Talk:John Pilger/Archive 3

Media Lens
I added a wikilink to the pressure group in a new 'see also' section with the tag "British anti-corporate website". Another editor then removed it, on the grounds that it was "misleading". I subsequently reverted saying the clue about the corporations in question was in the first word (of the organisation's name). Now I could have typed "British media analysis site", but that is problematic because it is unclear whether ML is included because Pilger is a target or someone with a very similar viewpoint. It is probable that most readers will not have heard of ML, so some indication needs to be given as to its nature, if it is included at all. Philip Cross (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Left wing?
Why left-wing? Is anybody who oppose interfering with another country policy, or is against war, have to be a left-wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.96.44 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, John Pilger is left-wing. He's an advoacte of 21st century Socialism, for example, and accuses centre-left politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton of being right-wing. Amusingly, in my opinion, he once said that the British Labour Party is controlled by conservatives. I don't agree with everything that Pilger says, although I do admire the man. Zictor23

New Labour has rolled out conservative and neo-liberal policy after policy in the UK, including continuing the process towards privatization of Britain's hospitals and the pushing of other services towards free market provision. Although there are definitely differences still between the Conservatives and New Labour, both are (economically, at least) right-wing parties. (Both are right of any position or policy approaching Keynesian, for example - and Keynes was not considered left-wing.) As for Tony Blair personally: he unwaveringly supported American foreign policy, Israeli policies, was pro-privatization and pro-market (even in areas where market mechanisms have clearly failed in the UK). The only way that it can really be claimed that Tony Blair is centre-left is to narrow or shift the spectrum of political (particularly economic) possibilities so as to artificially place him on the left. Claiming that New Labour if centre-left is like claiming that the Democrats are: it is true in a narrowly defined sense of the normally admitted range of political discourse (which isn't very wide); it is not in the full range of historical or possible political positions.81.157.195.180 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite true, the political middle ground in the UK has been shifted massively right-wards by sleight-of-hand since the demise of 'Old' Labour with the death of John Smith and the rise of Blair and his successors. As a result, since then the Labour Party has been politically to the right of Ted Heath's Conservatives of the early 1970s with apparently very few noticing. The Liberal Democrats have done what they always have done, being effectively useless, and have aligned themselves with whoever has the power. So, as far as the UK is concerned, we effectively have the choice of three right-wing parties, with no other credible alternatives. There is no 'left wing' political party in the UK any more - at least not one that anyone will have heard of.


 * Basically 'New' Labour are reliant on the general ignorance of the average younger Briton these days, who has little if any knowledge of politics, helped by the introduction of the National Curriculum, and made worse by the dumbing down of the media, and of a mostly right-wing owned press, exacerbated by the pathetic lack of balls, and laziness, shown by the majority of the people who refer to themselves as 'journalists' these days - Mr Pilger being one of the notable exceptions. Although the bull-shit spoken by Blair and his successors pays lip service to the Labour heritage, that's all it is, and people like Keir Hardie would almost certainly be turning in their graves at what has been done to their party.


 * ... and one must ask oneself why, if Blair and his cohorts held such right-wing views, they didn't just join the Conservative Party in the first place. Rather like joining a monastery and taking holy orders, and then later becoming a raving sex-maniac and turning the monastery into a brothel. A rather apt metaphor, no doubt.


 * So calling Pilger 'left wing' is almost meaningless these days, as politically, Enoch Powell would probably be regarded today as being to the left of all three current mainstream political parties. That's how far the centre ground has been moved right-wards. A case of 'moving the goalposts' and hoping no-one will notice. And so far, few have.

A question regarding Japan: Behind The Mask
In his 1987 documentary Japan: Behind The Mask, Pilger seemed to be asserting that all the stories about Japan being an economic success story and an affluent society was a lie, showing the plight of various people living in poor conditions and earning low wages, amongst other hardships. Does anyone feel that Pilger was right, if that is what he was asserting? Personally, I don't think that the vast majority of Japanese live in the same situation as those poor souls that Pilger documented, as there does seem to be a general consensus that the average standard of living in Japan has long been one of the highest in the world (and, until recently, the distribution of incme was amongst the most equal in the developed world), although sadly, like in all developed and developing countries, there remains a section of society excluded from prosperity (as Pilger vividly portrays in his various books and documentaries). zictor23 (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Arab spring
There is a difference of opinion between myself and an anonymous user over a quote from The Economist in the criticism section concerning Pilger's alleged opinion of developments in the middle east. The other user suggests it is invalid, I maintain the comments from a reliable source are worth citing. I have though now cut an extended inner quote from Pilger himself (which is an odd inclusion in this article's criticism section). Philip Cross (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Philip Cross.
 * I very much share your view that this quote is an appropriate inclusion in the article, but am less persuaded that it makes sense to drop Pilger's own words, which after all represent what The Economist was critiquing. I have thus proposed a selective revert which continues to excise a (disposable, I think) jibe at the New Statesman, while allowing the writer to flesh out his critique of JP with the quote. See if this works.  Nandt1 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Japan
I was wondering if anyone has any comments relating to the comment I made a few months ago about Japan? Someone I spoke to said to me that he doesn't thik that John Pilger was suggesting in his documentary that the average standard of living in Japan is low, which I felt he was implying, although I think that I was wrong. zictor23 (talk) 23:11p., 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have written this in a hurry. Try re-reading it, and perhaps you can make it clearer what you really meant to say. Nandt1 (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nandt1. What I really meant to say was that the impression I was left with after watching “Japan: Behind The Mask” was that the notion of Japan becoming an affluent society in the post-war era was a lie (showing harsh conditions faced by subcontractors and supposedly “primitive housing consitions in Japan” as evidence of this) although someone I spoke to recently told me that he didn’t think that that was what John Pilger was implying. There seems to be a lot of evidence that most Japanese did become steadily richer during the post-war period, just like people in other developed countries, if you look at what a number of academic texts say. I was just wondering if anyone also thought that John Pilger was implying what I thought he was implying? Although I greatly admire John Pilger (like me, he just wants all human beings to have a happy life), there are times when I’m not sure about the things that he says: in an article from the New Statesman in the early Nineties, for instance, he referred to Americans as “the most impoverished people in the developed world,” the validity of which I’m not sure about. Perhaps in “Japan: Behind The Mask” Pilger was just showing how a large number of Japanese had not benefited from Japan's post-war economic boom (such as the husband and wife doing piecework in order to make ends meet), rather than suggesting that most Japanese were impoverished (which is what I thought he was implying) but I was wondering what other people thought about this. zictor23 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fig leaf"
I added the following just now: "Reportedly, Pilger has described his role at the Statesman as a 'fig leaf'". I cite an interview with the editors of Media Lens, a group associated with Pilger, but cannot find online a primary source by Pilger where he states this. "Reportedly" was used to acknowledge that there is not a direct source easily available. Philip Cross (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick Cohen
I removed a reference to Pilger criticising The Observer journalist for his stance on Iraq and othert issues. I could not find Pilger making a comment about Cohen, so the mention of him doing so cannot be currently sustained. Philip Cross (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth
Three editors, two of them apparent single-purpose accounts, apparently believe that Pilger's date of birth should not be mentioned in this article on the English Wikipedia. Not following the advice in WP:BRD, they have so far not advanced any argument on this talk page to support their action. As this is now The Wrong Version, I suggest to undo the most recent edit until such a discussion has reached a conclusion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. This piece of information is in the public domain, cited in multiple reliable sources, and despite Pilger's experience of identity theft, it is impossible to make it confidential again The tabloid source incidentally, is a publication with which the subject has had a long association. Unfortunately, there is no chance of a debate on this issue, one of the editors removing Pilger's DoB is Jimmy Wales. Philip Cross (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "no chance of a debate"? I don't see any reason at WP:CONEXCEPT to deviate from normal Wikipedia editing practices in this matter, nor does the information at Role of Jimmy Wales seem to be applicable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Litany of Pilger's opinions
The latter part of the article in the section on his criticism of Blair and Obama (and other recent figures) descends into WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUST, a long litany of Pilger's criticisms of many national figures in the UK and US, with others criticising him. I've deleted the last three paragraphs of that. It is not going to hold up in the long term as substantive content for an encyclopedia article. Let's not get caught up in trying to include every opinion he ever had, or what other people said against him. Sounds like so much media chatter.Parkwells (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree to some extent, Pilger's criticism of the mainstream or corporate media is part of what he is about. He has also received a lot of hostile comment, not necessarily unjustified criticism, over the years, and this is currently under represented in the article. As are his admirers. While the passage on the clash with Kim Hill is quite minor, given her obscurity outside New Zealand, Aaronovitch is a prominent journalist in the UK. For this reason, the cited clash with Pilger is notable, and I feel its removal was unjustified. It is now a decade ago, and thus not especially recent. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Criticism and admiration are indeed a large part of Pilger's public persona, more than most other journalists'; the article should reflect that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then maybe more choices can be made; for instance, delete the Kim Hill item.Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments above and below - I replaced all but Kim Hill and provided more context; also put in chronological order, as part of the context of the timing of his comments. Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, are the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections really useful? Some of the comments are so vague that they are meaningless, addressing generalities rather than specifics. Perhaps only specifics should be retained, but evenso, it seems like a grand popularity contest. If they were discussing specific films or books, that would be more useful. But, a list of quotes to show leftist writers like him; some others don't? Parkwells (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While its problematic, these are comments from authoritative sources, either way. Philip Cross (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree they are from authoritative sources. Maybe it would be useful to say that Pilger has provoked more controversy than most journalists - as a way of setting off these sections, and combine them rather than having sub-headers. Just wanted to bring up the issue. Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Added context
Have added dates, titles and other information to provide more context for issues he has grappled with in his long career: for instance, when Pilger strongly criticised the Iraq invasion and occupation, it was 2004, in the thick of things, when Bush and Blair were in office, not from some later standpoint. His documentary about the Chagos Island dealt with events - removal - of the 1960s and 1970s, but the article seems to suggest he was most concerned about contemporary uses of the US base on the island, that is in 2003 and 2004 for its flying against Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are two very different periods. Made it more clear what the timing was. Maybe he was prompted by the ICC case, which was also 21st century. But don't conflate events decades apart.Parkwells (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Need other sources
It would be more useful to have a secondary RS reporting/analysing effects of "Year Zero" and influence with British public, than to have the long quote by Pilger. This huge reaction must have been reported and commented on. There should not be so many first-person quotes by Pilger about his opinions and his own work.Parkwells (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pilger's friendship with Charlie Perkins
User:Brother Samson keeps adding a reference to Charlie Perkins, the Aboriginal activist, whom Pilger knew for many decades. As the reference stood, it did not establish that the connection between the two men was notable enough for inclusion in Pilger's biography, so I removed it. We could mention many other radicals Pilger has known over his long career, another might be Wilfred Burchett, but including them in the article would lead to a fragmentary passage or an unresolved loose end. In my view, unless there is a really good source by Perkins or Burchett commending Pilger in some way their inclusion here is best avoided. Philip Cross (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all Philip Cross, I'm going to begin by giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're unlike others on Wikipedia who try and censor certain types of information for various reasons. We know all of the obvious reasons so I do not see the point in listing them all but I will say some people get uncomfortable when various things are exposed. I suppose that's why any person that is a fan of say ..... Andrew Bolt would have his blood pressure raised every time he sees John Pilger on television. Also that certain type of person would prefer any trace of or reference to Charlie Perkins be removed from every book and electronic storage device on this earth. Being positive here and highly hopeful about you, I'm going to say then that if you're not engaging in censorship then perhaps you're being somewhat overly pedantic. That being the case then the "Wiki Thing" to do is to often work with what's there and "Improve rather than remove".


 * Referring to the below,


 * Philip Cross (talk | contribs) Revision as of 10:18, 13 April 2014: (Undid revision 603975190 by Brother Samson (talk) Pilger's piece would improve Charles Perkins (Aboriginal activist))


 * I fail to see how removing my edit would as you put it "would improve Charles Perkins (Aboriginal activist))"


 * Also, prior to you posting here I'm positive had only added reference to Perkins twice and then I moved it to another section of the article. So three times then. Now it's four because I've added it but expanded it and will continue to add some other aspects over time. Also other activists that Pilger had associated with or worked with may be included. We'll see what I can come up with. I have a few of Pilgers documentaries and books at home to refer to as well.


 * Now your reference to Charlie Perkins as a radical may meet with a fair amount of disagreement & opposition here my friend. No doubt there are some Aboriginal activists that could be considered radical and I know of a few myself. Perkins is hardly one that I would fit into that category. Thanks (Brother Samson (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC))


 * As you have found material demonstrating a significant connection between Perkins and Pilger, there is no longer a problem with mentioning Charlie Perkins in this article. I removed the comparison with Mandela because the two men are not really comparable. Unlike Mandela, Perkins did not help to end a particularly pernicious system of white minority rule or end up as the President of his country after becoming a major international icon of resistance during imprisonment. As the selection of material is inevitable, it is usually best to avoid citing over statements which leave the subject of the article open to ridicule. I removed your mention of Pat Dodson, because you refer to his opinion and is only connected with Pilger because the journalist mentions Dodson's comment in The Secret Country. Philip Cross (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reincluded Pilgers thoughts on Charlie Perkins as it's important to show Pilgers actual thoughts on Charlie Perkins and Perkins's prominence in Pilgers mind. This is because it goes hand in hand with what Pilger has exposed or rather brought to light over the years regarding indigenous Australia. Excuding for now indigenous Australians and their views, the barometer of public reaction to this can be measured in two ways. One with non-indigenous Australians and their admiration for John Pilger and his work regarding this issue and bringing it to light or giving the issue an international voice. The other is with certain non-indigenous Australians and their hatred of John Pilger for exposing what they would rather be hushed up and forgotten. Now add the views of indigenous Australians to the mix and we see how massively important it all is. The relationship between Pilger and Perkins is of mega importance as Perkins had a great effect on Pilger and had aided Pilger in understanding all of this. Some may say too that Pilger is a rare example of that human being who is actually able to have a greater understanding of what it is like to walk in another mans shoes. It may be a case of Perkins helping Pilger with the shoe fitting. With Pat Dodson I'm going to hold off for a while before attempting to re-insert it into the article until I find further references to him and Pilger. I'm certain there are more. (Brother Samson (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC))