Talk:News media (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Can someone please make a single article about >media< ?? its really confusing :P

Would it be worthwhile discussing political bias on this page?Andycjp 8th Sept 2006

Probably- What sort of thing did you have in mind? N-edits 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Media bias in the United States seems to be a better place for that. --Aioth 07:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the section about profit motive is so ridiculous I almost laughed out loud reading it. - Unsigned comment left by 67.165.52.226 4th Dec 2006

EDIT: Actually the entire article is so amazingly biased in so many ways that the only real solution is deletion and a rewrite. The article is nothing more than a listing of some major American media news outlets, and then it delves straight into issues that are not relevant to a description of the US news media, but rather would fit in perfectly as part of the Media bias in the United States page. Unsigned comment left by 67.165.52.226 4th Dec 2006

The article is well sourced, so if you find it biased (as you may) you can find arguments to the contrary and add them to the article, and cite your sources, that is how wikipedia works (wikipedia: NPOV). Deletion and rewrite would not be in line with the way wikipedia works. The article is about US media, so a discussion of bias in US media is entirely in the right place on this page, although it may be on another page aswell.
Wikipedia policy is that the tag regarding neutrality must be followed by specific examples of such non-neutrality on the talk page; until this happens i will remove the tag. 129.12.200.49 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also please explain how profit motive section is ridiculous? 129.12.200.49 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major problems

  • Even after I fixed some, there are several POV claims, which I have tagged.
  • There are several instances of weasel words, which I have specifically tagged.
  • There are many unreferenced claims, which I have tagged.
  • The overall sense I got of the article was that it had been written by someone who agreed with critics who felt the American media are profit-hungry and generally of low quality. Several sections were specifically about bias, so I moved them to Media bias in the United States.
  • There are major omissions in the listing of news outlets, for example radio news, especially National Public Radio, which has the first and third highest-rated radio shows in the country, period, and which polls have indicated is the country's most trusted news source. Internet outlets are also completely missing.
  • The article asserts that PBS is a minor news organization, but there are no references to support this. I would recommend finding audience size numbers for each of the organizations listed, to establish in an objective manner which ones have the largest market share.
  • The section on agenda-setting is interesting, but pretty much every claim asserted here is controversial. This section needs to be reworded as a collection of claims sourced to third parties, not a series of assertions of fact. It also needs to present both sides of each part of this controversy, rather than taking a firm stand as it currently does.

-- Beland 19:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting page could be class project

Would it be possible to assign a revision of this page to a graduate journalism class researching public attitudes toward the press? If anyone could get in touch with a professor or student, please suggest doing so. (This probably gets read more than any of their articles!) There is lots of good information on U.S. news media, of course. I rewrote a couple of things, but I will return to this page when I can -- the "facts" about public media seem to flat-out wrong on many occasions. Papillonderecherche 06:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)papillonderecherche

[edit] Redirect?

Why exactly does Western media redirect here? The Western world is not limited to the United States. Aridd (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)