Talk:New World Information and Communication Order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Hi gang - I'm referencing NWICO in a talk today and didn't want folks finding a copyright violation page when they searched for the term. My take on NWICO is basically from my reading of "Many Voices, One World" and newspaper stories regarding the US withdrawal from UNESCO. I'll try to write a more thorough entry, including entries on the MacBride Commission, once I've got the MacBride report in front of me.

NWIO same as NWICO?[edit]

I had trouble telling whether NWIO (New World Information Order) is the same as NWICO (New World Information and Communication Order), they seemed a bit from my web research to be used interchangeably. Anyone knows, please clarify. For the time being, I've made a redirect form NWIO to NWICO. Notice that I also added link to the MacBride report, for which I made a separate entry. Jens Nielsen 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are the same. The word "communication" was added to indicate a broader range of issues. It also implies a human process whereas information is a more technical term. (16 July 2007)

What is it?[edit]

This article talks in brief about who refers to New World Information and Communication Order as NWICO, and in what context but it doesn't actually say what it is.Eldonkeyo 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, What is it??[edit]

Hear, hear!! That's the main problem with this article in a nutshell. It is a "term" , it has "goals", one large country was antagonistic toward it. But what is "it" (other than an "order")? The opening paragraph gets a big fat 'F' (lowest grade) for not answering this simple question.

178.8.63.164 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer is probably hidden in this sentence: "The term was widely used by the MacBride Commission ... which was charged with creation of a set of recommendations to make global media representation more equitable." Okay, fine. But does this term refer to "the way things are now" (the current "world order" with respect to news flow, etc.) or "the way things should be" (i.e. a manifesto), or does this term which the commission "widely used" in fact refer to the final recommendations (or report) that it issued? We never find out.

178.8.63.164 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

removed reference[edit]

I removed this which had been added to the SEE ALSO listing. I'm sure it is a useful source but there are many overviews of the NWICO and this was not used in writing the main body of this entry. For people that are interested here it is: GLOBAL COMMUNICATION:THEORIES, STAKEHOLDERS, AND TRENDS (London: Blackwell Publishers,2006) Thomas McPhail. Chapter 10 focuses on UNESCO and the NWICO debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.141.102 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

More balanced source[edit]

None of the articles in Wikipedia relating to the NWICO actually state why the US condemned it accept to suggest what others believe are the "real" reasons. This is not surprising given that the overwhelming presence on the web similarly skips over this (which is ironic since the NWICO was accusing the US of having control over the media). I was able to find however, a critical but balanced article on the US' opposition to NWICO (I don't agree with this article I'm just saying its more balanced), and I think with some looking more articles that actually say why the US takes this position can be found since this article indicates at the time most US editorials were overwhelmingly negative on NWICO. I personally don't like NWICO because I think there is a basic human right to speak, in addition to the public's right to listen, which requires a free and private press (although a complementary public press is often a good addition), but I'm not asking for a whitewash of criticisms, all I want is for putting in information from articles which actually examine the US position instead of throwing up their hands in the air and saying it's all a matter of greed (I don't want to debate whether it is or not, what I'm saying is in an encyclopedia, by Wikipedian standards, we have to be fair to the side being criticized and let their view be heard).

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1305 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)