Talk:Politico-media complex

message: This contribution was inspired by and borrows heavily from the structure of military-industrial complex (MIC), especially the opening section which is very nearly a substitution of keywords.Dsmith1usa 08:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An acknowledgement

message: *The Campbell I was referring to was, of course, Alastair Campbell, Blair's chief spin doctor.
*The diaries I'm talking about are those written by Campbell as he tries to 'push through' the politico-media complex his version of events ('victors' 'n history 'n all that).
*The war is the one that continues in Iraq.
*The 'red-top' particularly 'gung-ho': The Sun.
*'fine C in C' should have been 'our Dear Leader, that fine C-in-C.'
*'Vom Kreig' should have been 'Vom Kriege.'
Dsmith1usa 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections/links I was adding to the debate as Daniel axed the (deletion) banner

message: Of course, for this phrase, I'm obliged to all that worked on The Italian Job and, yes, 'self-preservation' is probably a better way of calling it ;-) Dsmith1usa 08:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutual Appreciation Society

message: Some commentators have tried to argued the usefulness of a PMC in shaping public opinion in a counterbalance of bad news that may be overshadowing real political accomplishments or in the face of the emergence of new political personalities and policies. especially shrill where the dead are white people.}}</ref>
===Refs===
You can't use the term some critics when you're listing the same bloke twice, and I don't think he's making the arguments the text suggests, and I think we're getting somewhat into areas of pondering how much weight we give to each of these individual commentators.  I'd also ask that we keep the text somewhat simple, so that a layman can understand what on earth the point is behind a phrase such as "deleterious distortions".  As to adding the Iraq War as a see also, I can't see any justification for that at all. Hiding Talk  13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: You can't use the term some critics when you're listing the same bloke twice, and I don't think he's making the arguments the text suggests, and I think we're getting somewhat into areas of pondering how much weight we give to each of these individual commentators.  I'd also ask that we keep the text somewhat simple, so that a layman can understand what on earth the point is behind a phrase such as "deleterious distortions".  As to adding the Iraq War as a see also, I can't see any justification for that at all. Hiding Talk  13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: My dear Block argues:
You can't use the term some critics when you're listing the same bloke twice ...(my emphasis: heh, it is a 'blockquote' too;-)
As long as the Universe of Discourse contains at least one member with the predicated quality logic tells me I am empowered to use the existential quantifier. Translated into plain English, just for you, that's some.
Now that's to be distinguished from 'several' which is a usual indicator of more than, say, two or three. So to use the word 'several,' in an argument, is to imply, at least more than two.
So when an acquaintance of ours, name of Blacketer, known to Block and recently given some Wiki admin. priviliges (AP) cites in his AP pleading:
He [that's yours T] has been in dispute with several editors ...
he's padding his case, since Blacketer full well knows that the only folks giving grief were:
*Galloglass
*Block
*Blacketer
This came about because I started adding much more material to the Wiki entry on Natascha Engel and, in my innocence, I sidled-up to the Village Pump to seek advice on the substantiation of some of my contributions. I was particularly perplexed by the problem of my knowing certain facts through my personal correspondence with her.
Extensive source is available on the Talk page for the Engel article about what transpired next.
Well, anyway, Galloglass left the scene pretty quickly, so that left me contending with Block and Blacketer. Now correct me if I'm being stupid, but to me that leaves two. Then, mid-ocean Block jumps ship claiming a syndrome he named 'wikibonked' (I think - I've no idea what it means, but I think I'm getting to the stage where I may have caught a dose;-)
So that left one ... Blacketer. So 'one' is Blacketer's version of 'several.' And then you made him an administrator.
I've brought Blacketer to the stage since he's part of the same story of the 'double-standards' and 'hypocrisy' that I've discovered around here.
Oh, if you get a chance and want a cheap laugh, ask Blacketer what being a 'candidate' connotes ...
... to be continued ... Dsmith1usa 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Quantification (existential/universal: there exists/for all)

message: Well, where should we start? ...
Hiding has made some valid points, as have you,...
Well, that's good. Do me a favor and list out my valid 'points,' 'n pass 'em over to Block, since our mutual friend, previously (on an entirely different article) has insinuated an overshadowing assertion on my editing behavior:Block writes:
:Oh, you wanted a pointless debate.
No, I made the mistake of thinking that hanging around the Village Pump would be a good idea in the attempt to work on my concerns on 'objectivity.' [Emphases added.]
'N then later there is the 'below radar' indirect attack on my earnestness with the implication of  'trollism:'
I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff.
This, in the talk space of the article, receives its due, and restrained, reponse. Indeed, I suggest he be gentle with himself. (Block, shortly after, went off, claiming a state of wikibonkedness [whatever that is]).
You go on to say:
I see a genuine effort on Block's part to keep the discussion civil and free of direct personal references, ...[Emphasis added]
Yes, it's called 'weaseling' with smart ass remarks in the hope of getting cheap laughs from 'communities of consensus' 'in the know. We can all play that game, but, being human, we can get tired and if it waddles, quacks, swims and flies we start calling a duck, 'duck.'
You say:
... and it is NOT helping things here.
Ummm ... glass houses come to mind. We can ALL find ways to be unhelpful to processes.
Trying to interject into something we know nothing about is a good way of being unhelpful and, generally, making oneself a pain in the ass:
I have no idea what this point is relating to, ...
Of course, the person who thus declares that they have no idea about what they are about to speechify on, then, regardless, goes on to do exactly that! Who was this from? Guess, and then give yourself a shiney. (Here's a clue ... it wasn't you. [Heh, amazing what you can start to do, on reading Chaucer, 'n Canterbury for to goon.]
This was when I was trying to explain to another editor, (who, much to my amusement had earlier tried to persuade me that by using the word, 'candidate,' we connote 'failure'), the difference between 'the thing' and the 'name of the thing'. (Aside: this editor, still appearing to be cavalier over the 'thing' and 'name of,' has now been made an administrator through the majick of 'consensus.' Way to go 'consensus.')
I seek not to poison anything nor polarize one against another. However, I dislike, intensely, hypocrisy and double standards and if I see it or experience it, I will call it out (paraphrasing you) and I'll take my chances. What's the worst you can do? Block [sic.] me, perhaps. I tremble in my boots. Oh, weary wo ... my existence is now meaningless (ROTFL). If this upsets the 'equestrian' editors, who appear to wave the rule books when it suits 'em ... amen. Too bad. And too bad for Wikipedia.
If I have, in the past, posted in the 'wrong' areas, my reponse, that's a consequence of past 'newbieness' and, regardless, being bold - as encouraged by Wikipedia.
(I, too, am off-topic, too, but that is for the purpose of informing all parties - especially newcomers - about everything that has transpired here.)
Regards, KieferSkunk, it's been real ...
Pppsss ... you write:
... and I'm not trying to tell you what the consensus is on this article. 
The 'consensus' was, my dear KieferSkunk, ...there was 'no consensus.' Do you know the name for this paradox (an inbuilt contradiction in the much vaunted, particularly by the Wiki Equines, rules)? Do you know it's many other names?
... 'n now we return y'all to the usual programming ...
Dsmith1usa 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I find this entire response to be highly inappropriate, and it shows that there is nothing more I personally can do to help out with the situation.  I will be referring this dispute to a more appropriate forum, and will no longer be involved in the dispute myself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Folded responses to KieferSkunk

message: Names -> no names -> (Some) Critics -> explicitly quantifying (two)... LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politico-media_complex&diff=145899968&oldid=145707660
Well, as you saw fit to edit Block ... it's back to your original now (all your work) ... well, we're back again.
It's like Groundhog Day innit my dear Block? Dsmith1usa 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dsmith: This is your last warning.  Stop with the personal attacks now or you will be reported to the Admin Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to 'critics' (as employed by Block)

message: Hi, I am a member of a student group interested in editing and expanding this page to include more in-depth analysis of the symbiotic relationship between politics and the following specific forms of media from a global perspective: film, newspapers/magazines, radio, television, and the internet. We are in the earliest stages of our research at this point, but we will be discussing our findings and resources here over the course of the next couple months and welcome any helpful feedback.
We realize that the topic is broad, but between the five of us we expect to be able create coherent and thorough sections for the page.
Thank you, Ecr6 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Project

message: 1. Create heading for your topic on the talk page. Due by 10/14/09
2. Create subheadings: Outline & References. Due by 10/14/09
3. Have at least 5 references under references. Due by 10/14/09
4. Outline for each subtopic. Due by 10/14/09
5. Assessment and feedback on each others outlines on the talk page. Share sources that are relevant to other subtopics if found.  Due by 10/18/09
6. Major points from resources for your subtopic. Due by 10/25/09
7. Full draft of each persons subtopic with the outline for the whole page. Due by 11/2/09
8. Each person will review and provide feedback for another persons subtopic. Due by 11/8/09
9. Everything done for the deadline of 11/16/09.
Information will be gradually added.
Jlw80 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good plan, I like that you will try to set and keep your own internal deadlines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "To Do" List

message: Dennison, Stephanie, and Song Hwee Lim, eds.  Remapping World Cinema: Identity, Culture, and Politics in Film.  London; New York:  Wallflower Press,  2006.
Downing, John D.H., ed.  Film and Politics in the Third World.  New York:  Praeger,  1987.
Franklin, Daniel.  Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States.  Lanham:  Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,  2006.
Furhammer, Leif.  Politics and Film.  Trans. Kersti French.  NY:  Praeger Publishers,  1971.
Gianos, Philip L.  Politics and Politicians in American Film.  Westport, CN:  Praeger,  1998.
Giroux, Henry A.  Breaking in to the Movies: Film and the Culture of Politics.  Malden, MA:  Blackwell Publisers,  2002.
Hollihan, Thomas A.  Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age.  Boston, MA:  Bedford/St. Martin's,  2001.
Hjort, Mette, and Scott MacKenzie, eds.  Cinema and Nation.  London; New York:  Routledge, 2000.
Neve, Brian.  Film and Politics in America.  London; New York:  Routledge,  1992.
Ryan, Michael and Douglas Kellner.  Camera Politica: The Politics and Ideology of Contemporary Hollywood Film.  Bloomington, IN:  University of Indiana Press,  1988.
Wayne, Mike.  Political Film: The Dialectics of Third Cinema.  London:  Pluto,  2001.
Wu, H. Dennis.  Media, Politics, and Asian Americans.  Cresskill, NJ:  Hampton Press,  2009.
Ecr6 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice selection, but you will have to decide how are you going to deal with the above source. Which of the above seem most useful and why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to thoroughly peruse them all yet, but Cinema and Nation, Uncivil Nation, Political Film, and Remapping World Cinema seem the best right now, as they seem to present a more global perspective and are contemporary texts.  I am thinking that texts specifically on the U.S. and other countries will be worth looking at, too, but I'll start with those.  We thought it was a good idea for us to have at least a list together of promising texts so that we've all at least gotten started.  Once I check out the others more closely, I'll be able to edit the list.  I'll probably come across more to add, too, for viewers' further reading, even if I don't personally use them all for the page.  Ecr6 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: ===Outline===
I. Community Radio
II.  International Radio
Internal Topics to Discuss:
*Foundations of Community Radio
*Community Radio's influence on Elections
*Historical Radio Propaganda
*Radio and the Spread of Democracy
*Current Role of Radio in Developing World
ColleenHelen (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio and the Politico-Media Complex (Colleen)

message: I. Community Radio
II.  International Radio
Internal Topics to Discuss:
*Foundations of Community Radio
*Community Radio's influence on Elections
*Historical Radio Propaganda
*Radio and the Spread of Democracy
*Current Role of Radio in Developing World
ColleenHelen (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline

message: I need to focus my section of the article.  My first outline tackles way too many topics too broad to fully cover anything.  My new, extended outline is as follows:
Major Heading: PMC in Radio Broadcasting
Sub-Headings:
I.  History of Political Radio
This section focuses on the interactions of radio and government through history, especially radio as propaganda.  A few of the examples I may use are Tokyo Rose, FDR's Fireside Chats, the Voice of America and similar European radio organizations from the Cold War.  I'm also considering a section on legislation relating to radio, I have found some information about the Voice of America charter, and legislation relating to Radio One (A radio company aimed at African-American audiences)
II.  PMC in Modern Radio
This section is intended to give a brief look at the modern PMC, with a focus on  political radio, both conservative and liberal (free of bias, of course.)  The PMC is especially apparent in radio shows such as the Rush Limbaugh Show, and the programming on Air America.  I also hope to talk about political radio (like the Voice of America) in the Middle East today, however my main source's bias is a little questionable.  Hopefully further research will help me find a better source.
Additional Resources:
Craig, Douglas B.  Fireside Politics : Radio and Political Culture in the United States, 1920-1940.  Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000.
There are more minor sources that I plan on citing in the actual article.
ColleenHelen (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended Outline

message: Horten, Gerd.  Radio Goes to War:  The Cultural Politics of Propaganda during World War II.  Berkley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.  2002.
Johnson, A. Ross.  Communicating with the World of Islam.  Stanford, CA:  Hoover Institution Press.  2008.
Land, Jeff.  Active Radio:  Pacifica's Brash Experiment.  Minneapolis, MN:  University of Minnesota Press.  1999.
Malik and Pavarala.  Other Voices:  The Struggle for Community Radio in India.  Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore:  Sage Publications.  2007.
McAnany, Emile G.  Radio's Role in Development:  Five Strategies of Use.  Washington, D.C.:  Clearinghouse of Developmental Communication.  1973.
Parta, R. Eugene.  Discovering the Hidden Listener:  An Assessment of Radio Liberty and Western Broadcasting to the USSR During the Cold War.  Stanford, CA:  Hoover Institution Press.  2007.
ColleenHelen (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: ===Outline===
(will be posted later)
===Resources===
Kaid, Lynda L. Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. 2004.
Diaz, Karen R. Refference Sources on the Internet: of the shelf and onto the web. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc. 1997.
Davis, Richard and Owen, Diana M. New Media and American Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1998.
Tremayne, Mark. Blogging, Citizenship, and the future of media. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. 2007.
Baker, Edwin. Media concentration and Democracy: Why ownership matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2007.
Shane, Peter M. Democracy online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group. 2004.
Kaid, Lynda and Holtz-Bacha, Christina. Encyclopedia of Political Communication, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2008.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlw80 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet (Jess)

message: Kaid, Lynda L. Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. 2004.
Diaz, Karen R. Refference Sources on the Internet: of the shelf and onto the web. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc. 1997.
Davis, Richard and Owen, Diana M. New Media and American Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1998.
Tremayne, Mark. Blogging, Citizenship, and the future of media. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. 2007.
Baker, Edwin. Media concentration and Democracy: Why ownership matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2007.
Shane, Peter M. Democracy online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group. 2004.
Kaid, Lynda and Holtz-Bacha, Christina. Encyclopedia of Political Communication, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2008.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlw80 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: ===Outline===
I. National Press
(a) The West
(b) Asia
(c) The Middle East and North Africa
II. International Press
How global politics are played out via press. (Hard to find resources)
III. Struggles
"Internal Topics To Discuss:"
*Bias and press manipulation
===Resources===
Pharr, Susan J. "Media and Politics in Japan." Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. 1996.
Norris, Pippa. "Politics and the press: the news media and their influences." Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 1997.
Van Belle, Douglas A. "Press freedom and global politics." Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2000.
Kuypers, Jim A. "Press bias and politics: how the media frame controversial issues." Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2002.
Johnson-Cartee, Karen S. "News narratives and news framing: constructing political reality." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 2005.
Romano, Angela. "Politics and the press in Indonesia: understanding an evolving political culture." New York, NY: Routledge. 2003.
(More coming)
Airp89 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Press and the Politico-Media Complex (Arielle)

message: Pharr, Susan J. "Media and Politics in Japan." Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. 1996.
Norris, Pippa. "Politics and the press: the news media and their influences." Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 1997.
Van Belle, Douglas A. "Press freedom and global politics." Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2000.
Kuypers, Jim A. "Press bias and politics: how the media frame controversial issues." Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2002.
Johnson-Cartee, Karen S. "News narratives and news framing: constructing political reality." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 2005.
Romano, Angela. "Politics and the press in Indonesia: understanding an evolving political culture." New York, NY: Routledge. 2003.
(More coming)
Airp89 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: I could not find a better definition for this topic like we discussed on Friday, so if anyone else does feel free to throw it out there.
Jess  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlw80 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Definition for Politico-media Complex

message: Hey Jess, is it okay if we make your sub-topics for your section on Internet sub-headings?  Do you know what I mean?  Ecr6 (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Jess

message: Here are some comments on your early draft:
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyze (A) (British: analyse), analyse (B) (American: analyze), skillful (A) (British: skilful), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program ).
*Aovid contractions (ex. don't), if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
*Book references need page numbers. Website references need more information than just a pure html link. See WP:CITE, WP:FOOTNOTES and WP:RS for more info.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early draft review 

message: You're going to want to add page numbers soon before you forget exactly which parts of which book said what. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page numbers 

message: === Question for Megan ===
Hey, what do you think about changing bullets to paragraph format?  I did that for my section and I was thinking that it looks nice with the other sections because Colleen, Jess, and Arielle all did it the same way and it seems to have helped unify the page.
Ecr6 (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists of bullet points, and tons of quotes are going to give you guys problems during the GA review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. The "Television" section needs de-bulleting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Just "Television" would be best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It has a good heading; there is no need for the subheading that follows it. I am glad to see you are already thinking about standardizing your sections; a uniform look is important for a Good Article. PS. A nitpick - I'd move the film section next to the television one; and the radio between print and those sections (for a logical and chronological structure). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback.  Of course that makes more sense.  I'm not sure what my original logic was for that.  Ecr6 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Format of Our Page 

message: Hey, what do you think about changing bullets to paragraph format?  I did that for my section and I was thinking that it looks nice with the other sections because Colleen, Jess, and Arielle all did it the same way and it seems to have helped unify the page.
Ecr6 (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists of bullet points, and tons of quotes are going to give you guys problems during the GA review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. The "Television" section needs de-bulleting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Just "Television" would be best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It has a good heading; there is no need for the subheading that follows it. I am glad to see you are already thinking about standardizing your sections; a uniform look is important for a Good Article. PS. A nitpick - I'd move the film section next to the television one; and the radio between print and those sections (for a logical and chronological structure). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback.  Of course that makes more sense.  I'm not sure what my original logic was for that.  Ecr6 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Megan 

message: :::As much as the ladies are to be commended for their enthusiasm, IMHO much of this work needs to be examined for OR. I understand this from my past personal engagements ... I suppose you learn the hard way.
:::For example, the opening contribution on 'print' makes the assertion that it is 'failing.' Well, yes, but it was the Daily Telegraph and the 'print media' that made the major disclosures (having 'bought' the info. admittedly) on the corruption in the Parliament of the UK. The blogs didn't have the wherewithall ( Guido [ a major UK blogger] tried but failed to buy the info. I recall). I also understand that an award was made to the Daily Telegraph at some journalist assembly in Spain that was saying precisely opposite to what the (Group 8) ladies are asserting in that print is 'declining.' No ... it is alive and well and doing its job - half of the UK Commons is going to have to go after the effects of the Daily Telegraph. So sorry ladies, (again IMHO), you are wrong in making such a blanket assertion about the failing of powers of the so-called 'dead-tree' press.
:::Lomcevak (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an assertion ("print media is failing" or similar) should be backed up by a reference saying so, and of course, it needs to be presented in due weight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Lomcevak (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, those are good points.  I'm sorry what are IMHO and OR?  Ecr6 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO is chatspeak for "in my humble opinion". OR refers to WP:No original research, which basically means that they believe what you're saying is not backed up by the sources that are present, and that you're analyzing/synthesizing information to present your own opinion. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Whatever the outcome, as one with a great interest in the topic, may I be among the first to commend Group 8 for their clear teamwork and industry in trying to grasp a hold of, and give (checkable) substance to, a very slippery, yet life affecting area. (Here in the UK, essentially the 'reigning' [New] Labour administration was given [long overdue IMHO, and no, I'm not a (New) Tory] the virtual 'Kiss of Death' [much as Gordon Brown kills off anything, these days, by putting his his name to it] by the Murdoch empire through  The Sun [dead tree, ladies ... note]. One of the great headlines on a past GE, here in good old Blighty, was ... It's The Sun Wot Won It) See ... it's so easy to lapse to POV and OR ... heh, heh. I'd also like to note that whenever some criticism was launched, it was dealt with ... politely ... many 'established' Wiki editors could look at these projects and learn about reaching 'consensus' (and I mean that in the best of objective terms ... not some wishy-washy view that may be found in condemnations of postmodernism ... I hasten to add not my condemnations, BTW ... if you don't like my condemnations of postmodernism, I have  others [for the Groucho impaired amongst us] ;-) ;-) IMHO, Well done and good luck, Group 8 ... all veteran Wikipedians - here's your official (and quite illegal Havana, for you, I would have you know) cigar now. I could go on ... but there's no more room in here ... waiter ... the champaign ...
Good wishes ... Lomcevak (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good luck ... 

message: Hello all, impeccable work on the article so far, Kudos all round.
I would however give a few pointers on how to correctly CITE and how to use  and the use of citation templates.
The most common ref you are going to use for this article is  reading through the template pages should give you a very good idea of how to use them. You don't have to fill out all the information on every cite. however the more information the merrier. title= is the only field that is compulsory for .
So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this:
<ref>
As you can see this has left rather a large amount of fields unfilled, that's okay, in fact we can get rid of them, leaving us with this:

Now, obviously, you are using the book multiple times through the article so rather than cutting an pasting each and every time I'm going to show you how to use  so what we are going to do is give the reference a name, we'll call it "hopkins", but you can all it anything "Globalization", "global" or even "asghd" or "iu43gh", ANYTHING, but to make it easy to remember we'll just stick with "hopkins" (it is cAsE SenSItiVE) so make sure you stick with either upper- or lower-case. So you simply put in <ref name= > the first time that you use the ref instead of <ref> and then every time you want to use that ref you simply put in  So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in .
Now you want to quote an individual page, but you don't want to have to cut and paste and modify the cite each time you ref a page, so (as odd as this may sound) ignore what I just told you. Well, not entirely. we'll still use <ref name= > so when we want to quote page three multiple times we'll call our new ref "hop3" and when we quote page 21 we'll call that "hop21", but again it can be anything so now we'll fill the article full of this; <ref name=hop3>Hopkins 2003, page 3Hopkins 2003, page 3 and this; Hopkins 2003, page 21Hopkins 2003, page 21, then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in  and to ref page 21 use 
Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the  template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this:  this will automatically list all the <ref>'s throughout the article and sort them into 4 even columns for us.
Under the ==References== We'll list each of the books like this: . That way when people see "Hopkins 2003, Page 3" listed under ==Notes== they'll know to look for it under ==References== for Hopkins name.
If you've done it all properly it should look like below.
====Notes====
====References====
You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so (if I understand this correctly) then we need to rename our current "References" to "Notes" and our current "Bibliography" to "References" and switch their positions? Ecr6 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, does that mean we should go into the books we already have listed and rewrite them into the template you've suggested? Get rid of the publishing dates? Ecr6 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: When I searched for the ISBN for Cinema and Nation (since I don't have the book on me) I got this: ISBN-10: 0415208637 and ISBN-13: 978-0415208635.  Do you think I should put both? Thanks. Ecr6 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Correct, any references that go to websites should be kept in "notes" though, and formatted properly using . 2)It will make things easier for people editing the page in the future if everybody uses templates. Publishing dates can be added under the "year=" and "month=" parameters of the  template. 3) If you have an ISBN-13 then please use that over an ISBN-10. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I got it.  Thank you.  Ecr6 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using templates and <nowiki><ref name= ></nowiki> makes it much easier

message: You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so (if I understand this correctly) then we need to rename our current "References" to "Notes" and our current "Bibliography" to "References" and switch their positions? Ecr6 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, does that mean we should go into the books we already have listed and rewrite them into the template you've suggested? Get rid of the publishing dates? Ecr6 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: When I searched for the ISBN for Cinema and Nation (since I don't have the book on me) I got this: ISBN-10: 0415208637 and ISBN-13: 978-0415208635.  Do you think I should put both? Thanks. Ecr6 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Correct, any references that go to websites should be kept in "notes" though, and formatted properly using . 2)It will make things easier for people editing the page in the future if everybody uses templates. Publishing dates can be added under the "year=" and "month=" parameters of the  template. 3) If you have an ISBN-13 then please use that over an ISBN-10. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I got it.  Thank you.  Ecr6 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Ladies and project monitors ...
As I was trying to add some other encorouraging work ... your site and article was attacked ... I have through the history tried to restore ... but please be known ... and let it be known to all moderators that there has, as far as I can see, a malicous attack on your work ...
Lomcevak (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? I see no vandalism anywhere in the history of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on the main, as far as I could see (at the time), but here on discussion ... it came from 'nowhere' as I was in edit ... so it's a mystery to me too ... but then I'm not a 'Wiki Guru' so to speak ... but I did my best to restore ... and I'm still scratching my head as to what was going off ...Lomcevak (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see the attack either, but we appreciate your defense!  Ecr6 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Site Under Attack 

message: ===Liz===
I went over the film section today.  Over all I thought it was well written.  I edited a couple little things, particularly the part in propaganda about the British newsreels.  I got lost for a second but I think I figured it out.  It would be good if you took a look at it to make sure I got it right.  Also, in the depoliticizing section you left a bare quote and if you put a quick lead-in to it I think that would help.  Finally, I'm not sure if the introduction you have under the main film heading is necessary?  Maybe those ideas would fit better in the lead?
ColleenHelen (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: I went over the film section today.  Over all I thought it was well written.  I edited a couple little things, particularly the part in propaganda about the British newsreels.  I got lost for a second but I think I figured it out.  It would be good if you took a look at it to make sure I got it right.  Also, in the depoliticizing section you left a bare quote and if you put a quick lead-in to it I think that would help.  Finally, I'm not sure if the introduction you have under the main film heading is necessary?  Maybe those ideas would fit better in the lead?
ColleenHelen (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Liz

message: I just fixed up my references, but would really appriciate if someone would look over the Print Media section as a whole... I feel like some parts could be fixed up a little.
Thanks!
Airp89 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Help...

message: OK, I'll weigh in with a bit more ... you need to seek out and eliminate platitudes. I come from this from systems analysis where you find your requirements writers (mostly sales people that have been allowed to be involved - the banes of the engineer) 'decorating' their requirements specs. with, essentially, empty rhetoric, wishful thinking and ... motherhood and apple pie. Particularly look for the analytic where something is simply re-expressed but without adding anything. Tautologies for example.
I'll give you one example of a platitude in your 'expansion' of the intro.:
*The nature of the politico-media complex evolved as societies, and their media, have transformed.
As a good systems analyst, I've tried to get you off to a good start ... and deleted this one for you. I think if you find you read on ... it added ... nothing.
Quelle surprize ... by definition (since it's to do with the 'media') if the 'media' have transformed then the built-in dependency will have reflected said transformation ... even the most stupid under the mainstream (MSM) - which, IMHO, is just about all - have at least 'whipped' their journalists into 'blogging' even if the journalists never reply to the challenges that erupt from 'their' blogs (no surprize ... these elites don't want to be 'contaminated' through any actual contact with their 'customers.')
Study any MSM blog comment is free, Polly Toynbee and a fully paid-up member of the PMC is a classic, for example and you'll find the 'customers' screaming out for responses from the punting journalists ... well you will in the UK at least ... where there is a now an increasingly explicit whiff of blood in the water over complicity in the war crimes of the Iraq War. (The sharks are circling over here, particularly with Blair's complicity Lomcevak (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a good MOS advice; I find User:Tony1/How to improve your writing quite useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mean.  Thank you for deleting that one quote.  I'll look for others.
Ecr6 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platitudes 

message: You are making an OR claims ...
If the PMC is 'real' in the sense I was writing to you about earlier - encouraging you to write to Chomsky [quick]) then 'newspapers' are an irrelevence ... this is why I was asking you what you thought of the 'reality.' Perhaps we are dressing-up, in 'fancy dress,' things that really are simple ... Chomsky says it is 'simple' ... it's just 'industrialization' (particularly the industrialization of violence: why give it another name) ... in the meantime giving loads of work to equally 'fancy dressed academics' and 'experts' to explain away the consequences.
You might even say that the PMC began with those with the 'loudest voices' and the 'biggest clubs' ... (for those that were not smart enough to pay attention to those 'shouting loudest' and not paying attention to the 'club carrying' ;-)
Sorry ... as I continue to read through this article ... I have profound misgivings ... if I have made my own contributions in the past ... I stay at START and worry ... I am worried by this work. Wonderful of the MASS of work ... no stopping that ... but MASS is not the essence ... and I'm feeling that the original simplicity and directness is overwhelmed ... people talk ... they have self-interests ... they can buy politicians and media-men ... so what's new ?
With some reluctance, I believe I have to call other Wiki authors here ... even those I have had many hours of contention with ...
Lomcevak (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "The PMC began in early newspapers" is a statement from the lead. Lead should summarize content of article. I am not seeing that claim, however, in the sections  that follow (which is what Lomcevak means by WP:OR - original research, claims unbacked by references). This is a problem. It is indeed important to answer where and when did the PMC begun, but such a claim needs to be referenced (it is fine if it is only referenced in the body of the article - lead doesn't have to have citations, unless they can be seen as controversial; I guess in this case if a citation is found for that claim, it can be added to the lead as well). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The PMC began in early newspapers ... OR ... 

message: No it didnt't.
Before at least penny press were the Town Callers and anybody else that called the news VOCALLY.
You are talking rubbish.
Print media never served as 'original.'
Lomcevak (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another claim in dire needs of referencing. There was communication between print. Now, printing  was important and profound, yes, but I would disagree with "Print media served as the original method of sharing news to the masses". Perhaps if we qualify this with something about scale. But before the print, news spread - heralds, gossip, whatnot (and of course, invention of print didn't mean much if people where illiterate - hence three centuries after Gutenberg, during French Revolution, we still see a lot of confused peasants who couldn't read leaflets and such, and didn't know what was going on, save for gossip). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: this statement certainly isn't correct. While we can all agree that print media revolutionized the spread of information, it definitely wasn't the original method of doing such. Like you both have said, before print media, communication was verbal. Therefore, this statement needs to be changed to reflect this and cited. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concerns are definitely correct, we'll remove the claim in the lead and we'll fix the lead to better summarize the article.ColleenHelen (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do that, and address other issues raised, as soon as possible. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

text: With respect I was censored ... and now you will find ... with respect ... you have been censored ... please don't do that ... and please be careful on unverifiable stuff that you seem to have a propensity to do here ... this is not a place to begin to compose PhD's Lomcevak (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You were not censored; you were reverted - your comment was violating WP:BITE. Please respect other editors, or at least don't discuss them - discuss the article instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I tried to improve the lead, by removing everything that seemed to be OR or controversial, and I also tried to make it a better summary of the article.  Any more APPROPRIATE and RELEVANT advice would be greatly appreciated.  (We may be new, but we know the difference between constructive advice and personal attacks.)ColleenHelen (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  First ... please don't SHOUT at me like this. I was making legitimate challenge ... not just AT YOU ... do you understand(?) ... it's just the syndrome... engaging like an 'I speak your weight' machine ... I'm fed-up with it (especially right now) ... second I was censored... look at the Discussion entries ... discussion entries should be left there to stand, with evidence ... regardless of what you and your 'Professors' want ... IHMO (remember that Helen) ... I stand by my words ... You've made a MESS over something that should be simple ... ( now there I'm SHOUTING back at you) ... If I were grading you ... FAILED ... emotions running hard ... now I'm tired and buggering off ('scuse my English)... for family reasons best known to others ... Regardless ... I still wish you and G8 the best ... please forgive my fractionable behavior right now ...Lomcevak (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: there's a discussion about this article and Lomcevak now on ANI here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print media served as the original method of sharing news to the masses ... 

message: As I'm working on the lead I have a concern about some of the new material, while I agree that town criers can be considered a part of the media, I'm concerned about the following,
:"Yet, people simply talking to each other is what may be called the politico-media complex - about their concerns - about the world."
I don't think this is correct, as the PMC refers to relationship between government and the media industry so I don't think individual's discussions fall into this copmlex.  Before I remove this, I'd like to hear what you all think.
ColleenHelen (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you add a short section on pre-electronic media institutions. Here's a good ref: . Here's another one () to avoid accusations of Western (American) bias (and here is one relevant to Europe). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Colleen, is the second sentence of the lead supposed to begin with "Asserted"?  Ecr6 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not.  It does sound a little awkward.  I'll fix that now, it slipped by me, I didn't think anyone had changed that sentence since I had cited it, but I guess not.  ColleenHelen (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead

message: Does anyone see why the David Smail link is necessary?  He's a psychatrist, who, as far as I can tell doesn't have anything to do with the politico-media complex...Ecr6 (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'External links' section

message: The good article reviewer suggested that we remove any information not related to the PMC, and ensure that every cited sentence directly connects to the PMC.  Some areas definitely need to be cleaned up, but some of the sections he specifically pointed out were the political influence on television section and that the film sections are a little to in detail on Capra.  My idea would be to move some of the info from the film section to the article on Capra, and maybe Liz can get extra credit for that, same goes for the Indian television, maybe Megan can reuse that on the Indian television section.  We should definitely think about shortening the sections though, I know its hard to just delete all that research and work, but if it makes the article better...
130.49.23.207 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out a bunch of Capra stuff, but do you think more is necessary? Ecr6 (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I also went through the television and presidential elections section to relate it more thoroughly to the complex, but I'm running out of time to do the rest.  If everyone could do that with the other sections we'll be much better off. Ecr6 (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll take a look at the newsprint section, and I think the Capra section is better, but it gives me the overall impression of how the media is trying to influence politics, instead of politics influencing the media, which is I suppose why the section is called "antipolitics" maybe if that connection was a little clearer, it would fit better into the definition of the PMC?  130.49.23.207 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I went over the print and made some big structural changes, and hopefully made it more relevant to the PMC, but there's only so much I can do with my limited knowledge of the subject.  Other than that, sorry a couple of my posts were unsigned.  I was logged out, and forgot to log back in, and couldn't for the life of me figure out why when I put 4 tildes it wouldn't sign my name, just a bunch of numbers.ColleenHelen (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It looks better and no problem.  I thought that was you.  I'll go back and clarify the Capra section. Ecr6 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections that should be removed?

message: Hey wherever there are page numbers missing could you guys add them?  Also, within the text I think we are supposed to have footnotes even if they are quotations from different authors within the same text (like in the television section).Ecr6 (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations/Footnotes

message: I have recently added a criticism section to the entry, made some minor,complementary adjustments to the wording of the opening paragraph, while adding a few key references from journalists ranging from prominent British to obscure Australian. Between its origin and its current state of development, the entry appears to have become very US-centric in its examples and bloated. I note that it became the subject of student term project. Between the opening paragraph and the criticism section, this entry could do with much 'squeezing' and 'distilling.'
While not wishing to detract from the obvious enthusiasm shown by the students as they began their project, the work seems to rehearse, with somewhat uneven quality, a subset of that that is already present in the propaganda entry, in the main listing media forms and their being put to work, in some way, in the service of government interests or political candidature, for example.
We can find referential evidence in primary sources that the term 'politico-media complex' (PMC) is being used to name a collection of interactions between individuals/organizations (see the reference list at the end of the opening paragraph of the entry). With Chomsky's admonishments ringing in our ears (again see criticism), from what is being named the PMC in these references we can begin to put together a view on how to assimilate, consistently, new findings, from sources into the evolution of the entry.
I will note here that these interactions can and will be engaged in with varying degrees of consciousness ranging from innocence/naivete (the tendency to believe in the existence of 'objective journalism') through to cynicism/criminality(the tendency to engage in 'blatant manipulation'):
...with societies [collective systems] as with individuals there is often a striking contrast between our stated aims and the actual results of what we do. Just as the individual's basic assumptions and projects are almost inevitably buried, uncommented upon, at the center of his or her conduct, so what we claim to be doing collectively may be quite different from actual achievements of our tacit cultural objectives.
David Smail. "The Magic of the Machine." Illusion and Reality: The Meaning of Anxiety. Dent, 1987. pp. 99-100.
The segue, at the start of the second paragraph, between PMC and propaganda should be 'inverted,' something like ... Evidence of propaganda, especially in what is named the politico-media complex, can be observed using many types of media forms, including print, radio, film, television and the Internet.
The implicit 'sigh of relief' on the part of the students in the original segue, through self-admission that they didn't have much of an idea what they were supposed to be talking about (see earlier Discussion notes) is palpable but understandable.
Examples come at different 'depths.' The 'shallowest' is to view interactions as constituting a 'mutual appreciation/self-preservation society' or 'revolving door/job agency,' where the end of work, voluntarily or otherwise, in one domain leaves contacts built-up during the work such that procurement of possible employment in another domain is a matter of picking-up the 'phone, say. The 'revolving door' syndrome includes repeated appearances, in the UK, by the usual suspects on radio and television platforms such as Question Time (TV series), Any Questions, Have I Got News For You, etc.
The 'deepest' is an analysis of the various 'players' involved, their interactions within and between domains and the reliable identification of 'larger purposes' (models, such as the social psychology model, propaganda model, epistemic merit model, instantiated) thus served (avoiding mere 'conspiracy theories') both consciously and unconsciously.
Bearing in mind the ideal of hypothesis/(empirical) corroboration, contributions should go as deep as possible, avoiding original research, finding documentation in the literature - news articles, scholarly studies etc. - ideally documenting players and domains, noting an underlying model and ends being served. The icing on the cake is that this is all gathered-up under the name, 'politico-media complex.'
Ticking all these boxes will be very hard.
ILakatos (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I noticed that the article is filled with [apparent] original research and some improper synthesis, along with possibly contentious statements that need references. I started adding references where I could, but realized I don't have enough time tonight so I skimmed and added tags to statements that need work (either proper sourcing, attribution of opinions, or removal because it's unverified original research). I also noticed that a few references didn't support the statements they were attached to and tried to fix this or tag this where I saw it. I may have mistakenly used the synthesis tag when OR is appropriate, so if the SYN looks like it's in the wrong place, please check that statement for OR.
And in 2 cases I removed original research. Here is the removed text:
This makes it seem like print news is a mouthpiece for citizens, rather than a tool to oppress them. Of course, the media can only be a reflection of the masses if the masses are allowed to express their views. For this, freedom of the press is necessary.
The radio industry's politico-media complex would only deepen as the years passed
I think one of the biggest issues left is that in a lot of the examples, the connection to the PMC framework is original research.
I wish I had more time to find sources. But I'm sure this article can get there over time! 69.127.235.74 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: The most glaring problem in this article is original research, as noted by users above. There are plenty of good citations - there is one statement in the first paragraph with 7 different sources alone - but there are many statements that are unproven, appear to be original research or are not objective. This is not spread out - it seems to be in clumps, small sections of the article rather than evenly spread out. This suggest that the article could be fixed with some effort rather than scrapped completely, if one were to edit the problematic statements. I added a citation for the effectiveness of television influencing american politics where before a citation was needed. 
Matthewdrago (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation (for a class) 

message: This article is currently a total mess. It reads like an undergraduate research paper, contains loads of original research, and had a distinctly un-encyclopedic style. The sections are a sort of hodgepodge of ideas with a very vague thread running through them. In order to fit the criteria of a Wikipedia article it would require an extensive rewrite, basically from the ground up.
Part of the problem is that this article seems to have originally been created and defended by one user, Dsmith1usa, and subsequently defended by a series of sockpuppets of that user, who have since been blocked. Substantive editing last took place in 2013 by ILakatos, one of the sockpuppets of Dsmith1usa. Since then there has mostly been copy-editing, reference updating, and the slow removal of POV content. The one exception recently led to this section being added to the top of the page, which uses the first person, is entirely unreferenced, and essentially amounts to personal speculation on the topic.
It's not clear to me that this article can be salvaged. It amounts to personal research conducted by a single editor almost 14 years ago. It was defended by that editor and their sockpuppets for several years, until they were all blocked. The quality of the article has not improved, and I don't believe any editor will likely be able to improve it, because if the tone were corrected, the original research removed, and the whole brought into line with Wikipedia standards there would be nothing left.
I am open to hearing arguments for maintaining and updating this article to bring it in line with the rest of Wikipedia, if any are forthcoming. Otherwise, I will begin the process of nominating it for deletion after the new year. DevOhm Talk 18:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problems with this article