|WikiProject Media||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Internet culture||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Hard news, soft news, and infotainment - title and vocabulary
- 2 Crime
- 3 Revert
- 4 Marketing
- 5 Bravo wikipedia!
- 6 A different meaning
- 7 Fox News POV
- 8 Examples
- 9 Links section - WP:NOTCATALOG
- 10 Jon Stewart
- 11 John Oliver and Samantha Bee are not in this article
- 12 My edits
- 13 External links modified
Hard news, soft news, and infotainment - title and vocabulary
The merge here from Hard news, soft news, and infotainment has created a double-redirect from hard news, which is broken. The edit summary pointed to Talk:Hard news, soft news, and infotainment, but there is no discussion there about the title change.
I don't think "infotainment" is really the best title for this article, since the article itself explains that this term has negative connotations. The title should reflect the fact that this article discusses what people think counts as hard vs. soft news.
The article itself uses the term "infotainment" quite frequently, making it sound like it is using the vocabulary of the news trade's most vocal critics, instead of more neutral terms that would more commonly be used by journalists (of whatever kind) to discuss their profession.
I'll ask around for more opinions. -- Beland 7 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
- I would think that "infotainment" would refer to Entertainment Tonight or Extra type shows, rather than to "human interest" stories on self-described news shows, or to the O'Reillys and Matthewses. i.e. "infotainment" doesn't even aspire to be informing the public about the significant political issues of the day, which if you asked an O'Reilly or any news team, they would at least say that was their aspiration. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 02:04 (UTC)
The grammar of this article escapes me at times, notably this part: "infotainment -term change or point of interest, or a general trend—an aspect of the zeitgeist. Many such stories as those cover topics such as health tips or gardening tips, exploring television show genres, travel, shopping, yachting or exploring new wines". It looks as if some words have been accidentally deleted. The examples given also seem a little weak. Loungeposse 11:22, 13 August 2006
"Politics, economics, crime, war, and disasters are considered serious topics,"
- In Britain, (and I suspect most of the rest of the world) the coverage of most crime stories definitely falls into the infotainment category. Particularly when it involves crimes of a sexual nature, crimes involving a famous person (as perpetrator or victim) or certain kinds of murder.
When it comes to murders certain kinds are definitely deemed more "interesting" than others. For the murder to qualify as interesting the victim has to live in the suburbs as opposed to the inner city (unless they are a high ranking gangland figure) be less than 13 years of age and preferably white and female. The vaguest hint of a sexual motive (the more deviant the better) on the part of the perpetrator is also an outstanding advantage -failing that anyting occult related will do ! Murders can also be made more interesting if one ensures that the perpetrator is a member of an ethnic minority (or some other group despised by the tabloids) provided of course that the victim isint as well! 18.104.22.168 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to revert to the original version of the article. Maurreen 03:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I want to congratulate you, my fellow authors here at wikipedia. This article is absolutely magnificent, so beautifully crafted. The topic at hand is very flammable and under discussion about the direction the article is about to take. Maybe one of the reasons why this article has been forming so ideally is the people involved contributing to this article. I wish we had more authors and editors in wikipedia who are able to truly work together. Sometimes I have relapses regarding wikipedia, but with time I have grown to accept the idea that wikipedia is a self-governing and correcting landscape, and the contributions of other people, if skillfully enough, can be called an encyclopaedia. Bravo. Tomes22.214.171.124 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A different meaning
In the automobile industry, "infotainment" has a completely different meaning. It refers to the audio-visual accessories in a car (radio, CD player, navigation system, Bluetooth, etc.). See  for example. —Angr 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Fox News POV
Isn't it POV to state that Fox News increasingly relies on inaccurate information, bad fact-checking, etc.? Isn't it more the correct encyclopedic tone to say that its critics claim this? Otherwise it seems like original research (without actually presenting the research either). Parableman (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Infotainer has taken on a meaning which does not do justice to the broad range of those who provide information in an entertaining format. The spectrum is massive with greater degrees of emphasis on both entertainment and on information provision-- as well as as the relative value of the information provided. Phil Ochs was far more an entertainer, yet still disseminated some information. Jim Cramer is highly entertaining, and also disseminates time sensitive and valuable information to investors and viewers alike. Vince McMahon is extraordinarily entertaining (indeed he runs and performs in World Wrestling Entertainment), and provides information regarding the interactions of the personas of his performers on the highest rated shows on cable television. By contrast, an infomercial may have a chalky degree of entertainment value, but nonetheless disseminates minimal information, usually the name of a product and, ultimately, a price. An infomercial is really just a fancy commercial for a single product, and redundant at that. In contrast, the preceding examples reflect a dynamic interactive format and fresh new information on a regular, even daily or weekly basis.
Links section - WP:NOTCATALOG
Hi. I think, the links section of article should be reduced to 3-4 links. There are some links to "Infotainment" news sites, but why these sites were selected from other? `a5b (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"In October 2012 at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, American political satirist Jon Stewart made a very strong metaphorical statement regarding the media today..." 'very strong' in an encyclopedia. There's the obvious bias. Actually, should the paragraph with his quote in it even be kept in at all? It just seems like more media bashing instead of anything objectively informative. CheeseDeluxe (Feel like talking?) 23:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Seems it would fall under WP:PEACOCK. Removed those words. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
John Oliver and Samantha Bee are not in this article
I can't think of better epitomes of this concept. The oft-repeated axiom that they excel in coverage above and beyond traditional broadcast and print competitors is extremely dubious bordering on promotional affirmation. I think it likely they're being protected by the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll admit the only reason I came here is because it had a styling tab, so I tried to make it sound more encyclopedic. I'm also new here so correct me if I have the wrong ideas
Some of the issues I tried to fix: Clearly statements: Saying "Gardening tips and hobby "news" pretty clearly fall at the entertainment end" shows certainty in a editors statement and not someone else's, especially since the article itself says "On the other hand, people frequently find hobbies and entertainment to be worthwhile parts of their lives and so "importance" on a personal level is rather subjective." Quoted words: These are always sketchy; they imply a lesser point of view like how it's used in "news personalities" (Someone may think your "infotainment" news personality is irreverent to theirs) Moving contents: I tried to make it look more like other pages I've seen where the origin is shown first. But in light of importance, I would have done Journalism first since it introduces the core topic at hand.
Overall, this article makes infotainment a bad thing, and since I can't read the books cited, I can't decide for myself If their important. But I think this article is too against this topic. Reading this article, http://cronkitehhh.jmc.asu.edu/blog/2014/11/infotainment-entertainment-information/ shows that it can be used for good.
Also why is hard news directed here? It's the direct opposite of soft news.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infotainment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050430105022/http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=35 to http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=35
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.