Talk:Panorama (British TV programme)/Archive 1

Move?

Anyone mind if this is moved again to Panorama (British television series), just to avoid the possible argument over the US/UK usage of the word program / programme? -- Lochaber 16:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with 'programme'. After all, it's a UK show. BillyH 19:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved on Tuesday 15 November 2005 to Panorama (British television series) Wikiwoohoo 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"On Monday 14th of May 2007, Panorama aired an episode looking at scientology, this episode will be remembered not for the look at the religion, but for journalist John Sweeney who ranted and embarrassed himself. Representatives of Scientology had filmed him losing his temper and posted the clip online." This addition to the page is blatantly another attempt by the "church" to bring John Sweeney down. BIASED!

Removed ad hominem attacks on Sweeney as part of the article. I would suggest protecting this article pre-emptively immediately. (71.194.196.149 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree with the above user. There is also a similar campaign to discredit him on youtube already. Conor 20:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've semi protected the page from vandals. Any objections?--alexdeangelis86 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading the comments on YouTube, it seems as if the Sweeney campaign to discredit him has backfired! http://www.youtube.com/profile_comment_all?user=blackpanorama&page=4 --alexdeangelis86 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdeangelis86 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 May 2007

Notable Episodes

Looks like tonights episode on scientology might be worthy of being a notable episode. --George Drummond 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. from what I've heard it's stirred a bit of controversy in the U.S. Someone should write something about it.--alexdeangelis86 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

,causing upset by referring to his beliefs as being part of "a cult". Think this implies that he directly referred to scientology as a cult during the clip of him loosing his temper but he did not even mention this during the clip on youtube i saw. There was an other clip where he claims "some people" consider it a cult and the scientology guy lost his temper, although not a drastically as the bbc reporter . So i think there should be some clarity that the reporter losing his temper no reference to upsetting the scientologist as the guy had been upset from the time they met him first at the hotel, and from the previous time that the word cult was mentioned on camera to the scientologist.Freefox987 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology article is written is terribly in my opinion, its seemingly one sided and focuses on the one incident not the whole documentary or event surrounding it. To borrow from the wiki John Sweeney page dont you think some of what is in this section should be aligned closer to this?:

"Scientology and Me", a Panorama investigation into Scientology written and presented by Sweeney, was aired on BBC One on Monday, 14 May 2007. Prior to it airing video footage filmed by the Church of Scientology was released on YouTube and by DVD showing Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with Scientologist representative Tommy Davis. Mr. Sweeney says that this was a result of a weeklong campaign of harassment against himself and his family by Davis and the Church. The BBC labeled these clips "attack videos" and others say they were produced to discredit Mr.Sweeney and the documentary. However the church deny that they released the clips online. In response the BBC aired their own recording of the incident. The edition attracted Panorama's highest audience of the current series so far.Chrisp7 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, that is equally one-sided. If you watch the "counter-documentary" by the Church you will see that they have leveled serious charges against Sweeney and the BBC. Perhaps the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle. Or perhaps not. Perhaps Sweeney did set out with a prescripted "plan of attack" and all the co-operation in the world from the Church was not going to stop him from presenting his staged and one-sided view. He got incredible access to Scientologist celebrities and abused that access to insult them. He interviews Lonsdale as some "expert" on Scientology? Lonsdale is some clown that was paid to stand outside the Church with a video camera and harass Scientologists. He knows nothing about Scientology. --Justanother 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi a) I didnt say that that article is the 'be all and end all' just suggested that it was better balanced than the current one as it focuses on more than just 1 incident in the documentary which the scientologists have tried to focus on by releasing that clip of Sweeney getting angry. b) At any rate how is the article 'one sided'? It gives all sides to the story, of course maybe a combination of the existing article and the one above may make for more balance. c) As Sweeney stated in the documentary he was granted access to scientologists, to the chapels etc etc but on the one condition that he wouldnt interview any ex members of the church or any critics. Obviously if he wanted to present a balanced documentary he couldnt accept this as it simply would have been a piece of Scientology propaganda. - This is 'by the by' of course in respect to this article. d) he didnt ever claim that Lonsdale was an expert of Scientology e) Why are you attacking the documentary? That just isnt the issue here - perhaps as a Scientologist you should step back and try to think more objectively and not create a discussion when that just isnt necessary. At any rate the current section as it stands is terribly written, biased and has poor focus and I proprose a total rewrite. (Sorry If I seem to have come across as rather harsh - it sounds rather so reading this back)Chrisp7 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I did not see the documentary so I cannot attack it. I am commenting on a one-sided presentation of the controversy over the show as I thought you were commenting on. I can discuss the controversy without seeing the show and isn't it the controversy that makes that particular show worthy of special mention in the article?. I am presenting the concept that perhaps it is not all about dear Mr. Sweeney trying to make a good-faith documentary about Scientology and being harassed by those mean Scientologists and, golly gee, just losing his temper - wouldn't any of us - and now those mean Scientologists are harassing him over that. That is Sweeney's story and perhaps the BBC's story and that is what your blurb above promotes. Perhaps that is not the story after all that we should be reporting here. Perhaps we should not forward Sweeney's propaganda any more than we should forward the Church's. ps, don't worry about "harsh", I have pretty thick skin (smile). --Justanother 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to clear that up then. Bit of a problem if you havent seen the documentary itself watch it on youtube for your own enjoyment if you like! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8gRmedtJ0) I like you would like a balanced view of the episode. I have just spent some time merging the two stories together and tried to keep both sides of the argument in, it isnt perfect I am sure but let me know what you think (I might edit some more bits in a sec):

Chrisp7 Merge

On 14th May 2007, an episode titled Scientology and Me was broadcast. It was written and presented by the Journalist John Sweeney showing how the Church reacted to his investigations. Prior to its broadcast video footage filmed by the Church of Scientology was released on YouTube and distributed own "counter-documentary" DVD to lobby against, in its view, a one-sided view of the Church. The clip showed Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with Scientologist representative Tommy Davis during a visit to the Church's anti-psychiatry exhibit, "Industry of Death". In response the BBC aired their own recording of the incident. The BBC labeled the leaked video clips as "attack videos" and others say they were produced to discredit Mr.Sweeney and the documentary however John Sweeney, according to Sandy Smith, editor of Panorama, "completely lost it in a way that I don't condone." Smith was "very disappointed with John, and he's very disappointed." Mr. Sweeney says that this was a result of a weeklong campaign of harassment against himself and his family by Davis and the Church. Chrisp7 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just read the transcript and, if I may speculate, it looks to me that the clear intent of that piece was to bait the Scientologists to see what they would do, to see if they would do something "sinister". There was no intent there to make a fair-handed documentary; Sweeney was playing the Church. He states his mission and it is clearly one that will require some baiting. Does that make it wrong? Not if he says, after the fact, "I was going to bait the Church and see if they came after me because many have reported that that is what they do." So he baited the Church and what happened. He got followed. They kept tabs on him. IMO? BFD. Does not make much of a show, does it? Then he fakes this screaming match because Scientology was "beginning to brainwash him" or somesuch? This guy was being just as offensive as he could be. It was all calculated. But that is just my opinion. On the surface, we have what I describe in my latest revision and what you describe above. We can merge them. --Justanother 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats purely a matter of opinion I guess. But your statement "I was going to bait the Church and see if they came after me because many have reported that that is what they do." simply is false - where did you find this quote from? Do you think he would have admitted such a thing if he indeed had done that! Not too sure what he would have to gain from 'faking' highly unprofessional conduct! This surely doesnt make him look too good and is a slight dent in his as yet good reputation. BAsically I merged the two articles before and you added the 2 quotes at the beginning - do you think these are neccessary in the grand scheme of the article iself? but will merge the two without for now and let me know what you think.Chrisp7 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. I was speculating about what he might say if it were his intent to bait the Church and if he were going to be honest about it. Personally, I do not have a lot of trouble with him baiting the Church and then coming out and saying "I baited the Church." It would be gonzo but might make a good story. And an honest story. I do not see much honesty the way it played, though. Just disrespect. --Justanother 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother merge

Here is a merge. It is longish but that is common is current events before they shake out and fall into proper perspective.

In a 14th May 2007 episode titled Scientology and Me, journalist John Sweeney set out on, in his words, a "mission . . . to find out whether the Church of Scientology still deserves its sinister reputation." In making what Scientology spokesperson Tommy Davis characterized as a "film with no objectivity from a bigoted, slanted, pre-conceived, already determined idea of exactly how it's going to go", Sweeney found himself followed as he interviewed Scientology detractors in what he later described as a weeklong campaign of harassment against himself and his family by Davis and the Church. During a visit to the Church's anti-psychiatry exhibit, "Industry of Death", Sweeney, according to Sandy Smith, editor of Panorama, "completely lost it in a way that I don't condone." Smith was "very disappointed with John, and he's very disappointed." The Church of Scientology itself filmed Sweeney as he worked and, prior to the Panorama broadcast, released video footage on YouTube. The Church of Scientology also prepared its own DVD "counter-documentary" which accuses Sweeney and the BBS of presenting a one-sided and staged view of the Church and is distributing 100,000 copies of the DVD to all Members of Parliament and peers, religious leaders and other “influential” figures to lobby against, in its view, the violation by Sweeney and the BBC of the BBC's own editorial guidelines. The BBC labeled the leaked video clips as "attack videos" and others say they were produced to discredit Mr.Sweeney and the documentary.

Hi, That article is even more one sided than the original we started with! If you want me to add in the quotes you want I will but am relucant to do so as I think in the grand scheme of this panorama page it doesnt really merit such detail. Your edit also misses out possibly the largest story of this whole 'episode' - the youtube leak controversy. I really believe that my edit keeps the story balanced and more concise. Give me your thoughts. Chrisp7 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One-sided? It just repeats his stated mission and adds the POV of both sides. Let the reader decide. What was leaked? The Scientology filming or the BBC filming. I thought it was the Scientology filming - that is not a notable leak - it is not a leak at all. --Justanother 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes one sided - it doesnt allow Sweeney to defend himself and has far far too much of the scientologists opinion on the matter unlike my attempt which has both criticism and defence. Please read my attempt - it really objective, and maintains both sides of the story. Im saying its one sided because of the mission statement and counter statement you added - i just think thats not that relevant in 'the grand scheme' of this page. The leak is the whole interest behind this story! The clip of the scientologists video was leaked onto youtube before the programme itself - the BBC then countered with their own clip. This is what caused the controversy - this is why so many people watched it! Chrisp7 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we have the two sides using internet buzz. Not sure how notable that is; that is just what you do these days. Certainly worked and led to viewers and further buzz. The only notability seems to be the Sweeney melt-down. Which I found more than a touch contrived but that is just me. What is the grand scheme? I guess that two sides used the internet to generate buzz and made for a popular episode? The substance of the episode not so important? --Justanother 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

could Justanother please watch the episode before commenting on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J8-Zfzd55E (please ignore the stupid and a insulting comments on the vid there). One cannot get an acurate account of a video from a transcript, unless you want to create a page discussing the transcript itself. I put forward we return to 08:24, 16 May 2007 Stephenb (Talk | contribs) and then discuss why it was is inaccurate or biased when it briefly explained the episode, also There is already a page dealing with criticisms of scientology so think more appropriate to dispute the accuracy or motives behind the episode there or on the sweeny page. the added criticism of the journalist sweeny, think that may be more appropriate on the sweeny page, also my original account is inacessable so no choice but use this one freefox987 Freefox936 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I see no need to hit the brakes. We have two editors working it out and you are welcome to make it three. I will view it when I can but I cannot now. I have read the transcript and the press and saw the CoS counter. I think my latest below is pretty good. Please address specific objections or propose one of your own. Thanks. --Justanother 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother merge2

Edit and rearrange to have criticism and response. The "mission" is important and sourced in his own words. Something more like this??

In a 14th May 2007 episode titled Scientology and Me, journalist John Sweeney set out on, in his words, a "mission . . . to find out whether the Church of Scientology still deserves its sinister reputation." Sweeney found himself followed as he interviewed Scientology detractors in what he later described as a weeklong campaign of harassment against himself and his family by Davis and the Church while he worked on what Scientology spokesperson Tommy Davis characterized as a "film with no objectivity from a bigoted, slanted, pre-conceived, already determined idea of exactly how it's going to go". The Church of Scientology itself filmed Sweeney as he worked and, after Sweeney, according to Sandy Smith, editor of Panorama, "completely lost it" during a visit to the Church's anti-psychiatry exhibit, "Industry of Death", released video footage on YouTube. The BBC responded by releasing its own video with the exchange leading to Panorama's highest audience of the current series so far. The Church of Scientology also prepared its own DVD "counter-documentary" which accuses Sweeney and the BBS of presenting a one-sided and staged view of the Church and is distributing 100,000 copies of the DVD to all Members of Parliament and peers, religious leaders and other “influential” figures to lobby against, in its view, the violation by Sweeney and the BBC of the BBC's own editorial guidelines. The BBC labeled the leaked video clips as "attack videos" and others say they were produced to discredit Mr.Sweeney and the documentary.

Look i acept that you two have put a good bit into this but i think we have gone off track. We are ment to be dealing with the episode of the bbc program panorama. As far as i recall there was no mention of this harasment of sweenys family or tommys opinion in the episode and no mention of a lot of this information in the episode either. One of the main themes of this episodes is how to church of scientology deals with critissm and especial the word "cult" which was a sticking point for negotiations with tommy before the trip to america and caused tommy to appear to loose his temper when the word is merely mentioned. in his words, a "mission . . . to find out whether the Church of Scientology still deserves its sinister reputation." seems to be the only part of the entire discussion relating back to the actual contents of the episode. once again i think that only what is presented in the episode is most relevant to the , ere episode. both the cotraversal sweeny temper thing and scientologys responce video can be acuratly diccussed using what is in the actual episode. All the external info is a bit diverting but still not as relavant as the episode itself. well as least in my opinionFreefox936 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see. Just so you know; Tommy's comment is from the show; The "counter-DVD" is referenced on the show and clips from it are shown. But the real point is why limit to the show's content? The YouTube incident and other notable issues about the show are relevant too and should go in there. Wikipedia is not an "episode guide", it is an encyclopedia and should provide the broadest view. ps, I've watched it now; my opinion is unchanged - Sweeney went in there to bait and got little of what he wanted. Scientology simply kept tabs on him so they, IMO, could address the issues that they needed to address. Nothing very "sinister". His "mission" was a flop. And if you do not think he was baiting then watch him chase Tommy going "cult" this and "cult" that as Tommy tried to walk away - Sweeney is a total troll. --Justanother 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Justanother that just isnt the way to act on Wikipedia why have you edited the whole article yourself? Now not only does it read terribly, has poor grammar it is also bloated and completely one sided. We discussed but you have simply ignored everything and edited to your requirements! Additionally from your countless unsubstantiated accusations, blatant bias for Scientology the fact that you havent watched the programme itself and your admital that you are a Scientologist I dont think you are the correct candidate for this job. I am a little annoyed that I made edits from my suggestion of simple revision to accomodate your version of events and yet you just ignored it and wrote a completely biased piece! How can you have lasted this long in wikipedia acting this way? I am going to revert back to my last edit and I totally side with Freefox936 I think that maybe we should back to the original 16th May edit and in my opinion maybe adding information about the youtube leak as that is one of the interesting parts to this story, but that shouldnt be down to 1 persons sayso. Chrisp7 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Chrisp, I will disregard the "I know how to edit on Wikipedia and you don't." Obviously that is not productive. I waited over an hour after I posted "merge2" here and you did not continue the dialog so I figured you had logged off. I notice that you had no problem making edits as you saw fit and I never came at you personally. So hows about we chill on that? I did not ignore you at all and I made changes to accomodate what I though were your concerns. Ps A person does not "admit" their religion, a person follows or has a religion. Is your bias showing? My only bias is for the truth. I fear that you may think that the BBC has the monopoly on the truth and the Scientologists have only bias. Not so. --Justanother 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Original 16th May scientology article:

On 14th May 2007, an episode titled Scientology and Me was broadcast. The journalist John Sweeney presented the edition, showing how the Church reacted to his journalistic investigations, including its reaction when he put to members that some people describe the organization as a "cult". At one point during an interview, the presenter lost his temper with a member of the Church of Scientology.

//I agree with freefox936 to revert back to this simple description however I suggest that it might be of interest to add in since the 'youtube leak' was part of the reason this the story was so big, tell me your thoughts! Chrisp7 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC) :

Prior to it airing video footage filmed by the Church of Scientology was released on YouTube and by DVD showing Mr. Sweeney losing his temper with Scientologist representative Tommy Davis. Mr. Sweeney says that this was a result of a weeklong campaign of harassment against himself and his family by Davis and the Church.

Look the bigger issue is of being objective about topic "Panorama (TV series)" and specifically the episode in question. I have no bias either way but i am aware that this is a very personal article to some people. Notable episodes is the name of the heading so then the episode should be explained and why it was noteable, both should be given at least equal atention. If You think he is a troll and that tommy and scientology is some sort of victim and want the article to convey that, fair enough - if someone else thinks scientology is trying to take over the world by following reporters, fair enough. Then prove the point in this article through the actual episode and get people to agree so no one can justify editing it, however that might require a new section. The episode is edited by the BBC and Sweeny so obviously its contents favours their views!! we do not have that luxury. The broadest view is a balanced view which is all i am trying to acheive., as you implied the term "cult" was both a major theme of the episode and the contraversy that we at least agree on. But i think Justanother help will be useful as we do not want an anti-scientologist bias either. I just think that acusatons of having your family followed or useing which quotes undermine the journalest are not of benefit to the article as they give bias. So if sweenys external quote is used then why not the bbc critism of sweeny? please you guys lets discuss things and come to a consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freefox936 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 May 2007

Hi. You are, of course, correct, Mr. Freefox. And I look forward to working with both of you. Chrisp. please review WP:AGF. I think that you may have lost sight of that and my response was likely stronger than warranted. OK. The original bit was certainly neutral. Also very bland. Chrisp's addition does indeed justify Mr. Sweeney in a one-sided fashion. This episode is interesting not in its content which is standard Scientology criticism (drivel to me but one man's drivel . . .) but in the way Sweeney went about it. He states his "mission" is to find "sinister" and how can he possible find any sinister unless he goes a-hunting sinister. And to hunt sinister you need some bait. That is obvious to me. But that is obviously just my opinion. --Justanother 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ok then in good faith i am returning to the un biased version (we have a bit of consensus), although considered bland by Justanother. This will be our starting point and if we can improve the article tastefully and an unbiased why through the discussion page first then great. unfortunatly an un-biased article can be a lot more bland than an editorial but think we can use links to quotes and external information to allow people to research things if they choose to. for example saying " On 14th May 2007, an episode titled Scientology and Me was broadcast. The journalist John Sweeney presented the edition, showing how the Church reacted to his journalistic investigations, including its reaction when he put to members that some people describe the organization as a "cult". Controversially ( place link to BBC discussion of sweeny outburst here)at one point during an interview, the presenter lost his temper with a member of the Church of Scientology."

If you two now want to discuss the scrap over the youtube thing and the counter- video then lets do that! if Justanother feel that the episode deserves real indepth detail than perhaps creating a new page outline the actual proghram contents- then the scietology critisms and then a rebutal ithen i support him in this action.Freefox936 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

checked if protection needed but thankfully no edit war as of yet!!Freefox936 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Were there no notable episodes between 1957 and 1995? Far too much emphasis on recent programmes, in my opinion. Wjl72 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sex Crimes and the Vatican (documentary)

I realise the sensitive nature of the subject and its' tendency to inflame emotions, but the relevant section of the article merely recites the documentaries allegations as though they are established facts. In order to present a neutral point of view it's necessary to rephrase the words used to convey the fact that the documentary makers have made a series of claims, and that these claims may be true or false. For example:

• "Panorama found seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City. One of the priests, Father Joseph Henn, has been indicted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States. Henn is fighting extradition orders from inside the headquarters of his religious order in the Vatican. The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges against him. After filming, Father Henn lost his fight against extradition but fled the Vatican and is believed to be hiding in Italy while there is an international warrant for his arrest."
  • The individual named challenged extradition from the Holy See to the US. The Holy See is a sovereign state. Without an explicit denial of natural justice, there is no way church officials could have "compelled him to return to America". The sole purpose of the statement appears to be to imply wrongdoing when the Holy See was simply following established protocols common to all states. It may be acceptable for the documentary makers to attempt such misrepresentations but it should not be repeated here on Wikipedia.
• "Sex Crimes and the Vatican was filmed by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ferns in County Wexford in Ireland when he was 14 years old."
  • If the accused never stood trial then it is not possible to make this claim. Although it appears likely to me that the priest committed such crimes, such claims will unfortunately remain allegations. Did any independant 3rd party make any determination on this matter?
• "The Vatican has refused repeated requests from Panorama to respond to any of the cases shown in the film."
  • It is not clear that "the Vatican" was ever asked to respond, and even if they were, whether such a request was made in circumstances that would have indicated to them that they would obtain a fair hearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyIncognito (talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this particularly caused quite a storm in British Catholic circles when aired, primarily because of the allegations that the Catholic Church was refusing to respond. Apparentley it was later revealed that at no point had any senior churchmen in the UK (at least) had ever been approached by the BBC for a clarification of the matter during the making of the programme. I'll see if I can find the article in which this was revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.7.68 (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Panoramalogo fullsize.gif

Image:Panoramalogo fullsize.gif 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 Wikipedia: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 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pointless and undiscussed move

I have reversed Pointer1's move of this page to "Panorama (TV programme)" with the questionable justification of, "Not a series." Panorama is in multiple "series" categories, and indeed "series" is the overwhelmingly pravelent term over "programme." Nick Cooper (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Panorama is not a series any more than News is a series, as it has no projected end. Similarly, Newsnight is in 'series' categories, but is described as a 'programme' in the lead. So I would support Pointer1's change. Rothorpe (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

May I point you towards the discussion at the top of this Talk page where the point was made that "series" means the same on both sides of the Atlantic, whereas "programme" would seem spelt wrong to any American editor. Not necessarily a reason to prevent a rename, but worth bearing in mind. Also, is there any central guideline on whether to call certain things series/program(me)s? If so, there's the danger of going against an agreed protocol somewhat arbitrarily. Would WikiProject Television shed any light on this? Finally, doesn't "programme" generally imply singular? --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This was moved again yesterday, without discussion, so I have moved it back again. IMO, Panorama is a television series, comprised of individual programmes. (It would, for example, appear on a "series link" for Freeview+ or Sky+, and is produced as a series by the BBC). "Programme" (singular) not only has the US/UK spelling issue but implies that it is only a single broadcast programme. Stephenb (Talk) 10:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I somehow missed Peeky's reply, but in any case I agree with your reasoning. Rothorpe (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Video game addiction

I'm not suggesting this be listed as a notable episode since it hasn't even aired yet, but there are already a good few sources questioning the episode. What I'm basically getting at is IF the episode does turn a good number of heads, expect some to want to add it. We'd just have to wait and see. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Title music

It seems they have dumped the famous title music. Does anyone have any details on this to update that section in the main article? Stephend01 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable Show

Jimmy Savile, surely! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sensationalism?

I wonder if allegations of sensationalism should be included, for example this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244242/Id-happily-run-Cyclist-took-controversial-BBC-documentary-inundated-hate-messages-death-threats.html#ixzz2EMdPzpYe "Previews of the hour-long documentary had been condemned by the joint chairman of the Parliamentary Cycling Group and Labour MP for Dudley North Ian Austin. He described the programme as 'stupid, sensationalist, simplistic, irresponsible nonsense.'" 86.30.117.77 (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't include one comment from one person about one episode to back up a general claim that the series is "sensationalist." That would be WP:UNDUE in my opinion. However, where there is a section about a specific show then a response to that show such as Austin's would be relevant. Keri (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Panorama copied from Belgium?

There's a very similar show in Belgium (identical format, same name), presented in Dutch, which started on 31 October 1953, thus 11 days before the UK version discussed in this article. I'm not suggesting that someone from the BBC saw the Belgian show and scrambled to make a copy in 11 days, but there does seem to be a link between the two shows. Anyone know more about this?

Here's the Dutch language article about the Belgian show: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panorama_%28duidingsprogramma%29 Gronky (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Trimming down Notable Episodes

User:D Eaketts seems to think that the "Notable Episodes" is just a list of *all* episodes, which defeats the point of the "Notable Episodes" section in my opinion. I think most of the list should be moved to a "List of Panorama Episodes" page, and this list trimmed down to actually reflect notable episodes (i.e. those with more than just a one-line summary). --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. It now seems that editors are adding most - if not all - episodes, even before they are screened. I am therefore deleting all episodes that do not have citations to third party post-screening comment/debate. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Stadiums of Hate

Suggest that the main BBC article is updated regarding the anti-Polish bias of the BBC, this Panorama episode being a notably bad example of such polonophobic discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.63.73 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

3.17 "The Honeymoon Murder: Who Killed Anni Dewani?"

(Sep 19, 2013) In Cape Town, taxi driver Zola Tongo has made a statement that Shrien Dewani paid him to organize the shooting of his bride, Anni. Shrien, a resident of Bristol, is not denying that he made an informal contract with Tongo for extra taxi rides in Cape Town and beyond the city limits. On a field trip in Cape Town, Jeremy Vine shows that Tongo was a complete stranger to Shrien before 12/11/2010, but claims to have arranged the assassination of Anni, which occurred within 28 hours of the couple's first arriving in Cape Town. A study of CCTV records and the local police 'docket' shows that Tongo and his accomplices plotted to mug the couple while making it appear as a commonplace vehicle hijacking (one of the muggers, Mngeni, indicates in a video that robbery was their motive for holding up Tongo's private taxi.) After the mugging led to fatality, local lawyer William da Grass was able to incriminate Shrien as a conspirator by arranging a "plea and sentencing agreement" with people who could not have witnessed Shrien's interaction with Tongo (Tongo said that Mbolombo overheard an incriminating phone call from Shrien but a service provider record shows that no such call was made.) Da Grass might have expected that his case against Shrien would be dismissed in court, but he could promise the plea bargainers that they would continue to enjoy their rewards, in any event. The case showed that it is possible to offer plea bargains to criminals who are making impossible witness statements in South Africa (where no trials have juries) Da Grass gained employment through an apparent exploitation of the legal system and it caused Shrien to lose his freedom for four years. It also brought unwanted worldwide media exposure and costly court administration in South Africa and England. (bit. ly/MugTaxi offers a detailed construction. Also see legal arena) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrytlloyd (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 March 2015‎

BBC and GM Food - Cultivating Lies?

A new generation of GM foods is "winning over governments and former critics of the technology, and scientists say the crops could help feed people in the developing world." So are those who oppose GM doing more harm than good? And is their opposition based on genuine safety concerns, or is it just feeding fear? GM Food - Cultivating Fear, Panorama, 8 June 2015

Is this based on genuine facts - or pro-GM dis-information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.233.45 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You own bias is clearly evident if you think the only options are "genuine facts - or pro-GM dis-information." Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Panorama (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051103002825/http://www.mind.org.uk:80/News+policy+and+campaigns/Campaigns/SSRIchron.htm to http://www.mind.org.uk/News+policy+and+campaigns/Campaigns/SSRIchron.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Panorama (British TV programme)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*20 citations, 1 image. Could use some more images. Smee 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Substituted at 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight for "Stadiums of Hate".

It's a (relatively) gigantic section. Perhaps trim it into line, or create an article for it? Sex Crimes and the Vatican got one for less. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panorama (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mind.org.uk/News%2Bpolicy%2Band%2Bcampaigns/Campaigns/SSRIchron.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201153444/http://www.hindustantimes.com/sports-news/Football/Unfair-say-organisers/Article1-863192.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/sports-news/Football/Unfair-say-organisers/Article1-863192.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Longest running programme on BBC One

Early on this mentions that Panorama is the longest-running current affairs programme in the world. It was mentioned on Points of View on September 24 2017 that this programme is the longest -running programme on BBC One, and I wonder whether this should be put in the article (I assume the listings given on Points of View omitted news broadcasts). Vorbee (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC) In case anybody is curious, the five longest-running programmes on BBC One were 1. Panorama 2. The Sky at Night 3. Blue Peter 4. Points of View 5. Songs of Praise according to the episode of Points of View broadcast on September 24 2017. Vorbee (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 18:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Panorama (TV series) → Panorama (TV programme) – Running this through a WP:RM as per WP:TITLECHANGES, and as per controversy at the article (c.2012) on the correct disambiguator. But, under WP:NCTV, this is a "TV programme" (as per the article's own lede), not a "TV series" (which is reserved for generally scripted, and a few unscripted reality, TV shows with "continuing story elements"). So it should be properly disambiguated with "TV programme" (which is currently a redirect to the same). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. It's clearly a program that airs a news item on a different topic each time. --Gonnym (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Not a series. Andrew³²⁷ 13:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, came to page to move based on same reasoning as IJBall (talk · contribs) Matt14451 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I've also moved pages like Dispatches (TV programme) and Watchdog (TV programme). Matt14451 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.