Talk:Mass media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Journalism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Media (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Untitled[edit]

The use of "mass media" as a plural sounds strange to my ears. I think most people would agree that it sounds snobbish and affected. "The mass media" is practically a fixed phrase, and I've never ever heard it except in the singular.

The fixedness or otherwise of the phrase "the mass media" does not affect its plurality or otherwise. And I do not accept that saying the mass media are is necessarily "snobbish and affected" any more than I would classify saying the mass media is as "ignorant and uneducated". I have rewritten the intro in an attempt to find a NPOV middle way. -- Picapica 15:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whether it's snobbish or not, it isn't what people normally say in real life. CalJW 23:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Perhaps portions of the human herd are unfamiliar with the term/label "mass media" but to openly proclaim that "...it isn't what people normally say in real life." without any proof other than ONE person's opinion makes me shake my rotund head in a horizontal repetitive manner along with thoughts that so many humans are ill-educated yet quick to spew opinion as if that opinion is required to be accepted as fact.Obbop (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fatally US Centric[edit]

The timeline and the article in general are both too US centric. Given it's generally accepted today the US represented a mere unfortunate parenthesis in human history and the US culture has generally gone to the dogs it would be propitious to expand and correct the POV of this article before Wiki becomes the object of outright ridicule the US already has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.164.155 (talk) 22:36, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

XML?[edit]

"Because recipients have(sic) differently and have different needs, the conversion cannot be automated with the electronic means available today." I removed the above phrase, which misinformed readers. XML is the standard language for automated cross-media publishing. The move toward separation of content from layout in web publishing, using CSS to define form and XML to standardize content provides the foundation for today's widespread cross media publication. Various levels of automation have been acheived in this process. PHP/SQL systems also afford various degrees of automated cross-media publication, often including reliance on XML and CSS. Padidliwa

medium is mechanism[edit]

Mass Media is the term used to describe the large mob of journalists and reporters that work for the various television news programs, newspapers and radio stations. Like any mob, the intelligence of the group can be found by either averaging each members intelligence or just taking the intelligence levels that is lowest. Whilst each individual may be highly intelligent, they possess an overall stupidity which means that when they start reporting on something en masse, they almost always get it completely wrong. See code red virus as a typical example.

Use of the term "media" as a singular mass-noun is increasingly common, but Mirriam-Webster's says the term "is likely to incur criticism especially in writing." Readers can otherwise decide to their own satisfaction whethe rthe above comment comprises a group attribution error. Padidliwa 16:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

thematic of mass media[edit]

This page has been vandalised, please review the accuracy of its content

MSM[edit]

I disagree with the following sentence but at the moment can't come up with a better way to phrase it:

This is countered by right-leaning authors with the term "MSM", the acronym implying that the majority of mass media sources is dominated by leftist powers which are furthering their own agenda (see Conspiracy theory, Media bias in the United States).

Two objections:

  1. The term MSM isn't just used by right-leaning authors. Left-leaning ones use it too.
  2. It is not clear how the initials "MSM" by themselves inherently imply political bias. Sure, you can use the term to speak derisively of mass media, but devoid of context it might be unsure if you are doing so from the left or from the right.
  3. The juxtaposition of the link Conspiracy theory is not neutral.

am currently reseaching on the form of media preferred most by youths today it could be easily said that internet could be the most prefered source due to the amount of sourses of links internet can access.210.7.30.245 01:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)student

Timeline[edit]

With all due respect to the students editing the timeline...wikipedia has formatting guidelines to follow. Squiggyfm 18:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To the Mass Media Students/Professors - Please use the discussion page (the page you're on now) to talk about your facts. The main page is not the place for them. Thank you. Squiggyfm 15:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest pointing all the students to Wikipedia:School and university projects so that maybe their instructor sees it. I'm sure it's very helpful to see what other instructors have tried.

Mainstream vs. mass[edit]

Mainstream media redirects to this article. I'm not sure I think that's appropriate - after all, a newspaper or TV news show can be intended as a reliable, conventional, and thus (debatably) mainstream source of information, while not catering to a national audience. Mainstream, thus, in my opinion refers more to the methods than to intended audience. Thoughts?GreetingsEarthling 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC) "Mainstream" definitely refers to intended audience, and will proscribe to the norms of its society. "Mass" attached to media indicates nothing more than numbers.

I would like to have an actual definition of the mainstream media as it's been used. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about "normalizing" thought and memes, but rather about describing them, defining thoughts so we can all know what we're talking about. Can't we have an itty-bitty list of what is typically included and excluded in the MSM definition?24.161.128.18 (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Go to Mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaingram (talkcontribs) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Does mass media currently exist?[edit]

Should it be mentioned that very few feel that there is any such thing as a mass media? All forms of media have fragmented many times, and nearly all are now dedicated to serving particular niche audiences. TV is commonly cable or satellite, with such selections as the Food Network and Discovery Flight. Radio has spread from AM to FM to satellite to internet streaming. There is an incredible preponderance of magazines, and the internet is a whole 'nother beast illustrating this.

"very few feel that there is any such thing as a mass media" I think you're kidding yourself Philbradley 10:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

- well we haven't got to that stage yet, but tv/newspapers & big book publishers certainly feel threatened, as anybody in the media biz would agree. I think it is worth a mention Johnbod 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC) which is the most preferred form of mass media today?210.7.30.245 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)rǎčheal

Rewrite of the introduction[edit]

if the term public media is synonyms with mass media we should just say that and leave it at that, if it people can find references for it meaning something different then we should have either a section that addresses the diffrence or a separate article. Parts of the introduction have little to do with the content of the article and has excess use of adjectives without citation ie:

"All of these public media sources have better informed the general public of what is going on in the world today." 

better than what? who says its better? This appears to make the claim "All mass media better informs" This claim seems very broad, un-cited and not directly addressed in the article. also the paragraph that talk about traditional broadcasters shifting to the internet is not really addressed in the article the same way its addressed in the introduction. In the article it talks about shifting qualities of mass media that may force us to rethink or redefine what mass media is, in the introduction it seems to only note that mass media producers are jumping on the internet bandwagon without mentioning the structural differences. Also it seems to conflates the Internet with a form of media by listing it along side blogs and podcasts. and the final sentence:

"hardest forms of media to decipher what is true and what is not"

again "harder than what"? person-2-person communication? If so who says this? anyway thanks for hearing me out Mdale 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • should note in the intro that there is a field of research dedicated to the study of mass media, called mass communication research (now usually considered a subfield of media and communication research or media studies)
  • 'public media' or 'public communication' is not always the same as 'mass media.' also note: the (mass) media' = (mainstream media organizations; often more narrowly referring to news content & journalism) vs. 'media' (the plural of 'medium', a communication technology, as in 'the medium is the message') vs. 'media' (texts, organizations, audiences of any size and content) as in 'community media' or 'citizens media' or 'media society' Bine maya 16:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

overall, the term mass media is outdated and rarely used in research today.

-Public media is not mass media; it's actually used to describe public broadcasting now that public broadcasting is more than just broadcast (radio, TV) - it now includes digital media as well. See cited references in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_broadcasting: "Public broadcasting is sometimes also referred to as public media, in an effort to capture the expansion of public broadcasting content from radio and television into digital technologies, in particular the web and mobile platforms. While some consider public media to be analogous to public broadcasting,[13] others use the term more broadly to include all noncommercial media.[14]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucylu6 (talkcontribs) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediums?[edit]

public media ... is [sic] the sum of the public mass distributors of news and entertainment across mediums What exactly are "mediums" of communication as opposed to media? Is there any semantical reason for having two different plural forms in the same sentence? --87.162.44.107 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 'Media' has become a contextually contingent mass noun, grammatically correct in reference to individual forms/techniques that facilitate communicative information representation, conduction, and multiplication, but using the inconsistent (yet orthographically and semantically correct) plural form 'mediums' in the same sentence with 'media', one may risk ambiguity by not indicating a shift to subaltern referential order indicating that 'mediums' are specific members of a cultural-technological class called 'media.' One would have to qualify the use of the term 'media' if expressing a different denotation, and here the use of 'mediums' becomes ambiguous because it fails to distinguish between material and modality. 'Mediums' are first-order varieties of neutral intermediaries that bear no intrinsic specific relationship to their utility as mass communicative means. 'Mass media' and 'public media' v. 'private media' all presuppose an essential secondariness of functionality as well as their primary thingness, but it is more useful in social-political discourse to invert this ranking - the thingness of the medium only interposed into a hierarchy of practical contextual efficacy that places distance and communicative power (resistence to entropy and capability to be readily reproduced), which then equates functionality with materiality, with respect to appropriate selection of a demographically-compatible assignment. The internet wins, but in the long run, it will be durable epigraphy, such as coins became in our time for archaeological study of the ancient and medieval world, that prevails; ubiquity and use-life have fewer contenders now than ever, as architecture generally becomes less important as epigraphic surfaces . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endophasy (talkcontribs) 10:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

uses of Media[edit]

10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)202.174.136.178

Internet section[edit]

The first 3 paragraphs of the internet section have nothing to do with the article. Can i suggest deletion for this content? (143.117.229.186 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Comic Books[edit]

I notice that comic books aren't accounted for in this article, despite being a significant form of mass media in at least North America, Europe, and (especially) Japan. How should comics be classified? In the United States and Canada, the 'comics magazine' (e.g. Action Comics Magazine, wherein Superman debuted) has long been the dominant form, with the graphic novel a recent development. In Europe, the single-volume story has long been popular (I know not the precise name of this form), while in Japan, the accumulated chapter serial (I again do not know the proper term) predominates. How should this be explained, with some extension and revision, in a way that fits into the existing article? Archimedean (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this site has intellegent people, tell me what is wrong instead of just yelling vandalism.[edit]

The statement that the mass media in the United States is run by Jewish individuals is a FACT, that would hold up in a COURT of LAW, what makes that fact irrelevant in this format? Please tell what I am wrong about instead of just yelling vandalism. You guys are supposed to be intellectuals lets act like it.--Rendered11 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that there is a understanding that this is a fact and there fore should be stated as a fact. This also seems to be a bit of a touchy subject so is there any recommendations on how to place this fact in this article?--Rendered11 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a question, do you really think this is relevant information?--BennyTheBoxer (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

more about media[edit]

Hi my name is Xolani ndhlovu, i am in matric and i am doing study on media. please e-mail me more information about the industry of media. [Xolaniwits@gmail.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.36 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

I deleted the section about "negative characteristics" because it had no attribution. The "mass wire media" section was not only unattributed, but appears to be a neologism. Maurreen (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream media[edit]

Anybody want to help figure out what to do with Mainstream media? I haven't found a decent definition, and there is disagreement about whether there is disagreement about what it means. Etc. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the biggest difference is that "mainstream media" suggests the exclusion of books, audio, film, etc.; and tends to mean, at least to most people I believe, only "mainstream NEWS media." Thus it is probably distinct from this article. Profit motive may have much to do with distinctions in both articles. Prior to the internet most non-mass media lost money; now it (on the internet, that is) tends to merely make none. :-)

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_setting_theory goes into some interesting points which might help focus on some issues talked about above. I am adding a link. Mydogtrouble (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

History Section Addition[edit]

I propose adding the following line to the last unattributed phrase at the end of the History section, which begins to link mass media with democracy.
— James Curran wrote Mass Media and Society, which discusses democracy in relation to mass media. Curran argues that media must serve the public by providing “information and debate that facilitates the functioning of democracy (Curran, 2000, p.127).”
Citation: Curran, J. (2000) Mass media and society. UK: Hodder Arnold.
--Austenten (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

why is this article protected?[edit]

Template:Unprotect

also, add information about Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. article about mass media that doesn't mention this work cannot be complete. 188.2.48.67 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

please provide details of journalism during Muslim rulers in sub-continent ie India and Pakistan Moreover history of journalism in subcontinent. Also inform beginning of journalism in Pakistan and India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul qayyum Malik (talkcontribs) 13:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 150.243.17.110, 2 May 2011[edit]

Please change the External Link for "The Media: Carriers of Contagious Information". It is a broken link; the correct one is: http://beta.in-mind.org/issue-5/media-carriers-contagious-information

150.243.17.110 (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DoneBility (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A call to arms?[edit]

This is the only Vital Article that is rated as a stub - all others are deemed to be better than this one. It's the 546th (out of 1000) in the order of most viewed. I'll try to do what I can in the near future but it's not really my area of expertise. violet/riga [talk] 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick (ie. incomplete) look at the interwikis shows that they also have quite a way to go, with perhaps only the Spanish and Italian articles being larger than this. violet/riga [talk] 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all areas of Mass media are covered[edit]

In my opinion in the History section not all areas of Mass media are covered. Shirley Biagi in the book "Media Impact: An Introduction to Mass Media" <http://books.google.com/books?id=mP87PKf0Tm8C&lpg=PP1&dq=mass%20media&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false> defines Mass Media as 8 types of Media Businesses: • Books • Newspapers • Magazines • Recordings • Radio • Movies • Television • The internet From the traditional media not all forms of print media are mentioned (there is mentioned only Newspapers, but books and magazines should be included as well). Also music industry (or recordings) is not mentioned at all. Internet which for a long time was considered as new media having in mind its spread should definitely have more broad definition than just mentioning as a heading. There should be at least a link to main article about Internet or New Media (as article about Internet is more technical).

Ineta.svedarauskaite (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 2011 October 19

No money required, The moneyless society[edit]

Silence, I am the great I am. I am the name above every name that is. I command all hosts and Spirits , I create peace and cause evil, I the Lord do all these things.I live within creation for I am all things, outpouring all that We are into the whole earth. It is time for the full revelation of Jesus Christ to be received by the whole of mankind. The original economy of Love will be recieved through the Grace and Love We give to you all,with all power equil to the Godhead.I declare war against any principallity,power or anything created that exaults itself above Christ.All pride will be exposed for what it really is. We all Will walk with overflowing thanksgiving and praise to God and realize what it is all about,where we came from,who we all are and where we are all going for eternity, Faithfully yours, Malcolm Smith of 3/1a Godwin Street Forster,N.S.W Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.158.160 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is great. And Wikipedia's god would be Jimbo. If you are him please log in to leave your edits. It may appear as more constructive to the rest of the community.
If you are not him, forget the aforementioned and read the following :
  1. Please do not edit the article on yourself. A different god already tried it and was reverted.
  2. God, people round here don't seem to like you (except i, of course :) Some wikipedians described you as a desruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry. Also, someone nicked your username.
  3. Please take no notice of me or my posts as i didn't intend to provoke you. By god, i swear it!
  4. You're right though, money is bad. Or at least the gods pigs people who own most of it.
I'm just really pleased i got hold of God's IP adress. - Benzband (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC) [sarcasm]

Technologies[edit]

There is a template requesting the "Technologies" section be turned into prose. How about something like:

The electronic and print medias make use of a wide range of mediums. These include broadcasting (in the narrow sense, for radio and television); film (mostly used for entertainment, but also for documentaries); the internet, blogs or podcasts (such news, music, pre-recorded speech, and video); publishing (including electronic publishing). Many instances of various types of recorded discs or tapes —in the 20th century, these were mainly used for music; video and computer uses followed, video games themselves having developed into a mass form of media. [citation needed] Other devices, such as mobile phones, can be used for rapid breaking news and short clips of entertainment like jokes, horoscopes, alerts, games, music, and advertising.

And should Wikipedia be included in "mass media"? (only kidding :) - Benzband (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. Your account has been active long enough to be autoconfirmed, so feel free to be bold and update it yourself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
YesY Done. I have edited the article. If anybody doesn't agree with this edit, please change it. Thanks! - Benzband (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

show wp "lock"[edit]

Please, show wp "lock". 99.35.14.35 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All set. --Pnm (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

B-class review for WP:SOCIOLOGY[edit]

This article is not up to B-class yet. Issues:

  • WP:LEAD should be a summary of the body. It should not contain any claims not repeated in that body.
Yes check.svg Done - though intro does need work, this issue is fixed.
  • WP:BTW is a failure. There are not enough blue links, key concepts (like MMORPG from the first para) are unlinked
  • referencing is a failure; multiple sections and paragraphs are not referenced (ideally, all sentences containing non-WP:BLUE type information should be referenced)
  • improper use of capitalization in headings and bolding in the body
  • at least one book ref does not cite page number, at least one elink refis dead
  • some references are missing non-name information (author, publisher, date, etc.)
  • citation style is not consistent
  • comprehensive seems roughly fine, although some sections need expansion.
  • A section on the trends and the future could be added.
Yes check.svg Done
Feel free to request a re-review when the above is addressed. Please note that my B-class reviews are pretty throughout, as they fast-track articles for a WP:GAN process. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Help request[edit]

Coin945, I noticed your request for help. Anything in particular you're looking for? --Pnm (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well.... as you can probably tell from the peer review above, this article is in a bad shape. As a person who merely has an interest in this topic (I'm going to do advertising next year in uni), I really feel like I lack a lot of the necessary knowledge of both mass media and Wikipedia to produce a great article on my own. I think what I would like is someone from your project who can assist me in this task, in any way possible, really. Take your pick from the peer review. Perhaps one think I would request is for you (or someone else from your Wikiproject) to aid in getting sources and putting the relevant info into the articles. One can only do so much on their own before feeling dwarfed by the project... Thankyou for taking an interest :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly finding sources would be helpful. A lot of the content you're adding is unreferenced. If it's unverifiable – in other words, if it can't be backed up by reliable sources – it's considered original research and can't remain in the article. So yes! Good sources are essential here. I can easily do wikifying, copyediting, and formatting, but would rather focus on sourcing at this stage. (I find it really frustrating to invest in writing beautiful, wikified prose that can't stay in the encyclopedia because it's unverifiable.) --Pnm (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes.... ... I am aware of the source (or lack thereof) situation... In some cases, I did manage to find good info from a source, and the info looked legit, but for some reason Wikipedia didn't allow me to add the source, so I just left it out. Stupid, I know, but I thought that just having something there for now (while I was in the process of recruiting aid) would be good enough. Anything you can salvage from the article (and Wikify and so on and so forth..) be my guest. I don't feel any personal attachment to the prose. Trim as you wish..--Coin945 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If you need help adding citations for sources you already have, I'm more than happy to do that. --Pnm (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
That would be great :)--Coin945 (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a section below (Sources and unsourced material) describing some material I removed and explaining why. Also read WP:V which describes in detail how to assess sources. Sparkie82 (tc) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Radio (History section)[edit]

The phrase "the media" began to be used in the 1920s.[16] The notion of "mass media" was generally restricted to print media up until the post-Second World War, when radio, television and video were introduced. I'm a bit surprised to read this, as radio became a mass medium in the 1920s, at least in the US and many European countries. --94.222.252.216 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Refutable Souces for Article[edit]

Sources and unsourced material[edit]

I removed material attributed to a blog site and some other unsourced material (along with their references). The blog site is not peer reviewed, the articles are undated, and the two cited blog posters had self-posted vitae stating respectively:

  1. "I am a mass communication student and writing has always been my passion. Writing gives me a sense of creative satisfaction and paves way for emotional expression, which makes my work always seem like fun! "
  2. "I have done post graduation in English literature and B.Ed. Am interested in writing and have worked as a content writer with a publication house and b2b marketing company in Delhi."

I also removed a statement about photography which failed verification (the cited article didn't mention photography). Please use only reliable, verifiable sources per WP:V. Sparkie82 (tc) 13:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sphere of Ideas[edit]

I had run across a discussion of "mass media" in a mathematics journal from the late 1990's or early 2000's that was written by a Russian, who gave the defintion as "limiting the number and types of ideas within a sphere". Not an exact quote, I wish I could find that article again as it plainly delt with the issue in a logical way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.224.248 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical correction for "Influence and sociology"[edit]

In the second sentence, change "with" to "which".

Jmcconnell1986 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)jmcconnell1986

  • You can do it yourself, you know! :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This article shows how ignorant most media studies types are of the history, nature, and phenomenological importance of earlier media.[edit]

Did anybody stop to think HOW the Classical and medieval world, until the development of printing, disseminated ANY timely potent propaganda? It certainly wasn't permanent inscriptions on buildings, direct address by messengers, or, as the article emphasizes simplistically and with almost no apparent imagination of the experienced impediments of demographic isolation and widespread illiteracy, through dramatic performance that the politically vital equilibrium of cultural identity was maintained. In fact, it was the very money that served as the most effective form of mass media, and was almost certainly the ONLY form for most cultures and during most periods of antiquity that is comparable at all with modern mass media - so effective that it is still used. City states effectively imposed their aesthetic and values through the iconography and direct epigraphy on money, which changed design as needed to create the impression of centralized vitality of the state. The intensive menial labor of the pre-automatized ancient world was rewarded with only a few chunks/slivers of government-guaranteed metal with political messages and images of dominant deities and political leaders. To accept the seignorage of money production was compulsory, as the authentic state image guaranteed the official exchange rate, as intrinsic value was almost never equal to exchange value, as the cost of production of money was considerable then. The Romans produced as many different individual types of coins, in several different denominations, as there were major events and public programs, with almost every single permutation of Consul, Tribune of the People, accession of coemperors and caesars, the event of the deification of the former emperor, new vows taken by the emperor, changes in name of the emperor, just to name a few categories. In many cases, dating of coins served not only to maintain a sort of quality control and potentially, to differentiate debased from finer alloy objects for the sake of de facto bullion confiscation, but reassured the people that the ruler was still in charge on that year. It was even designated on Roman coins that the coin was issued previously to the actual event of an enacted, scheduled change in office using the abbreviation DES, as in COS [Consul] DES II (or III or ...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endophasy (talkcontribs) 11:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a typo in the section on Purposes[edit]

It reads: "Mass media encompasses much more that just news". Please replace "that" with "than". I would do it myself but the page is locked. 96.237.23.76 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – thanks for letting us know. In the future, please use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

and then the world became green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.151.171 (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC) and then the gangas went to town and fetched the water from the well and they were all dead because they got shot by a bullet from a gun by ganga kiillopius, the famous person who kills people severly!!! Everyone beware as this man destroys the world and causes world war 3 to cause in the 25th of march 2013

Media in Hollywood: Influence[edit]

The presence of Hollywood in the news is an example of glamorous reporting that seems to detract U.S. citizens from the real issues at hand. When the Royal Wedding took place and was captured on camera by each of the most watched networks, nearly 23 million Americans tuned in, whereas 48 million tuned in for the recent presedential debates- a pretty staggering comparison in relation to the importance of each event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holliebat (talkcontribs) 01:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)