Talk:Media controversy

NPOV: This article fails to address why different organisations restrict access to the media, and debate the pros and cons of these positions. The underlying assumption of this page is admirably censorship free, a position that most people would disagree with. Further the title is quite confusing, I thought the page would be about controversy in the media not about the media. Why is there a list of links to mainly religious organisations down the bottom, provide an explanation of the practises of each of these groups --Fermion 04:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seeing how short the article is, i think they just didn't expand on the topic. What you describe Fermion would take more than a paragraph or three. --Anon

I somewhat agree with both, but I don't think it's very intentionally non-neutral so much as just not very well fleshed out.

purpose?
What is the purpose of this article in the first place? How is it helping the reader at all? K-UNIT 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)