Talk:Corporate media

From Wikispooks
Revision as of 17:26, 14 October 2018 by Robin (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "WikiSpooks" to "Wikispooks")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a high traffic page. As of June 2016, this was Google's #2 hit on Corporate media

Toolbox - original page

Thanks to 'Toolbox' for starting this but I felt it need considerable expansion since the whole subject of the MSM is so central to propagation of 'the official narrative' that Wikispooks seeks to expose as largely fraudulent.

I have saved the sources bit of the original article. I feel it is more appropriate to include it in a Project page - possibly 'editorial policy' - to outline Wikispooks official policy on information sourcing and referencing. It can then be linked to as appropriate. The policy - simply put and like Wikipedia - is to try to source and reference all statements of fact. It is on what constitutes a credible or 'Notable' source that Wikispooks necessarily differs. I'll get around to doing it - or at least starting it asap.

--Peter P 08:40, 17 July 2010 (IST)

I don't think I ever noticed this message! I came back to this article later the same day, per this, adding a paragraph on the BBC. But I think that was coincidence. In fact, the change I made may even have deleted the notification from my watchlist? 2 years ago I wasn't an expert on Watchlists. With it being my first attempt at an article it's obvious I've messed up in several ways (it even has two sections on Wikipedia, I don't think I can have copy-editted it atall!).
As to what it's called, I have no preference. ghits is not a very good measure for comparing the popularity of certain terms (eg the term "Jenin Massacre" is used by the Zionists much more than anyone else as they seek to insist there wasn't one!) but it's the first port of call if there's a potential problem. Toolbox 10:11, 5 April 2012 (IST)

Rename? ->Commercially Controlled Media

I haven't talked about MSM for years. Maybe since so many people I know no longer swim in that stream. I talk instead about commercially controlled media. MSM is an MSM term, isn't it? Part of their story is that there's the 'proper' media and a few outsiders with dissenting opinions who are so far from the 'main stream' of discourse that they don't need to be taken seriously. In that case, let's not support that worldview by talking about BBC/Fox etc. as 'mainstream'. In my eyes ther are pretty much extremists, so would another label help?

Robin 08:21, 5 April 2012 (IST)

My view is that a change of name is probably more confusing and no more accurate than 'MSM'. For example a MSM paper such as the UK Guardian is owned by ostensibly non-commercial interests. It is a no-brainer that its editorial line on matters of real substance is grossly distorted by the advertisers that provide the bulk of its financing. To the extent that financing implies control, it is therefore is indeed corporate controlled, but the waters are muddied by its actual ownership. For WS, the issue really is 'to whar extent to people search on the respective terms?'. Maybe a page Commercially Controlled Media redirected to MSM is needed, followed by some explanation in the MSM page of these considerations. --Peter P 12:08, 5 April 2012 (IST)