Talk:Janet Albrechtsen

MW neither "demonstrated" the first nor "claimed" the second (though they did hint at the second). From her email to McEvoy:

My statements were not “lifted” from Sage’s Times article. You concede this in your use of the word “echoes” and thus to suggest I may have “lifted” these statements is an illustration of misleading conduct of the kind you purport to expose. I did read Sage’s article and acknowledge its influence. However, I did conduct research independently of Sage’s article and now that I have confirmed this to you, any suggestion by you to the contrary would be knowingly misleading. This research included, by way of example [...]

(MW used “echoes” in their 5-Sep-2002 email, to which JA was replying. In the show, they used "it seem to us she lifted the words". That soft suggestion belies "demonstrated". Also, I see no claim from MW that JA had "deliberately done this ...".)
So JA did "deny the misquote", contrary to what our article used to say. Also, it did not link to her response, which screams "hit job" to me.
So I contend that my version is much more accurate, and better cited.

This means that mentioning "her prior breach of journalistic conduct" without is unacceptable unless we call it "alleged". I said simply her appointment to the ABC board "was criticised by, among others, former Media Watch host David Marr".
If anyone wants to add detail about Marr's attack on JA, feel free (but keep BLP in mind!).

Finally, on Mark Latham's defamation of JA: Latham defamed pretty much everybody in or around politics, so I don't tend to regard his attacks as

To summarise: I know I deleted stuff that could well have been fixed and retained, and I'm happy for someone else to do the work of fixing and restoring that stuff. On the other hand, the article did violate BLP in multiple places, and that is not acceptable. Cheers, CWC 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albrechtsen denies the charge that she plagiarised Sage's article but as far as I can see there is no defence to the charge that she deliberately micharacterised Rassial's views, as shown in the radical difference between what the article by Sage said and what she reported, backed up by Rassial's response. Unless it's possible to show that somehow Albrechtsen's use of Rassial's work accurately reflects its meaning, it is more correct to say that Media Watch demonstrated that she mischaracterised it, rather than merely "accusing" her of mischaracterising it, since this term places the accurate description of her behaviour on the same level as her inaccurate and dishonest defence of it. 124.183.7.181 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the above post is, in my view, correct. Albrechtsen denies the "lifting" charge but does not address (or deny) that she misquoted Rassial. The fact that she misquoted the academic is incontrovertible: all one needs to do is place the two quotes side-by-side (as Media Watch did) to acknowledge this. Is not simply an accusation. I have changed "accused" to "demonstrated" Edelmand 09:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go to the replay:

My references to [Jean-Jacques Rassial and Dr Flemming Balvig] were fair representations, in their context, of the views attributed to them in:

• in the case of Rassial, the article by Sage in The Times on 5 December 2000; and
• in the case of Balvig, the article by Pete Westbrook in The Copenhagen Post on 6 July 2001.

If you believe the underlying sources misrepresented the views of Rassial or Dr Balvig you may wish to take that up with the authors of that source material. However, as you know, journalists are entitled to, and very frequently do, rely on such sources reasonably believed to be accurate.

So she clearly does address the charge of misquoting Rassial, she clearly does deny misquoting his reported statement and the "fact" that she misquoting him is clearly very, very controvertible.

Please do not ever again insert false, harmful statements about a

living person into Wikipedia. CWC 11:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

She has a PhD in law, not a LL.D. See here.

15/10/07 - why has this been edited back? she has a PhD, not a LLD. LLDs are generally given to people who have made an actual contribution to the law (such as Michael Kirby, for example) not to people who wrote a thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.41.180 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor insists on placing a POV "dispute" tag. Could the editor please explain on the talk page (as required) how they have tried to fix this and where specifically the dispute is. Otherwise the tag should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to rewrite the whole article tomorrow, don't need to follow policy so closely. Ottre 12:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

oh sure. Just let us know what policy doesn't apply to you and we will get out of your way. --Merbabu (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be sarcastic about it. Do you actually want to get something done here or not? Ottre 15:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to tag war, but I have hardly started working on removing the generally pro-Albrechtsen point of view in this article. Ottre 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've rearranged this section: there is a lot of detail about the mediawatch incident, then very little compared to what has been deleted previously. The comments about her political and legal view deserved to belong at the top of the section, and perhaps in the summary at the top of the article (I know when I look up a political commentator or journalist on wikipedia, I'm generally interested in their bias, which shouldn't be hidden or obscured in any way). Some interesting stuff on this talk page that should be added back in by the editors who have discussed it. Bendav (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]