Talk:Jeremy Bowen

Balen Report

When discussing the ESC findings, why should the Balen report be discluded? This is highly pertinent as the indictment of Bowen came immediately off the heel of a House of Lords decision against the suppression by the BBC of a report on the exact same issue! The question at hand is whether or not these issues are related- and they certainly are. The Balen report is discussing the exact same issue as the ESC findings on Bowen, from the same time frame, from the same organization and from the very same area of reporting that Bowen is responsible! Please explain why these issues are so disparately connected as to go unmentioned in the findings on Bowen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that links Bowen with Balen report. As far as I'm aware, the Balen report is about the BBC. GDallimore (Talk) 13:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Balen report is about the BBC's reporting on the Middle East. Since 2005, Balen has been the BBC's Middle East Editor[1]. I cannot understand how the Balen report when it reports on the very issue (biased reporting against BBC guidelines) that Bowen is now at the center of, and fully responsible for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the BBC News article. There's no relevance here. GDallimore (Talk) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but isn't that simply your opinion? You've provided no factual basis for denying a connection that I've demonstrated rather clearly.

Of course it's my personal opinion - but you have not provided a reliable source which might prompt me to change that opinion. As I said as my very first comment here you must provide a reliable source linking Bowen and the Balen report. The onus is on you to prove your assertion, not on me to deny it. GDallimore (Talk) 08:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Balen report (AFAIK) relates to a period when Bowen wasn't in Middle East reporting. In any case, as written there were no sources given for connecting the current report with Balen, so this is editorialising and probably WP:SYNTHESIS. Rd232 ^talk 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Balen report is the direct precedent for Bowen getting his job. You don't discuss Lyndon Johnson without discussing JFK, so I don't see how this is tangential. Demonstrating a historical connection and relevant context is not editorialising, certainly no less than giving exclusive voice to Robert Fisk or speculating that ZF and Camera were the only two complainants without providing any evidence whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not even close to being good enough. You need a reliable source that makes the connection. You cannot make the connection by yourself or you are just promoting your opinion. Please do read the guideline WP:SYNTH GDallimore (Talk) 13:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And as for the bit about CAMERA not being one of the complainants, I don't understand. You were the one who added the source that says they were: their own press release. Also, the article doesn't say that ZF were one of the complainants although, in truth, it was a barrister who was one of their members (the source saying this is not currently cited, though). GDallimore (Talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never said that CAMERA was a complainant, but more pointedly I never said that ZF were nor did I say that they were the *only* complainants. I also don't understand how requiring someone to publish an article demonstrating a causal connection I have already pointed out, and is *evident to anyone* is going to be disputed on the basis of factual accuracy. I can only wonder why you would want to obfuscate the appropriate context in which Balen took his job and why he has come under such vociferous criticism by the Trust and critics of the BBC. But fine, when I have a third party that makes that connection I will post it and source it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit because it did not support the conclusion added by you that Bowen's position as Middle East editor is now in jeopardy. Please do not add original research to articles, particularly BLP articles. GDallimore (Talk) 13:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet even now, when that flimsy excuse has been destroyed, you still insist on removing facts which illustrate context and relevance. I'm sorry, but it's going back up until you can provide some justification besides your own opinion of what is and is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving up discussing this with you since I do not think you have any understanding of the concept of original research. I have asked if someone else on the BLP noticeboard will take a look. GDallimore (Talk) 18:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And I will say it one more time - the CAMERA press release says there were two complainants. You added that source, one might have thought you would have read it. GDallimore (Talk) 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well hey, if you want to dedicate the time to being condescending maybe you can spend a little more time explaining how this is original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Both rd232 have tried, and I think I have tried beyond any normal reasonable attempt. The fact that you have failed to understand is not our fault.

I will try one more time by quoting from the guideline that you have been pointed to: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources". If you continue to make this edit without bringing a reliable source that directly supports your conclusion, then I will report this to an adminstrator and seek to have you blocked. GDallimore (Talk) 08:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not put together- it's blatantly stated by the HonestReporting link that he was provided his job as a result of the Balen report. One link provides evidence that he obtained his job in 2005, the other states that it came as a result of the report. It is in no way a synthesis of information, merely the HonestReporting article would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I have changed the HonestReporting link to a Guardian story [2] which holds the very same conclusion (in the second-last paragraph). Can we stop playing games with "reliability" now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that user GDallimore still has not responded to this criticism, particularly since the content of the article has been locked down due to his insistence on reverting constructive edits (such as those providing relevant information like the response of the actual complainant to the ESC report). This is the time and place for a defense of his behaviour. Would he please materialize one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

By the by, the article opens with "is a Welsh journalist...". This strikes me as perhaps technically correct (being of Welsh descent) but somewhat misleading, implying somehow that he is provincial journalist or at least has strong career ties with Wales (which none of the bios I've read today suggest). (i.e. Welsh journalist v Welsh journalist.) Or is that just me staying up a bit late? Rd232 ^talk 04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but think it's the "staying up late" that's to blame. :) "X" is a "Y (nationality)" "Z (job)" is a pretty standard way of opening any biographic article, and Y and Z would be read as separate facts, I think. GDallimore (Talk) 10:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the article on topic

I am concerned that this article is going off topic in connection with the ESC report. While I agree that it is correct to include both sides of the debate over a report that was (slightly) critical of Bowen, this is an article about Bowen himself, not about the report. The negative comments that have been added refer to Bowen, and now an excellent quote from Lyons has been added which supports Bowen, as does one of the quotes from the Independent editorial.

I wonder, however, if it would be best to find a comment from Fisk which supports Bowen directly rather than which does so indirectly by deriding the report itself. I think Fisk's comments about the BBC Trust might find a better home on the BBC Trust article rather than here.

In some respects, there has arguably been enough coverage of this report for it to have its own article, but I think that would be overkill and wonder if we could instead divide the material better between the existing articles. GDallimore (Talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - was about to post on same issue!) I realise we're in the throes of WP:RECENTISM since this is all in the news, but still, WP:NOT#NEWS and at present there are substantial WP:UNDUE issues given how essentially minor the criticism is (it comes down to one source not mentioned and a few phrases carelessly written), with the ESC report taking up half the career section. I would suggest that this should be transwikied to Wikinews, leaving a short mention here. Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think wikinews is a good idea as it would give breathing room to actually discuss the report properly rather than just pulling the odd quote from the emotional sources on both sides of the divide. Sadly, I've never edited there so don't know the rules. You got any experience/experienced contacts? GDallimore (Talk) 14:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. And my one attempt to do a wikinews article a couple of months ago ended in failure for reasons I don't understand. I just asked for some help over there though; we'll see if anything comes of it. Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your message on Wikinews. Wikinews can't accept content under the gfdl, thus transwiki isn't really an option (unless someone wants to get individual permission from each editor - which isn't much fun). Bawolff (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh........... I wasn't aware of that. I guess it may be an option in future if WP does change licence to Creative Commons? Rd232 ^talk 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately still no, as we are CC-BY-2.5, and it is proposed to switch Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA which are incompatible (or at least incompatible to go from wikipedia->wikinews. we can go wikinews->wikipedia) . (However switching to cc will still help a lot of other things. GFDL is really not suited to wikipedia at all imho, cc-by-sa is a much better fit for 'pedia). Bawolff (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the license is an issue as I personally do not think that copying the material that's here to WikiNews would be the best way to report the story and there are lots of details that are not worth printing here (like exactly what it was that Bowen said which was criticised and to what extent) which definitely should go into a news article. Is there anyone who might be interested in picking this story up? I could help out but I don't want to lead it. GDallimore (Talk) 10:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Turner

Hi, I don't understand why Turner's commentary is irrelevant when CAMERA's reaction is available as well. He is the second complainant, he is addressing the result of the ESC findings, and he is directly commenting on them. Certainly he could be paraphrased, but calling him a "muppet" doesn't add much- commentary can still be subjectively objectionable (and even questionable) without being irrelevant. I certainly don't see how the comments of someone who played a direct role in the affair is any less relevant than the commentary of Robert Fisk, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Currently the user GDallimore is culling his complaints. I wonder if there is any justification for providing less information directly relevant to the issue?

His complaints are less important than the observations of Fisk because he is not an independent party to this (being one of the complainants), while Fisk is an established Middle East correspondent. Turner had his chance to speak with the complaint procedure and while his reaction is just about worth noting, it is not worth noting in detail - particularly as he is not a reliable source on matters of Bowen's accuracy. GDallimore (Talk) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how you can uphold the value of an "independent party" (i.e. a THIRD party) over the first party in terms of relevance. The points made by Jonathan Turner are certainly not irrelevant, nor are they adequately addressed in the summary of the ZF's opinion- points made by an organization to which he is party but not the source of the complaint. I do not believe that you are doing anyone a service by culling facts from the affair, particularly in favour of a third party's observations (which are quite honestly nothing more than ad hominem attacks rather than the substantive criticism posited by Mr. Turner). If you have further issue with this, take it up with an administrator. I am putting his criticism back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.65.18 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Go read WP:Reliable sources. I'm giving up discussing this with you. From now on, I will be reverting any edits you make along the lines of the ones you have been making. GDallimore (Talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we already discussed the issue of reliability: see below. Now the Guardian isn't a reliable source? I will take this issue up with a moderator if you persist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.65.18 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that there has been some space to breath, I believe the following edits are appropriate:

1. Fisk's comments are about the BBC Trust, not Bowen. I will remove them when the block expires. I will consider adding a section to the article on the BBC Trust or BBC News, as I see has already been started on the main BBC article.
2. Tuner is not a reliable or important commentator on matters of Bowen's accuracy or impartiality. I will remove his comments. Nevertheless, as he is a member of ZF and as ZF's comments on Israeli matters have some standing, I will reintroduce their stated view that Bowen's position is untenable. Camera's views can remain for the same reason. However, since both Camera and ZF are not independent of the complaint, their views should be treated with caution and should not be over-represented. With that in mind, their views should not be given more space than they already have - they were the only complainants and only 3 out of the 24 allegations were upheld so theirs is clearly a minority view.
3. Linking Bowen's appointement with the Balen report is now fairly sourced and is already represented in the career section of the article. There is no source which links the Balen report or Bowen's appointment with the ESC report such that there is no support for mentioning either of these things in that section of the article. Doing so implies a link that does not verified and is therefore original research.

138.40, in my view, the edits you are trying to make (eg [3] [4] [5]) are a thinly veiled attempt to push your own strongly negative POV and I will continue to revert edits that I believe are not appropriate in accordance with the policy on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. I have tried discussing this with you and you have simply maintained your previous position that the things you are saying are sourced when they are not (at least in the important aspects) and have continued to introduce tendentious, unsourced commentary and half-truths. In light of your behaviour and editing pattern, I see no purpose in entering into any further discussions with you and only provide the above summary of my intentions as a courtesy.

Rd232, do you have any comments or suggestions on the above? GDallimore (Talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

GDallimore, I do not believe that you are really in your right to declare bias. I agree that Fisk's comments are irrelevant but I *strongly* disagree that Jonathan Turner's are irrelevant, as he is a direct complainant. He is certainly an authority on criticism of the report as he is the ORIGIN of the response! I simply cannot understand how he is neither reliable or important in this sense. Could you please explain why the complainant's response to the findings is irrelevant? What I see is repeated behaviour by you to abandon discussion or any attempt at a direct response to my arguments, instead opting for a reflexive censorship contributions, plainly on the basis that you perceive bias which simply is not there.

I would agree to having a moderator step in, because as far as I can see you are unwilling to be cooperative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

GDallimore, I have asked for a third opinion so that we may see whether minimizing relevant facts (which are corroborated by numerous reports on the issue) is acceptable behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.65.18 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I will say it one more time. The fact that Turner made a complaint which was partially upheld does not make him a reliable source to comment on Bowen's accuracy, particularly when his comments are so negative and are not supported by the ESC report that he himself elicited by his complaint.

Also, do not continue to revert the constructive edits I made last night which added new relevant sources (the Jerusalem post) and improved the structure of the article. The fact that you are doing this shows that you have no interest in reaching any agreement and are just reverting my additions without attending to what they were. GDallimore (Talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits in this instance consisted of excising relevant information on the basis (which you have stated here) that I have a "negative bias". Jonathan Turner's complaints are supported by the ESC report itself which held that he was impartial on the topic of 1967, and perhaps more importantly his complaint that the BBC failed to act for 21 months as well as his identity are particularly salient. Your edit distorts his identity to "a ZF member", implicating that this was not the action of a private citizen but rather an advocacy group. He acted in his own capacity, and there is absolutely no valid reason to obfuscate the source of the complaint or the reaction to the report, particularly to avoid portraying a reaction to the report for what it was: negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.65.18 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected

This page is now fully protected, again. I suggest that if you cannot reach agreement on the content that you seek a 3rd opinion, or try some other form of dispute resolution. Kevin (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A 3rd opinion request has been posted for several hours now, so hopefully a resolution as what is and is not relevant will be formed shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.65.18 (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Disproportionate

I would like to congratulate the editors of this article on such a thorough and balanced account of the report into the complaints about Bowen. What a shame, though, that this should dominate his biography so much. Hopefully it will settle to a shorter length eventually, but all BBC Middle East correspondents have faced these sorts of complaints, and it goes with the territory. qp10qp (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. Not wanting to drag you into the argument above or to put words in your mouth, but may I interpret your words to mean that you are supportive of the article in its current form and would not support the inclusion of more material either supporting or criticising Bowen? eg that you would not support the inclusion of additional commentary from one of the original complainants?

With the aim of reducing the length of this section, I was looking over this article again and spotted a bit that refers to the report and the BBC Trust and is not particularly relevant to Bowen himself. Any complaints if I request an {{edit protected}} to remove the words:

“ that the report demonstrated "a terrible absence of good judgement", and declared ”

from the final para of the report section? I believe this will help defuse arguments about including more detailed commentary since it highlights the aim to include only content that is directly relevant to the subject of this article, Bowen, and to exclude content which is relevant only to the contrary views about what this report might mean for the BBC. GDallimore (Talk) 14:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't really read all the arguments on this talk page. The basic facts are: complaints were made, three of them were upheld at least partially, others were not. Of course some people will think the report caved in to pressure and others that it was a whitewash. A sentence to that effect would be enough, in my opinion, from the best third-party sources. qp10qp (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Will mull on that. GDallimore (Talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I agree, although I do back your efforts to at least make the section balanced within itself, as it were. This incident needs about a line or two in Bowen's overall biography, and that's it. Unfortunately of course a large number of articles about journalists or media outlets tend to get stuffed with material like this, and instead of being a general source of information about their subjects, they turn in to an attack page and/or a dissertation on whether CAMERA et al like their reporting of Middle East affairs or not, stuffed full of random but detailed quotes from obscure and partisan campaigners who dislike the journalist/outlet in question. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE of course all apply here. Unfortunately any attempt to deal with the problem usually meets the same kind of resistance you met here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal below based on comments above. Avoiding all commentary and just reporting the facts of the report and brief details of the successful allegations. GDallimore (Talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I can get behind that. I think that really addresses the meat of what occurred. I guess the major issue is whether or not there is any place for the criticism of the ESC Report/The BBC and the BBC Trust's handling of it itself. Perhaps a new article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.153.43 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for the article to be unprotected so that this text can be introduced. As for criticism of the report, I have said from the beginning that that belongs in the articles on the BBC Trust or BBC News. This is an article about Bowen. GDallimore (Talk) 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to cover it concisely and accurately, and with relatively due weight (in proportion to the rest of the article, which could probably still be expanded in other areas), as far as I can tell. Cheers for that. Although at the risk of being overly pessimistic, it will no doubt gradually be built up by others, so that it reads like a hatchet job again. I doubt very much as well that a completely new article is needed to air all the opinions on this issue, 138.etc. WP is of course meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for extended debate about every single piece of minor or trivial controversy, with editors arguing their corner through the selection and insertion of whatever comment or quotations they can find online that they happen to prefer. You can sign your talk page comments btw with the four tildes, or via the signature tab above the editing window. --Nickhh (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Editorial Standards Committee report

In April 2009, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust published a report into three complaints brought against two news items involving Bowen. The complaints included 24 allegations of innaccuracy or impartiality of which three were fully or partially upheld. It was said that "Bowen should have used clearer language and been more precise in some aspects of the piece". Also, on a claim that was found to be lacking in accuracy, the committee accepted that Bowen had been provided with the information by an authoritative source. A website article has been amended and Bowen did not face any disciplinary measures.

References

unsupported claim

I am not a registered user, so can't make this edit myself, but the sentence 'This inaccurate reporting was a key trigger in riots and protests around the world against Israel.' (in the last paragraph of the 'career' section) isn't supported at all in the cited NBC article, which makes no mention of the BBC's reporting or of Bowen. It also doesn't describe any of the demonstrations as a 'riot' or violent or similar. This sentence should be removed. 92.22.58.202 (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Thanks for pointing this out. Rwendland (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)