Talk:Greg Palast

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schneelocke (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 9 November 2006 (NPOV: "Detention camp"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 18 years ago by Schneelocke in topic NPOV: "Detention camp"?

"Come by my town today and count the strip malls and fluorescent signs directing you to, "Bagels Hot! Cars Like NEW No Down-Pay ent! Dog Burger!", where corn once grew."

Is Down-Pay ent meant to be like that? I was going to put the 'm' in but it's a quote so I thought that I'd ask first. -- Ams80 14:32 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

It might have originally been meant to indicate a letter missing from a shabby sign. However, I have no idea how it read in Palast's original text. - 3 january 2006

2000 florida election

in your book tbdmcb, why didnt Al and the demos pick up the fraud ball and run with it? you said the U.S. media didnt call while the vote count was still happening, how about anyone on the demo side?

Because it would have made them look bad. Americans don't cotton to conspiracy theories, even the ones that wind up being true.[/devil's advocate]

~Firestorm

Yes, too often, Americans still naively give politicians the benefit of the doubt. Not sure why they haven't learned yet. -01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that we give politicians the benefit of the doubt so much as we don't give Muckrakers and Conspiracy Theorists the benefit of the doubt. They usually prove less honest more despicable than politicians.

The text says:

"Notably, he has directed US government investigations ..."

He has not directed US government investigations. A "US government investigation" is an investigation conducted by the government of the United States, and Palast is not an official of the US government.

Ams, I deleted the "directed...investigations" phrase from the article, pending some sort of documentation. --Uncle Ed 17:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey.. uhh.. does this page seem NPOV to you? Right away we have "self-proclaimed expert" and an emphasis on Palast going around *accusing* people all the time without any indication that just maybe he was right, and could have possibly *exposed* corruption. I don't know, it reads to me like it is phrased to create a picture of him as a crackpot. --kevinb9n

I have to agree with this assessment. There's not much on the veracity of his claims. I might get around to rewriting this article eventually, as I've just finished reading The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Interestingly, despite the book's taking potshots at both major American parties, I found the book to be conservative in the aspect of gun control, in direct contrast to Michael Moore, who endorsed the book. That's just my opinion, though. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree as well. I read Greg Palast by accident before I knew anything about him and he seems pretty legit. His credintials are pretty good, too. This article needs a re-working. Also include his spat with MP George Galloway. [1] [2] http://gnn.tv/articles/1693/The_Slime_Artist]
I also think this article has an NPOV problem, particular the repeated unsourced claims that Palast has "proven" some rather controversial notions. Redeagle688 01:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
My two cents -- I don't think this article has a glaring issue as far as NPOV is concerned. I'm a liberal who has supported Palast in the past and don't have a problem with it. I do agree that it could use some additional details about what came of some of his claims, such as the Exxon Valdez, etc. And I wouldn't worry too much about him looking like some sort of whiner who goes around accusing people of things since he's an investigative journalist to begin with; that's kinda what they do. --Jon 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"self described expert"

I saw someone else saying that they thought the "self described expert" corporations part was NPOV, I thought so too so I changed it to "His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance". I feel like that lacks punch but it works for now.

Also it would be sweet if all of those quotations were sourced.--TitaniumDreads

Quote

Tony Blair-- "Palast's reports have not one shred of evidence." removed that, unless one of you wants to source it. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

911

He is quoted in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. --Striver 01:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Valdez

I didn’t know a good way to put the following:

Palast has also taken issue with the official story behind the grounding of the Exxon Valdez, claiming that the sobriety of the Valdez’s captian was not an issue in the accident. According to Palast the main cause of the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989 wasn't human error but was, instead due to an Exxon decision to not fix the ship's radar in order to save money. Interesting enough though, its not clear nor does Palast explain how the Raytheon Raycas radar system would have detected Bligh Reef, as radar, unlike sonar, is incapable of detecting objects under the waterline of this ship.

The idea that radar would have detected an underwater reef is a bit stupid Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

NPOV: "Detention camp"?

The article says,

On September 13, 2006, after photographing the detention camp of Hurricane Katrina refugees in Louisiana near the massive Exxon facility, the US government said that this videotaping was a threat to national security and issued a warrant for Palast's arrest.

The phrase "detention camp" seems awfully loaded. Can anyone support that use of the phrase? What is the facility officially called? The paragraph's citation link is to an article by Mr. Palast--and I think it's fair to say that he does not have a "NPOV". In any event, I think this paragraph should identify the alleged "internment camp" by its official name. Narsil 21:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since nobody's commented, is it okay if I just delete the contentious "detention camp" paragraph from the summary at the top of the article? (The somewhat less-loaded paragraph about the incident down in the "Criminal Complaint" section could remain.) If anyone does object, can you give me a link describing the actual facility, and supporting the use of the phrase "detention camp" (or, alternatively, giving its actual, official name)? Thanks much! -- Narsil 01:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Be bold. Its obviously POV and its not a major edit, so why not just get rid of it? Generally, the best option when faced with something obviously factually untrue, and editing it won't involve making major rewrites, is just to go ahead and make the change. So I've removed the loaded word so it now simply reads "camp". Feel free to go ahead and improve on my edit if you like. Lurker oi! 10:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since the "detention camp" phrase has been removed, I've removed the NPOV tag from the article as well. If there's other disputes, please just put it back. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

graphic novel

Okay, this might be the least important thing about his career, but could someone expand on this item of information (the GN)? Where did you find this out? Who are supposed to be its creators? Warren Ellis has referenced him [3] ... --h_a 22:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply