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

MSNBC
Does MSNBC really count as "alternative" media? It seems to me manyof the media sources on this page are fairly normative and mainstream media sources. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews liking the Democratic party doesn't seem like it should make them alternative media of the left. LoknarGor (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If Fox News is included in US Political Right "alternative media" then MSNBC certainly should be included in the US political Left "alternative media" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.129.254 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The corporate media is limited to a range between far right capitalist and centrist/mildly reformist capitalist. The Left has always meant anti-capitalist. The liberal reformist-regulatory political viewpoint should be excluded from lists of the Left. This definition would also remove Daily Kos which isn't even liberal. It's centrist. FixMacs (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternative media has been defined as media not controlled by capitalists. Thus, MSNBC isn't alternative. FixMacs (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternative media (political right) vs Alternative media (political left)
Should this article be changed to mirror Alternative media (U.S. political right)? Should the two be merged into a single article outlining the history of alternative media in the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakrakhan (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, the two phenomena are quite distinct.

Requested move 22 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved back  Dr Strauss   talk   17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

List of alternative media (U.S. political left) → ? – As it stands, the title of this article fails WP:PRECISE since List of alternative media does not exist. However, I do not think that title is helpful since it sounds ambiguous. There is probably a clearer title for the content of this article that neither needs a disambiguator nor is List of alternative media, but at the present time, I am not seeing the new title. Steel1943 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "US" and "Left" needed in title List of U.S. left alternative media will do. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * is this okay with you? I'm happy to close and move it if so.    Dr Strauss   talk   19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Move it back to original title of Alternative media (U.S. political left). That mirrors Alternative media (U.S. political right), and Alternative media exists as well. Station1 (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At 21:12, 24 March 2014‎ moved page Alternative media (U.S. political left) to List of alternative media (U.S. political left): WP:NCLIST)
 * I agree with moving it back. The previous move appears to have been a bold move without discussion. The difference with Alternative media (U.S. political right) is that the "right" article has prose before the actual list. The current title is deterring the addition of analogous prose to the "left" article. List articles should only be created when the combined prose and list becomes so much that a WP:summary style split of the list from the prose makes sense. wbm1058 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional Shows
Should Secular Talk & The David Pakman Show be listed? Both appear on YouTube, TDPS also appears on Radio. Disaster Area (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable criteria
Re: your recent edits, you mention notability. 1) I think you have incorrectly applied the notability criteria. You're applying the ones that apply to the creating the article ITSELF. These conditions do not apply within an article according to WP policies: Wikipedia:Notability 2) Separate to this, I think we need to have a looser definition of what constitutes as 'notable' anyway as by the very definition, alternate media won't be as widely known or recognized by most people. How can we apply notability to something that is so intrinsically non-notable? 3) I've used Alexa to look at DavidPakman.com - which I'm sure you and most would agree is a reasonable alternate media site to compare. The Alexa ranking of this site is 368,892. DemocracyNow.org - 26,720. KPFA.org (Pacifica Evening News) - 341,647. PopularResistance.org - 202,533. Caitlinjohnstone.com - 286,435. This should go some way to giving some indication that if a particular Wikipedia editor hasn't heard of a site, that others may have and therefore it should be included. 4) The fact you removed Pacifica Evening News is astounding. KPFA are the oldest independent radio/news station in the USA. They went off air twice in the 1970s because the KKK bombed their antennas. They've broadcast their interviews with Che Guevara, Alan Ginsberg, Paul Robeson, Richard Pryor, etc. Won all sorts of literary and broadcast awards. Won lawsuits with the FCC over first amendment/profanity issues. The fact that you consider this a non-notable outlet is quite frankly bizarre. 5) You started reverted my edits within 29 minutes of my last edit. This would reasonably suggest that you did not do any real research on the 12 sites you removed and just decided to arbitrarily remove them. Infact, I added over 30 various sources to this article, so it seems you did your due dilligence on 30+ sources in 29 minutes? Let's be honest, we both know you didn't do any of this did you? Your last edit before this was at 17:37 to Aurelia Plath, only 16 minutes before your edit. This would then suggest you reviewed 30+ links for what you consider notability in no more than 16 minutes? This is highly improbable. 6) There is also nothing saying the links within this page must be Wikipedia articles only. External links appear to be acceptable. 7) In light of the above, I will add some of these links back into the article and I hope you and others will find this acceptable Apeholder (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * do you think you could WP:AGF when posting, please? First, you are not referring to a policy but a guideline, a guideline that clearly says that "notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for list". Without criteria, anyone could add their blog. What I'd forgotten is that radio stations are usually notable and so we have KPFA. As for reviewing the sources, which of them were independent reliable sources discussing the media outlet? Those are the only sort of links that could go towards establishing notability. Again, good faith please. If you had included sources that discussed them enough to establish notability, I wouldn't have removed them. And this leads to another issue. It's not an editor's role to decide if an outlet is left-wing. Where we have articles we can easily check them to see if the articles have sources establshing that they are left-wing. Another point you raise is suggesting we should have a lower criteria for notability. We have Notability (web) and you'd have to get that changed if some of the websites you added don't meet it. Anyway, these requirements go together, at least to some extent, because if you can find reliable sources showing that they are alternative left media you are likely to establish notability. Doug Weller  talk 08:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you've been involved in a somewhat relevant discussion at Talk:Alternative media (U.S. political right), what are your thoughts? Doug Weller  talk 08:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Something else I missed - as we have Pacifica Radio we don't need specific programs or specific stations that are part of Pacifica Radio. Doug Weller  talk 08:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To avoid spamming we have to demand notability for addition to lists. An item must be notable enough for Wikipedia's article creation criteria, so we make the person who wants to add an item jump through that hoop. If they really want to add an item, they will do it. If the new article succeeds and is accepted, then the subject is obviously notable enough for inclusion in a list. This has been general practice for many years. -- BullRangifer (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging Doug Weller -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Without this, anyone could add anything. Doug Weller  talk 19:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)