Talk:Western media

Radicalizing & extremizing
Western media has been radicalizing & extremizing their populations to murder even more Muslims

Section blanking
Two sections under "Criticism" were systematically blanked by a group of editors. Please explain yourselves. Thank you. STSC (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Western media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215183842/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013%2C1054.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Text not supported by cited sources / unreliable opinion sources used for statement of fact WP:SYNTH
Some recently added text is not clearly supported by cited sources, or is clearly improper synthesis of sources, including (but not limited to):


 * "Western media is seen by its supporters as impartial and free. In spite of this, Western media has been demonstrated to contain biased material or coverage of certain countries or groups, usually aligning itself with staunch criticisms of those countries still independent of Western interests and dismissing human rights abuses against nationalities by Western countries and their allies."

The text and sources, as they previously stood, suffered from two main problems. First, some of the sources are opinion sources simply unreliable for statements of fact. Second, the sources don't directly support the text - they are cobbled together to make a conclusion (WP:SYNTH). Specifically:


 * Most of these sources only discuss particular conflicts. They do not discuss the "Western media" generally or make sweeping conclusions. This kind of material belongs at Media coverage of the Iraq War, Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War, etc. The 1985 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article doesn't use the phrase "Western media" onc.
 * Most of these sources are opinion pieces. For example, the Piers Robinson is an op-ed column for the Guardian (their "Comment is Free" section).
 * Some of these citations are incredibly dated (one from 1981 and one from 1985). These sources can't be used for current claims.
 * Some sources are just plain poor and unusable. These include this student essay and this op-ed written by a Rwandan goverment official.

I have gone through systematically, removing the bad sources but retaining the good sources and added appropriate summaries and context for each (with appropriate in-text attribution where required), explaining what exactly each source says. Neutralitytalk 03:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC) '

Columbia Journalism Review
FYI, the Columbia Journalism Review citation accidentally had the URL for the New Statesman article that is a different cite later. I have fixed the URL and re-inserted text supported by Columbia Journalism Review, namely that RT was established as a soft-power tool and propaganda instrument. Neutralitytalk 03:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * SUM1 has raised the concern that the Columbia Journalism Review is an "opinion piece" - I don't really accept this characterization, but as a compromise measure I will give in-text attribution. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 20:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)