Talk:Mass media regulation

Untitled
Your article is definitely neutral, no problems there. I would reword a couple of sentences. The last sentence where you talk about how the supreme court hasn't touched it, but that that could change if net neutrality comes into play. I would explain that within the sentence. Maybe if you said something along the lines of "The Supreme Court has — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlhannonUMASS (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Twomey.shannon. Peer reviewers: Mariassu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brandonf7. Peer reviewers: Lieberthal444.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cturgiss. Peer reviewers: Jackkk42.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits to your article
I added a citation to your article from this book https://books.google.com/books?id=W0bAAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false It is a great book on media and has a lot on regulation. Also, you said this in your article " The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to touch the internet, but that could change if net neutrality comes into play." and there is recent news on net neutrality, here are some links , in case you wanted to add the new information to your article, https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality http://www.fcc.gov/openinternet--Rlira123 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits/Peer Review
Hey there! just made a few grammatical changes in a few sections, tried to reword a few sentences in the China section. I also added an EU section because I found some cool articles on how media is regulated in the EU and how it's changed in the last 10 or so years. Felt like it was worth mentioning. https://www.academia.edu/3632449/Policy_Economic_and_Business_Challenges_of_Media_Ownership_Regulation Other than that, your article is pretty good. It's readable and interesting, keep plugging away! --SlhannonUMASS (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits
HELLO! This article generally follows Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutrality and citations. Nevertheless, there is much room for improvement concerning the amount of information provided in this article. Looking at citations: Citation one is a personal website that was made for teachers to create course content but there is no source of the author or the school it is linked to therefore, I would credit this website as well: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0095.xml It is a source that is connected to multiple colleges and is used as a database of information for students. Sources eight and nine seem to no longer exist as when I type them into a search engine the results are only the article. Citation 10 is a website that is filled with popup ads, but seems to be a credible source of a British journalism because it has their own their journalism award ceremony to give recognition to other news outlets. Citation 11 is a government regulated site but Wikipedia does not encourage using a company's website as the main source of information about the company. Another citation would be applicable to find and to add more information as to how Ofcom and the media interact. I found this article from BBC that shows an event that has occurred due to Ofcom regulations: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47028994

Looking at the neutrality of the article: Wikipedia recommends that each section of an article should be of same importance. With this being the case, sections that only contain two or three sentences should have more information to help the readers get a full understanding of media regulation across the globe. While searching the internet I have found that section 2.1. has been closely paraphrased from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-politics/egypt-targets-social-media-with-new-law-idUSKBN1K722C and needs to be cited and edited. Section 2.2 seems to have some bias. It contains suggestive tones by using words like “extremely” and “underestimating” that should be changed. There are also statements made with no source to credit the information. 2.2 has since been challenged due it is lack of neutrality and citations, but has not yet been resolved. To add legitimacy to this section (2.2) I think it would be best to use multiple other forms of credible information. Information needs be further explained in sections 2.3, 2.5, 2.6. What is the European Union and how does that differ from the United Kingdom’s regulations? Section 2.6 mentions the FCC but only gives an example of of how they regulate the media in the United States. Thank you! Twomey.shannon (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

'''This is information I have found and wrote into Wikipedia's guidelines. I believe this could be a really good addition to the article: ''' Media regulation is the exercise of rules put in place by jurisdiction of different areas of the world.

Ofcom also oversees the use of social media and devices in the United Kingdom. BBC reports that Ofcom analyzes media use of the youth (ages 3 to 15 years old) to gather information of how the United Kingdom utilizes their media.

Egypt’s regulation laws encompass media and journalism publishing. Any form of press release to the public that goes against the Egyptian Constitution can be subject to punishment by these laws.

This law was put in place to regulate the circulation of misinformation online. Legal action can be taken on those who share false facts.

Websites must go through Egypt’s “Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media” to acquire a license to publish a website.

Twomey.shannon (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is Maria from your Media Literacy class! I just wanted to give you some feedback on your article contribution. Overall, your contribution to the article is really strong. Everything you added helps clarify the information on the page and makes it easier to understand. The sources you picked are really good as well. They are all credible and abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. One thing that can be changed or improved is the language of some of your edits. For example, the content of your first sentence is really good, but the wording of it ("exercise of rules") doesn't really make sense. Another thing that can be fixed is the citations for your sources. When you edit something on a page, click the template drop down menu at the top of the screen and select cite web, then you can fill in all the information about the source and Wikipedia will make it into a citation. Other than that, I really liked all the contributions you made to the article! Mariassu (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits
Hi my name is Brandon, on this Media Regulation topic, I would like to give my opinion and suggestions to help improve it. Each fact that is referenced, is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Each link that I clicked on are working links, and these sources consist of journals, news outlet articles and books from unbiased outlets/writers. I did not find any plagiarism in any of the articles, but I could see paraphrasing from one of the sources in the article. In the sourced article, ‘‘Press Recognition Panel gives alternative press regulator Impress Royal Charter backing’’, it mentions magazine and newspaper publishers are being regulated by Independent Press Standards Organisation. But it was said in more of a summarized way. None of the sources that I read alarmed me on if they were being biased on the topic, they’re articles that given information on the topic and some showing companies that are regulating media in their own ways, as well as staying on topic and not jumping to a new one or ‘shifting gears’ in any way. The last source that was published was published in 2019. Since 2019, I haven’t found anything worthy to explain media regulation that hasn’t already been said, within the last year. I’d say everything is up to date.~ ~ ~ ~

Egypt Section Revision
Media regulation in Egypt has always been limited, but as in recent years, it has become even more limited. In 2018, a law was put in place to prevent the press and any media outlet from putting out content that violates the Egyptian Constitution, and/or contain any “violence, racism, hatred, or extremism.” If any content causes national security concerns or broadcasted as ‘false news’, the Egyptian Government will put a ban on those media outlets/press that produced that media. This law, known as ‘The SCMR Law’, creates a media regulatory restriction plan that allows the government authorities to be able to block the content. Those who want to be able to produce content, or be able to publish a website, have to obtain a license. In order to do that, those would need to go to Egypt’s “Supreme Council for the Administration of the Media.” ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonf7 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Edits
Hello all, a lot of the information in this article is great, but some of it could use improvements. Below I have listed a few things that need some change as well as a few solutions to those issues.

Citations The link under reference two is no longer working, this link could be used to replace it. The link leads to a downloadable ebook on media regulation from the same university the previous link led to. Ofcom section’s reference is from official Ofcom website, this goes against Wikipedia’s suggestion of not having company websites as the only citation. This article from The Sun also explains what Ofcom does and could be added as a more neutral source of what Ofcom does

Neutrality Section 2.3 is flagged as having potential bias, I believe a large part of the bias is on the first lines of the section about the history of China and the relationship of the public with the government. I believe this part of the section is biased but also irrelevant, the article is about current media regulation with their current government. These claims are also not cited.

Additions Section 3.6 about the United States could be updated to include the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order. The source about net neutrality in this section is from 2015, this law came into effect in 2018. this link has more information about what that law entails The list of countries is far from complete, there are no countries from South or Central America included, at least one of these countries should be added. Brazil for example; ; these are links to sources that talk about media regulation in Brazil, a section could be added in order to diversify the countries listed, though overall and over time many more countries should be included Cturgiss (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section under countries
This is a proposed addition to the article

Brazil’s constitution, written in 1988, guarantees freedom of expression without censorship. It also protects privacy of communications unless by court order The Brazilian government also requires all radio stations to play a radio program, the stations can choose to play this between 7 and 10pm. Many media outlets in Brazil are owned or invested in by its politicians that have an influence on their editorial decisions. A new decree was put forth that aims to curb the arbitrary removal of social media accounts

Cturgiss (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)