Talk:Alternative media (U.S. political right)

message: This page, as it stands now, is making assertions but sourcing none of them.  It appears an attempt to write history via personal research and opinion, which is not valid for a Wikipedia entry.  If the claims made are not substantiated, they will be (rightly) removed.  I have entered two paragraphs of text sourced to David Halberstam's The Powers That Be, which is a researched, objective volume with pages of citations and footnotes.  I look forward to seeing further objective sources on this page, and to the removal of conjecture. Eleemosynary 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page need citations for the claims it's making

message: ...I know the bar for ethics on Wikipedia is vanishingly low, but is it common practice to copy and paste entire sections of existing Wikipedia articles without attribution?
"Eleemonysary" pasted the following into this article:
::In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC  (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment.  Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers (and the court, five years later, would unanimously overturn a Florida statute on newspapers), the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the scarcity of radio stations.  Critics of the Red Lion decision have pointed out that most markets then and now are served by a greater number of radio stations than newspapers.
::Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to intimidate and silence political opposition.  Although the Doctrine was rarely enforced, many radio broadcasters believed it had a "chilling effect" on their broadcasting, forcing them to avoid any commentary that could be deemed critical or unfair by powerful interests.
::The Doctrine washttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_media_%28U.S._political_right%29&action=submit enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in the Syracuse Peace Council decision.  The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional.  Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.
Compare that with the first three paragraphs in Fairness Doctrine.
I know that "Rules" on Wikipedia are merely suggestions, but this seems a little squishy.
Mitchberg 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated in the edit summary that I used the text from the Fairness Doctrine page, and I linked back to the page as well.  Sigh.  That's called attribution, not at all uncommon on Wikipedia.  I understand you're still smarting from the humiliation of Ben Domenech, so I'll forgive you.  Cheers!  Eleemosynary 20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of CitationS...

message: There are many WP:ATT, WP:POV and WP:OR problems with this article, but I stuck to fixing what I felt were general copy-editing fixes. I cut out some significant portions, and you can find these cuts and my rational in Talk:/cutting_room_floor. Here's a diff of all my changes.  My re-write of the lead is an attempt to make it more neutral, but I might have over-done it. Please keep in mind, though I have views on this subject, I tried not to make those views a part of my copy-editing. Caveat emptor. --Otheus 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Edits

message: Apologies in advance, I've only got time right now for a quick comment & question. I stumbled on this article more or less by accident; however, "the media", both mainstream & alternative, is a subject I am knowledgeable about. (PS - "media" is plural, NOT singular.) 
First the quick comment: the new, rewritten intro, as it stands, is quite simply... absurd. In no way is it correct to say that "Alternative media" ... "is [sic] rooted in the conservative movement's presumption..." etc., etc. Psssst: the "Alternative media" (as we currently use the term) are fundamentally an outgrowth of left-wing dissent, dating largely to the underground press of the 1960s. At least the older version of the intro, whatever its flaws, made better sense in that regard. I would take a stab at re-editing the intro, but...
There's a much larger question that needs to be addressed. To wit: what exactly is properly meant by the term "Alternative media (U.S. political right)"?? As far as I'm concerned, right-wing talk radio is itself a large segment of the mainstream media, so how does it possibly qualify as "Alternative media"? I could go on, but I'm not sure there's much left to the notion of "Alternative media (U.S. political right)" once talk radio is taken out of the picture -- possibly not even enough to merit an article, though I'm reserving judgement on that. 
Okay, gotta run now. I'll check back for responses in the next day or two. Cgingold 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope six months isn't too long for a reply... :) To answer your issues with this article: the term 'alternative' in the title is not used here to mean 'left-wing' (as it is, indeed, commonly used), but simply to mean 'non-mainstream'. While the term 'alternative media' might not be the best name for it, it is unarguable that non-mainstream news sources exist with a right-wing perspective: some of them are listed here. While I would argue against the inclusion of, for instance, Fox News on this page (as it's far too successful and mainstream to be called 'alternative'), a blog like Little Green Footballs does meet the criteria. The exact details of what should and shouldn't be included here are open to debate. Terraxos 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small comment & a big question 

message: Since Alternative press (U.S. political right) and Alternative media (U.S. political right) deal with very closely related topics, I see no reason why we can't merge them into one article; that would be less redundant. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. CWC 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And me. Sitush (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger 

message: This article lists not a single paper or magazine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.157.66 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: No Papers, No Magazines

message: Can anyone find sources for The Alternative Media Outlets section of this article? There's nothing in the article as of right now verifying that these outlets are alternative right-wing media. I'll try to collect some sources when I have free time, but I thought I would ask here in case anyone else can start bolstering the list with citations.
And I have a question: I know Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ORIGINAL research, but if a media outlet is to be added, does a source need to call that media outlet "alternative" (and also politically "right"-leaning) for it to be included on this list? I assume so, so I just wanted to point it out on the talkpage so that people can discuss here if they agree/disagree. Because I would suspect then that most of these outlets cannot be included, since it seems like maybe a lot of the media is added as WP:SYNTHESIS. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: "McCormick family newspapers (particularly the Chicago Tribune) remained staunchly conservative until the late 1960s"
A bare few paragraphs later your article states the Chicago Tribune remained conservative until the late 1980s. "After Nixon's resignation and until the late 1980s, overtly conservative news outlets included the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post and The Washington Times." 
Seems someone is trying really hard to push an agenda. 2600:8801:BE28:A800:8B7:2C3E:74C8:F3A9 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article contradicts itself within a few sentences!