle name is Lane, after Frost, and his 2022 song "Open the Gate" is a tribute to his namesake.

American bull rider J.W. Hart idolized Frost. He attended Frost's bull riding school as a child and also befriended him. During the first few years of his professional career in the mid-1990s, while competing in the PBR and PRCA, Hart rode in a pair of chaps that were once owned by Frost. In 2024, Brazilian bull rider Cassio Dias, who also idolizes Frost, won the PBR world championship while riding in those same chaps.

Honors

 * 1990 ProRodeo Hall of Fame
 * 1999 PBR Ring of Honor
 * 2000 Texas Cowboy Hall of Fame
 * 2008 Rodeo Hall of Fame of the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum
 * 2003 Cheyenne Frontier Days Hall of Fame
 * 2017 Bull Riding Hall of Fame
 * 2017 Molalla Walk of Fame

title: Lane Frost