Talk:Euronews

RTE, founder or no?

RTE is listed as a founder, and later as one of those who joined SOCEMIE in 1997 along with the founders. Obviously a small rewrite or correction of this section is needed, but I don't have the information needed --garryq 10:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perspectives

What happened to this particular program? Did EuroNews discontinue it? --  Denelson83  23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Do they air it only on weekends? I might be wrong but I can't find it on the EuroNews website anyway. --giandrea 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Only on weekends I believe. 84.192.117.13 16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Availability

Euronews was removed from the Canadian Bell ExpressVu service in April 2007. I've been unable to find a published citation for this, but as far as original research goes, I can turn on my receiver and confirm that this is true. ExpressVu has not yet updated its channel lineup file to reflect this change. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also Euronews Radio, so Euronews is not just TV. www..com/radio I was looking for pan-E.U. radio in English for years in my iRadio—yesterday I searched France and found Euronews Radio English. Very important to me! --Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the recent additions to the article's criticism section

It has been brought to my attention that some users have been continiously reverting content from an anonymous contributor, despite the fact that this user sourced his content. I've examined his claims and the source he listed has indeed been used in the intro section of the article for nearly a year now. That the source currently is not yielding a result isn't sufficient grounds for a full removal of this new content -- the website is clearly genuine and a reliable source, and I suggest we give it some time to correct this internal error it seems to be facing at present. At any rate, I see no reason why this content should be removed. DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow,what a coincidence. Rien.  20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But of course. Your "anonymous contributor" is a vandal who was blocked 3 minutes before you started defending his additions (see 84.192.127.254). So whoever has "brought it to your attention" is a) VERY fast and b) possibly not the most reliable source of information. There's also a point c) but I need to do some more research before I can be sure about that. Maybe later. Rien.  20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that when 84.192.127.254 (talk · contribs) was blocked, account creation was also blocked, so new Wikipedia user accounts cannot be registered from this IP until after the block expires. Also Dead external links may be relevant to this discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:PROVEIT, I originally was more inclined to follow Rien's reasoning in settling this dispute. However, the continued reverting of what appeared to be a good faith edit on the baseless grounds of vandalism resulted in a minor sympathy vote for the anonymous on my part. At any rate, the guidelines in matters such as these are clear. My proposed solution is that we keep the disputed content in the article until roughly two or three days after the anonymous user his ban has expired. If the anonymous by that time is not able to replace the defunct link with another/new reliable, published source, I will remove the disputed content from this article in the same way I recently did with a similar (and related) case in the BBC World article. DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Two small remarks and then I'm done with this.
To DieOfGoodLuck: Mentioning "baseless grounds of vandalism" is stretching it a bit, in my opinion. Any anonymous user that replaces other users talkpages with shut the fuck up and fucking idiot because they don't agree with him, has, in my book at least, lost all credibility. Further edits by such a user will be seriously scrutinized. And so it was rather striking that this anonymous user first removed stuff from BBC World and then inserted it into EuroNews. Looks like vandalism to me, so I reverted it.
To:Kralizec! I know new accounts can't be created from a blocked address. That's not what I said or implied.
But anyway, I'm not here to defend EuroNews. I'm sure the article has plenty of contributors that will take good care of it. They'll remove stuff if they believe it shouldn't be here. I only got here because I was tracking a vandal, no more, no less. Rien.  21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to regard "Europe" to be Central Europe

I rarely see anything reported from Greece. --Leladax (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now they mention it and very vocal against it in the crisis (being against it is not a norm, e.g. French media is not against it). Something smells fishy here. --Leladax (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mideast Conflict

I would like to see some sources on Euronews's policies regarding the Mideast Conflict, and whether or not people think it is pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian. [1]. ADM (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Programmes section

Is the programmes section in lowercase for some special reason? 87.219.84.28 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Euronews in 1986?

I changed the launch date of Euronews because Euronews didn't exist in 1986. It was actually founded in 1992 in Lyon as a European Broadcasting Union initiative by a group of 11 European public broadcasters. -- CTWPerfection (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of View?

Who are the principal authors of this piece?

The majority of the 'references' are to Euronews sources - hardly objective or neutral.

The EU has a track record (see Matthew Elliott et al 'The Great European Rip off')of funding what is essentially propaganda pushed to the market by third parties.

Both the Commission and the parliament pay so called 'independent' producres to produce firndly pieces - that are then placed with compromised outlets like Euronews.

If all this were to be done tansaprently - fair enough. Though tax payers may complain. In fact it is done covertly - as with Euronews.

This article as a whole does not have a neutral point of view and in its assertion that Euronews is akin to a public service broadcaster such as the BBC or PBS is compromising the integrity of genuine public service broadcasters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

18 May 2011. This article continues to promote the idea that the channel is a 'Public service broadcaster' similar to the BBC or PBS.

In fact as noted in my revision it is more akin to 'Russia today' or Iran's State TV. These channels promote a clear Goverment 'Line' with some limited editorial freedom.

Euronews carries no (or almost no) stories unfavourable to the EU. Nothing on curruption. Nothing on the effects of the CAP on non European nations. Nothing on the fact the Union's own auditors have not approved its accounts for the last 13 years.

Thus hardly a 'Public Service'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

um, just source your claims if there is such criticism made of it; at first look its charter guarantees independence http://www.euronews.net/services-ue/ 93.139.148.156 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an independent journalistic investigation by Euractiv

Personal and professional links between Orbán and new Euronews owner!

By Molly Killeen | EURACTIV.com (updated: 5 January. 2022 г.)

Attention: There is no refutation of the information that the Euronews channel is fully or partially controlled and financed by Viktor Orban!

Always double-check this source of information!

″https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/personal-and-professional-links-between-orban-and-new-euronews-owner/″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.201.116 (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Why did they delete all the information about Euronews being owned by a friend of Viktor Orban?

This channel cannot be trusted!

Bring back the information about Orban's friends and their influence on the Story and the presentation of information on Euronews!

A quote:

"A controlling stake in the Euronews media network is being sold to a company run by the son of a key advisor to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has been widely criticized as an enemy of press freedom.

On December 17, Euronews reported that Portuguese investment company Alpac Capital, whose CEO Pedro Vargas David, son of Orban's adviser Mario David, is well connected in Hungary and is the son of Orban's adviser Mario David, will buy an 88 percent stake from Egyptian tycoon Naguib Sawiris.

Euronews has faced a revenue decline in recent years and has been subsidized by the European Commission.

The purchase price was not disclosed, but the planned capital increase could further increase the Portuguese stake in the troubled channel, which provides content in 15 languages and reaches an estimated 145 million people."

https://www.rferl.org/a/hungary-euronews-orban-david/31619957.html 46.175.189.21 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This is what we call undue emphasis. It may be worth noting in an article on Alpac Capital that the CEO is the son of an adviser to the PM of Hungary (it probably isn't, but still) but it's not at all relevant to this article about Euronews unless and until there are any reports from reliable, independent sources that the channel has become pro-Orban, pro-Fidesz or pro-fascistic policies. But if there's none of those reports to be found, then... nah, it's just not relevant enough to go in this article. — Trey Maturin has spoken 16:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Viewer Figures

I am 'Modern Cromwell'. I have remeoved viwer figures from the text.

References supporting them were Euronews documents - hardly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are the ones that are hardly neutral by calling Euronews a propaganda tool. --Golstein (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well when an organisation claims independence but in fact pushes a line and is subsidised by tax payer funds to do so, i think it meets the definition of propaganda. However I accept the word has an emotional impact not consistent with a neutral POV so i am happy not to use it. However whoever is editing this from Euronews keeps insisting that it is a 'Public service broadcaster' when it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to end this discussion Wikipedia's own entry on public service broadcasting containes the following as part of the definition (taken from the UK Broadcasting Research Unit): 'Detachment from vested interests and government in which programming is impartial, and the broadcaster is not be subject to control by advertisers or government.Italic text

Euronews hardly meets this criterion (or indeed a number of others mentioned in the article) and thus cannot be called a Public Service Broadcaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modern Cromwell (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

that sounds like your original research; find a peer-reviewed source stating such critiques. And its charter actually does state "The Contractor shall be independent of any instruction, pressure or request from any EU Institution, any EU Member State or any other State or Institution in all matters concerning the content of its “EU Services” as defined by the Contract. ... Programme content must be produced without any pressure from any EU institution, political party or business entity. ... euronews journalists therefore undertake to “resist every pressure and (…) accept editorial orders only from the responsible persons of the editorial staff” ... euronews remains impartial while carrying out its European Missions to Inform. Impartiality is defined essentially as the search to reasonably compare points of view within the bounds of fundamental democratic principles. This consequently enables the topic to be given a horizontal (for/against) or vertical (EU/national/regional) dialectic treatment." 93.139.148.156 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cable availability Template issue

I've added cable channels but it does not show up in the template. too many maybe?! --Pedro (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo resemble to the Nazi flag

Subliminal message considering their anti-Israel approach and biased coverage ? Radical-Dreamer (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. G7mzh (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does. Check out their previous Wikipedia logo which they still use on some websites:

https://cdn.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s/17/media17/2014/May/27/20ddc771189c_channel_thumbnail_1401199738.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bddf9e4e42d2d2523e&ec_rate=499

Just missing a Swastika.

Radical-Dreamer (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research and also total bollocks nonsense crap. Move along now, nothing to see here. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Brexit and Freesat RfC

There's a slow-motion edit war going on between me (sorry) and an unregistered user who keeps hopping IPs, making communication difficult. For that reason, here's a thread for discussing the issue behind the revert cycle.

• In September 2016, Euronews apparently ceased to be listed on the Freesat EPG. Nobody has been able to find a reliable source for this, but there we go.
• The IP user wishes to add the words "after the Brexit vote" (or similar) to the sentence in question. Yeah, it did happen after the Brexit vote, but so did a lot of things.
• I believe that adding the words "after the Brexit vote" implicitly links the two events.
• Nobody, myself included, has been able to find a reliable source that links these two events. Debates on various forums do not count according to Wikipedia rules.
• The IP user asserts that it is the responsibility of the person removing the unreferenced text to find a source that agrees with them. Of course, proving a negative is impossible and that way lies madness.
• The slow motion edit war is staying just under the 3RR for now, but eventually one of us will cross that bright red line; the IP has the advantage as they will just shift IPs if blocked. I can't.

I seek the opinions of the community here, for purposes of my own sanity ◦ Trey Maturin 17:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I did some quick googling and you can find a source on the Freesat and it appears as if it was due to a decision by the majority owner. Source found here. I proceeded to insert the source where it should be and modify the sentence, if I have done anything wrong feel free to notify me. Funkyman99 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm unaware of the particular issue. What I can say is that the onus to provide sourcing is on the claimant, as Trey Maturin correctly asserts above. Sourcing is absolutely needed when dealing with such claims, or they're to be removed per standing policy. There's nothing controversial about this, and the IP needs to respect the way we do things. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2017

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: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Euronews → Euronews NBC – NBC bought a 25% stake in Euronews and has renamed the network, Euronews NBC, according to the New York Times.

References

Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Wait until the public renaming actually happens. Move as per nom provided that this is indeed the current public branding. The linked reference says "Euronews will be renamed Euronews NBC" (emph. added). Their website still calls itself "Euronews". See WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Jeh (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence the proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Zarcadia (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2017 (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.

Euronews NEXT model finish multilingual multiplex format

I think that is a important change than made the article must be uptades. I made some changes already, but I think must be made a all article revision.

I only have two articles reference in spanish, but I think in the next days will be more articles in many languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fharlock (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you changes, Fharlock! I've reverted the for now, as you've stated that the service has closed. It hasn't. There's just been some changes to the distribution system. I'll find a source for those and note them further down in the article. ◦ Trey Maturin 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2017

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: voluntarily closed by the user and moved when official. I apologize for creating this move request so quickly, but I would like to let you know that I did find a source that says NBCUniversal closed the deal here. When the name change is official, this article can be moved. (non-admin closure) 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:91C0:B17C:7195:720C (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Euronews → EuronewsNBC – I believe the purchase by NBCUniversal was completed yesterday. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:C49:9E5B:672C:A0C9 (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Yashovardhan (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Contesting reason: There is no official source which confirms that the name of the company has also been changed. The official website still reflect EURONEWS. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait: Please calm down and get out of the "gotta be first to file the scoop!" mindset. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As noted in the "requested move" discussion of February 20 (just a couple of sections above), we generally follow the "common name" guideline for article titles. In this case the common name is what the channel calls itself. (Note that the article is primarily about the channel, not the company.) The channel and the website are still calling themselves "Euronews" even though the purchase may have been completed. (And by the way, we have not seen a RS confirming that completion.) All editors appreciate other editors who want to help keep the encyclopedia up to date, but being not-a-newspaper we don't need to be up to the minute. As long as this company keeps calling itself simply "Euronews" on their web site, in their logo, in the branding they use on the air, and etc., that's what the article title should be per our P&G. Jeh (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euronews. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308144516/http://www.euronews.com/services/euronews-live-app/ to http://www.euronews.com/services/euronews-live-app/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)