Talk:John Pilger

Criticism of the mainstream media

On April 20th, two comments were inserted after Pilger's criticism of the Guardian's reporting the MH17 catastrophe:

'In fact, the interim report of the Joint Investigation Team of international prosecutors concluded the Malaysian airliner had been brought down by a missile fired by pro-Russian separatists. Aaronovitch wrote in September 2016 that Pilger "needed little prompting from the Russians to" falsely "conclude that all was not as it seemed", having put "a Nelsonian eye to his telescope" in looking for evidence (in the September 2014 article) which contradicted Pilger's assertions.' (explanations given were: Pilger got it wrong' and '2016 response to Pilger's 2014 article mentioning the MH17 crash'.

Now, what the JIT may have concluded in 2016 is not entirely relevant to what Pilger accused the Guardian of in 2014, namely that "Without a single piece of evidence, the US and its Nato allies and their media machines blamed ethnic Russian 'separatists' in Ukraine and implied that Moscow was ultimately responsible". Even if the assumptions of the JIT can be shown true at some point in the future, it doesn't take away from the fact that at the time of the propaganda campaign in 2014 not 'a single piece of evidence' was presented' by the Guardian, or anybody else for that matter. Neither was Pilger's allegation proven wrong, nor is the additional information provided by the edit even relevant since it does not refer to the allegation itself.

This is even more obvious with the second edit. Why should anybody care about what acerbic remarks Mr Aaronovitch may come up with about anything? OK, he writes for the Guardian and he doesn't seem to agree with Pilger, but Mr Aaronovitch is hardly an authority about the measure of 'prompting' Pilger gets from anywhere. In addition, the added sentence doesn't even make sense literally. What 'contradicted Pilger's assertions'? The 'evidence' in the September 2014 article? What evidence? Or was the edit made to point out that Pilger in his 2014 article was looking for evidence (which was nowhere to be found) and is now 'contradicted' because his assertions at the time are no longer valid since the JIT found a smoking gun, several years later? Even the JIT, though, is loathe to present their alleged scores of witnesses, photos and whatnot. We shall see if the small piece of metal with a number on it can prove their theory to an extent that a court of law will follow. And make no mistake, Pilger will probably still be around to point out that the same thing was happening to al-Megrahi in a previous century.

Therefore I am going to delete this passage and recommend that notable comments on Pilger's media criticisms or refutations be improved in such a way as to refer directly to what he actually said and to point out its possible flaws and inaccuracies instead of reflecting irrelevant opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.101.27 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You make some good points. I support the action you have taken. Burrobert 04:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 04:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Views on Bali Bombings

I will try and find an email Pilger circulated on left wing media, justifying the Bali bombings, saying that the tourists who go to Bali did not respect Indonesian culture. Noel Ellis 11:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Strong POV

This article comes across more like a fan page for Pilger than a factual article. There is much good say (I've long admired Pilger's criticism of US atrocities) and it should all be included, but so should the darker side. This is after all a person who has spent years spouting conspiracy theories, been an ardent supporter of Putin right up to the invasion of Ukraine, acted as a megaphone for Russian propaganda about Ukraine, and going out of his way to defend and excuse Putin after the invasion. Most of this is completely lacking from the article, despite being covered in several sources. Jeppiz (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree about the slant. Can you suggest some of those sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are two sources criticising his article In Ukraine, the US is dragging us towards war with Russia in the The Guardian.

Template:Talkquote

Template:Talkquote

--Jo1971 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support inclusion of this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Crikey." politics editor Bernard Keane analysed a bunch of tweets made by Pilger prior to the invasion of Ukraine in their article: https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/03/03/vladimir-putin-john-pilger-ukraine-war/ AlexVSharp (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

His Putin apologia isn't the only issue. He also engaged in denial and revisionism regarding 90's Yugoslav wars: http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~hafa3/pilger.htm by Martin Shaw (sociologist) 2A05:4F46:427:EF00:BDBC:C913:FA12:832D (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So in short I think we can agree that, despite doing some great journalism on important issues over the years, the guy had some serious blind spots in his objectivity. 2A0A:EF40:2EC:E201:AC1F:52F3:ADED:88A8 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not our job to agree on anything like that. We rely on what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Quotes

Hi, I've noticed that Pilger is a virtual quote machine on Wikipedia (as well as quotes about Pilger) in both this bio and elsewhere. Generally when I see this kind of thing, it means we don't have a Wikiquote page setup, but in fact we do in this case. With that said, I think some effort should be made to move a lot of these quotes to that page, if they aren't already there. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Death

John Pilger died yesterday, the 30th of December 2024. I'm surprised that there isn't an obituary up here yet.

Fustbariclation (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you might have typed the wrong year. 2A0A:EF40:2EC:E201:AC1F:52F3:ADED:88A8 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I see the article has just been updated.

Fustbariclation (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

With the correct year though. ;-) Check your previous comment. 2A0A:EF40:2EC:E201:AC1F:52F3:ADED:88A8 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

On Pilger's documentaries

Why all the quotes from others COMMENTING about Pilger's documentaries rather than quotes from the documentaries themselves? Is this page a criticism of Pilger or an actual record of HIS work? 202.172.123.89 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Pilger" or "The Pilger Report"?

It may be a small detail, but wasn't Pilger's 70s documentary series for ITV called "The Pilger Report" and not just "Pilger" as the page states.

It's been a little difficult tracking something down to support my memory, but I did find [1]https://archive.org/stream/DocumentaryScreensNonFictionFilmAndTelevisionKeithBeattie/12_Documentary+Screens+-+Non-Fiction+Film+and+Television_Keith_Beattie_djvu.txt this page on the internet archive which states "Pilger's first documentaries were 30 minute programmes produced for the ITV series The Pilger Report (1974—77). " Jim Skea Jimskea (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hagiography

The present article reads like a hagiography written by Pilger's fans. To at least start to meet NPOV, this article needs to mention incidents such as Pilger's publication of a fake story about a Thai slave girl he bought for £85, documented in reliable sources (e.g., The Times obituary). FOARP (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why haven't YOU added it to the article yet? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I did? FOARP (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Post death criticism is added but tributes are removed?

I note that this edit: Pilger's work was controversial, and the veracity of some of his reporting was questioned.[10][11] The verb "to Pilger" was coined by Auberon Waugh in reference to John Pilger, and its intended meaning was "presenting information in a sensationalist manner in support of a particular conclusion".[12][13][14][15]

Was allowed to remain which does refer to obits but presumably as it is ciritism of Pilger it's fair game?

Secondly my edit also referred to the context of his legacy and archive by enacting the previous edit the user did not engage with the context but unilaterally removed everything including a wide range of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpark79 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in recording that, at his passing, his many admirers spoke well of JP's achievements. But not by cut-and-paste quotes from all-and-sundry, and in a sea-of-blue - over two dozen at the last count - since restored by editor Greenpark79. As I indicated in my edit note, content like this is trivial and not encyclopaedic - it could be summarised in a para with a couple of the more insightful quotations.

As for the line-and-a-half added by editor BeŻet to the nine-line Lead, that seemed proportionate, reflecting content in the article itself. It, or something like it, should be restored there. - Davidships (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Auberon Waugh's neologism is not suitable for the lead. Burrobert (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a memorial site, we already have a section on the assessment of Pilger's career that is balanced, there is no need for a list of verbatim quotes/tributes of the kind we would not give to any other figure. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)