From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks for your work on the profile. A few notes and some queries.

  • I changed the lead to remove "ultra-right" (maybe they are but if so the judgement needs to be based on some evidence and I don't see it there at the moment), "pro-Israel" (this is in part duplicating the description of what the group does that is added later in the sentence but, more importantly, posits the debate in binary terms of pro-Israel and, implicitly, anti-Israel - a framing that doesn't really reflect the the range of positions); and "suppress": if they launched lawsuits etc then I'd be more inclined to think its was an appropriate term but if all they are doing is being activists for their views then there needs to be some stronger evidentiary basis for describing that as suppressing other points of view.

I have left the following sentences in the article for now but think they need a rewrite. I'm not familiar with the organisation or their activities so, if you can bear with me, I'm hoping you can rewrite to accomodate my queries or add some extra detail add to support the arguments.

  • "It uses its financial and political clout to force media elements to tow Israel's party line." Vocal advocates and lobbyists yes but "using financial clout"? How so?
  • "The kind of inaccuracies that CAMERA claims to redress include substituting purported myths for real ones." - I couldn't quite follow what was meant by this. I'm not sure what the difference between a "purported myth" and a "real myth" is let alone how you substitute one for the other. As I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make I haven't re-written it.
  • "CAMERA demands nothing short of an absolute reflection of the Israeli government position in the media as at times it has even complained about giving too much airtime to critics within Israel's own government." Is the argument that they are aligned to one party and, if so, which one? As it stands, the first half of the sentence is a broad sweeping statement without evidence to support why that is the case.
  • "In 2005 CAMERA on Campus played a prominent role in the attack on MEALAC" - I have an averson to using words that are commonly used to describe violent events, such as "attack", to describe democratic advocacy.

Oh, and one very minor point. We don't add author ID at the bottom of articles as, after numerous contributors have added material it would become rather meaningless - apart from which your changes are recorded in the edit history for the page. with thanks --Bob Burton 19:36, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

Lots of problems with CAMERA

I see lots of really serious problems with using CAMERA as a source for "facts". Is it the purpose of this resource to tag sources that are guilty of racism and lying? If so, this reference would be a really good place to start! MoshKat 10:23, 13 June 2008 (EDT)