Talk:State media

Request for Consensus on Edit
This line: "The press in the United States, Canada and Australia has always been the responsibility of the private commercial sector since its inception." is ridiculous. Canada and Australia's largest broadcasters are legally under the ownership of the State. I have independently reviewed the cited reference and can find no evidence the above phrase exists in the cited page, or the preceding or following pages. I request consensus for editing of this phrase to delete Canada and Australia. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. The ABC is controlled by the ABC Board, which is appointed by the government of the day. While I agree that this is often problematic, to say that the ABC is the largest broadcaster is, I'm afraid, just not true. Most of the media in Australia is produced by the commercial sector. I cannot comment on the Canadian system as I don't know anything about it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm curious as to whether you did indeed review that source. On page 3 it reads:
 * "In the Western European countries, opening up the market to competition represents a significant change, as there had previously been a monopoly of so-called public broadcasting in most of these countries. However, in the United States, Canada and Australia, broadcasting was the responsibility of the private commercial sector from its very inception. In these countries, public broadcasting emerged later, originally in the form of educational broadcasting. Such a duopoly of public and private broadcasting first began to develop at the beginning of the 1930s in Australia and shortly thereafter in North America. It did not reach Europe until 1954 when the British broadcasting system was set up."
 * Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang. Regulating Media: The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in Six Countries. Guilford Press, 1996. ISBN 978-1572300293, page 3.
 * Something tells me you didn't read that source at all. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Beeb
There's all the right wing drivel deriding North Korea and Xinhua but nothing's been written about that tyranical state-run monolith, spewing propaganda to all corners of the world from there sinister base in 'Shepherd's Bush'. I am of course talking about the BBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.101.132 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fix that grammar, it's right-wing with a hyphen! --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * What is that supposed to mean, because the word tight was not mentioned, nor stated within the first comment of this talk section. They did use the term RIGHT as in right-wing drivel though. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * This is not directly relevant to the matter under discussion (I am also unconvinced by the supposed distinction between "state" [biased] and "public" [neutral] broadcasting, for what it's worth), but I believe the unsigned comment above is jokingly alluding to a somewhat infamous remark made by Bill Clinton during impeachment proceedings: "it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is".
 * In this instance, I think the implication of that allusion is something like the following:
 * "Whether or not you classify a given state-owned broadcaster as 'state-controlled' depends in large part on how tightly you regard the broadcaster to be 'controlled' by the state." Because Wikipedia upholds a distinction between "state" and "public" broadcasters, this sentiment is attributed to "Slick Jimmy, presumably".
 * In the original context, Clinton was attempting to defend, on obscure, technical grounds, what most people would take to be an obvious lie. I would hesitate to conclude, therefore, that the author of the unsigned comment is necessarily defending the distinction in question. It's a characterisation of existing Wikipedia policy, rather than a personal commentary on the dispute. Foxmilder (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

BBC isn't independent.
The BBC isn't really free of reproach themselves. It was reported in the past that the BBC screened it's editorial candidates to make sure they were suitable by the Mi5 central intelligence agency of the U.K. government.


 * BBC used MI5 to vet pacifist staff
 * The vetting files: How the BBC kept out ‘subversives’
 * THE BBC WORKED DIRECTLY WITH MI5 TO BAR LEFT-WING JOURNALISTS AND PREVENT A LEFT-WING BRITISH GOVERNMENT

This is hardly a 'gold standard'. CaribDigita (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A
— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

State media vs. public broadcasting
"Not to be confused with public broadcasting and public sector media (state-funded), which is funded directly or indirectly by the state or government but over which the state or government does not have editorial control." What is the proof for this distinction exactly? What is the evidence "public broadcasters" are free from the editorial control of their funders and legal owners in the state? Seems just that if you like the country, it's a "public broadcaster", but if you don't like the country then it's "state media". Would either of these articles care to explain what happens at a totally independent "public broadcaster" when it starts attacking its own government? Would someone survive long at a BBC news desk, for example, if they urged another country to invade the UK? VolatileChemical (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

'State' vs. 'public broadcasting' media
@Gsgdd State and public broadcasting have different definitions according to the first few google results I got. and also in this journal article I found. And 'state media' is usually used with a negative connotation. (Which may not be a definitive argument, I grant, but does nevertheless have to be refuted with higher quality sources.)

Also, I don't grant the premise that Facebook is a reliable source in defining 'state media'. It's a company, and it will define things in a way as to be convenient for them. Specifically, so that when an argument over content restrictions comes up they can point at their content policies with little argument over inclusion of a particular case as 'state media'.

Additionally, the sources in the lead (that are not Facebook) all talk about state media in the context of editorial control.

An early proposal for a compromise would be to move the page to something more definitive like 'state-run media', an example use would be this, higher quality, source. JackTheSecond (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I, too, could mention that the article on public broadcasting, well, is a thing that exists. ~ JackTheSecond (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, and I'm seeing this only now, both of your Facebook sources never mention 'state media', only ever 'state-controlled media'. JackTheSecond (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hay - did you read the categories section ? everything i wrote is based on the source which was already in use before i edited the page. A state media is a broad term. State-Controlled Media, State-Managed Media, Independent Public Service Media and Independent State-Funded comes under state media. Their differences are explained there. If a media - is financially depended on the state - then it can be influenced by state - even though it may be editorially independent. Please take a look at the pdf which is the primary source.
 * Also look at this page (state media) history. You will see financial dependency is factor in defining state media.
 * I dont think we can move this page to state-run media - which is something that is fully under control of the state ( both financially and editorially)
 * This is a complicated topic. I agree we cannot trust/use FB as a source. I will research to find more reputed sources and scholarly articles.
 * We cannot use some of the links from your quoted references as well. Its not reliable Gsgdd (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I learned something about how broad the term can be defined as. I would still maintain, though, that we need to be careful about how we phrase the lead section and immediately explain how broad we define it as--simply because of how the term is used (quite often I feel like) colloquially, and sometimes as shorthand for outlets without editorial independence. And, also, sometimes in uninformed argument. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * okay - let me see what i can do. feel free to edit it as well in the mean time. Gsgdd (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i made a distinction between state media and public service media. i made this change after reading UNESCO document.
 * Unesco definition is little contradictory with the primary source
 * Let me know this resolves your concern. thanks Gsgdd (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I built on your work and adopted the UN's definition as the primary one. I think I'll have a look at the article on editorial independence next... JackTheSecond (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think im not too happy with your recent edits. If you needed to make UNESCO definition as primary - all you needed to do was move the second para to the top. Im okay with it. State media has a loose definition. It is okay to explain both based on the sources.
 * I think my version is also little better because depth and breadth of information.
 * Do you mind if i revert it - i can make UNESCO as primary definition. ty Gsgdd (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I made some changes - will continue to work on it bit later. Gsgdd (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that my inclusion of all 7 categories, without text body, was hasty; but they could be expanded upon for nuance and completeness. And I liked my version a little more ~ I gave authority to the statement 'typically' by saying that it was how the UN uses it, and made clear that other definitions were very technical in nature. Your idea of 'Other definitions' is good though, and explicitly mentioning the UN (or any other organization) is perhaps also a bit... off. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My chief concern was that people might use language differently to make it fit their political beliefs, and referring the authority to the UN and souring it with language used in a UN joint declaration raises the hurdle there. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should adjust Category:State media as well? JackTheSecond (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's auto updated Gsgdd (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I don't mean the Excerpt up top, but what is considered part of the category. Right now BBC, ARD, and ZDF are all part of the category (again). Which is both accurate and not. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont see state-media linked in main BBC page - so its probably fine. We need not link BBC as state media in the main page. I think i have made it clear in the intro the difference between public service media vs state media.
 * Another thing is that - even public service media in US and UK ( that operate with editorial independence ) - government are sometimes able to influence it. It was documented before - especially in times of war.
 * That is why - i think its also fair to say public service media is in some sense also a state media. There is no right and wrong answer here. So this is defined it in other definitions section. Gsgdd (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's linked to in the mark-up of Category:BBC (and others) I'll open a discussion over there, in order to establish a record of the discussion. ~ JackTheSecond (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for helping out with this - it's tricky as state vs. public media seems to a continuum, not unlike democracy vs. autocracy where the categorization can get messy in the middle. Would ask that we not make sweeping statements in the article without multiple different reliable sources supporting them, especially if they contradict other sources Superb Owl (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)