Talk:Media Lens

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Framing (social sciences)#Framing in mass communication research|framing]] The anchor (#Framing in mass communication research) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media Lens article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1: June 2011
2: April 2012
3: Sept 2012

4: Nov 2012
5: Mar 2012 (1)
6: Mar 2012 (2)

7: Mar 2014

CE

Made some edits to remove assertions and replace with descriptions. Synonyms for "wrote" and "said" need to be equally neutral.Keith-264 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, while an effort has been made by other editors to show conflicts of interest in ML critics and supporters*, there ought to be a better way of describing MLs worth than by doing more than listing comments for and against.

I write on the ML message board so declare an interest.Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you still watch this page, Keith-264, but the word Pilger currently appears 21 times in this article, while the word Kamm appears only 12 times, respectively 13 and 6 times if one excludes the citations. This number applies to the text and the citations. Just so you know. Philip Cross (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Media Lens. 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/20090712121029/http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/87236.html to http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/87236.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53443%2Cnews-comment%2Cnews-politics%2Cbbc-is-not-impartial-independent-nor-even-particularly-truthful%2C2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103185929/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20051031.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20051031.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100249502/few-human-beings-can-be-compared-to-jesus-christ-nelson-mandela-was-one

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Media Lens. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few points

Rhacodes, the reason someone added the Journalism panel to the this article would have been the presence there of a link to the Propaganda model page which is listed under "social impact" rather than any aspect of the profession. Cromwell and Edwards do not use the journalist self-description, nor is it present in reliable sources, anything else is original research. They are normally described as media activists, an identifier which they do use and is a fair and non-pejorative description.

I don't see Elliott Murphy's relative obscurity as a problem. He is in the same position as their admirers, bar a handful of exceptions. Most of their most serious detractors have long established Wikipedia articles, one or two, such as Andrew Marr, are quite well known, so your argument is potentially to the disfavour of Media Lens, if followed to its logical conclusion. Given Herman and Chomsky's huge influence on the Media Lens editors, I would assume Cromwell and Edwards are less displeased by Murphy's description of them (having "'taken to heart' the hypothesis of Herman and Chomsky 'probably more than any other writers in Britain'") than anything else in the article. I used his point, partly for emphasis I admit, but also because it is a necessary third-party source to establish the notability of the Herman and Chomsky influence. Philip Cross (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far left

The introductory sentence was recently amended to state that Media Lens is a “far left” group. A similar amendment was made last year but abandoned after resistance from another editor. Citing a RS which describes someone as “far left” seems fine but can Wikipedia itself take a position on a groups political orientation? If an RS is cited describing an organisation as “far left” would it be more appropriate to do this in the body of the article, e.g. a “response and criticism” section, than in the introduction? Burrobert 14:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

I've reverted that change; I for one don't consider them "Far Left". They don't advocate for violent revolution, nationalising everything, collectivisation. For what it's worth, I'd guess they're probably anarchists; but I don't think that guesses about their political alignment belong in the lede at all. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the lede is supposed to summarise sourced material from the article body. There is nothing in the body that says they are "Far Left", let alone anything sourced. "Indisputable" is therefore an absurd edit summary. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the term "far-left" certainly does not belong in the lead. They satisfy none of the conditions set out in the far left article to which that editor linked; rather their main purpose is to expose the lying in MSM when the latter try to justify war and military conflict. They are also concerned about the dangers of climate change. For real far-left groups, see Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party of Great Britain, and the like. It may be possible to quote someone calling them "far-left" in the body of the article, with attribution, if balanced with other sources for NPOV. --NSH001 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpartisan

The word "hyperpartisan" has recently been added to the description of MediaLens. I reverted it once but it has returned. I can't see that it is supported by any references and does not seem encyclopaedic. There is no explanation of how MediaLens is hyper partisan. What do other editors editors think? Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media Lens missing page sources

You've managed to review Media Lens on your wikipedia page without any reference to articles celebrating their 20th Anniversary. This article for example https://dissidentvoice.org/2021/04/reflecting-on-twenty-years-of-media-lens/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.192.46 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Lens/Archive 7" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Media Lens/Archive 7 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Media Lens/Archive 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Lens/Archive 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Media Lens/Archive 6 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Media Lens/Archive 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Lens/Archive 5" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Media Lens/Archive 5 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Media Lens/Archive 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Lens/Archive 4" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Media Lens/Archive 4 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Media Lens/Archive 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Lens/Archive 3" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Media Lens/Archive 3 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Media Lens/Archive 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Media Lens/Archive 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Media Lens/Archive 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Media Lens/Archive 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]