Talk:Watchdog journalism

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 15. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordanamarinelli, Annremmus. Peer reviewers: Dahlsydney, Sneeweed, Keneeso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Wow, this article has some of the most slanted statements I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

"In the UK where there is greater national coverage, watchdog journalism is very effective and consumers' rights are upheld both by radio, television and most national newspapers." VERY pro-UK.
"In recent history, a notable example of watchdog journalism was the exposure of Dan Rather's investigative segment which cast George W. Bush's military record in an unfavorable light. The segment was based on the Killian documents, which blogger journalists exposed as being insufficiently verifiable as authentic." So blogger journalists "exposed" these documents. That's POV, weasel words, and if we could find a source, would most likely be unreliable, unless the bloggers were affiliated with an actual media source Jedibob5 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was completely rewritten. I am removing the old POV box. If new problems should arise a new box should be added. JaneViolett (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History?

I think a history section would be a good thing to add if we had referenced material on it. RJFJR (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and Editing

This article reads like a 7th grade report on watch dog journalism. It seems to confuse watchdog journalism with journalism as a whole. One could very well remove the word watchdog entirely and it would be no different than a poorly written article about news reporting in general. The grammar is atrocious, as well as very opinionated, stating why watchdog journalists are needed, while also not even stating what, if anything, separates them from a regular journalist. I learned nothing reading this. 2601:1C0:8381:4120:390F:7CAB:AA40:E8A9 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redunancies

I feel the article is also full of a lot of redundant, ie repeated content. Could thus benefit from a cutting down and rearrngement. Might do so myself later if I find the time. M.Aurelius C. (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]