This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Politico-media complex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Politico-media complex was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on July 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 18 December 2009. Further details are available here. |
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on July 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Dsmith1usa 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. [1] [2] especially shrill where the dead are white people.}}</ref>
So why isn't Tony Blair more popular? Well, the short answer is the Iraq war ... Because there are two sides to the politico-media complex, and at least half the problem is a failure on the Labour Government's part.
The key to understanding the Conservative revival, as it was to understanding the Blair bubble, is to know about the dynamics of the politico-media complex.
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)
Hi there. I am responding to a Wikiquette Alert regarding the above discussion here. I'd like to make a friendly suggestion that the above section be removed or archived, as it constitutes a personal attack against Hiding and is inappropriate for this talk article. I'd advise that a more appropriate place to give feedback for Hiding would be on his talk page, and that this article Talk page should remain focused on article content itself. (If you do decide to remove the above section, please feel free to remove this one as well.)
I am not passing judgement on either side of the issue with respect to the article content itself - I am a neutral third party uninvolved in this article, and I am merely addressing the personal dispute that seems to have arisen between you both. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know - we should probably continue this discussion on the WQA page or one of our User talk pages. Thank you. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
Names -> no names -> (Some) Critics -> explicitly quantifying (two)... LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)Ecr6
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)Jessica Wedin
I. Pre-classical Period
II. Classical Period
24.3.16.134 ( talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
III. Post-modern Period
Ecr6 ( talk) 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ecr6 ( talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
IV. Actors-turned-politicians
Topics of political aspects and purposes of films to be discussed:
Ecr6 ( talk) 02:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Liz R.
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)Ecr6
I. Community Radio
II. International Radio
Internal Topics to Discuss:
ColleenHelen ( talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just to keep everyone posted to what I'm doing, I plan on adding a section on Cold War radio, specifically the Voice of America and related international radio programs. Hopefully I'll be able to add a more on radio through the 80's and 90's, but I haven't found a lot of information on this time period, though I would like to mention the affect of TV on radio, if it relates well to the PMC. I also plan on adding pictures, maybe 2, possibly 3 depending on what I find. Other than that, I'm adding page numbers and otherwise improving my citations. ColleenHelen ( talk) 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
(will be posted later)
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)
Jlw80 ( talk) 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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:"
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)Arielle Parris
I. Television and Politics
II. The Role of Television in the American Presidential Elections
III. Political Influence on Religion via Television
IV. Television and Politics Around the World
V. Conclusion
Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Dramas of Nationhood: The Politics of Television in Egypt.” Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Hamamoto, Darrell Y. “Monitored Peril: Asian Americans and the Politics of TV Representation.” Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.
Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. “Presidential Selection.” United States of America: Duke University Press, 1987.
Lang, Kurt and Gladys Engel. “Television and Politics.” New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2002.
McCombs, Maxwell E. and Shaw, Donald L. "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, XXXVI, 2.
Rajagopal, Arvind. “Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2001.
Semetko, Holli A. and Valenburg, Patti M. “Framing European Politics: A content Analysis of Press and Television News.” Journal of Communication, Vol. 50, 2000.
Shenkman, Rick. “Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.” New York, NY: Basic Books, 2009.
Megan Miller-Daghir
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)
I think the new definition is an improvement over the old one, but we'll need to work on our lead in paragraph. Though that should probably be done after we finish more of the body. ColleenHelen ( talk) 03:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked for a better one, too, and couldn't find one, so I tried to qualify it by adding what is currently there. Maybe if we can just try to find some other examples of when the term is used? I tried doing that, too, and all I found were a couple of non-professional blogs, which wasn't what I was looking for. What do you guys think of the layout for the real page? Do you think we should put a separate footnote/reference section at the bottom of each section of our sections or should we just have one really long one at the end? I was kind of leaning toward the first. What do you think? 24.3.16.134 ( talk) 04:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, it looks like we can only have one references section, but I think it should look fine. Ecr6 ( talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder. We need to include internal links to other Wikipedia pages, (using the double brackets [[ ]] code). ColleenHelen ( talk) 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
So that it's 4.1 The Internet's impact on political media
4.2 The Internet and Global Elections
4.3 Discussion Forums
Like Megan's is? Ecr6 ( talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I just figured that out thank you for bringing that up.
Jlw80 ( talk) 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some comments on your early draft:
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)
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)
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)
Sorry, another comment: in the advice that Piotr gives above is the repeat heading thing. I think the bold heading under television, fits into that category... what do you think about eliminating that and leaving it just as Television? Ecr6 ( talk) 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding to this. Throughout the project, I had been looking at my inbox messages for communication, and never knew I was being addressed via the discussion page. I am sorry if my delay in changes bullets to prose was a source of anxiety for anyone, but I was merely waiting until I had my draft in final format to post it to the page. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mem134 (
talk •
contribs) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey girls- just letting you know I posted a request for advice/help on the WikiProject Media and WikiProject Politics talk pages, hopefully some other wikipedians will give us advice on how to get up to good article status. ColleenHelen ( talk) 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Girls-
There are a couple of issues we should try to address before we put the article up for review tomorrow night. We need to fix a couple of things first though:
I know its a little last minute, but we can definitely fix these last couple kinks and write a good article! ColleenHelen ( talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
I'll be doing your good article review.
There will be more comments to come, but for now, you need to create a separate "Bibliography" or "Notes" section. Look at the sections in Abraham Lincoln or Jackie Robinson for examples. In it, you put books that are used more than once, like Lindholm, Charles and John A. Hall. "Frank Capra meets John Doe: Anti-politics in American National Identity." Cinema and Nation. Eds. Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie. New York: Routledge, 2000. Then you do Lindholm, p. 42 or whatever in their place. The bare refs like http://www.middleeastevents.com/site/pres_dtls.asp?pid=7820 also need to be formatted. That will give you something to do for now. Reply here when you've finished. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So, whichever members of the group who are watching this page could you comment here and indicate that you've seen this? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I may not have a lot of time after this weekend, so I'll try and give you guys something to do.
Make sure you have access dates, and anything else needed for the refs. Look at Template:Cite web and Template:Cite book to see the kinds of things you can include in each ref. It doesn't have to be everything possible, but do a bunch.
All the citation needed problems need to be fixed.
Don't start with "While the term politico-media complex (PMC) has not yet been defined in any dictionaries, a working definition can be derived from its emergence and use in contemporary political discourse." Start with what it is, and talk about definition problems later.
The first section after the lead should explain what PMC is, not just jump into "Print" or whatever.
Statements like "Newspapers and magazines do have a back and forth between readers and journalists. Most studies show that the print media are more likely to reinforce existing political attitudes of the masses than change them." help the reader understand how print media relates to PMC. Right now, it jumps into changes in the print media, then explains PMC stuff later. Orient the reader with PMC info, then go into more detail. Make sure this is done in every section.
Don't be afraid to remove stuff. It's more important that this article be all about PMC than have tons of loosely related media info.
Looking at the "Asia" section. It doesn't seem to be directly related to PMC, it just seems to be what you think is important their media. This may be original research, which is not allowed, and will sink this nomination.
So, look very closely at references that aren't specifically talking about PMC, and think about removing them and their associated text. This will go a lot faster for you and me if you can trim this down to stuff specifically about PMC.
I recommend putting 10+ person hours into this. Then give it a good copyedit, where different students go over the other student's parts and make sure the writing is good. Then hopefully it will be close, and I can give you more detailed comments. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I went through and tried to work on the lead, I started a new section in the discussion about it, since it has a couple of issues. I also went through my section (radio) and checked to make sure everything relates to the PMC. I think everything is, but if anything is irrelevant, just let me know. ColleenHelen ( talk) 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
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 <ref name= > and the use of citation templates.
The most common ref you are going to use for this article is {{ cite book}} 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 {{ cite book}}.
So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins |last2= |first2= |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title=Globilization in World History|trans_title= |url= |format= |accessdate= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year=2003|month= |origyear= |publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]] |language= |isbn=0393979423|oclc= |doi= |id= |page= |pages= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</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: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}</ref>
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 <ref name= > 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 <ref name=hopkins/> So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in <ref name=hopkins/>.
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 3</ref> [1] and this; <ref name=hop21>Hopkins 2003, page 21</ref> [2], then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in <ref name=hop3/> [1] and to ref page 21 use <ref name=hop21/> [2]
Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the {{ reflist}} template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this: {{reflist|4}} 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: {{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}. 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.
Hopkins, A.G. (2003). Globilization in World History. New York City: Norton. ISBN 0393979423.
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)
This is a bit of playing devil's advocate, but it may be something offering 'added value' ... take it or leave it as you will.
Chomsky has had a good deal to say about the process of the political economy of the media (see Manufacturing Consent). But what may he think of giving an apparent incestuous behavior between two groups with a mutual interest a 'name' such as PMC. Is it worth such objectification ? For example he has poured some scorn even on the somewhat 'hallowed' Eisenhower term of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC)?
This Wiki entry was originally cloned-off the MIC entry (see the History), and so, potentially, 'stands accused.' The entry went through a rocky period being up for deletion as, essentially, adding nothing (the outcome was 'no consensus'). And of course, there are 'complexes' all over the place ... it seems to be something of a game to give a 'complex' name to a bunch of people who, somehow, seem to have fallen into a 'symbiosis' ... prison industrial complex, celebrity-industrial complex ... etc. etc.
May not the purported PMC be yet another facet of the 'industrial system' operating under one or another pretext and not worthy of being dignified by being 'named?' Should it be in Wikipedia ?
Why not ask him (Chomsky) ? He responds to all his written correspondence (I think he finds the floods of email a bit off-putting) so why not dash off a quick letter to him at MIT asking for a review ? He's very approachable ...
Just few thoughts Lomcevak ( talk) 10:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Colleen I just wanted to thank you for the pictures they look really good!!
Jlw80 (
talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Liz, just so you know we decided that we are going to proof read somone elses article, and we thought the best idea was to proof the one right below yours. Is that ok with you? Jlw80 ( talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I got that information from my film professor but couldn't find a statement for it anywhere else, so I just deleted it. Ecr6 ( talk) 01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.:
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)
Ecr6 ( talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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,
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)
Also, we don't mention town criers in the body of the article, yet it is in the lead. Should we add a section about town criers? Or should it be removed from the lead? ColleenHelen ( talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that if someone wants to write about town criers in the article then that is fine, but if no one is going to write about it then it should be taken out of the lead. That is my opinion. I also agree that town criers are not an industry of the media and the government which is what our entire article is based on.
Jlw80 ( talk) 20:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
I say take it off. Earlier we'd talked about cleaning up the links section, but I think it got lost in the shuffle. Thanks for taking a look at it. ColleenHelen ( talk) 04:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
Matthewdrago ( talk) 01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
References
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Politico-media complex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Politico-media complex was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on July 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 18 December 2009. Further details are available here. |
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on July 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Dsmith1usa 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. [1] [2] especially shrill where the dead are white people.}}</ref>
So why isn't Tony Blair more popular? Well, the short answer is the Iraq war ... Because there are two sides to the politico-media complex, and at least half the problem is a failure on the Labour Government's part.
The key to understanding the Conservative revival, as it was to understanding the Blair bubble, is to know about the dynamics of the politico-media complex.
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)
Hi there. I am responding to a Wikiquette Alert regarding the above discussion here. I'd like to make a friendly suggestion that the above section be removed or archived, as it constitutes a personal attack against Hiding and is inappropriate for this talk article. I'd advise that a more appropriate place to give feedback for Hiding would be on his talk page, and that this article Talk page should remain focused on article content itself. (If you do decide to remove the above section, please feel free to remove this one as well.)
I am not passing judgement on either side of the issue with respect to the article content itself - I am a neutral third party uninvolved in this article, and I am merely addressing the personal dispute that seems to have arisen between you both. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know - we should probably continue this discussion on the WQA page or one of our User talk pages. Thank you. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
Names -> no names -> (Some) Critics -> explicitly quantifying (two)... LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)Ecr6
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)Jessica Wedin
I. Pre-classical Period
II. Classical Period
24.3.16.134 ( talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
III. Post-modern Period
Ecr6 ( talk) 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ecr6 ( talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
IV. Actors-turned-politicians
Topics of political aspects and purposes of films to be discussed:
Ecr6 ( talk) 02:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Liz R.
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)Ecr6
I. Community Radio
II. International Radio
Internal Topics to Discuss:
ColleenHelen ( talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just to keep everyone posted to what I'm doing, I plan on adding a section on Cold War radio, specifically the Voice of America and related international radio programs. Hopefully I'll be able to add a more on radio through the 80's and 90's, but I haven't found a lot of information on this time period, though I would like to mention the affect of TV on radio, if it relates well to the PMC. I also plan on adding pictures, maybe 2, possibly 3 depending on what I find. Other than that, I'm adding page numbers and otherwise improving my citations. ColleenHelen ( talk) 00:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
(will be posted later)
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)
Jlw80 ( talk) 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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:"
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)Arielle Parris
I. Television and Politics
II. The Role of Television in the American Presidential Elections
III. Political Influence on Religion via Television
IV. Television and Politics Around the World
V. Conclusion
Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Dramas of Nationhood: The Politics of Television in Egypt.” Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Hamamoto, Darrell Y. “Monitored Peril: Asian Americans and the Politics of TV Representation.” Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.
Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. “Presidential Selection.” United States of America: Duke University Press, 1987.
Lang, Kurt and Gladys Engel. “Television and Politics.” New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2002.
McCombs, Maxwell E. and Shaw, Donald L. "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, XXXVI, 2.
Rajagopal, Arvind. “Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2001.
Semetko, Holli A. and Valenburg, Patti M. “Framing European Politics: A content Analysis of Press and Television News.” Journal of Communication, Vol. 50, 2000.
Shenkman, Rick. “Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.” New York, NY: Basic Books, 2009.
Megan Miller-Daghir
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)
I think the new definition is an improvement over the old one, but we'll need to work on our lead in paragraph. Though that should probably be done after we finish more of the body. ColleenHelen ( talk) 03:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked for a better one, too, and couldn't find one, so I tried to qualify it by adding what is currently there. Maybe if we can just try to find some other examples of when the term is used? I tried doing that, too, and all I found were a couple of non-professional blogs, which wasn't what I was looking for. What do you guys think of the layout for the real page? Do you think we should put a separate footnote/reference section at the bottom of each section of our sections or should we just have one really long one at the end? I was kind of leaning toward the first. What do you think? 24.3.16.134 ( talk) 04:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, it looks like we can only have one references section, but I think it should look fine. Ecr6 ( talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder. We need to include internal links to other Wikipedia pages, (using the double brackets [[ ]] code). ColleenHelen ( talk) 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
So that it's 4.1 The Internet's impact on political media
4.2 The Internet and Global Elections
4.3 Discussion Forums
Like Megan's is? Ecr6 ( talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I just figured that out thank you for bringing that up.
Jlw80 ( talk) 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some comments on your early draft:
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)
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)
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)
Sorry, another comment: in the advice that Piotr gives above is the repeat heading thing. I think the bold heading under television, fits into that category... what do you think about eliminating that and leaving it just as Television? Ecr6 ( talk) 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding to this. Throughout the project, I had been looking at my inbox messages for communication, and never knew I was being addressed via the discussion page. I am sorry if my delay in changes bullets to prose was a source of anxiety for anyone, but I was merely waiting until I had my draft in final format to post it to the page. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mem134 (
talk •
contribs) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey girls- just letting you know I posted a request for advice/help on the WikiProject Media and WikiProject Politics talk pages, hopefully some other wikipedians will give us advice on how to get up to good article status. ColleenHelen ( talk) 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Girls-
There are a couple of issues we should try to address before we put the article up for review tomorrow night. We need to fix a couple of things first though:
I know its a little last minute, but we can definitely fix these last couple kinks and write a good article! ColleenHelen ( talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
I'll be doing your good article review.
There will be more comments to come, but for now, you need to create a separate "Bibliography" or "Notes" section. Look at the sections in Abraham Lincoln or Jackie Robinson for examples. In it, you put books that are used more than once, like Lindholm, Charles and John A. Hall. "Frank Capra meets John Doe: Anti-politics in American National Identity." Cinema and Nation. Eds. Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie. New York: Routledge, 2000. Then you do Lindholm, p. 42 or whatever in their place. The bare refs like http://www.middleeastevents.com/site/pres_dtls.asp?pid=7820 also need to be formatted. That will give you something to do for now. Reply here when you've finished. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So, whichever members of the group who are watching this page could you comment here and indicate that you've seen this? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I may not have a lot of time after this weekend, so I'll try and give you guys something to do.
Make sure you have access dates, and anything else needed for the refs. Look at Template:Cite web and Template:Cite book to see the kinds of things you can include in each ref. It doesn't have to be everything possible, but do a bunch.
All the citation needed problems need to be fixed.
Don't start with "While the term politico-media complex (PMC) has not yet been defined in any dictionaries, a working definition can be derived from its emergence and use in contemporary political discourse." Start with what it is, and talk about definition problems later.
The first section after the lead should explain what PMC is, not just jump into "Print" or whatever.
Statements like "Newspapers and magazines do have a back and forth between readers and journalists. Most studies show that the print media are more likely to reinforce existing political attitudes of the masses than change them." help the reader understand how print media relates to PMC. Right now, it jumps into changes in the print media, then explains PMC stuff later. Orient the reader with PMC info, then go into more detail. Make sure this is done in every section.
Don't be afraid to remove stuff. It's more important that this article be all about PMC than have tons of loosely related media info.
Looking at the "Asia" section. It doesn't seem to be directly related to PMC, it just seems to be what you think is important their media. This may be original research, which is not allowed, and will sink this nomination.
So, look very closely at references that aren't specifically talking about PMC, and think about removing them and their associated text. This will go a lot faster for you and me if you can trim this down to stuff specifically about PMC.
I recommend putting 10+ person hours into this. Then give it a good copyedit, where different students go over the other student's parts and make sure the writing is good. Then hopefully it will be close, and I can give you more detailed comments. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I went through and tried to work on the lead, I started a new section in the discussion about it, since it has a couple of issues. I also went through my section (radio) and checked to make sure everything relates to the PMC. I think everything is, but if anything is irrelevant, just let me know. ColleenHelen ( talk) 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
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 <ref name= > and the use of citation templates.
The most common ref you are going to use for this article is {{ cite book}} 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 {{ cite book}}.
So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins |last2= |first2= |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title=Globilization in World History|trans_title= |url= |format= |accessdate= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year=2003|month= |origyear= |publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]] |language= |isbn=0393979423|oclc= |doi= |id= |page= |pages= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</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: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}</ref>
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 <ref name= > 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 <ref name=hopkins/> So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in <ref name=hopkins/>.
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 3</ref> [1] and this; <ref name=hop21>Hopkins 2003, page 21</ref> [2], then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in <ref name=hop3/> [1] and to ref page 21 use <ref name=hop21/> [2]
Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the {{ reflist}} template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this: {{reflist|4}} 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: {{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}. 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.
Hopkins, A.G. (2003). Globilization in World History. New York City: Norton. ISBN 0393979423.
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)
This is a bit of playing devil's advocate, but it may be something offering 'added value' ... take it or leave it as you will.
Chomsky has had a good deal to say about the process of the political economy of the media (see Manufacturing Consent). But what may he think of giving an apparent incestuous behavior between two groups with a mutual interest a 'name' such as PMC. Is it worth such objectification ? For example he has poured some scorn even on the somewhat 'hallowed' Eisenhower term of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC)?
This Wiki entry was originally cloned-off the MIC entry (see the History), and so, potentially, 'stands accused.' The entry went through a rocky period being up for deletion as, essentially, adding nothing (the outcome was 'no consensus'). And of course, there are 'complexes' all over the place ... it seems to be something of a game to give a 'complex' name to a bunch of people who, somehow, seem to have fallen into a 'symbiosis' ... prison industrial complex, celebrity-industrial complex ... etc. etc.
May not the purported PMC be yet another facet of the 'industrial system' operating under one or another pretext and not worthy of being dignified by being 'named?' Should it be in Wikipedia ?
Why not ask him (Chomsky) ? He responds to all his written correspondence (I think he finds the floods of email a bit off-putting) so why not dash off a quick letter to him at MIT asking for a review ? He's very approachable ...
Just few thoughts Lomcevak ( talk) 10:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Colleen I just wanted to thank you for the pictures they look really good!!
Jlw80 (
talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Liz, just so you know we decided that we are going to proof read somone elses article, and we thought the best idea was to proof the one right below yours. Is that ok with you? Jlw80 ( talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I got that information from my film professor but couldn't find a statement for it anywhere else, so I just deleted it. Ecr6 ( talk) 01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.:
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)
Ecr6 ( talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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,
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)
Also, we don't mention town criers in the body of the article, yet it is in the lead. Should we add a section about town criers? Or should it be removed from the lead? ColleenHelen ( talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that if someone wants to write about town criers in the article then that is fine, but if no one is going to write about it then it should be taken out of the lead. That is my opinion. I also agree that town criers are not an industry of the media and the government which is what our entire article is based on.
Jlw80 ( talk) 20:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
I say take it off. Earlier we'd talked about cleaning up the links section, but I think it got lost in the shuffle. Thanks for taking a look at it. ColleenHelen ( talk) 04:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
Matthewdrago ( talk) 01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
References
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)