Talk:Media manipulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Society Portal
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.

First, what is this article about beyond being a grab bag of complaints regarding the media? By that, can someone give a short definition of "media distraction" other than saying "it is a form of censorship"?

Second, as far as I can tell, this term was made up purely for use here on Wikipedia. Can someone reference some authority who uses the phrase "media distraction" to refer to whatever this article is about? -º¡º

Google has a massive 170 links for the phrase "media distraction"... you're probably right. -Martin
And Google returns zero hits on the key concepts of this article, such as "Distraction by Phenomenon", "Distraction by Scapegoat", and "Distraction by Nationalism". Can *anybody* provide external support for this article? -º¡º

The broad content is pretty standard stuff. Needs a lot of work though. Any introductory Media Studies course will cover his sort of thing. Alas, it's been a long, long time since I did Media 101 and I've forgotten all the proper terms. -Tannin

I'm not debating the content, per se. I'm debating writing an encylopedia article called "media distraction", claiming that such a thing exists, claiming this content applies to it, then making a bunch of interwikipedia links that point here. This doesn't seem to be a term that is used with any popularity, so if this is covered in "media 101", does it go by a more accepted name? -º¡º
There probably is a more standard term, but give me a break, BigFatBudda, I did my single media studies unit in ... er ... 1985, and I haven't kept current since. It does need attention, but simply deleting the article is not an answer. The thing this entry calls "media distraction" most certainly exists, and is the proper subject of a Wikipeda entry. Hopefully, someone better qualified than either of us will come along and deal with it soon. Tannin
Tannin, go take a look at propaganda. Just about everything of substance discussed here is already covered there. -º¡º

Hello again. If you are just debating the name, it is no reason to blank this article on which several wikipedians have agreed it had the right of being here. Have you checked the history of the name given at censorship in the United States ? Meanwhile, I put the article again, because it not having the right in *your* opinion is no reason to censor it. -user:anthere

The goal was to get your attention, which I have. The term "Media Distraction" has all the appearance of either a fringe concept or one invented just for wikipedia. The article is a random collection of statements that someone here claims can be called "media distraction". I'm asking that supporters of this article show that this concept has some accepted meaning by authorities outside of wikipedia. -º¡º
It won't change anything to get *my* attention, as I certainly would not propose any other name for this page myself. You better ask to those who proposed the new name. -user:anthere

Yes, I have the answer. The proper name of this page is: propaganda -Peter Chamberlain

I don't think so. -user:anthere
Propaganda may be the place to roll this in, as it does already include much of the concepts that are presented here. The article, as it stands, is fundamentally a personal essay that someone has written to present their concept of "media distraction". -º¡º
I disagree, Propaganda is only part of the content of this article. And what you seem to be fondamentally be missing is that the "author" of the article has not named it "media distraction", User:MyRedDice did. The name "Media distraction" was already proposed to solve an naming issue. So the one you disagree in calling that article poorly name is My Red Dice. Of course, I am perfectly aware it is the article itself you are trying to censor. Your problem is just a bad case of censorship. -user:anthere
It needs a name change or a merge, and lots of work. However, I don't see that it should be deleted because of this. If we had deleted every article that was ever once a personal essay, rather than revising it, I think we'd have a lot less content... ;-) Martin
I agree that it needs a lot of work, and a better name, and I'm not averse to seeing the content merged somewhere suitable. (So long as it is a genuine merge, not just a burial.) Perhaps those who favour deleting this will be a little kinder to it now that I've balanced out the original examples from the "anti-anti-war movement" with ones from the other side of the fence. Tannin
Not only do I object to the naming, I object to the fundamental concept. According to the article, MD techniques "are used to suppress information or points of view by crowding them out of the media". Who claims they are used, and who do they claim use them? This article is so unsupported that it is on the verge of falling apart. -º¡º
And are using precisely some of the techniques described in the article to try to blank it out, instead of admitting your pov just makes you react to the example. Just drop it BigFatBudha. If you have a problem with the examples given, add some more. -user:anthere
I'm sure you've had your delight at claiming that opponents of media distraction must be using media distraction, that's about as funny as saying that people who disagree with you on censorship must be censoring you. If you want to write an NPOV article, you simply state WHO believes WHAT. So, WHO believes in "media distraction" and WHAT do they believe about it? -º¡º
No, it is not delightful at all. I see not why I would defend a title that I have not chosen myself, or even ever said I agreed on.
  • Distraction by phenomenon: (A term which exists nowhere outside of wikipedia) A risky but effective strategy summarized by David Mamet's movie Wag the Dog, in which the public can be distracted, for long periods of time, from an important issue, by one which occupies more news time. When the strategy works, you have a war or other media event taking attention away from misbehaving or crooked leaders. When the strategy does not work, the leader's misbehavior remains in the press, and the war is derided as an attempted distraction. US President Clinton's involvement in Bosnia is often cited as an example. As with most persuasion methods, it can easily be applied in reverse, in this case, France's reluctance to vote in favor of military action towards Iraq

I insist. This example is not good. I really don't see where the distraction by phenomenon is here.

Clarify please - Is this imagined "distraction by phenomenon" one where the public is distracted from any important issue, or does it only apply to distraction away from a misbehaving leader? -º¡º

both are interesting...:-) Typical example if Bush trying to hide his very poor internal management behind a military success. So, what does France reluctance to vote has to do with this ? I find interesting to oppose Bush inability to govern the country, Clinton involvment in Bosnia...to France reluctance to vote. I think a better inversion example would concern a leader rather than a country for more similarity. But, then, one needs to indicate what major issue the leader is trying to hide. And...that example has to be crystal clear to readers, so it must be quite widely known what the leader was trying to hide.

But you didn't clarify. Does "distraction by phenomenon" apply ONLY to events designed to cover behavior of a leader? -º¡º

By the way, I thought interesting to copy again here that previous comment of you...

And Google returns zero hits on the key concepts of this article, such as "Distraction by Phenomenon", "Distraction by Scapegoat", and "Distraction by Nationalism". Can *anybody* provide external support for this article? -º¡º

Strangely, though you mentionned these three points did not existed, two of them are already mentioned or defined in wikipedia, in the propaganda article. I am surprised these are defined in propaganda without any warning to the readers, as I understand a term not mentionned by google does not exist, and have no credibility. Or...maybe is that the google search which was incorrect ? Should not it be mentionned in the propaganda article that they do not exist ?

Perhaps it should. Feel free to go correct it. -º¡º
Certainly not ! They don't bother "me" at all...:-)
Another title suggested was media manipulation
I've moved the article there. At least now we are dealing with a broad concept that is documented instead of imagined. -º¡º
I CANT BELIEVE IT !!!! You actually read that proposition ? Okay, that meal time then .... good night User:anthere

This is the sort of time when I feel disappointed with Wikipedia. I am adding this to the dark side. --Kaihsu 22:20 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

It's actually getting better! Having seen sn example of extreme unreasonableness over on pit bull, I had expected this one to go the same way. Still ain't close to being a candidate for brilliant prose, but little by little, it's improving. Well done, people. Tannin 22:31 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

As long as it stays under this (or a similar) name, I'm going to stop touching the article. I don't debate for a moment that there is a well defined concept of "media manipulation", it was the concept of "media distraction" that I took a bone with. Regarding pit bull, see comment for you there in talk... -º¡º
Yes, good job. (feel free to remove it from the dark side now, I guess) --Kaihsu

DISCUSSION MOVED FROM VOTES FOR DELETION FOLLOWS: Tannin 11:08 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

  • Media distraction This article presents a variety of so-called censorship techniques that are already covered at propaganda and creates the name Media distraction to label them. My searching has not shown that the literature at large uses this concept and this article appears to be not much more than a political essay masquerading as an article. Google searchs on "media distraction" returns very few hits, and google searches on the key phrases within the article receive zero. Finally, a Lexis-Nexis search on this phrase returns no usages in the sense that the article implies. -º¡º
    • It has useful content which is expressed poorly. It is certainly a candidate for revision, and I don't like article title, but there is no case for deletion. Tannin 00:08 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a depository for personal essays on non-existent topics, even if they have "useful content". There is no such beast as "Media distraction", and this stuff is already covered at propaganda or censorship. -º¡º
    • Seconded. looxix 00:23 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • The media distraction article should be deleted, but its contents should be moved to the censorship and propaganda. I wouldn't be able to do that well, so could someone else? LittleDan
    • see discussion about censorship in the United States, which is about the same topic. It was mentioned in the discussion page in censorship in the United States that several people thought that article was relevant in wikipedia in terms of content (though some would probably say the article needs editing) and agreed for it being moved to the new page media distraction (name not proposed by the initial author himself). If there is a disagreement with the name given, please discuss it in the talk page of the article. I have no opinion over any new name, but I strongly object to deletion. user:anthere
    • media distraction appears to simply not be an encylopedic topic. Since there are no authorities that used this phrase, and no body of knowledge relating to this topic, any user could claim anything they want about media distraction without there being any way of deciding that their statement was right or wrong. I've asked politely for some sign that this is a "real" concept, used by some sort of recognized authority on censorship or propaganda, and have been rebuffed. This remains a request for deletion, and not for renaming. -º¡º
      • A google search for "media distraction" give 169 hits. Some newspaper also use this term, for example: http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/columns/medialife/5396/. -- looxix 20:16 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
        • My point exactly. 169 google hits is nothing, and the nytimes article you quoted doesn't use the phrase in any sort of context that applies censorship or propaganda.
      • I support this article's deletion (under any name). The relevant issues are already covered elsewhere. It might be interesting for Disinfopedia, though. --Eloquence 22:26 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't support the article's deletion. When I read it, I thought the information quite valid. The question is where it should reside and, of course, it's open to editing and NPOV review. It was moved to "media distraction" because it didn't quite belong under censorship in the U.S.  !j!, I can't help but think you're being a bit of a snob. Loosen up and suggest a proper title for it, and nothing like "file thirteen". jaknouse 05:33 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • Now moved to media manipulation

(END MOVED DISCUSSION)

There are still problems with the POV flavour of the examples used in this article. If each example came from a different culture and period in history, I think it would be less controversial. Washington irving 09:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

perhaps , but then, you have to replace them with examples of similar or higher value. Good luck :-)

I replaced all the current examples with more broad, genaric examples. But in doing so, I realized that every "media manipulation technique" is already discussed on the various logical fallacy pages. The only difference is that these ones tend to be more politically-based. Which implies that the media only talks about politics, which is obviously incorrect. A logical fallacy used in the "media" is no different than a logical fallacy used anywhere else. I'm not convinced this page is serving any meaningful purpose, other than a short-lived attempt to complain about the Iraq war. user:J.J.

sorry, but no. I do not say that all you changed is not acceptable, but I want to insist that globally removing carefully crafted examples, with generalities is not ok. So, we can do it step by step if you wish, but I just want to insist that this whole change is not ok to my opinion. I just do not have time right now; I'll come back to it. FirmLittleFluffyThing

Um, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Most of the current examples are not good, they are rigid, akward, and biased. With these kinds of pages you are supposed to give examples in broad, genaric terms, not seek out real-life quotes and go "look, look, this guy is committing a fallacy!" I still don't understand what this page does that the various logical fallacy pages don't already do in a better, less political, less dated, less Iraq war-centric way. user:J.J.

To my opinion, these examples are on the contrary good; because they are real life examples, factual examples. It is much richer. The topic of the page is significantly different from the logical fallacies, not all points cited are fallacies. The logical fallacies pages describes situations in general. This one describes how fallacies are used in a specific context, which is why factual examples are appropriate. This said, I agree they are rather Iraq war centric. If you wish, I may ask the initial author of it to provide more examples, I am sure he will have some more recent. Do you agree ? FirmLittleFluffyThing 19:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It makes no sense, we may as well have a page for "logical fallacies committed in school," "logical fallacieis committed in the workplace," "logical fallacies committed at daycare" etc etc. It's unessisary. We have one page that explains what logical fallacies are. People can figure out how to apply them to real-world situations on their own. user:J.J.

[edit] POV

"Example: If many countries are opposed to our actions, but one of them (say, France) is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly France. As with most persuasion methods, it can easily be applied in reverse, in this case, attempting to discredit George W. Bush in order to discredit the entire coalition against Iraq."

The editor probably didn't intend it to be, but the combo of the casual "(say, France)" with the "obviously acting out of self-interest" just smacks of POV to me. I think a better edit would be something like "but if one of them is obviously acting out of self-interest, mention mostly that country". It's def. still not perfect, but at least it's not quite so unnecessairly politically charged. --Zagsa 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)