Talk:Crikey

Untitled
An ad.
 * Added some critisisms of Crikey. That should solve the problem of it looking like something promotional. I would like to see bits of it rewritten as it does still seem to have a slight POV problem. - Bambul &#9775; 06:24, 1 June 2005 (UTC)
 * It had a slight POV problem before, but it now has a much worse and obvious bias - against Crikey this time. The ban from the lockup was more complicated than that; the defamation claims are made to sound the worst possible without any context, and there's no mention of the many times they have indeed been right, or the changes they've managed to force. On the other side of the equation, it also doesn't address the many complaints about Crikey's quality since the PMP takeover. Ambi 06:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Was the lockup ban really about Crikey's reporting? It didn't really affect the commentary - Crikey hardly needs up to the minute access. It was more of a slight against its media credentials.  Have tried to add some more objective info.--Jack Upland 03:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What is its political slant - the 3 main names mentioned on the page are Liberals (sort of)? -Matthew238 23:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a whole, it doesn't really have one. Mayne is a bit of an eccentric (former Liberal, then People Power, then unaligned), and Beecher is more of a media figure than a political one. It does take on a right-wing slant, however, as their main political correspondent, Christian Kerr, is an ex-Liberal staffer who is ideologically very similar to Andrew Bolt. Rebecca 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Kerr is more intellectual and less extreme than Bolt, though he is clearly more right-wing than Mayne. I would say the writers are generally 'socially liberal' free marketeers, representing the often-discussed segment of former Liberal-supporters that has increasingly become alienated from the Howard Government due to its lack of accountability, dog-whistling racism, and 'social conservatism' (influence of the Religious Right etc). It is notable, however, that many of its readers, as evidenced by its Comments section, are left-wing. There are a number of contradictions in the general political line, such as:
 * Animosity to unions, except the Media Union which represents them.
 * Sympathy to environmentalism but antagonism to green groups.
 * Willingness to take up leftwing causes (civil liberties, social reform) but antagonism to identifiable leftists.
 * Championing of open debate but vilification and dismissal of unions, greens, and leftists.--Jack Upland 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Split the article?
Shouldn't this article be split into one on the word crikey and another on crikey.com.au? --130.226.173.20 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be on the term, not the site. And 'squatter' seems pov.

I agree! Why focus on just one company rather than the general word. Especially now given the death of Irwin.


 * It makes sense to have two different articles (at least). But Irwin's death isn't a good reason - it will only generate transient interest.--Jack Upland 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now done this. In a pedantic way, which others should feel free to improve.--Jack Upland 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a dab page
This page does not qualify as a disambiguation page per WP:DAB policy. The policy specifically states that there should NOT be disambiguation for dictionary definitions, and also that disambiguation pages should be for similarly TITLED pages, not just for related comments. I am redirecting this page to the only link with Crikey in the name. -- cmhTC 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crikeyscreenshot.jpg
Image:Crikeyscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crikeyscreenshot.jpg
Image:Crikeyscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cadre
I've taken the following out of the article:


 * Although "Independent" Crikey is a vehicle for Left and Green points of view. Crikey has a "cadre" of left wing activists that actively discourage open discussion. In the Crikey blogs, the cadre often use the term "Rightard", this is a derisive combination of "Right" and "Retard".


 * It doesn't belong in the Origins section.
 * As a criticism, it needs to be attributed to a particular critic.
 * As an observation it is at odds with the Liberal background of the prominent writers and the business-orientated content of much of Crikey.
 * It is also at odds with the open discussion hosted by Crikey e.g. the regular "Comments" section and the climate change blog. In fact the complaint seems to stem from the fact that left or green opinions are expressed, not that rightwing opinions are suppressed.
 * It seems to relate to "blogs" which are minor part of the Crikey website which is itself subordinate to the email newsletter.
 * As a subscriber to the newsletter I don't recall the term "Rightard" being used.
 * A Google search of the website for "Rightard" turns up 13 hits from the "Pure Poison" and "Poll Bludger" blogs. By my count there are 19 blogs.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done. That material seems to have been nothing but an individual editor's own opinion. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that this comment has been reinserted. I also note the writer hasn't responded to my points above.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the claim - no reason was given for including it and no citation provided Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia Deleted
I've used this phrase to explain my deletions of some material from the page. I don't think we need the details of every minor controversy involving Crikey (or a random selection of them). Criticism of Crikey is fine, but we need major criticisms, not a flare-up regarding one report.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks sensible Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the "Contra Deal Controversy" has now been reinserted twice. To me, it seems like a minor controversy that few people will remember. Perhaps, to placate critics, we could have a list of controversies with a one sentence description. Better still, would be a citation from some prominent person attacking Crikey's professionalism, ethics etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is whitewashing an interesting controversy really appropriate. Crikey should relish these little dramas that make it interesting. I personally like Buckmaster's work and think he's one of their talents but I don't like the idea of removing all of this. Perhaps a compromise would in order. --Brandonfarris (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is regularly cleansed of anything of an adverse nature. This seems unusual given the online publication pledges to "shine light in dark places." I propose to reinstate the material and include other relevant material in coming weeks. Those deleting it should make their case for deletion first. --Brandonfarris (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This article (and Wikipedia as a whole) has no relationship with Crikey's management, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with the above comments. Jack has explained the problems with the material you keep re-adding above, and I agree with him. Why did you add the COI tag? I've got no relationship with Crikey (beyond subscribing to it for a year in 2007 and not renewing it due to the massive factual errors it routinely publishes). Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In the same vein, I've removed the following:
 * In 2011, Crikey removed all the entries in a photograph caption contest initiated by their writer, former ABC journalist, Paul Barry, after readers hurled abuse at James Packer and his wife Erica Baxter. These slurs related to matters including his "sexual performance" and his wife's "commitment to the marriage." The Australian reported it was the second time this had happened after they had published a remark asserting that President Obama's new dog should be named "a mongrel called Trig," being the name of Sarah Palin's son, who has Down Syndrome.

As a subscriber I'm not aware of this controversy at all. These are MINOR issues. Our article on the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't refer to every correction they make, every questionable story, every criticism. What we need is a solid "Controversy" section which lays out the major criticisms, and mentions a few major scandals (perhaps), not reference to every one-day wonder beaten up by Limited News.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The COI tag ought not have been removed because there's been a systematic removal of any 'controversies' material which is almost bizarre given the nature of the subject. It's central purpose is to generate controversies and I reckon there should be a long list, not a blank space. Just my two cents. I read it every day so I'm a fan, although not an uncritical one. I think it plays an important role but to pretend it's not controversial is wrong. --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The neutrality tag is still there. The COI tag is for articles where there's evidence of a conflict of interest, which isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to have criticisms of Crikey. As you say, it prides itself on controversy. But a "long list" of controversies, where editors add every media beat-up as it occurs???!!! Wikipedia is not a diary. We should be selecting the major controversies, the issues that will be remember in 5-10 years, and deserve to be.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Payments to contributors
I propose to add the following paragraph:

In 2009, Beecher made substantial cuts to payments to writers, including on their blogs, with some paid writers sacked "or told that they are welcome to continue to contribute, but they will be doing so for free." Later, Crikey criticised potential rival Huffington Post for not paying writers, claiming they normally pay writers $100 per article.

--Brandonfarris (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be trying to make a case, putting together 2 different articles to advance an argument against Crikey, and this might be termed, in Wikipedia's protocols, as "original research". To make matters worse your citations are Crikey itself, not an external critic. Moreover, your argument is misleading.  For a start, the daily email is the main Crikey service, and blogs are subsidiary.  Secondly, Crikey doesn't speak with one voice, so the criticism of the Huffington Post was only the opinion of one writer.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Undoing unregistered user edits
While working to achieve consensus on this, I won't accept vandalising edits from unregistered users who haven't bothered explaining themselves, I reverted to the previous state. --Brandonfarris (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Independent" and "open access"
"Independent" and "open access" are words that add little to the description. I've boldly removed them subject to the discussion here although I think it wouldn't be controversial. --Brandonfarris (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Restored deleted material
I have restored deleted material, which was not discussed here at all. --Brandonfarris (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It was discussed. Do you seriously think an article on a media outlet needs to have every controversy, every complaint, or even every lawsuit mentioned? Look at the articles on newspapers and TV stations!--Jack Upland (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No but I think it would good to have some listed. Which ones to include is the question. Can I make some suggestions here for you to consider? Happy to work with you on it. --Brandonfarris (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea of a list is a bad idea. It will inevitably become dated and bloated, and invite endless debate about what should be included. I think criticism should be along the lines of a quote from a well-known person saying Crikey is disreputable, inaccurate, exploitative to contributors, scurrilous etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" section that consists solely of the fact that as a media organisation Crikey has had to make apologies and apparently a payout
I'm not going to edit the article, but I think one of the editors should review the material added by Brandonfarris (now apparently blocked indefinitely because editors had a close look at the edits he was making) now in a "Controversy" section.

He added a reference to a matter where Crikey apologised to a News Ltd blogger and there was apparently a settlement. Every media organisation publishes apologies and occasionally settles claims. It's not usually included in their article unless particularly notable, and clearly this isn't - apart from the blogger involved and his readers, few others would be aware of it or care. For example, when the Daily Telegraph splashed a front page attacking Pauline Hanson with risque photos apparently of her, and was ultimately sued and had to make a huge payout, with that editor resigning - that's not in the Daily Telegraph article. And of course it's not, because every media organisation has defamation suits against it and makes payouts, particularly in Australia.

I think that whole section is unencyclopaedic and should be removed, but after previous attempts fixing Brandonfarris's one-sided and highly POV articles I'll leave that to other editors to do. Garth M (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section
I was approached at my talk page by Garth M (see here) and asked to review the Controversy section of this article. I would tend to agree with Garth M that I think apologies are a occupational hazard of working in media and none of these appear to have become in anyway really controversial. I propose just deleting the section but will give it a few days to let others comment before doing so. Mt king  (edits)  00:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please delete. Such content is almost always added by someone who doesn't like the subject of an article, and is therefore, by definition, non-neutral POV material. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. 'Controversy' sections are awful, and the the two 'controversies' here are part and parcel of running a daily news service (though I suspect that Crikey takes a more high-risk approach than, say, the ABC). Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think given the nature of Crikey it would be good to include some criticism but not a litany of minor controversies (as discussed above).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As soon as you allow some criticism, the debate starts on how much. Never a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally we'd have sources that let us write something about Crikey's editorial approach (which I think is a lot more relaxed than in major newspapers and the like) and the benefits and problems this has led to. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. Mt  king  (edits)  03:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is about having a "good look".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias?
According to the Wikipedia article this appears to be a mainstream unbiased Australian media company with the sole slant suggestion a note in the summary box in the top right that it's centre-left. Shouldn't the main text note this? 118.208.26.45 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed "Centre left" from the info box because there was no support for it. As I have said before, Crikey was founded by a Liberal staffer. As I have also previously said, it would be good to have some criticism of Crikey in the text, but this needs proper references.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)