Talk:Politico-media complex

An acknowledgement

This contribution was inspired by and borrows heavily from the structure of military-industrial complex (MIC), especially the opening section which is very nearly a substitution of keywords.Dsmith1usa 08:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrections/links I was adding to the debate as Daniel axed the (deletion) banner

• The Campbell I was referring to was, of course, Alastair Campbell, Blair's chief spin doctor.
• The diaries I'm talking about are those written by Campbell as he tries to 'push through' the politico-media complex his version of events ('victors' 'n history 'n all that).
• The war is the one that continues in Iraq.
• The 'red-top' particularly 'gung-ho': The Sun.
• 'fine C in C' should have been 'our Dear Leader, that fine C-in-C.'
• 'Vom Kreig' should have been 'Vom Kriege.'

Dsmith1usa 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Appreciation Society

Of course, for this phrase, I'm obliged to all that worked on The Italian Job and, yes, 'self-preservation' is probably a better way of calling it ;-) Dsmith1usa 08:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some commentators have tried to argued the usefulness of a PMC in shaping public opinion in a counterbalance of bad news that may be overshadowing real political accomplishments or in the face of the emergence of new political personalities and policies. especially shrill where the dead are white people.}}</ref>

Refs

You can't use the term some critics when you're listing the same bloke twice, and I don't think he's making the arguments the text suggests, and I think we're getting somewhat into areas of pondering how much weight we give to each of these individual commentators. I'd also ask that we keep the text somewhat simple, so that a layman can understand what on earth the point is behind a phrase such as "deleterious distortions". As to adding the Iraq War as a see also, I can't see any justification for that at all. Hiding Talk 13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Editor known as Block

• Dear Block. I'm a bit tired of dealing with you. You've shown no cooperation on dealing with an early article of my origination in the face of you declaring it should be deleted. Now I know we had our workouts in Natascha Engel, especially when when she's been given her reward through Peter Hain, but I did start to get an impression that you would come to work with me and with the ideal of keeping us Wiki 'neophytes' in line, as we know stuff, and we try to work. However, the understanding that we come to is that the likes of all you 'grand editors' is that you are obstructionists and frightened. That's because of all the bollocks you let go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's helpful. Have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and see if you've got anything that will help solve the issue. As for the personal attacks, Wikipedia:No personal attacks might prove helpful. All the best, Hiding Talk 15:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WQA Response

Hi there. I am responding to a Wikiquette Alert regarding the above discussion here. I'd like to make a friendly suggestion that the above section be removed or archived, as it constitutes a personal attack against Hiding and is inappropriate for this talk article. I'd advise that a more appropriate place to give feedback for Hiding would be on his talk page, and that this article Talk page should remain focused on article content itself. (If you do decide to remove the above section, please feel free to remove this one as well.)

I am not passing judgement on either side of the issue with respect to the article content itself - I am a neutral third party uninvolved in this article, and I am merely addressing the personal dispute that seems to have arisen between you both. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know - we should probably continue this discussion on the WQA page or one of our User talk pages. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns KieferSkunk and indeed I'm not happy that I have had to appear to become a little more strong willed in the face of, for me at least, Block's awkwardness (scientists know something like this as, 'The Law of the Cussedness of Nature,' or, alternatively, 'There's always at least one, isn't there?') I'm devoting just a little bit more time on here, to dealing with Block, in the politest possible terms (under the circumstances), to illustrate some of the errors of his ways ... hypocrisy and double standards kind of sum it all up. I believe this entire record should be kept and kept public so that contributors - newbies especially - can find source on what they may be letting themselves in for. Dsmith1usa 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC) (There, this time I remembered, apologies Jossi for not signing the above.)

• I disagree that this is the way to go - having this here can poison the atmosphere on Wikipedia unnecessarily and may also be violating both WP:NPA and WP:POINT (the latter talks about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). It does not lead to balanced discussions moving toward consensus - rather, it seeks to polarize the community against one editor, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of how you, or any number of editors, feel about a specific editor, you should bring up personal disputes about the editor's tactics either on their own Talk page, or in dispute-resolution forums such as Wikiquette Alerts or informal mediation. (Sorry for the delay in responding - been mostly offline for a couple of days.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Aaahhh ... the Wiki word of 'majick:' consensus. 'N then inspiring usages as: '... balanced discussions moving towards consensus.' With respect, KieferSkunk, you're indulging in some smoke with mirrors 'n handwaving. Since, whenever, has 'consensus' been some sort of guarantee of guidance towards ... what IS? (True/just ... etc. etc.) I'd bet that, on history's scale, 'consensus' is a miserable failure. The 'Triangle Trade' was a matter of 'community consensus' among those who participated, as was the Holocaust. But, anyway, that it is a comforting fiction of human understanding is neither here nor there. It's, well, what can I say, sooo subjective ... and thus by Wiki's own 'standards' unencyclopaedic. Grudging acceptance maybe ;-)

The idea of 'consensus' as being an aspect of 'mediocrity,' a kind of 'dumbing down' is featured in a recent R4 docu. on Wiki:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/radio4choice.shtml

Download 'n it should play for ya.

I, too, have been away, and apologize for my delay in getting back. Be sure, that I will respond to your later contribution.

N.B. There are parallels in this argumentation between 'consensus' in Wiki and 'democracy' as it plays in the West. Particularly how the 'poor/weak' plebs are 'allowed' to manifest their reasoning in the face of the 'rich/strong' equestrians/aristos. Dsmith1usa 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• My point is not that you have to necessarily agree with consensus, and I'm not trying to tell you what the consensus is on this article. My point is that a section in an article Talk page titled "The editor known as Block", deliberately calling this person out in an uncivil tone, is a violation of several policies on Wikipedia, and it is NOT helping things here. As I said earlier, it seeks to polarize editors against one another, and it poisons the collaborative atmosphere. A discussion about Hiding's editing style and/or the quality of his edits should be taken to his own Talk page, but should not be brought up here. Discussion on this page should be limited to the topic of the article. (I am off-topic, too, but that is for the purpose of informing all parties about the policies.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I fold my response to this in with my response to your later contribution, Dsmith1usa 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

On Quantification (existential/universal: there exists/for all)

My dear Block argues:

You can't use the term some critics when you're listing the same bloke twice ...(my emphasis: heh, it is a 'blockquote' too;-)

As long as the Universe of Discourse contains at least one member with the predicated quality logic tells me I am empowered to use the existential quantifier. Translated into plain English, just for you, that's some.

Now that's to be distinguished from 'several' which is a usual indicator of more than, say, two or three. So to use the word 'several,' in an argument, is to imply, at least more than two.

So when an acquaintance of ours, name of Blacketer, known to Block and recently given some Wiki admin. priviliges (AP) cites in his AP pleading:

He [that's yours T] has been in dispute with several editors ...

he's padding his case, since Blacketer full well knows that the only folks giving grief were:

• Galloglass
• Block
• Blacketer

This came about because I started adding much more material to the Wiki entry on Natascha Engel and, in my innocence, I sidled-up to the Village Pump to seek advice on the substantiation of some of my contributions. I was particularly perplexed by the problem of my knowing certain facts through my personal correspondence with her.

Extensive source is available on the Talk page for the Engel article about what transpired next.

Well, anyway, Galloglass left the scene pretty quickly, so that left me contending with Block and Blacketer. Now correct me if I'm being stupid, but to me that leaves two. Then, mid-ocean Block jumps ship claiming a syndrome he named 'wikibonked' (I think - I've no idea what it means, but I think I'm getting to the stage where I may have caught a dose;-)

So that left one ... Blacketer. So 'one' is Blacketer's version of 'several.' And then you made him an administrator.

I've brought Blacketer to the stage since he's part of the same story of the 'double-standards' and 'hypocrisy' that I've discovered around here.

Oh, if you get a chance and want a cheap laugh, ask Blacketer what being a 'candidate' connotes ...

... to be continued ... Dsmith1usa 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm finding it hard to cut through the text up above to work out what your germane point is regards this article and the content of it, but what I'm basing my objections on are the guidance offered on writing Wikipedia articles. With regards the term "some", and the substantiation of the phrase through reference to one journalist, I'm leaning on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If we can keep the discussion to the content of this article, as suggested above, that would be helpful. Hiding Talk 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Dsmith: See my more recent reply to the WQA section above. The way you've worded your retort either violates or is close to violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and/or WP:POINT. Hiding has made some valid points, as have you, but I see a genuine effort on Block's part to keep the discussion civil and free of direct personal references, whereas I can't say the same for you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Folded responses to KieferSkunk

Well, where should we start? ...

Hiding has made some valid points, as have you,...

Well, that's good. Do me a favor and list out my valid 'points,' 'n pass 'em over to Block, since our mutual friend, previously (on an entirely different article) has insinuated an overshadowing assertion on my editing behavior:

Block writes:

Oh, you wanted a pointless debate.

No, I made the mistake of thinking that hanging around the Village Pump would be a good idea in the attempt to work on my concerns on 'objectivity.' [Emphases added.]

'N then later there is the 'below radar' indirect attack on my earnestness with the implication of 'trollism:'

I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff.

This, in the talk space of the article, receives its due, and restrained, reponse. Indeed, I suggest he be gentle with himself. (Block, shortly after, went off, claiming a state of wikibonkedness [whatever that is]).

You go on to say:

I see a genuine effort on Block's part to keep the discussion civil and free of direct personal references, ...[Emphasis added]

Yes, it's called 'weaseling' with smart ass remarks in the hope of getting cheap laughs from 'communities of consensus' 'in the know. We can all play that game, but, being human, we can get tired and if it waddles, quacks, swims and flies we start calling a duck, 'duck.'

You say:

... and it is NOT helping things here.

Ummm ... glass houses come to mind. We can ALL find ways to be unhelpful to processes.

Trying to interject into something we know nothing about is a good way of being unhelpful and, generally, making oneself a pain in the ass:

I have no idea what this point is relating to, ...

Of course, the person who thus declares that they have no idea about what they are about to speechify on, then, regardless, goes on to do exactly that! Who was this from? Guess, and then give yourself a shiney. (Here's a clue ... it wasn't you. [Heh, amazing what you can start to do, on reading Chaucer, 'n Canterbury for to goon.]

This was when I was trying to explain to another editor, (who, much to my amusement had earlier tried to persuade me that by using the word, 'candidate,' we connote 'failure'), the difference between 'the thing' and the 'name of the thing'. (Aside: this editor, still appearing to be cavalier over the 'thing' and 'name of,' has now been made an administrator through the majick of 'consensus.' Way to go 'consensus.')

I seek not to poison anything nor polarize one against another. However, I dislike, intensely, hypocrisy and double standards and if I see it or experience it, I will call it out (paraphrasing you) and I'll take my chances. What's the worst you can do? Block [sic.] me, perhaps. I tremble in my boots. Oh, weary wo ... my existence is now meaningless (ROTFL). If this upsets the 'equestrian' editors, who appear to wave the rule books when it suits 'em ... amen. Too bad. And too bad for Wikipedia.

If I have, in the past, posted in the 'wrong' areas, my reponse, that's a consequence of past 'newbieness' and, regardless, being bold - as encouraged by Wikipedia.

(I, too, am off-topic, too, but that is for the purpose of informing all parties - especially newcomers - about everything that has transpired here.)

Regards, KieferSkunk, it's been real ...

Pppsss ... you write:

... and I'm not trying to tell you what the consensus is on this article.

The 'consensus' was, my dear KieferSkunk, ...there was 'no consensus.' Do you know the name for this paradox (an inbuilt contradiction in the much vaunted, particularly by the Wiki Equines, rules)? Do you know it's many other names?

... 'n now we return y'all to the usual programming ...

Dsmith1usa 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I find this entire response to be highly inappropriate, and it shows that there is nothing more I personally can do to help out with the situation. I will be referring this dispute to a more appropriate forum, and will no longer be involved in the dispute myself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to 'critics' (as employed by Block)

Names -> no names -> (Some) Critics -> explicitly quantifying (two)... LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Politico-media_complex&diff=145899968&oldid=145707660

Well, as you saw fit to edit Block ... it's back to your original now (all your work) ... well, we're back again.

It's like Groundhog Day innit my dear Block? Dsmith1usa 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dsmith: This is your last warning. Stop with the personal attacks now or you will be reported to the Admin Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A Project

Hi, I am a member of a student group interested in editing and expanding this page to include more in-depth analysis of the symbiotic relationship between politics and the following specific forms of media from a global perspective: film, newspapers/magazines, radio, television, and the internet. We are in the earliest stages of our research at this point, but we will be discussing our findings and resources here over the course of the next couple months and welcome any helpful feedback.

We realize that the topic is broad, but between the five of us we expect to be able create coherent and thorough sections for the page.

Thank you, Ecr6 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Ecr6

"To Do" List

1. Create heading for your topic on the talk page. Due by 10/14/09

2. Create subheadings: Outline & References. Due by 10/14/09

3. Have at least 5 references under references. Due by 10/14/09

4. Outline for each subtopic. Due by 10/14/09

5. Assessment and feedback on each others outlines on the talk page. Share sources that are relevant to other subtopics if found. Due by 10/18/09

6. Major points from resources for your subtopic. Due by 10/25/09

7. Full draft of each persons subtopic with the outline for the whole page. Due by 11/2/09

8. Each person will review and provide feedback for another persons subtopic. Due by 11/8/09

9. Everything done for the deadline of 11/16/09.

Information will be gradually added.

Jlw80 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Jessica Wedin

That looks like a good plan, I like that you will try to set and keep your own internal deadlines. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Politics and Film (Liz)

Outline

I. Pre-classical Period

II. Classical Period

• Frank Capra: American Politics and the Individual

Overtly political films have never been popular in the U.S. despite the strong patriotism and nationalism of Americas (Hjort and Mackenzie 32). Besides Frank Capra, no other major American film-maker has seriously presented central themes of citizenship, participation, and responsibility in civic life. Lindholm and Hall, in "Frank Capra Meets John Doe," connect the failure of his project to "develop a positive American cinematic vocabulary for political action" with what they argue are "fundamental contradictions in American national identity" (32). After a period of depression, Capra resolved to inspire Americans "by reaffirming and updating national myths in his films" (33).

Capra's films from that point on were characterized by the same basic formula according to which the fundamental American values of fairness and honesty are challenged by the corruption and cruelty of the city and government. During his presidential campaign Ronald Reagan later extensively quoted the speech made by Mr. Deeds in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) when he makes a passionate speech that wins everyone over at the trial in which he is accused of insanity. He calls for "charity and individual goodness -- combined with a distaste for the complexities of political life" (34). His next film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) reinforced these values as well as the American faith in the legal system the integrity and decency of the everyman versus the power and the crookedness of special interest groups, hence constructing a myth of the American everyman hero who is able to defeat corporate evil (34-35). John Doe (1941), which ads went to great pains to market as the true everyman representative of the American public conformed again to Capra's formula, but without the strong family roots and initially amoral, a reflection on America's ambivalence toward social life (36). The ideal of the power of individualism and the fluidity of social mobility abound. Capra promotes the free man's ability to take up the responsibilities and obligations that come with a social conscience the community and state. After Joe realizes his need for others, he discovers and attempts to expose a fascist bidder for presidency planning to take advantage of his club support, but he fails in the midst of a violent mob with the depressing conclusion that the American public is a credulous crowd susceptible to manipulation until the John Doe club members come begging his forgiveness and convince him to return to lead them.

The unsuccessful ending discouraged any more political films for Capra and no films of merit after It's a Wonderful Life and he said in old age that all American film-makers should forget politics if they don't want to cut themselves in half (40). Alexis de Tocqueville elaborates on what Capra apparently assumed as well: "[T]he egalitarian individualist is inevitably disconnected from the world of society and politics" and the "major theme of American social thought...is how to relate the isolated individual to the larger social whole" (41). Tocqueville, however, argued that without some kind of religious faith, the institutions responsible for instilling civic virtue in citizens, as Capra was attempting to do through the media of film, would be ultimately ineffective.

Lindholm and Hall conclude with the observation that "the problems that defeated Capra have also undercut later attempts by American film-makers to portray the complex relationship between individualism and citizenship in the United States" and say that Hollywood has instead adopted the paranoia of politics that Capra had tried to overcome (42). Consequently, political films in the U.S. have followed a trend of focusing on the flawed character of leaders, such as Citizen Kane (1940) and Nixon (1995), or otherwise show the corruption of power, such as in The Candidate (1972) and Primary Colors (1998). Other films like A Face in a Crowd (1957) and All the King's Men (1949) follow John Doe's warning. JFK (1991) and The Manchurian Candidate (1962), on the other hand, are based on the premise that democracy is an illusion and Americans are the ignorant pawns of various conspiracies.

24.3.16.134 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

III. Post-modern Period

• The United States: Hollywood

"...the complexity and dynamics of class struggle, have been treated by mass culture in terms that both depoliticize and flatten the contradictions inherent in such relationships. In other words, the concept of class has been reduced to predictable formulas that represent forms of ideological shorthand. Needless to say, Hollywood has played no small role in dealing with class-based issues in such a way as to strip them of any critical social meaning" (Giroux 19).

"It might be more fruitful to view Hollywood ideology less as a result of conscious lies than as a worldview so closely related to the dominant structures of production that the relationship is not a conscious matter of reflection" (Giroux 20). Giroux argues that prevailing ideology is so powerful and ubiquitous that it is going unquestioned by those in power, although he also admits that there are some exceptions. One of these exceptions is Norma Rae (1979), a film that presents a truer representation of the complexities and politics of the working-class struggle and culture at the level of everyday life.

Ecr6 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Even just 30 years after Dachau and Auschwitz, the thinly disguised fascist propaganda Italian film The Night Porter (1974) sought to legitimize the Nazis' genocide, while glorifying sadism, brutality, and machismo (Giroux 29). What amazes Giroux is that such blatant ideological messages were ignored by critics and the general public. That society may be incapable of testing the present against the past has implications for post-industrial oppression in the West and the strategies for resisting it. Despite the writings of Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, and Paulo Freire, the majority of Americans (at least) do not recognize the how important "class hegemony" (cultural domination) is in nations where populations are kept obedient through ideological means (Giroux 31). He argues, "We are not only victims in the political and material sense, but are also tied emotionally and intellectually to the prevailing ruling-class norms and values" (31).

Ecr6 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IV. Actors-turned-politicians

• For a more thorough list of actor-politicians, refer to List of actor-politicians.

Topics of political aspects and purposes of films to be discussed:

• Propaganda

• Nationalism

• Political Campaigns

• Reform Movements

Ecr6 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Liz R.

Resources

Dennison, Stephanie, and Song Hwee Lim, eds. Remapping World Cinema: Identity, Culture, and Politics in Film. London; New York: Wallflower Press, 2006.

Downing, John D.H., ed. Film and Politics in the Third World. New York: Praeger, 1987.

Franklin, Daniel. Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.

Furhammer, Leif. Politics and Film. Trans. Kersti French. NY: Praeger Publishers, 1971.

Gianos, Philip L. Politics and Politicians in American Film. Westport, CN: Praeger, 1998.

Giroux, Henry A. Breaking in to the Movies: Film and the Culture of Politics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publisers, 2002.

Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001.

Hjort, Mette, and Scott MacKenzie, eds. Cinema and Nation. London; New York: Routledge, 2000.

Neve, Brian. Film and Politics in America. London; New York: Routledge, 1992.

Ryan, Michael and Douglas Kellner. Camera Politica: The Politics and Ideology of Contemporary Hollywood Film. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press, 1988.

Wayne, Mike. Political Film: The Dialectics of Third Cinema. London: Pluto, 2001.

Wu, H. Dennis. Media, Politics, and Asian Americans. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2009.

Ecr6 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Ecr6

Nice selection, but you will have to decide how are you going to deal with the above source. Which of the above seem most useful and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to thoroughly peruse them all yet, but Cinema and Nation, Uncivil Nation, Political Film, and Remapping World Cinema seem the best right now, as they seem to present a more global perspective and are contemporary texts. I am thinking that texts specifically on the U.S. and other countries will be worth looking at, too, but I'll start with those. We thought it was a good idea for us to have at least a list together of promising texts so that we've all at least gotten started. Once I check out the others more closely, I'll be able to edit the list. I'll probably come across more to add, too, for viewers' further reading, even if I don't personally use them all for the page. Ecr6 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Radio and the Politico-Media Complex (Colleen)

Outline

I. Community Radio

II. International Radio

Internal Topics to Discuss:

• Foundations of Community Radio
• Community Radio's influence on Elections
• Historical Radio Propaganda
• Radio and the Spread of Democracy
• Current Role of Radio in Developing World

ColleenHelen (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended Outline

I need to focus my section of the article. My first outline tackles way too many topics too broad to fully cover anything. My new, extended outline is as follows:

Major Heading: PMC in Radio Broadcasting

Sub-Headings:

I. History of Political Radio

This section focuses on the interactions of radio and government through history, especially radio as propaganda. A few of the examples I may use are Tokyo Rose, FDR's Fireside Chats, the Voice of America and similar European radio organizations from the Cold War. I'm also considering a section on legislation relating to radio, I have found some information about the Voice of America charter, and legislation relating to Radio One (A radio company aimed at African-American audiences)

II. PMC in Modern Radio

This section is intended to give a brief look at the modern PMC, with a focus on political radio, both conservative and liberal (free of bias, of course.) The PMC is especially apparent in radio shows such as the Rush Limbaugh Show, and the programming on Air America. I also hope to talk about political radio (like the Voice of America) in the Middle East today, however my main source's bias is a little questionable. Hopefully further research will help me find a better source.

Additional Resources:

Craig, Douglas B. Fireside Politics : Radio and Political Culture in the United States, 1920-1940. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000.

There are more minor sources that I plan on citing in the actual article.

ColleenHelen (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Resources

Horten, Gerd. Radio Goes to War: The Cultural Politics of Propaganda during World War II. Berkley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press. 2002.

Johnson, A. Ross. Communicating with the World of Islam. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. 2008.

Land, Jeff. Active Radio: Pacifica's Brash Experiment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 1999.

Malik and Pavarala. Other Voices: The Struggle for Community Radio in India. Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore: Sage Publications. 2007.

McAnany, Emile G. Radio's Role in Development: Five Strategies of Use. Washington, D.C.: Clearinghouse of Developmental Communication. 1973.

Parta, R. Eugene. Discovering the Hidden Listener: An Assessment of Radio Liberty and Western Broadcasting to the USSR During the Cold War. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. 2007.

ColleenHelen (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline

(will be posted later)

Resources

Kaid, Lynda L. Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. 2004.

Diaz, Karen R. Refference Sources on the Internet: of the shelf and onto the web. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc. 1997.

Davis, Richard and Owen, Diana M. New Media and American Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc. 1998.

Tremayne, Mark. Blogging, Citizenship, and the future of media. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. 2007.

Baker, Edwin. Media concentration and Democracy: Why ownership matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2007.

Shane, Peter M. Democracy online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group. 2004.

Kaid, Lynda and Holtz-Bacha, Christina. Encyclopedia of Political Communication, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2008.

Jlw80 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Press and the Politico-Media Complex (Arielle)

Outline

I. National Press (a) The West (b) Asia (c) The Middle East and North Africa

II. International Press How global politics are played out via press. (Hard to find resources)

III. Struggles

"Internal Topics To Discuss:"

• Bias and press manipulation

Resources

Pharr, Susan J. "Media and Politics in Japan." Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. 1996.

Norris, Pippa. "Politics and the press: the news media and their influences." Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 1997.

Van Belle, Douglas A. "Press freedom and global politics." Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2000.

Kuypers, Jim A. "Press bias and politics: how the media frame controversial issues." Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 2002.

Johnson-Cartee, Karen S. "News narratives and news framing: constructing political reality." Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 2005.

Romano, Angela. "Politics and the press in Indonesia: understanding an evolving political culture." New York, NY: Routledge. 2003.

(More coming)

Airp89 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Arielle Parris

Politics and the Media: The Role of Television

I. Television and Politics

• Lang, Kurt and Gladys Engel. “Television and Politics.”

II. The Role of Television in the American Presidential Elections

• Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. “Presidential Selection.”
• Shenkman, Rick. “Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.”

III. Political Influence on Religion via Television

• Rajagopal, Arvind. “Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India.”

IV. Television and Politics Around the World

• Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Dramas of Nationhood: The Politics of Television in Egypt.”
• Hamamoto, Darrell Y. “Monitored Peril: Asian Americans and the Politics of TV Representation.”
• Semetko, Holli A. and Valenburg, Patti M. “Framing European Politics: A content Analysis of Press and Television News.”

V. Conclusion

Resources

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “Dramas of Nationhood: The Politics of Television in Egypt.” Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005. Hamamoto, Darrell Y. “Monitored Peril: Asian Americans and the Politics of TV Representation.” Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. “Presidential Selection.” United States of America: Duke University Press, 1987. Lang, Kurt and Gladys Engel. “Television and Politics.” New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2002. Rajagopal, Arvind. “Politics After Television: Religious Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India.” Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2001. Semetko, Holli A. and Valenburg, Patti M. “Framing European Politics: A content Analysis of Press and Television News.” Journal of Communication, Vol. 50, 2000. Shenkman, Rick. “Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.” New York, NY: Basic Books, 2009.

Megan Miller-Daghir

A Definition for Politico-media Complex

I could not find a better definition for this topic like we discussed on Friday, so if anyone else does feel free to throw it out there.

Jess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlw80 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the new definition is an improvement over the old one, but we'll need to work on our lead in paragraph. Though that should probably be done after we finish more of the body. ColleenHelen (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked for a better one, too, and couldn't find one, so I tried to qualify it by adding what is currently there. Maybe if we can just try to find some other examples of when the term is used? I tried doing that, too, and all I found were a couple of non-professional blogs, which wasn't what I was looking for. What do you guys think of the layout for the real page? Do you think we should put a separate footnote/reference section at the bottom of each section of our sections or should we just have one really long one at the end? I was kind of leaning toward the first. What do you think? 24.3.16.134 (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like we can only have one references section, but I think it should look fine. Ecr6 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)