Talk:Mark Easton

Untitled

Mark Easton is the BBC News Home Editor. Mark Easton BBC (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My link to Mark's BBC Profile page bounces back to his Wikipedia page. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Womble (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeated removal EU bias paragraph by COI editor(s)

Recently, a IP address which traces back to the BBC removed a section on Easton's alleged Pro-EU bias. This was done without any real explanation other than stating "removed inaccuracies" and [User:CASSIOPEIA] helpfully reverted this edit. Several days later, a user claiming to be Easton has made the same deletion and this time I reverted it and reminded the user of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. I reverted the edit once again and invited the user to discuss the matter on the talk page instead of simply engaging in blanket deletions of the content. Regrettably this did not work and he has again deleted the section. Deletions of this material are unjustified for a number of reason. The content is clearly sourced to a reliable source (the Daily Telegraph) and it accurately reflects the content found in the source. The controversy is particularly notable because it isn't merely some random columnist who has highlighted Easton's alleged bias, but in fact a criticism the entire newspaper has puts its name to. The size of the Telegraph, combined with the fact that it's a highly reputable source, makes this controversy impossible to ignore. Furthermore, the wider subject of BBC pro-EU bias as a whole gets a great deal of coverage (including some her on Wikipedia) and it is thus a notable for that reason too. I dare say we could tweak the wording of the section slightly to improve accuracy, but having COI editors repeatedly blanking it without justification and failing to engage in discussions isn't the way to go.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Update, I've found a further source which goes into the controversy in more detail which we can probably make use of [1], helpfully it includes a response from the BBC about the incident. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This page has been repeatedly edited to include inaccurate and unbalanced criticisms of me and my journalism. I work as Home Editor at BBC News and the 'criticisms' relate to opinion pieces from newspapers which are generally critical of the BBC. I have no interest in trying to censor Wikipedia, nor dodge criticism for what I do. But, as things stand, the entry about me gives a > partial and very unfair impression about me and my journalism. > As a BBC journalist I am well used to criticism and accept that it comes with the territory. However, both incidents referred to in the 'Controversies' section simply regurgitate one-sided opinion pieces in newspapers with an agenda against the BBC. > The first 'controversy' refers to criticism for alleged pro-EU bias. This 'criticism' only appears in the Daily Telegraph, a paper editorially critical of the EU. The paragraph does not mention: > 1) The report included a clip of a European Commission spokesman describing > coverage in the DT's sister paper the Sunday Telegraph as "a gross and totally > irresponsible misrepresentation of the facts", which might help explain the > Telegraph's motive in attacking the piece > > 2) The fact that the BBC asked the Sunday Telegraph to comment on the EC > statement but they declined > > 3) The original BBC piece did not mention the Telegraph by name > > 4) The specific allegations made by the Telegraph are contested by the BBC > > The second 'controversy' says I compared "extremism hate preacher Anjem Choudary to Nelson Mandelaand Mahatma Gandhi". This is > simply not true and repetition of this claim does not make it any more true. The Daily Mail, a newspaper which regularly > criticises the BBC, published this allegation (although it uses the phrase 'appeared to compare'). What actually happened is that > I was writing about the difficulties of proposed government legislation to outlaw 'extremism' and argued that Mandela and Gandhi > had both been described by the UK government as extremists in previous times. The original article is here: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32723645 > There is no mention of Anjem Choudary. > Following the claim of comparison I wrote a second blog article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32756546 > Of course Wikipedia entries should include notable controversies where appropriate. But if editors feel including details of these > opinion pieces, the entry must surely also include the context and point out inaccuracies. Mark Easton (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Mark. talk to !dave 17:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)