The “recent Znet” column on May 6th featured an article “There will be tweets” by Elliot Murphy, which was very critical of medialens. It goes without saying that constructive criticism is good. However, earlier on of the Znet Admin has said, to Medialens themselves on the subject of their criticism of Monbiot, “We have no interest, whatever the intent of authors, of blasting people,
particularly someone like George, with innuendo or overt false attacks,” the problem being a suggestion that Monbiot was protecting corporate interests. You went on to say that “it is for the same reason if someone wrote a piece, even with good other content, saying either David was a police agent, or a sectarian, or whatever else, we wouldn’t run it.”
It seems to me that the article I mentioned violates a few of the standards you set for medialens here, so I’m puzzled to see it on the top page. In my comment, which can be found below the article, I list a few accusations of Murphy’s that I consider unhelpful, unduly personal, offensive or false and show that a lot of the criticism is completely unfounded, being mostly based on out-of-context quotes, lazy name-calling and other highly questionable stuff. What is going on here? Has the standard changed, did this slip through by mistake (it is a very long article) or do you think this case is substantially different from the ones you outlines in your forum post above?
This topic was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by Joe H. Reason: typo