Difference between revisions of "Talk:Independent media"
m (Opinions needed from others.) |
(I think we should give them a label) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Media that get's ''constituted'' [[Corporate media]]/[[Commercially-controlled media]] is already labeled. You could just create a "media" page and redirect non-corporate media to there. Just an opinion on this: Doesn't labelling it specifically "independent media" would make us misuse media as [[enemy image]]? Like for example [[PBS]], [[ARTE]] the [[BBC]] are all legally independent in their countries but they didn't use to have the same political stances. A lot could be done in their articles to show how even [[investigative journalist]]s' programs on those channels were silenced. Just labelling some independent media would make people not look through the 40 seasons of Frontline anymore before it followed the [[official narrative]] IMO. Wouldn't we be listing a reversed [[PropOrNot/List]]"? I don't think that's a good idea. [[Limited hangouts]] are still a thing on "legacy media" and they '''can''' contain viable info. Even to this day, they're still trying to remove any link to the missile theory of [[TWA Flight 800]] on Wikipedia and they still haven't succeeded. Anyway. Let me know what you think. [[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) | Media that get's ''constituted'' [[Corporate media]]/[[Commercially-controlled media]] is already labeled. You could just create a "media" page and redirect non-corporate media to there. Just an opinion on this: Doesn't labelling it specifically "independent media" would make us misuse media as [[enemy image]]? Like for example [[PBS]], [[ARTE]] the [[BBC]] are all legally independent in their countries but they didn't use to have the same political stances. A lot could be done in their articles to show how even [[investigative journalist]]s' programs on those channels were silenced. Just labelling some independent media would make people not look through the 40 seasons of Frontline anymore before it followed the [[official narrative]] IMO. Wouldn't we be listing a reversed [[PropOrNot/List]]"? I don't think that's a good idea. [[Limited hangouts]] are still a thing on "legacy media" and they '''can''' contain viable info. Even to this day, they're still trying to remove any link to the missile theory of [[TWA Flight 800]] on Wikipedia and they still haven't succeeded. Anyway. Let me know what you think. [[User:Jun|Jun]] ([[User talk:Jun|talk]]) | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Corporate media]] is a very negative label already. I'm looking for a more mature term to list what used to be called [[alternative media]], maybe 200 of them on Wikispooks. Labeling them 'media' (as opposed to 'corporate media') is already making a value judgement, and they might as well be labelled independent media. There is always the problem of the compromised alternative media: [[Counterpunch]], [[Democracy Now!]] etc, that borders on gatekeepers.[[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]])--- | ||
Revision as of 12:14, 24 February 2021
I was hoping to make a list of media that are not part of the corporate system and are not gatekeepers/controlled opposition. For example The Real News or Unlimited Hangout.
I don't know if this exists already on Wikispooks.
Media that get's constituted Corporate media/Commercially-controlled media is already labeled. You could just create a "media" page and redirect non-corporate media to there. Just an opinion on this: Doesn't labelling it specifically "independent media" would make us misuse media as enemy image? Like for example PBS, ARTE the BBC are all legally independent in their countries but they didn't use to have the same political stances. A lot could be done in their articles to show how even investigative journalists' programs on those channels were silenced. Just labelling some independent media would make people not look through the 40 seasons of Frontline anymore before it followed the official narrative IMO. Wouldn't we be listing a reversed PropOrNot/List"? I don't think that's a good idea. Limited hangouts are still a thing on "legacy media" and they can contain viable info. Even to this day, they're still trying to remove any link to the missile theory of TWA Flight 800 on Wikipedia and they still haven't succeeded. Anyway. Let me know what you think. Jun (talk)
Corporate media is a very negative label already. I'm looking for a more mature term to list what used to be called alternative media, maybe 200 of them on Wikispooks. Labeling them 'media' (as opposed to 'corporate media') is already making a value judgement, and they might as well be labelled independent media. There is always the problem of the compromised alternative media: Counterpunch, Democracy Now! etc, that borders on gatekeepers.Terje (talk)---
