Talk:Politico-media complex

An acknowledgement
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)

Corrections/links I was adding to the debate as Daniel axed the (deletion) banner

 * The Campbell I was referring to was, of course, Alastair Campbell, Blair's chief spin doctor.
 * The diaries I'm talking about are those written by Campbell as he tries to 'push through' the politico-media complex his version of events ('victors' 'n history 'n all that).
 * The war is the one that continues in Iraq.
 * The 'red-top' particularly 'gung-ho': The Sun.
 * 'fine C in C' should have been 'our Dear Leader, that fine C-in-C.'
 * 'Vom Kreig' should have been 'Vom Kriege.'

Dsmith1usa 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Appreciation Society
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)

Recent edits
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. especially shrill where the dead are white people.}}

Refs
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)

The Editor known as Block

 *  Dear Block. I'm a bit tired of dealing with you. You've shown no cooperation on dealing with an early article of my origination in the face of you declaring it should be deleted. Now I know we had our workouts in Natascha Engel, especially when when she's been given her reward through Peter Hain, but I did start to get an impression that you would come to work with me and with the ideal of keeping us Wiki 'neophytes' in line, as we know stuff, and we try to work. However, the understanding that we come to is that the likes of all you 'grand editors' is that you are obstructionists and frightened. That's because of all the bollocks you let go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. Have a look at Consensus, Civility and Assume good faith and see if you've got anything that will help solve the issue. As for the personal attacks, No personal attacks might prove helpful. All the best, Hiding Talk 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WQA Response
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. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns KieferSkunk and indeed I'm not happy that I have had to appear to become a little more strong willed in the face of, for me at least, Block's awkwardness (scientists know something like this as, 'The Law of the Cussedness of Nature,' or, alternatively, 'There's always at least one, isn't there?') I'm devoting just a little bit more time on here, to dealing with Block, in the politest possible terms (under the circumstances), to illustrate some of the errors of his ways ... hypocrisy and double standards kind of sum it all up. I believe this entire record should be kept and kept public so that contributors - newbies especially - can find source on what they may be letting themselves in for. Dsmith1usa 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC) (There, this time I remembered, apologies Jossi for not signing the above.)


 * I disagree that this is the way to go - having this here can poison the atmosphere on Wikipedia unnecessarily and may also be violating both WP:NPA and WP:POINT (the latter talks about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). It does not lead to balanced discussions moving toward consensus - rather, it seeks to polarize the community against one editor, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Regardless of how you, or any number of editors, feel about a specific editor, you should bring up personal disputes about the editor's tactics either on their own Talk page, or in dispute-resolution forums such as Wikiquette Alerts or informal mediation.  (Sorry for the delay in responding - been mostly offline for a couple of days.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aaahhh ... the Wiki word of 'majick:' consensus. 'N then inspiring usages as: '... balanced discussions moving towards consensus.' With respect, KieferSkunk, you're indulging in some smoke with mirrors 'n handwaving. Since, whenever, has 'consensus' been some sort of guarantee of guidance towards ... what IS? (True/just ... etc. etc.) I'd bet that, on history's scale, 'consensus' is a miserable failure. The 'Triangle Trade' was a matter of 'community consensus' among those who participated, as was the Holocaust. But, anyway, that it is a comforting fiction of human understanding is neither here nor there. It's, well, what can I say, sooo subjective ... and thus by Wiki's own 'standards' unencyclopaedic. Grudging acceptance maybe ;-)


 * The idea of 'consensus' as being an aspect of 'mediocrity,' a kind of 'dumbing down' is featured in a recent R4 docu. on Wiki:


 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/radio4choice.shtml


 * Download 'n it should play for ya.


 * I, too, have been away, and apologize for my delay in getting back. Be sure, that I will respond to your later contribution.


 * N.B. There are parallels in this argumentation between 'consensus' in Wiki and 'democracy' as it plays in the West. Particularly how the 'poor/weak' plebs are 'allowed' to manifest their reasoning in the face of the 'rich/strong' equestrians/aristos. Dsmith1usa 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is not that you have to necessarily agree with consensus, and I'm not trying to tell you what the consensus is on this article. My point is that a section in an article Talk page titled "The editor known as Block", deliberately calling this person out in an uncivil tone, is a violation of several policies on Wikipedia, and it is NOT helping things here.  As I said earlier, it seeks to polarize editors against one another, and it poisons the collaborative atmosphere.  A discussion about Hiding's editing style and/or the quality of his edits should be taken to his own Talk page, but should not be brought up here.  Discussion on this page should be limited to the topic of the article.  (I am off-topic, too, but that is for the purpose of informing all parties about the policies.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I fold my response to this in with my response to your later contribution, Dsmith1usa 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

On Quantification (existential/universal: there exists/for all)
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:
 * Galloglass
 * Block
 * Blacketer

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)
 * I'm finding it hard to cut through the text up above to work out what your germane point is regards this article and the content of it, but what I'm basing my objections on are the guidance offered on writing Wikipedia articles. With regards the term "some", and the substantiation of the phrase through reference to one journalist, I'm leaning on Avoid weasel words.  If we can keep the discussion to the content of this article, as suggested above, that would be helpful. Hiding Talk 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dsmith: See my more recent reply to the WQA section above. The way you've worded your retort either violates or is close to violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and/or WP:POINT.  Hiding has made some valid points, as have you, but I see a genuine effort on Block's part to keep the discussion civil and free of direct personal references, whereas I can't say the same for you. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Folded responses to KieferSkunk
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)


 * Okay, I find this entire response to be highly inappropriate, and it shows that there is nothing more I personally can do to help out with the situation. I will be referring this dispute to a more appropriate forum, and will no longer be involved in the dispute myself. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to 'critics' (as employed by Block)
Names -> no names -> (Some) Critics -> explicitly quantifying (two)... LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)


 * Dsmith: This is your last warning. Stop with the personal attacks now or you will be reported to the Admin Noticeboard. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A Project
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

"To Do" List
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


 * That looks like a good plan, I like that you will try to set and keep your own internal deadlines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline
I. Pre-classical Period

II. Classical Period


 * Frank Capra: American Politics and the Individual


 * Overtly political films have never been popular in the U.S. despite the strong patriotism and nationalism of Americas (Hjort and Mackenzie 32). Besides Frank Capra, no other major American film-maker has seriously presented central themes of citizenship, participation, and responsibility in civic life.  Lindholm and Hall, in "Frank Capra Meets John Doe," connect the failure of his project to "develop a positive American cinematic vocabulary for political action" with what they argue are "fundamental contradictions in American national identity" (32). After a period of depression, Capra resolved to inspire Americans "by reaffirming and updating national myths in his films" (33).


 * Capra's films from that point on were characterized by the same basic formula according to which the fundamental American values of fairness and honesty are challenged by the corruption and cruelty of the city and government. During his presidential campaign Ronald Reagan later extensively quoted the speech made by Mr. Deeds in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) when he makes a passionate speech that wins everyone over at the trial in which he is accused of insanity.  He calls for "charity and individual goodness -- combined with a distaste for the complexities of political life" (34).  His next film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) reinforced these values as well as the American faith in the legal system the integrity and decency of the everyman versus the power and the crookedness of special interest groups, hence constructing a myth of the American everyman hero who is able to defeat corporate evil (34-35).  John Doe (1941), which ads went to great pains to market as the true everyman representative of the American public conformed again to Capra's formula, but without the strong family roots and initially amoral, a reflection on America's ambivalence toward social life (36).  The ideal of the power of individualism and the fluidity of social mobility abound.  Capra promotes the free man's ability to take up the responsibilities and obligations that come with a social conscience the community and state. After Joe realizes his need for others, he discovers and attempts to expose a fascist bidder for presidency planning to take advantage of his club support, but he fails in the midst of a violent mob with the depressing conclusion that the American public is a credulous crowd susceptible to manipulation until the John Doe club members come begging his forgiveness and convince him to return to lead them.


 * The unsuccessful ending discouraged any more political films for Capra and no films of merit after It's a Wonderful Life and he said in old age that all American film-makers should forget politics if they don't want to cut themselves in half (40). Alexis de Tocqueville elaborates on what Capra apparently assumed as well: "[T]he egalitarian individualist is inevitably disconnected from the world of society and politics" and the "major theme of American social thought...is how to relate the isolated individual to the larger social whole" (41).  Tocqueville, however, argued that without some kind of religious faith, the institutions responsible for instilling civic virtue in citizens, as Capra was attempting to do through the media of film, would be ultimately ineffective.


 * Lindholm and Hall conclude with the observation that "the problems that defeated Capra have also undercut later attempts by American film-makers to portray the complex relationship between individualism and citizenship in the United States" and say that Hollywood has instead adopted the paranoia of politics that Capra had tried to overcome (42). Consequently, political films in the U.S. have followed a trend of focusing on the flawed character of leaders, such as Citizen Kane (1940) and Nixon (1995), or otherwise show the corruption of power, such as in The Candidate (1972) and Primary Colors (1998).  Other films like A Face in a Crowd (1957) and All the King's Men (1949) follow John Doe's warning.  JFK (1991) and The Manchurian Candidate (1962), on the other hand, are based on the premise that democracy is an illusion and Americans are the ignorant pawns of various conspiracies.

24.3.16.134 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

III. Post-modern Period


 * The United States: Hollywood


 * "...the complexity and dynamics of class struggle, have been treated by mass culture in terms that both depoliticize and flatten the contradictions inherent in such relationships. In other words, the concept of class has been reduced to predictable formulas that represent forms of ideological shorthand.  Needless to say, Hollywood has played no small role in dealing with class-based issues in such a way as to strip them of any critical social meaning" (Giroux 19).


 * "It might be more fruitful to view Hollywood ideology less as a result of conscious lies than as a worldview so closely related to the dominant structures of production that the relationship is not a conscious matter of reflection" (Giroux 20). Giroux argues that prevailing ideology is so powerful and ubiquitous that it is going unquestioned by those in power, although he also admits that there are some exceptions. One of these exceptions is Norma Rae (1979), a film that presents a truer representation of the complexities and politics of the working-class struggle and culture at the level of everyday life.

Ecr6 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Even just 30 years after Dachau and Auschwitz, the thinly disguised fascist propaganda Italian film The Night Porter (1974) sought to legitimize the Nazis' genocide, while glorifying sadism, brutality, and machismo (Giroux 29). What amazes Giroux is that such blatant ideological messages were ignored by critics and the general public.  That society may be incapable of testing the present against the past has implications for post-industrial oppression in the West and the strategies for resisting it.  Despite the writings of Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, and Paulo Freire, the majority of Americans (at least) do not recognize the how important "class hegemony" (cultural domination) is in nations where populations are kept obedient through ideological means (Giroux 31).  He argues, "We are not only victims in the political and material sense, but are also tied emotionally and intellectually to the prevailing ruling-class norms and values" (31).

Ecr6 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IV. Actors-turned-politicians


 * For a more thorough list of actor-politicians, refer to List of actor-politicians.

Topics of political aspects and purposes of films to be discussed:


 * Propaganda


 * Nationalism


 * Political Campaigns


 * Reform Movements

Ecr6 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Liz R.

Resources
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


 * Nice selection, but you will have to decide how are you going to deal with the above source. Which of the above seem most useful and why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to thoroughly peruse them all yet, but Cinema and Nation, Uncivil Nation, Political Film, and Remapping World Cinema seem the best right now, as they seem to present a more global perspective and are contemporary texts. I am thinking that texts specifically on the U.S. and other countries will be worth looking at, too, but I'll start with those.  We thought it was a good idea for us to have at least a list together of promising texts so that we've all at least gotten started.  Once I check out the others more closely, I'll be able to edit the list.  I'll probably come across more to add, too, for viewers' further reading, even if I don't personally use them all for the page.  Ecr6 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline
I. Community Radio

II. International Radio

Internal Topics to Discuss:

ColleenHelen (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Foundations of Community Radio
 * Community Radio's influence on Elections
 * Historical Radio Propaganda
 * Radio and the Spread of Democracy
 * Current Role of Radio in Developing World

Extended Outline
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)

Resources
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)

Outline
(will be posted later)

Resources
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)

Outline
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:"


 * Bias and press manipulation

Resources
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

Politics and the Media: The Role of Television
I. Television and Politics
 * Lang, Kurt and Gladys Engel. “Television and Politics.”

II. The Role of Television in the American Presidential Elections
 * Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. “Presidential Selection.”


 * "Presidential election campaigns center on television."


 * When news programs do not catch the public's eey, televised political advertising does."


 * "Television has transformed the candidates' campaigns."


 * In the early 1960s, however, network television increased its newscasts to the present thirty-minute format and greatly expanded its news-gathering capacity. Presidential candidates then had a medium tailored to their needs. Because the network audience was national, network news became the center of journalistic coverage of national politics -- particularly presidential politics."


 * "The way Ameriacns choose their presidents has been studied exhaustively."


 * "Innovations in the mass media have always affected political processes, but never moe so than recently."


 * McCombs, Maxwell E. and Shaw, Donald L. "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media."


 * "In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position. In reflecting what candidates are saying during a campaign, the mass media may well determine the important issues—that is, the media may set the "agenda" of the campaign."


 * "The power of the news media to set a nation’s agenda, to focus public attention on a few key public issues, is an immense and well-documented influence. Not only do people acquire factual information about public affairs from the news media, readers and viewers also learn how much importance to attach to a topic on the basis of the emphasis placed on it in the news. Newspapers provide a host of cues about the salience of the topics in the daily news – lead story on page one, other front page display, large headlines, etc. Television news also offers numerous cues about salience – the opening story on the newscast, length of time devoted to the story, etc. These cues repeated day after day effectively communicate the importance of each topic. In other words, the news media can set the agenda for the public’s attention to that small group of issues around which public opinion forms."


 * "In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position. In re¬flecting what candidates are saying during a campaign, the mass media may well determine the important issues—that is, the media may set the "agenda" of the campaign."


 * Shenkan, Rick. “Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.”


 * "...as American voters have gained politcal power in the last 50 years, they have become increasingly ignorant of politics and world affairs - and dangerously susceptible to manipulation."


 * "...he illustrates how politicians have repeatedly misled voters and analyzes the dumbing down of American politics via marketing, spin machines, and misinformation."


 * "“Americans are getting what little information they have about the candidates from 30-second commercials, and that's insufficient as a basis for deciding how you're going to vote and what you think about our politics. In the past, people got most of their information from newspapers—that was a much better source.”


 * “In a competitive capitalistic society like ours, where there is a great emphasis on entertainment, people are not inclined to sit down and study a newspaper and figure out what's actually going on in politics. That leads to very superficial politics.”


 * “The book argues that although the American government has gained global political power since the late 20th century, American voters have become increasingly ignorant of politics and world affairs, and are dangerously susceptible to political manipulation.”

III. Political Influence on Religion via Television
 * Rajagopal, Arvind. “Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India.”


 * “In this book, Arvind Rajagopal examines the many articulations of Hindu nationalism during the late 1980s and 1990s in India. In particular, he analyzes the hegemonic role of the Ram Janmabhumi (Birthplace of Ram) movement in shaping discourses about national and cultural identities through the 1990s to the present.”


 * “ His study is a very substantial analysis of contemporary Indian public culture and the role of the media in the discursive constructions of national, cultural, class, and regional identity. The author's careful study of the Ram project as it was played out in the English and Hindi language print media, even as it found its initial impetus on national television, points to the importance of conducting culturally specific studies.”


 * “… analyses of media and public cultures in contemporary India to emerge in recent times.”


 * “… to explore the ways in which a particular media text is deployed within a specific sociohistorical context. It is the meanings that emerge at the site of interaction between texts, contexts, and historical actors that speak more clearly to the role of media in contemporary society.”


 * “Given Rajagopal's argument that the national telecast of the Hindu religious epic Ramayan during the late 1980s prepared much of the ideological ground for the launch of the Ram Janmabhumi movement, one finds the title rather provocative. Defending his title, Rajagopal states, "Television profoundly changes the context of politics. But to treat it thereafter as center and source point of influence is misleading ... There is an institutional break between production and reception, and between the dispersed regions of message interpretation and the indirect modes of its use. Accordingly, no law-like patterns of influence are likely to be discerned ... Television's influence, has then, to be presumed rather than discovered, contra media effects research, as the backdrop, stage, and vehicle of social interaction" (24).”


 * “… investigate the cultural and political economy of television in contemporary India.”


 * “Rajagopal's discussion of television revolves around the industrial and cultural politics of the serialized epic Ramayan. The serial, which generated unprecedented viewership, was based on the epic story of the Hindu god Ram and aired on Doordarshan, India's state-run television…”


 * “Rajagopal makes a very interesting point about the politics of the serial's broadcast on narional television. Given India's ideal of a secular government, the broadcast, sponsored by the ruling Congress government, represented a move away from nonpartisan government institutions. The author argues that the Congress exhibited media naivete when it assumed that the mere sponsorship of the epic would aid its electoral future by bringing in the majority Hindu vote. Instead it was the electorally weak Hindu nationalist political body, the Bharariya Janata Party (BJP), that cashed in on the serial's popularity, and it did so by steering clear of the simplistic media effects framework that clearly did not work for the Congress. The BJP articulated a complex relationship between the televised Hindu epic and its own Hindu nationalist beliefs; it mobilized the public around the symbol of Ram, the lead figure of the serial, but strategically reworked the symbol via the Ram Janmabhumi movement to articulate cultural authenticity, national belonging, and a renewed sense of national purpose and direction. Articulating the temple restoration project within its electoral promise, the BJP, not surprisingly, went on to form the national government in the next general elections.”


 * “They created a public voice for it by skillfully using both the media and the market; for example, they invoked images from the televised Ramayan at public rallies and "retailed" Hindu identity by creating commodities such as stickers, buttons, and audio tapes around the key figure of Ram. By engineering spectacular public events around the temple issue, the Hindu nationalists created a new public agenda for a majority of the citizens.”


 * “Central to that success was the strategic use of media…In the chapter titled "Prime-Time Religion" Rajagopal argues that the televised epic negotiated the tension between the past and the present at many levels. One could see it, for example, in the reworking of the epic story to fit the conventions of commercial television.”


 * “… the televised epic recast the story in a contemporary vein. Moreover, the suggestion of an ideal Hindu society carried particular resonance for the contemporary social context. Furthermore, laced by twenty minutes of advertising before and after, the serial skillfully reconstructed the past through technologies of the present.”


 * “…in particular, he maps out the ways in which television in postcolonial India operated as a symbol of modernity, "a new mode of communication, and a certain kind of thinginess, a desirable commodity pointing to other desirable commodities" (123).”


 * “The author states, "Although television created a context for collective awareness, the footprint of the medium was large at this time (1987-91), with only one government-run channel available across much of the country. The speed and sensitivity with which television could respond to signals from popular audiences was severely limited for these reasons; in effect, electronic programming did not go much beyond the face of Hindu tele-epics during this period" (170).”

IV. Television and Politics Around the World
 * Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Dramas of Nationhood: The Politics of Television in Egypt.”


 * "...a fantastic cultural form that binds together the Egyptian nation - television serials. These melodramatic programs - like soap operas but more closely tied to political and social issues than their Western counterparts. . .the shifting politics of these serials and the way their contents both reflect and seek to direct the changing course of Islam, gender relations, and everyay life in this Middle Eastern nation."


 * "...makes a case for the importance of studying television to answer larger questions about culture, power, and modern self-fashionings. Abu-Lughod explores the elements of developmentalist ideology and the visions of national progress that once dominated Egyptian television - now experiencing a crisis.  She discusses the braodcasts...the depictions of authentic national culture, to the debates inflamed by their deliberate strategies for combating religious extremism."


 * Hamamoto, Darrell Y. “Monitored Peril: Asian Americans and the Politics of TV Representation.”


 * Semetko, Holli A. and Valenburg, Patti M. “Framing European Politics: A content Analysis of Press and Television News.”


 * “Our results showed that, overall, the attribution of responsibility frame was most commonly used in the news…”


 * “Framing analysis shares with agenda-setting research a focus on the relationship between public policy issues in the news and the public perceptions of these issues. However, framing analysis "expands beyond agenda-setting research into what people talk or think about by examining how they think and talk about issues in thenews" ( Pan & Kosicki, 1993, p. 70, emphasis in the original).”


 * “News frames are "concep¬tual tools which media and individuals rely on to convey, interpret and evaluate information" (Neuman et al., 1992, p. 60). They set the parameters "in which citizens discuss public events" (Tuchman, 1978, p. IV). They are "persistent selec¬tion, emphasis, and exclusion" ( Gitlin, 1980 , p. 7). Framing is selecting "someaspects of a perceived reality" to enhance their salience "in such a way as topromote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation,and/or treatment recommendation" ( Entman, 1993 , p. 53). Frames are to helpaudiences "locate, perceive, identify, and label" the flow of information aroundthem (Goffman, 1974, p. 21) and to "narrow the available political alternatives"(Tuchman, 1978, p. 156).”


 * “…a framing effect is "one in which salient attributes of a message (its organization, selection of content, or thematic structure) render particular thoughts applicable, resulting in their activation and use in evaluations" ( Price et al., 1997, p. 486). Experiments with question wording, for example, show that the framing of choices can have profound consequences for respondents' perception of risk ( Kahneman, 1984; Kahneman & Tversky, 1982). Frames have also been shown to shape public perceptions of political issues or institutions.”

V. Conclusion

Resources
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

A Definition for Politico-media Complex
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)

Question for Jess
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)

Early draft review
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 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyze (A) (British: analyse), analyse (B) (American: analyze), skillful (A) (British: skilful), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * Aovid contractions (ex. don't), if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
 * Book references need page numbers. Website references need more information than just a pure html link. See WP:CITE, WP:FOOTNOTES and WP:RS for more info.

Page numbers
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)

Question for Megan
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)


 * Lists of bullet points, and tons of quotes are going to give you guys problems during the GA review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. The "Television" section needs de-bulleting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:26, 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)


 * Just "Television" would be best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It has a good heading; there is no need for the subheading that follows it. I am glad to see you are already thinking about standardizing your sections; a uniform look is important for a Good Article. PS. A nitpick - I'd move the film section next to the television one; and the radio between print and those sections (for a logical and chronological structure). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. Of course that makes more sense.  I'm not sure what my original logic was for that.  Ecr6 (talk) 17:39, 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)

Extra Help
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)
 * Excellent. For your quick reference: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Media, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just taking a quick glance without actually reading it. Every sentence should have a reference.  It's OK if a ref covers several sentences in a row, but stuff like "Middle Eastern print media is mainly paid for by private funders, either a specific family or specific government party. These newspapers and magazines are rather obvious in their political ties, and display the politico-media complex nicely." needs a ref.
 * All single sentence paragraphs should be merged into multiple sentence paragraphs. Like "Most of the International papers present in the world today are national papers re-edited for a wider audience."
 * The "Television" section needs to be a summary of the sources, not a bunch of quotes.
 * Page numbers are needed for all references that go to something with a lot of pages, like with “Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India.”
 * That should give you something to do. Be aware that the article will be judged as a whole, so if the person who did the "Television" section doesn't fix the problems in that section, someone else will have to do it (for instance).  Ask any question here below, if you have them.  I helped on the last school assignment (specifically on Reborn doll), and most of the issues were the same, if you want to look at how the process went that time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I worked on Reborn Doll because it was one of the best articles done by that class, and it looks like this article is one of the better ones of this class. Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the encouragement and feedback! I am trying to get a hold of the author for Television.  I'll get on top of those issues pronto. Ecr6 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research

 * As much as the ladies are to be commended for their enthusiasm, IMHO much of this work needs to be examined for OR. I understand this from my past personal engagements ... I suppose you learn the hard way.
 * For example, the opening contribution on 'print' makes the assertion that it is 'failing.' Well, yes, but it was the Daily Telegraph and the 'print media' that made the major disclosures (having 'bought' the info. admittedly) on the corruption in the Parliament of the UK. The blogs didn't have the wherewithall ( Guido [ a major UK blogger] tried but failed to buy the info. I recall). I also understand that an award was made to the Daily Telegraph at some journalist assembly in Spain that was saying precisely opposite to what the (Group 8) ladies are asserting in that print is 'declining.' No ... it is alive and well and doing its job - half of the UK Commons is going to have to go after the effects of the Daily Telegraph. So sorry ladies, (again IMHO), you are wrong in making such a blanket assertion about the failing of powers of the so-called 'dead-tree' press.
 * Lomcevak (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Such an assertion ("print media is failing" or similar) should be backed up by a reference saying so, and of course, it needs to be presented in due weight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Lomcevak (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, those are good points. I'm sorry what are IMHO and OR?  Ecr6 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO is chatspeak for "in my humble opinion". OR refers to WP:No original research, which basically means that they believe what you're saying is not backed up by the sources that are present, and that you're analyzing/synthesizing information to present your own opinion. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Before Good Article Review
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:
 * Let's be honest, our citations are a bit of a mess
 * We need to write lead paragraph, I think the definition is okay, but the rest of the lead needs work
 * Our prose could probably use some editing, though I haven't looked too closely (for advice on Wikipedia style definitely try the user pages Piotr recommended. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing was particularly helpful for me)
 * We need more images, if everyone could try to upload one or two we should be all set

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)


 * I edited the multiple citations, and added a start to the lead paragraph. Also, I'm starting to add pictures.  Feel free to make changes.
 * ColleenHelen (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for adding the images! I honestly tried and kept running into troubles. Ecr6 (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah... thanks for the images. Airp89 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Once you figure out how to put them in its super easy.  I actually had a friend help me out, he's in engineering and actually understands programming.  The hardest part was finding suitable images since our topic is so theoretical.  If you find anything you think is better suited let me know and we can change it. ColleenHelen (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think File:Asharq-alawsat28112009.png is going to be against our WP:NFCC rules. We'll probably worry about that later.  File:Thenightporter.jpg is going to give you trouble.  It will probably be easiest to just remove it.  If you feel it's important, I can help you figure out a way to keep it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been looking for pictures to replace the troublesome images, but the most relevant images always seem to say reproducible with proper attribution. Can we use such images?  If so, how would we properly attribute them?  ColleenHelen (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To use a copyrighted image, you need to be specifically discussing the image itself. Not using the image to illustrate something else.  You can use free images however you want.  Commons has nothing but free images.  Free images have public domain, certain creative commons, or GFDL licenses. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the two pictures you think will give us trouble. We're working on finding replacement pictures, but I think because of the nature of the topic we're having a tough time finding relevant, free use images.  Do you think we need more pictures, or are the current ones sufficient? ColleenHelen (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck ...
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)

Using templates and makes it much easier
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 and this;, then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in  and to ref page 21 use

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: this will automatically list all the '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:. 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.

What would Chomsky say ?
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)?


 * Noam Chomsky has suggested that "military-industrial complex" is a misnomer because (as he considers it) the phenomenon in question "is not specifically military."[8] He claims, "There is no military-industrial complex: it's just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext (defense was a pretext for a long time)."[9]

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)


 * I had no idea, but it would be fascinating to hear what he had to say. That's a very compelling argument for me and I'll definitely see about sending him a letter.  Thanks!  Ecr6 (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea! When you send him a letter, ask him for a permission to reproduce it here (you can scan it or you can ask him to reply to you by email). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's another one ... Peter Oborne who does express the reality (well published). It was Peter, BTW, who was one of the driving forces ... through 'dead tree' exposing massive corruption in (our) UK Parliament ... said Parliament now soon to be removed from power - through the law - by the British People (and as Oliver Cromwell said, 'For God's Sake Go!!)
 * Peter is also very accessible ... and have any of you taken a picture ... his entry is wanting. But I'm sure you'de find a link-up with him extremely helpful in corroborating corroborating your arguments. Lomcevak (talk) 11:23, 24 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)
 * An excellent idea, but why not proofread the entire thing? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Site Under Attack
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)


 * What do you mean? I see no vandalism anywhere in the history of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not on the main, as far as I could see (at the time), but here on discussion ... it came from 'nowhere' as I was in edit ... so it's a mystery to me too ... but then I'm not a 'Wiki Guru' so to speak ... but I did my best to restore ... and I'm still scratching my head as to what was going off ...Lomcevak (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the attack either, but we appreciate your defense! Ecr6 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Liz
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)

Help...
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)

Platitudes
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.:


 * The nature of the politico-media complex evolved as societies, and their media, have transformed.

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)
 * Certainly a good MOS advice; I find User:Tony1/How to improve your writing quite useful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean. Thank you for deleting that one quote.  I'll look for others.

Ecr6 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The PMC began in early newspapers ... OR ...
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)


 * "The PMC began in early newspapers" is a statement from the lead. Lead should summarize content of article. I am not seeing that claim, however, in the sections that follow (which is what Lomcevak means by WP:OR - original research, claims unbacked by references). This is a problem. It is indeed important to answer where and when did the PMC begun, but such a claim needs to be referenced (it is fine if it is only referenced in the body of the article - lead doesn't have to have citations, unless they can be seen as controversial; I guess in this case if a citation is found for that claim, it can be added to the lead as well). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Print media served as the original method of sharing news to the masses ...
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)


 * Another claim in dire needs of referencing. There was communication between print. Now, printing was important and profound, yes, but I would disagree with "Print media served as the original method of sharing news to the masses". Perhaps if we qualify this with something about scale. But before the print, news spread - heralds, gossip, whatnot (and of course, invention of print didn't mean much if people where illiterate - hence three centuries after Gutenberg, during French Revolution, we still see a lot of confused peasants who couldn't read leaflets and such, and didn't know what was going on, save for gossip). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree: this statement certainly isn't correct. While we can all agree that print media revolutionized the spread of information, it definitely wasn't the original method of doing such. Like you both have said, before print media, communication was verbal. Therefore, this statement needs to be changed to reflect this and cited. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are definitely correct, we'll remove the claim in the lead and we'll fix the lead to better summarize the article.ColleenHelen (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do that, and address other issues raised, as soon as possible. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect I was censored ... and now you will find ... with respect ... you have been censored ... please don't do that ... and please be careful on unverifiable stuff that you seem to have a propensity to do here ... this is not a place to begin to compose PhD's Lomcevak (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were not censored; you were reverted - your comment was violating WP:BITE. Please respect other editors, or at least don't discuss them - discuss the article instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to improve the lead, by removing everything that seemed to be OR or controversial, and I also tried to make it a better summary of the article. Any more APPROPRIATE and RELEVANT advice would be greatly appreciated.  (We may be new, but we know the difference between constructive advice and personal attacks.)ColleenHelen (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First ... please don't SHOUT at me like this. I was making legitimate challenge ... not just AT YOU ... do you understand(?) ... it's just the syndrome... engaging like an 'I speak your weight' machine ... I'm fed-up with it (especially right now) ... second I was censored... look at the Discussion entries ... discussion entries should be left there to stand, with evidence ... regardless of what you and your 'Professors' want ... IHMO (remember that Helen) ... I stand by my words ... You've made a MESS over something that should be simple ... ( now there I'm SHOUTING back at you) ... If I were grading you ... FAILED ... emotions running hard ... now I'm tired and buggering off ('scuse my English)... for family reasons best known to others ... Regardless ... I still wish you and G8 the best ... please forgive my fractionable behavior right now ...Lomcevak (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: there's a discussion about this article and Lomcevak now on ANI here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lead
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,
 * "Yet, people simply talking to each other is what may be called the politico-media complex - about their concerns - about the world."

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)


 * I suggest you add a short section on pre-electronic media institutions. Here's a good ref: . Here's another one to avoid accusations of Western (American) bias (and here is one relevant to Europe). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Colleen, is the second sentence of the lead supposed to begin with "Asserted"? Ecr6 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No its not. It does sound a little awkward.  I'll fix that now, it slipped by me, I didn't think anyone had changed that sentence since I had cited it, but I guess not.  ColleenHelen (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'External links' section
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)

Sections that should be removed?
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)
 * I took out a bunch of Capra stuff, but do you think more is necessary? Ecr6 (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also went through the television and presidential elections section to relate it more thoroughly to the complex, but I'm running out of time to do the rest. If everyone could do that with the other sections we'll be much better off. Ecr6 (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a look at the newsprint section, and I think the Capra section is better, but it gives me the overall impression of how the media is trying to influence politics, instead of politics influencing the media, which is I suppose why the section is called "antipolitics" maybe if that connection was a little clearer, it would fit better into the definition of the PMC? 130.49.23.207 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I went over the print and made some big structural changes, and hopefully made it more relevant to the PMC, but there's only so much I can do with my limited knowledge of the subject. Other than that, sorry a couple of my posts were unsigned.  I was logged out, and forgot to log back in, and couldn't for the life of me figure out why when I put 4 tildes it wouldn't sign my name, just a bunch of numbers.ColleenHelen (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks better and no problem. I thought that was you.  I'll go back and clarify the Capra section. Ecr6 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations/Footnotes
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)

Criticism
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)

original research
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)

Article Evaluation (for a class)
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.

Matthewdrago (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article
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)