User talk:Drbogdan/sandbox-timelines-02

Created page
NOTE: BACKUP PAGE of Template-talk:News media - Deleted per TfD discussion (see copy below) - 20170129

Created the "Template talk:News media" page for the " Template:News media " page - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussion comments
 Copied from "Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 14":
 * Strong keep - { {reply|Champion|Dimadick|Marxistfounder|Rjensen|Srich32977|The Four Deuces}} - Please note that the " " template, currently transcluded 22 times at the following links, concerns news source audiences, *not* the news sources themselves - that is, the "  " template presents the rankings of "responding audience" results – not the rankings of "news sources" results – across the political spectrum - ALSO - Please see "recent related discussion" re Template:News media at the following => "Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States" - as well as => " Template talk:News media " and "Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2" - In support of keeping the "  " template, the following related very recent (2016) references may be helpful:
 * Pew Research Center (2016)
 * Journalism (2014)
 * VOtero Chart (2016)
 * VOtero Chart/original (2016)
 * VOtero Chart (2016) - Rationale
 * hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Boing Boing is a bluelinked group-blog, some of their stuff counts as WP:RS but in my book it highly depends on the author of the specific piece, e.g. Cory Doctorow probably counts on most subjects he posts about as having expertise therein, but Mark Frauenfelder who is the author of the VoteroChart mentioned above, I have not heard of. Has a bluelink, a bit skimpy on refs albeit, which says he is a journalist.  The published chart is somewhat simplistic since it gives no numeric indications, and the Boing Boing spectrum seems to be 'skewed' roughly one notch more liberal-leaning overall compared to the PEW and UCLA datasets covered below.  Here is the BoingBoing aka Votero dataset, normalized to the d+6 through r+6 spectrum used by PEW:

Because the BoingBoing chart published by Frauenfelder is two-dimensional, and spectrum-shifted (more globalized than the USA-specific research efforts below), it is difficult to integrate the datasets together. Probably better to present them separately, in dedicated columns. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Which news entities belong on which rows?
Erroneous Edits Reverted. FWIW - Erroneous edits by User:Marxistfounder have been reverted - Please note that "lists labeling multiple points" (of News media (USA) ) in the original reference ( at http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) are ordered from "consistently liberal" on the top & "consistently conservative" on the bottom - ALSO - Scores are noted from -6 ("political values questions") to 0 (bottom of the uncompressed scale) & from 0 to +6 (top of the compressed-by-half scale) - "0", by definition, is noted as "Nonpartisan audience" - per cited reference ( at http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again Drbogdan, I have taken the liberty of retitling this talkpage-section, and moved your wikilinked title down into the body thereof. Here is what seems to be the three current opinions, about which organizations belong on which rows:


 * My apologies if I have misrepresented what anybody was trying to say. I converted to the the table-layout, rather than the timeline-layout, because I don't want to get the r+6/r+5/...u+0...d+5/d+6 groups confused.  I ran across this source independently on the 20th, here is the discussion.  I was not aware that Drbogdan had created this template, but I definitely like it.  Though I do think it has some placement-errors; Fox is not supposed to be immediately adjacent to WSJ, in particular.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @47.222.203.135 - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and additions - seems *very* interesting imo - I may have to study this further - should note that I added "missing" bloomberg, daily show, slate, newYorker to the Drbogdan column in the table - also - added "missing" bloomberg, slate, newYorker to the Marxistfounder column - for my part, I tried to order the listing, from beck#1 (most conservative audience) to newYorker (most liberal audience), as best I could, based on the original Pew Research Center reference at => http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ - however - the exact scoring was presented as clear as the  template format might permit afaik - please note that fox (more conservative) is placed very near (ie, next-in-order-to) wsj (less conservative) in the original cited Pew Research Center reference - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the table-fixes Drbogdan, appreciated. You and I are looking at the exact same ref.  But we disagree that Fox being next-in-order-to WSJ is the same thing as placed-very-near.  The gaps are crucial.  Here is the imagefile.  As you can see, Beck/Hannity/Blaze/Breitbart/Limbaugh are in a cluster at roughly R+6, with Drudge slightly less-conservative-of-an-audience at R+5 approximately.  Then there is a large gap, then FOX all alone near R+3, then another larger gap (and a changeover from repub-lean to dem-lean!) before you have centrist-or-slightly-liberal-leaning-audience WSJ.  My proposal is that, wikipedia needs to show the gaps.
 * So I suggest that we change from using Template:timeline and instead start using a wikitable, with rows from D+6 through D+1, the USA-media-audience-centric +0 row, and then rows R+1 through R+6. I think the gaps are more important than the exact ordering, because gaps indicate that Fox at R+3 is roughly as conservative-leaning as NBC is liberal-leaning at D+3... and just as important, that there are *plenty* of increasingly-centrist entities in the D+3/D+2/D+1 range that are liberal-leaning but not as liberal-leaning as NBC in terms of actual audience, whereas there are zero media entities besides Fox in the R+4/R+3/R+2/R+1 range on the other side of the partisan-divide.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding publisher-bias, next to audience-bias
I also propose that we add in the publisher-bias data, from the 2005 paper. Something like this:

Drbogdan, is this helpful? Also ping TFD, does this balance out your concern? My 2005 source does not have the economist, but presumably we can collaboratively dig up a source which does position their publication-bias on the wikitable proposed above. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the notion of "publisher-bias" in the wikitable - interesting - may have to think more about this at the moment - one possibility re the present audience-bias template is to develop a modified-template - to better define gaps in some ok way - may try to work with this on the newly created sandbox page at => Template:News media/sandbox - to me at the moment, the present template seems better than the suggested wikitable(s) - the template imo seems more reader-friendly - and understandable - the imagefile, defining the gaps, has not been neglected in the template, and is clearly and directly linked on the template - the wikitable otoh seems less reader-friendly - and less understandable - and less helpful imo atm - perhaps both, the template and wikitable, may be worthy - and useful - perhaps a more complete (finished?) wikitable may be developed for viewing - and compared - with the template? - of course - both, the template and wikitable, may be useful in various Wikipedia articles - depending on the exact nature of article content - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Audience-bias is a relatively rare but fascinating study; publisher-bias studies have a much longer history, see the new sources I added at TemplatesForDestruction. If you don't want to use a wikitable as too unreadable, and I don't want to use the timeline as too-inaccurate (no gaps!), maybe we can work on an svg file that satisfies both readability and accuracy?  I suggest we try to do something like the PEW imagefile, where we have a number-line-of-dots, with attached-text-labels.  But we can make our version a vertical line, rather than horizontal, so it fits better as a sidebar.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments - to some extent, I was thinking about the vertical version (with gaps) - as a newly modified template (if you like, you may try creating one at the template sandbox page ) - a vertical SVG image may also be possible of course - but the SVG image per se may not be clickable with over 25 wikilinks to Wikipedia articles - a feature of the present template version - however - one *may* be able to modify the SVG image into an image map afaik - maybe best to create an ok SVG image as a first step? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The report shows the average Democrat rates 84.3 on the scale, while the average Republican rates 16.1, while almost the entire news media rates about 65. So Fox News viewers are far more conservative than Fox News, while NBC, CBS and ABC viewers are far more liberal than those networks.  so you would have to show that "publisher bias" occupies a very small range compared with "audience-bias."  Indeed mainstream U.S. media coverages a very narrow section of the U.S. ideological spectrum.  TFD (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:News media
NOTE (Drbogdan (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)): SEE TfD DISCUSSION PAGE AT => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_22#Template:News_media


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Inappropriate title and the source is out of date, and therefore there is a POV issue for you can take any source and that source could say the exact opposite of what is in this template. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * News media


 * Delete. Yes. This page can be deleted. Ranks of liberal and conservative may have bias. Marxistfounder (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - - Please note that the "  " template, currently transcluded 25 times at the following links, concerns news source audiences, *not* the news sources themselves - that is, the "  " template presents the rankings of "responding audience" results – not the rankings of "news sources" results – across the political spectrum - ALSO - Please see "recent related discussion" re Template:News media at the following => "Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States" - as well as => " Template talk:News media " and "Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2" - In support of keeping the "  " template, the following related very recent (2016) references may be helpful:
 * Pew Research Center (2016)
 * Journalism (2014)
 * VOtero Chart (2016)
 * VOtero Chart/original (2016)
 * VOtero Chart (2016) - Rationale
 * hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This a ranking of Media sources by their responding audience, so it includes no Wikipedia-related bias. It is also not dates, as the source only dates to 2014. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. 2014 is not out-of-date, and if you have even-more-recent sources, then improve the content.  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  If you dislike the title of news media because you are concerned that not every instance of a news-publishing-entity is included, or because you think the listed organizations tend to be USA-centric rather than representing a worldwide view on the subject, I would agree with a title change, but then WP:SOFIXIT and change the title to something better.  As for your assertion that the news organizations listed in the template, may dispute their own ranking, that is also not very pertinent as a reason to delete.  I agree that per WP:ABOUTSELF we can say in the New York Times article that they describe themselves as honest and unbiased (they do!), and we can even say per WP:ABOUTSELF in the Breitbart.com article that they describe their target audience as center-right to conservative (they do!), but that has no bearing on whether we have a table at the journalism article which summarizes what the bulk of the independent-of-those-news-entities reliable sources say is the ACTUAL audience of each entity.  There are plenty of pre-2014 sources, as well, such as the 2005 paper discussed here, direct link here.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional sources, 2016 Stanford University paper, especially page #12.
 * 2013 Elon University, esp. pdfPage9=printPage59.
 * 1971 Edith Efron book, mentioned by Fortune in 2015.
 * Daniel Sutter e.g. here is solid on why (the economic underpinnings) there is bias, see also IBTimes. Various opinion pieces by bluelinked authors exist, as well. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I don not see the value of showing the bias of the readers, as opposed to the publication, and it can cause confusion. The Economist for example is not liberal, even if the readers are.  The Wall Street Journal draws readers equally from accross the political spectrum not, as the chart implies, mainly from the center.  There is also, beyond the range presented, left-wing media such as The Nation and Mother Jones and right-wing media such as Alex Jones' Prison Planet and World Net Daily, as well as sites further left, such as the World Socialist Website, and further right, such as The Daily Stormer.  Who reads what is interesting, but it needs explanation, which a template cannot do.  TFD (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The " " template is a sampling of audience preferences for several very major media sources (esp those in the USA) - and is based on a very WP:Reliable source (ie, Pew Research Center at http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) - the template is not intended as a comprehensive listing of all news media - the noted news sources are wikilinked (hyperlinked?) to the noted news source articles for more details - to be clearer - and to avoid confusion - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a template that needs lots of time and effort to update and per nom's reasoning. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 04:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - template content may not need "lots of time and effort to update" and may be easily updated (if ever needed); content seems very similar (and consistent?) from one ref source to another (1; 2), and which seems well supported as such in the following discussions: Template talk:News media - and/or - Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2 - hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A selection of media outlets ranked by the ideological lean of their audience is not a thing we need a template for. For just one sample of the problems here, The Colbert Report is (a) a comedy show, not a media outlet comparable to NPR or The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, and (b) not in production anymore, and thus not a source that anybody can consult for new content anymore. For another, Google News is not an originator of news content; it's merely an aggregator that just picks up and indexes content produced by other media outlets — so the ideological makeup of its users is not even interesting or relevant at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and possible concerns - yes - agreed - there may be room for improving the template - for example, the items you've noted may be easily removed from the template - esp if there's WP:CONSENSUS among editors of course - the remaining portion of the template may still be useful to viewers - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * delete, better to reserve this sort of thing for an article which can include more detail and discussion of the ranking methodology, and possibly presenting alternative rankings. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - related detail and discussion is presented at the main article for the template => Media bias in the United States - the template serves as a summary (and/or introduction) to this article - and related ones as well - hope this helps - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * — However the template as it stands inadequatly summarizes the different rankings (see the template talk-page), and only serves to confuse. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 14:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Utterly confusing and does not accurately convey the sources. There are a multitude of such rankings available — and they most assuredly belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but not in a transcludable template. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - the News media template seems clear, easy-to-understand and sufficiently accurate based on the cited reference => http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ - the news source audiences, as particularly noted on the template, are => "[ranked accurately; scaled for clarity]" - however - suggestions to improve the template even more are always welcome of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).