Talk:Peter Lavelle

Bias
The entire RT section is written with negative bias. I'm no fan of RT but their point of view is no less slanted than that of PBS or NPR in the USA. Can someone redo or remove this entire section? It needs to be neutral and fact based. Wikipedia isn't for opinions. Asaturn (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lavelle's RT show "Crosstalk" provides reporting on world affairs as an alternative to western news shows such as PBS or NPR. I personally find it cogent. Why does Asaturn hold Lavelle's show to a different standard? Asaturn asserts the article in not fact based. On the contrary, every paragraph in the section has a relevant citation. Steve76429 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What is negative bias? The fact that Crosstalk views the corporate media and the western political establishment with some scepticism, while still falling short of the magnitude of its deception, is the one of the few attempts at unmasking the lie we live. When will people wake up to mindless brainwash directed at us for decades and centuries. Wikipedia should not even post such a half-baked, stupid remark. Neutral? Fact based? When last did you check your facts? Remove such dribble! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:A888:3501:E03E:3F46:6C32:7702 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I watched quite a bit of RT and I never hear them talk negative about Russia, PBS on the other hand talks negative about America most of the time. --2605:A000:1E02:C0F7:707E:A04:36F7:76A9 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
This is too much like a eulogy or a CV for the man. One wonders who wrote it.

The fact that he works for Russia Today as an apologist for the Russian government is not mentioned. APW (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is too much like a CV, but Wikipedia is for factual information, and intended to represent a neutral point of view. Words such as "apologist" are clearly not neutral, and should only be included if describing criticism that has been published by reliable sources (see WP:BLP). — Snigbrook 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is criticism of Russia Today in the Russia Today TV article, but nothing I can find via Google refers to Lavelle (other than blogs, which are not reliable sources). — Snigbrook 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a Peter Lavelle interviews which includes his own replies to accusations of Kremlin apologetics SublimeWik (talk) 10 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

We don't need outside sources for this -- we only need to read the man's own website to see his views. Surely this is good enough. What do you mean in this case when you write 'Blogs are not reliable sources'? It is the man's own words we are talking about. The fact that is the most prominent American journalist speaking and writing constantly in support of the Russian government and against Western governments and journalists (whom he calls the 'commentariat') is the main feature that makes him notable. APW (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It should only be included if it is published in reliable sources, or if he has mentioned it himself. I can't see it anywhere on his blog, if it is there you could cite it, mentioning which post it is in. If this is just a perception based on reading it, it is original research. — Snigbrook 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you are going to rule this out, but a quick glimpse at Google brings up http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=27833773 My "research" is hardly "original". APW (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the part about his appearing on various news channels, as this is not supported by any reliable outside source as far as I can see. APW (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the word apologist, what is supposed to be "clearly not neutral" about it? I looked it up in dictionary.com. The word means aomeone who argues in defence of something. Are you mixing it up with propagandist? APW (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I've often seen the word used pejoratively (I'm not confusing it with "propagandist", as that would not only be non-neutral, it would also be incorrect). — Snigbrook 11:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The CrossTalk incident with Murray needs to be deleted, or expanded. As it stands it is negatively biased, and doesn't mention that 1) one of the guests didn't appear on that particular CrossTalk because of heavy NY snowfall, hence Lavelle had to argue his position himself, and 2) there have been approximately 100 CrossTalks and singling this one out is to bias the reader towards a negative impression of Peter Lavelle. SublimeWik (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking? Lavelle HAD to expound the view that the perpetrators of 9/11 weren't fundamentalists??!
 * That's hardly the point, Al. PL's had countless internationally renowned guests from all POVs and persuasions, but that despicable graf was inserted merely to smear him.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Peter Lavelle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120315135839/http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/James_Painter.pdf to http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/James_Painter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled?
Did RT cancel Crosstalk? 73.230.160.102 (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)