Talk:Managing the news
The New Lead and re-write
A very good start and off on the right track. I've put it on watch and will help with it. Calicocat 3 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
Original research & lead disputs
This page is mostly a bunch of political prejudice. It is raw material for formulating aspersions toward people whose professional life requires that they explain public business to the public via the news industry. It is no more covert to explain an agencies point of view to the media than it is to explain to one's family matters that might affect them. Using the term "spin" is usually a set-up for other euphemistic attacks on the credibility of people who participate in mass communication. These euphemistic attacks are invariably launched for a countervailing interest.
I would carefully monitor who ever created and contributed to this page to see what other political propaganda they have infiltrated into this ostensibly educational document. Bad faith
- It appears this propaganda piece is entirely the work of a single writer. He no doubt has fans, but I see no refences here to any scholarly sources. This appears to be an effort to commandeer language for political purposes.
The reference is to a paper by Ivor Gaber, 1999. I'm sorry you people have decided to victimize me. Washington irving 07:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That is one paper from the UK describing an idiosyncratic definition of the term, one which is mostly used by liberal political interests. The term otherwise has a dominant meaning relevant to students world wide, which is to describe a profession they might feel inspired to join. This article is one person's effort to hijack the Wikipedia namespace so that anyone who browses in here looking for information on what training they will need to succeed in the profession of news management will be inculcated with values that inure them to disrespect official sources and to turn to advocates for analysis. In doing so, this slanders the public right to join together to form governments that represent our interests. It is also part of a Wikipedia link chain leading to Democrat fundraising and propaganda sites.
To hide that reality from the readers is to deceive readers, likely for a political motivation. Claiming to be a victim when someone has checked your work is not an effective way of collaborating. Your work has been reviewed and found to reflect a political bias. If you don't want your work to be criticized and collated with the knowledge of the rest of the world, perhaps Wikipedia is not the best forum for your point of view. Reality check
- People don't seem to be dating comments here, and Reality Check and Bad Faith no longer appear to be around (the links to their user pages are red, anyhow). If anyone has a problem with NPOV on this page, the best thing to do is edit it to improve it, not whinge about it on the comment page. "News management" is a legitimate encyclopedia entry to my mind. PaulHammond 16:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this whole article -- in fact, this whole line of articles -- seems to be hopelessly POV. I find myself agreeing with the some of the comments here. I dispute the premise of the artcile and think it's a very cynical presentation of some rather obvious and long established public relations techniques and pratices. On the other hand, it misses the mark on being an article which explains and treats various news and editoral issues -- censorship, manipulation, publicity, attribution of sources -- could be given some treatment under the broad headings of journalism and media. I don't think this article lends the Wikipedia project a sound entry for dealing with the subject matter attempted within. (Nothing personal against the editors.) Calicocat 3 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)
Revision and renaming
I find fault with the article also. I plan to shorten and revise it and rename it "Managing the news" unless someone has a better title. Maurreen 3 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
- Good job, I've added new comments toward the top, regarding the lead revisions. Calicocat 3 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)