Talk:Newslaundry

Re-phrasing 'media watchdog'

first line in the lead saying 'is an India media watchdog' though having page connection to 'watchdog journalism' might give an entirely different impression to readers ('watchdog' also means an organisation with legal mandate for oversight- which 'newslaundry' isn't). To clarify this ambiguity I removed the phrase but another editor (walrusji) undid my revision so I added a suitable/neutral phrasing keeping 'watchdog' but it was undid by another editor here [1]. I want opinions on how to proceed with this. AnM2002 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: it would be great if you could reflect on this, as you were the one with some apprehension about the above change, it's already been 4 months. AnM2002 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

AnM2002, thank you for pinging me. Media watchdog is a specific term used to refer to organisations which act as media critics and/or fact checkers. The change appears to be a more inaccurate version of the same that deviates from the citations, as in it's not a media company but a non-profit organisation whose sole focus is on watchdog journalism.

The article doesn't call it a ombudsman or authority or regulator, terms which are generally used for organisations with a legal mandate. If you are still concerned about ambiguity, you could probably add a succeeding line with a citation stating that it is a non-profit non-governmental organisation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, appreciate the prompt response, what do you say about the following phrase-" Newslaundry is an non-profit non-governmental media organisation which primarily/solely focuses on "Watchdog journalism." I think this should be an acceptable phrasing for the lead assimilating all the objections. AnM2002 (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

AnM2002, I'd still vouch for preserving the term media watchdog as that is the specific term used by the reliable sources cited for the line. You also need a different citation to be able to state that it's non-profit and non-governmental. I'd recommend something akin to, "Newslaundry is an Indian media watchdog,^[2] that provides media critique, reportage and satirical commentary.^[3] It is a non-profit non-governmental organisation,^[4] founded in ... " Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate I just looked up at the page redirect for Media Watchdog and it seems Watchdog journalism is the term used and enjoys wider preference. Also, Newslaundry has the following in the their about us section Newslaundry is a reader-supported, independent news media company."

I think these should be given more preference rather than the citations which actually deal with some entirely different topics. Further, I think the citation for non government, non profit can be the about us section of Newalaundry itself here[5] AnM2002 (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

AnM2002, I see, I suppose you can call it a company too. That said, media watchdog is not a synonym of watchdog journalism so the question of preference doesn't occur, one describes a form of journalism and the other describes organisations which engage in that form of journalism, which is why it's a redirect. There is no policy based reason to discourage use of terms which are redirected. Independent secondary sources and their descriptions of the company are also preferable over self descriptions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding changes under "Reception" by Abhinavinternet 10001

@Abhinavinternet 10001: Has added two more instances under the "Reception" section which was previously titled "Controversies". In the first instance that they have added (about the Central Vista Redevelopment Project), the user claims that the claims made by newslaundry were misleading (which is not corroborated by the citation). Furthermore, in the second addition (regarding the Sharjeel Usmani), the first line indicates an FIR against his tweet. Since this was not a newslaundry publication, placement of this information does not make sense in the article (especially as Reception of newslaundry). The same applies to the second statement. The speech seems to be personal and not an official publication from newslaundry, hence this does not fit in the article. Reverting for now, (please add more sources if reverted back again). ShellPandey (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)