Talk:The Media Elite

An odd definition of "liberal" and other nuclear issues
I was always under the impression that to be "liberal" one needed to have both a left-leaning economic stance and a socially liberal/libertarian stance (or else the people are simply things like classical liberals or libertarians) based on the political compass.

As it stands, the survey contradicts itself by stating that "only 13 per cent of the journalists agreed that large private corporations should be nationalized" and "86 per cent endorsed the statement that 'people with more ability should earn higher salaries'" meaning (although not precisely of course) that most journalists aren't economically left-wing.

Also the whole "liberal media elite" theory seems to overlook how most Editors (people who have the final say in the news) endorsed Bush over gore in 2000 and the 1998 David Croteau study that showed most journalists were to the right of the American public when it came to economic issues.

The whole nuclear issue seems to just reflect the experiences of journalists as a whole. While most scientists would obviously be for nuclear power, journalists have a history of covering things like the bombing of Hiroshima and the three mile island incident which overrides ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.255.117 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate POV cited as NPOV
The book cites a set of far right ideological beliefs and asserts anyone to the left of those far right ideological beliefs is "liberal".

The artificial inclusions include the point of view assertion that non-supporters of nuclear energy are "liberal" and support for homosexuals is "liberal".

In fact, the article appears to say that the book asserts that those that don't think homosexuality is "wrong" are "liberal" which is an extreme right point of view.

There clearly needs to be a criticisms section included.


 * You are welcome to create a criticism section, but please provide references for your claims. Liberal and conservative are relative claims, and this book takes a socially scientific approach, making relative comparisons to views held by the American public, rather than absolute claims about X view being "liberal" or "conservative" in a vacuum. PStrait (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Questionable notability
Does this book meet our requirements for inclusion? The criteria are as follows: As it stands now, the book itself is being used as a primary source to support the article. There is one reference that probably qualifies as acceptable, but generally speaking we need multiple non-trivial treatments to confer notability. See WP:BK for complete requirements. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The book has been the subject (The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.) of multiple, non-trivial ("Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.) published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.  This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.  Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
 * 2) * The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book.  (See Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material).  The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
 * 3) The book has won a major literary award.
 * 4) The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
 * 5) The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools,  universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.  This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.
 * 6) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.  (For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.)
 * The National Review article I think demonstrates it meets this requirement. This book has been substantially debated in the literature.  As I revise the article, I hope this should become apparent.PStrait (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please enumerate which requirement, as listed above, you believe this article passes? Thanks.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-raising this concern after more than a year... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It clearly meets the first criterion. Google scholar identifies 117 articles that cite the book  -- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16396988545532919232&hl=en.  A quick search through political science databases reveal many more.  The Media Institute argues that it is the most cited study of its kind in the 1980s.  Of course, they could be wrong-- maybe its the second most, or in the top 10 -- but the fact that they consider it reasonable enough to assert suggests that it is very well cited. PStrait (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper reference
Wow, the third reference is to a page from Media Research Center, a group that admits to being very partisan. As it stands, this article is very biased and unsubstantiated, much like its subject.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claim and questionable reference removed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence is included not to establish that it is necessarily true, but to establish its notability. Biased or not, if a think-tank believes that it is the most cited study of a decade (an empirical question I might add), that is noteworthy.  I find it terribly disingenuous to assert that the subject of the article is non-notable and then to delete a part of the article that helps to establish its notability.  If you think that the article is biased, then fix it by adding (sourced) material that you feel corrects the bias.  Don't just delete. PStrait (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

tone questions
There is a 'tone' tag at the top of the findings section, which directs me to the talk page, but I don't see any notes here about tone. How should I change it? I wrote it the way I did because it seemed to match the way that other articles about scientific studies were written, but I'm sure it could be improved upon. PStrait (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the article well-written? Yes, but lacking in detail
After reading this article, and comparing it to other Wikipedia articles I have read in the past, I feel that it is well written but could use more information from the novel. This article is based on a full novel, with many statistics, evidence and points of view and I feel that all this information could have been separated into more concise sections. This would lead to less choppy transitions between paragraphs, and lead to an overall better article.Oliviadey (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)