Category talk:Social democratic newspapers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this category should be merged into Category:Socialist newspapers. "Social-democratic" is problematic as a term: it means very different things (Marxist? non-Marxist? - hell, even Bolsheviks used to be "social-democrats"), is hardly discernable unless the newpaper concerned is tied to a party, and all its senses are well covered by the cosy and expandable word "socialist" (whereas "communist" establishes a very relevant distinction). Dahn 23:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense. Although it may lead to some “mix ups” between communist newspapers and socialist newspapers...

Socialist may be better than social democratic, although it would also mean that many papers that rightfully could be called Social Democratic, but never really refered to as socialist...

I’m thinking for instance on the Swedish daily Aftonbladet, which to some extent in its editorials expresses support for the Swedish Social Democratic Party, but the paper itself is in no way a socialist, political item. It is much more leaning towards the right... So I'm not really sure what to do.Bronks 08:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The mix-ups you mention do indeed surface, as many contributors are not aware of facts such as Trotskyism being a form of Communism rather than the vague Socialism. With vigilance, that would not constitute such an important matter - note what the two of us ended up doing for Avanti!, which is now in both cats (as it was indeed communist for a while back then).

The Aftonbladet thing you mention is indeed problematic. My, be they un-orthodox, two cents would tend to simplify the matter by placing it in both "Socialist newpapers" and "Liberal" (if the term does indeed describe it adequately). I'm guessing that, if a Social dem. party could be described as "socialist" (although, as parties, they tend to clarify that they are "social dem." with the meaning made clear, but still discernable as socialism at its source), then the paper itself could be regarded as having been socialist by proxy. Does this make sense? Dahn 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think that sounds good. Like you say a paper can belong in several cats... Bronks 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, It may very much be so that it was just my POV to say Aftonbladet is not a socialist paper. I'm sure many Swedish conservatives would say it is socialist, from their POV... So I'm sure it can be refered to that.... Bronks 15:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)