Talk:Old media

message: This article entitled "Old Media" is actually devoted to a discussion of new media. It lacks focus. Even if it was about traditional media (the term that is used in the marketing and advertising professions), it would simply replicate content that is more than adequately covered in a number of WP articles including: Advertising; Advertising management; Marketing communications and Traditional media among others. If we accept that an article that purports to be concerned with "old" media can actually discuss new media, then that subject matter ia also adequately covered elsewhere on Wikipedia including  most of the preceding articles as well as New media; Digital media and others. This article adds to the value of nothing and is a good candidate for deletion. BronHiggs (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck is going on here? Traditional media is (now?) a redirect to this article, which basically doesn't discuss it beyond saying "it's old, there's new media now, get over it". As you say, "old media" is not exactly a common or widely accepted phrase. People who work in new media generally refer to newspapers, radio, and the rest as "legacy media", which is slightly less patronizing and more respectful I guess.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @BronHiggs I agree with the original comment: this is a good candidate for deletion. It is not eloquently written, the references (those that there are) are so outdated as to be useless, and there are several claims that don't have citations. Keddleman (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very strange article 

message: I've noticed informally that radicals tend to use the term "legacy media", while more mainstream commentators call them the "mainstream media". For example, conservative commentators call the New York Times a part of the "legacy media", even though it has a very clear internet presence, including web video and a full-featured website and paywall. More research is needed I gather. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Psiĥedelisto I agree. I feel it's being used in place of "lamestream media" or some other perjoritive. Keddleman (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad you agree. I've no time to fix the issue but have - and -tagged the article for now. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Psiĥedelisto, The definition used in the article says that,   That sounds largely like NYT its parallels to me.  I think that the main difference with new media is the typical openness of comments sections and the potentials afforded for dialogue when using platforms like YouTube.  Looking at the Ngrams I suspect that the WP:COMMONname application is "legacy media" on the basis that books may use "old media" within sentence contexts such as giving advice on how to convert your old media files.  It may take someone digging to find if there is a scholarly or similar base for the usage of these terms.  GregKaye 16:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this term partisan? 

message: — Assignment last updated by COMStudiesProfessor (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Mass Communication