Talk:Bad publicity

Redirect target
In regard to your suggestion for the Project Veritas article at Special:Diff/1013742934, I think it would be fine to use "bad publicity" in that article if this redirect were retargeted to instead of Succès de scandale. Do you agree with this retargeting? —  Newslinger  talk   09:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Didn't notice that redirection.

The phrase "succès de scandale" is generally different from, or at least narrower than, "bad publicity." This is so whether "succès de scandale" be taken to apply only to an artwork (as Wikipedia has it) or not. The main issue is whom it benefits.

A succès de scandale benefits the scandal-creator by bringing them attention (which they may be seeking thereby anyway). In contrast, despite the publicists' aphorism that there's no such thing as bad publicity, outright bad publicity, so called, often doesn't connote success, save maybe in the intentions of the one who spreads it. Defamatory stories that elicit public contempt toward a public figure or organization make the latter a victim, not a victor, even if the stories be true. It seems a stretch to apply the phrase "succès de scandale" to include the success of the one spreading those rumors. For instance, few would say that Woodward and Bernstein, or the Washington Post, scored a succès de scandale in exposing the Watergate break-in.

In the case we're discussing, it's best not to conflate these two terms. However much criticism the mainstream news media may merit, the media critic at issue here seems to be a politically activist, conspiracy-mongering collective of agents provocateurs.

But, still, that target section on the Wikipedia "Publicity" page ought to be renamed "Bad publicity," as should all the mentions of "negative publicity" in the accompanying text. I'd do it myself, but I'm insufficiently familiar with Wiki protocols to know whether retitling the section will likewise automatically adjust all other Wikipedia pages' links to it. If you know offhand, let me know. Mucketymuck (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Bad publicity at the time of writing, there is only one use of the Bad publicity redirect across Wikipedia, in an old (2019) discussion on an article talk page. Based on the minimal use, I've retargeted Bad publicity to . I've also added Succès de scandale to .Regarding, I see that the section cites multiple high-quality academic sources that use the term "negative publicity", and notes that negative publicity is not always "bad": "negative publicity is not always harmful" and "There is a possibility that negative publicity may in fact gain more attention as opposed to positive publicity." Because of this, I think the section title should remain "Negative publicity", although you are free to discuss changes at Talk:Publicity if you believe otherwise. I agree that the sentence in the Project Veritas should use "bad publicity" to be more specific, and I've reinstated your original change in Special:Diff/1014240384. Thanks for your help. —  Newslinger  talk   23:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Even academicians, however high the quality of their works, are susceptible to the dictates of fashionable diction. But, as it's of rather little moment, I'll let the matter pass. Mucketymuck (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)