Talk:News propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Article name 2 VFD 3 Jeff Gannon 4 PR ethics 5 Overhaul 6 Still a stub 7 Totallydisputed

[edit] Article name

I would suggest moving this article to Counterfeit news if it survives the vfd. BoomHitch 04:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The lead says, "Distorted news or planted news or fake news," I'd like to see some sources on this and I think the article is reflecting an original thesis by the author. Yes, there's the public relations function which traditionally attempts to obtain free or "earned" coverage and is also in place to deal with problem which arrise -- product recalls and the like -- and any such issues where public communications are necessary. Then, there is "fake news," this term has become shorthand for speaking about the VNR technique put to use by the US Goverment in a campaign of covert propaganda during 2003-2005. "Planted news" seems more a second reference adjective for the same thing as "fake news." Again, I'd suggest that "fake news" not be used as it is a current term specifically about the Bush administration's use of covert propaganda and limited to these cirumstances. To discuss all things that have an influence on coverage it would be necessary to include normal public relations, commercial pressures, and governmental pressures and influences, the editorial leanings of the publications and outlets involved. Some of these things are already very complete having good articles, others are not. I do think an article about propaganda in the news would be valid and interesting as long as it's global and neutral. News propaganda would be my choice. Calicocat 3 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

[edit] VFD

On 25 March 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was merge and redirect to News management. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fake news for a record of the discussion. – ABCD 20:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't participate in that discussion and disagree with the outcome. "News management" is specific to corporations, whilst "propaganda" is (generally) government, and Fake news covers both. Satire and so forth is mostly red herring. This page should become a disambig page. Propaganda needs improving with the substantive content that there is here, including factoring that article as it's already too long. Also things like VNR and Bush administration payment of columnists articles need linking into it and/or public relations. Rd232 13:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here? I'm confused? I agree on satire being not in keeping with the subject of the article, so I removed that; but calling includsion of it a red herring (assuming you mean Logical fallacy is incorrect. Whilst the term propaganda may be associated with government, it is not always so. Corporations, not-for-profit organizations and religious institutions are also seen to use propaganda of various types, however, that is outside the scope of this article. I can see this being a reference within the article on Propaganda, but not merged with it, that named article is already too long and, if anything, might do well with some judicious splitting. Calicocat 23:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Gannon

I added a paragraph about Jeff Gannon/James Guckert below the paragraph on Jayson Blair. It is taken almost verbatim from the article on him. Anonymous Coward (I promise, I'll get around to signing up real soon now). 23:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PR ethics

I will delete the following false statement: "The distortion of facts do not constitute a violation of any such code of ethics in the public relations industry, since there exists no such ethical code within that industry."

I found evidence to the contrary very easily. Maurreen 3 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

As per Calicocat's suggestion, I'm going to rename this from "Distorted news" to "News propaganda". I'll also make some other substantial changes. This material needs more attribution at least. Maurreen 3 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

Good changes, I think the article's more on the right track now. I've tagged it as limited in geographic scope but I'm sure it can become a worthy article. I am getting a bit confused since we have a few different articles now all kind of interrelated. Maybe we can negotiate some kind of merge of some and VfD the others? Calicocat 3 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Thanks. Why don't we continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism? Maurreen 3 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

I'll join the discussion there. Doing a "project" is a new task for me. Perhaps you might post in the project in the correct place to develop this discussion and I hope other interested editors will join in. Calicocat 4 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

[edit] Still a stub

This article, News propaganda, is still just a stub and should be allowed to grow and develop. As one of the editors working on it, I'd like to see it have a chance to develop before being pounced on. I'm not sure what the status of this is now, but I still have it on my watchlist and my intention is to develop it. Sometimes article development and expansion takes time. Calicocat 23:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totallydisputed

I have never heard of the US or British governments fabricating news stories. Firstly, the media would likely refuse to comply with this violation of their independence by distributing propaganda. Secondly, if governments even attempted this, there would be a huge uproar. The text does not specify what the news reports are, and how they were intended to reach the public. It seems grossly exaggerated. Pcu123456789 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)