Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politico-media complex


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. Although a good argument for deleting this argument was made by the nominator, it failed to attain sufficient support throughout the debate by the participants, hence I see no other closing option.  Daniel  09:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Politico-media complex

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is the very model of original research. I have no doubts the term has been used, but mostly its use is confined to blogs. I get one hit off searching the BBC news site, and six hits searching a database of UK newspapers, the earliest in 1996 suggesting it was coined either by William Waldegrave or Peter Hennessy, it is unclear if Hennessy is quoting Waldegrave or paraphrasing. No definition is given, and besides which Wikipedia isn't in the definition business, that's Wiktionary. The rest of the article is original research. For example, the article offers examples of programmes which are archetypes, yet no sources are offered for making such claims of these programmes. Also, the article offers the idea that the Iraq war was an example of a policy pushed through the politico-media policy, and that this was a failed policy, and yet there are no secondary sources provided, only primary sources with which the article builds a novel synthesis. Nothing in this article has any substance or any secondary sources, and were we to remove the original research, we would be left with, at best, a definition, best moved to Wiktionary. I'm not even sure a useful definition can be sourced in a reliable secondary source. I believe the article should be deleted. Hiding Talk 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FRINGE. VanTucky  (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as it seems to be well-sourced, mildly interesting, and vaguely notable. Bearian 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In what sense do those sources support the statements made though? They seem to ofer nothing of verifiability to the article.  Hiding Talk 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as original research. There is no doubt term exists, but the article apepars to be synthesis of facts.  As for the long reference list, it includes blogs wich aren't reliable sources and newspaper articles where the phrase is mentioned. -- Whpq 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (Author) - Guess I ought to prop it up a bit. The angst being expressed by the 'dissenters' appears to me to be more a struggle of understanding the difference between 'the thing' and 'the name of the thing.' The (Ancient) Greeks, as usual, sent a message (on identity):

Hesperus and Phosphorus

At the risk of being accused of wandering away from the point, I've seen this before around here, and certainly with one of the protagonist opposers (and a colleague) with seeing that a 'name' for socialism (which it most definitely is not):

"... the simple idea that if someone helps their neighbour, their neighbour will help them"

is a variant of the 'name' Golden Rule which, in action, is the process encapsulated (up to a point) by the 'name' Ethic of reciprocity - basic 'good manners.'

So, politico-media complex is a name for a process of mutual satisfaction of interests between the political classes and the media interests - and the mutual falling-outs with each other when someone is not getting the satisfaction they think they deserve and with all the problems for democracy that this implies. So I point to Rawnsley's reference to and description of the PMC:

A conspiracy that threatens democracy. That's from a mainstream newspaper organization and an extremely well-known journalist (in the UK, at least).

As for 'pushing through' of the war agenda by the PMC, well how short are our memories? As we speak, Campbell (Blair's spin doctor) is trying to 'push through' his recollections, via his diaries, of how the war was sold to the British - look at the red-top mass title that was so gung-ho, and who owns it? Who says how important it was to cosy-up to this title?

Of course, exactly the same process is described in Chomsky's, Manufacturing Consent:

Manufacturing Consent

names it 'the propaganda model,' and uses the selling of the war in Vietnam as a key exemplar. The Iraq war, complete with the all too apparent latest collapse of consensus in Congress, particularly, runs on railway tracks following the same path as rats leave sinking ships. That's what is known as a failed policy.

So, the key identity for the process is:

politico-media complex = propaganda model

'Novel synthesis?' I don't think so. As a colleague from days gone by in computing science said to me one day ... a lot of fancy 're-naming' goes on in this business.

Oh, btw. apply the same putative standards of 'novel synthesis' analysis and deprecation of the reference values of (mere) newspapers and blogs to other symmetrical contributions, such as prison-industrial complex and (as far as newspaper and blog references are concerned) probably thousands of other Wiki pages. Dsmith1usa 11:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify. The subject is interesting but the article is an horrendous mess of OR, quoting put of context, and POV pushing. This cleanup does not need to wait for the AfD to conclude, it needs to be done now ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Author) Well, yes, compost heaps may develop as a model (propaganda model aka politico-media complex) is being tested, yet again, (and corroborated):

Initial Benchmark Assessment Report

in real time. It tends to turn to the shorthand that erupts in any 'test-log.'

History is messy and always needs to be 'cleaned-up,' for mass consumption especially when it comes to matters of war, strategy and tactics (as an aside, when will one of Bush's military men explain to that 'fine C in C' that his 'Surge' is a tactic and not a strategy?)

Tolstoy's comments on the illusions of will in War and Peace illuminate some. His contempt for historians is clear as is the similar contempt of Clausewitz for the recollectors of war in On War/Vom Kreig. (Tolstoy's antipathy to Germans expressed through his bringing Clausewitz to his stage is something paradoxical to me. I think Clausewitz was with him on this.)

As for quotes 'out of context,' well, I guess the dangers of the appearance of this comes with this particular turf right now, as so many things are in flux. And since so many things are in flux, why be in such a rush (... it needs to be done now)?

Pushing a POV? Well, give me a little slack with the impression I leave of my tongue in my cheek, while I write sometimes. After seven years of opposing Bush, I need a little bit of amusement from time to time, I'll think you'll agree ;-)Dsmith1usa 10:28, 13 July 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.