Talk:Alternative media (U.S. political right)

Cites On The Way. Detachment Needed

I'm in the process of finding and adding cites, and removing spurious "Fact" tags.

El - ironically enough, you will need to cite some of your counterclaims.

Speaking of counterclaims - I have moved some of your material (excellent as it was) to the media bias article, and provided a link to it. It seems more appropriate to link to extensive (heh) counterarguments than to have them in each and every article to which they arguably apply.

Mitchberg 12:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And I've replaced the text you've deleted. Removing it was vandalism on your part, no matter how you'd like to dress it up as being "more appropriate" elsewhere. What you'd really like is for the facts to "just go away." The text is germane to the article, is properly cited to Halberstam, and will remain.

Heh. Eleemosynary 20:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This page need citations for the claims it's making

This page, as it stands now, is making assertions but sourcing none of them. It appears an attempt to write history via personal research and opinion, which is not valid for a Wikipedia entry. If the claims made are not substantiated, they will be (rightly) removed. I have entered two paragraphs of text sourced to David Halberstam's The Powers That Be, which is a researched, objective volume with pages of citations and footnotes. I look forward to seeing further objective sources on this page, and to the removal of conjecture. Eleemosynary 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The myth of "perceived"

Here are some things that are currently "perceived" by some members of society:

• That the Tooth Fairy is real
• That minorities are inferior by nature of their race
• That the Earth is flat
• That rape victims "are asking for it"

Thus, we see the ridiculousness of claiming something is true just because it's "perceived."

Terms such as "perceived liberal bias" are torn right from the pages of shabby journalism. They attempt to state opinion as fact, and are not encyclopedic. A similar tactic is "some people say," a cheap attempt to lend credence to an unproven assertion via an anonymous, nonexistent chorus.

Please demonstrate, via legitimate sources, who is making the claim that a liberal bias exists in the media. "Perceived" is an unproven assertion, and will be removed as unencyclopedic. Eleemosynary 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

El,

I list things that people in the alternative-right media "believe" because they are ideas that drive the movement. You might disagree with them, and their motivations, but the belief - and the movement built around it - exists.

Stalin "believed" that everyone was out to get him. It may not have been true, but that "belief" led to the deaths of tens of millions.

You think that leftward media bias is a myth. I disagree. I'm a member of a movement that believes it and proves it daily - or believes it does. When *defining that movement*, whether you like it or agree with it or hate it with frothing fury or not, the perception leads to the idea which motivates the movement. Which is what the article is about.

As to your list above - the "beliefs" of tooth-fairians, racists, flat-earthers and neanderthals would be fully germane in articles about each of them, since the point of the article is to *explain who and why they are*.

El, I joked about it yesterday. Now I'm serious. I think you should recuse yourself from these topic. I think you are far too close to it, for whatever reason, to be remotely objective. I'll head off your next, obvious question; I am involved in the conservative alternative media (I have, indeed, guest-hosted Hugh Hewitt's national show a dozen times), but I both ensure that I qualify things I claim in these articles, and keep things informative rather than partisan. I have not seen that from you, with all due respect.

Mitchberg 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, El - your demand that I "substantiate" claims of liberal bias is ludicrous. I can, of course - but that's irrelevant for now. The *article* is about the movement, not a detailed explication of its beliefs.

Do you demand that an *article* about Christianity substantiate the existence of God?

Of course not. This is, I think, evidence that you might want to at least consider your level of objectivity on this issue, and whether your contributions are really fitting at the moment.

Mitchberg 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Mitchberg

Mitchberg, your straw man arguments and personal attacks will be ignored. No doubt you'd like anyone who disagreed with you to "recuse" themselves from this topic. It's not going to happen. For someone who claims to be a member of a "movement" to then ask that someone else not edit the page because that person is "too close" to it is amusing in its irony, though.

You're not going to get away with stating something something is "perceived" in an encyclopedia article and leaving it at that. You're going to need to back up your claims with sourced references. Wikipedia does not allow personal research, no matter how strongly one believes he is saying. Back up your claims.

As for keeping things "informative rather than partisan," no, you don't. You are trying to draw direct causality between the actions of bloggers in your "movement" (many of whom, it seems, are your colleagues and friends) and the outcome of American and Canadian elections, among other events. It's grandstanding. It's cheerleading. And, unless you can show an independent news source demonstrating it, it's not encyclopedic, and will be removed. (But I suppose, by the tortured conspiracy you're suggesting, the "liberal media" would do anything to undermine anything a conservative blogger did. Seems like a pretty self-fulfilling prophecy: If you can't find a news article, hey, that's just another example of the evil liberal media).

As for substantiating "the existence of God," you're making a straw man argument. All one would need to do is show an independent news article or historical text showing that people who believe in God did indeed exist for it to merit encyclopedic inclusion. Not too hard to come by. But thanks for drawing an analogy between the existence of your "movement," and the existence of God. It's a succinct example of unhinged hyperbole that will be helpful in future disputes.

You're in serious pot/kettle territory with your accusations of nonobjectivity. Not a new Wikipedia occurrence, to be sure. I don't "demand" anything; Wikipedia's guidelines demand that someone needs to show sourced facts showing that such a "movement" exists from some source other than the self-appointed members of that "movement."

A "movement" is hardly a handful of bloggers and radio hosts declaiming something until they're blue in the face. Wishing won't make it so. "New Media" is a branding slogan that Hewitt has been trying to get off the ground for a few years now. Wikipedia is not an advertising site. Nor is it a chance for the intellectual heirs of Spiro Agnew to rewrite history.

I'll be continuing to edit this page. Expect counterpoint. Eleemosynary 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're grinding your little political axe under the cover of "Wikipedia demands...". Nothing new there.

Fine. Wikipedia doesn't even rise to the level of hobby for me, but the cites are out there.

Mitchberg 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. No axe to grind here. I understand your disappointment about having to back up your assertions with facts. I hope you won't take your ball and go home. I look forward to your research to back up what you've claimed. "Out there," indeed. Eleemosynary 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there's no disappointment - I'm working on it now.

The problem is, I'm trying to write an article about an idea and a movement - and, by the way, trying to do it dispassionately and from the most detached perspective I can personally manage.

You, however, are using every article as a platform for issueing a detailed "Refutation" - which might satisfy some internal urge of yours to rid Wikipedia of "Badthink" or whatever, but isn't very germane.

You'd be better-placed linking to articles containing your counterpoints, rather than using each individual article as a platform for what is, at the end of the day, both your point of view *and* not really germane to the article.

Which was my original point; while objectivity is a myth, you don't seem to even try to detach yourself in the least.

Very amusing advice. I can understand your wanting anyone who might not be seized by the fever dream that "objectivity is a myth" to just go away. But it's not going to happen.

And removing (or relocating) my contributions to this article is vandalism. They'll be restored each time you try.

Also, if you're going to link to a source, you might want to make it sure it corroborates the claim you're making. Otherwise, the "citation needed" tag will go back. Cheers. Eleemosynary 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of CitationS...

...I know the bar for ethics on Wikipedia is vanishingly low, but is it common practice to copy and paste entire sections of existing Wikipedia articles without attribution?

"Eleemonysary" pasted the following into this article:

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC [1] (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers (and the court, five years later, would unanimously overturn a Florida statute on newspapers), the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the scarcity of radio stations. Critics of the Red Lion decision have pointed out that most markets then and now are served by a greater number of radio stations than newspapers.

Critics of the Fairness Doctrine believed that it was primarily used to intimidate and silence political opposition. Although the Doctrine was rarely enforced, many radio broadcasters believed it had a "chilling effect" on their broadcasting, forcing them to avoid any commentary that could be deemed critical or unfair by powerful interests.

The Doctrine washttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_media_%28U.S._political_right%29&action=submit enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.

Compare that with the first three paragraphs in Fairness Doctrine.

I know that "Rules" on Wikipedia are merely suggestions, but this seems a little squishy.

Mitchberg 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I stated in the edit summary that I used the text from the Fairness Doctrine page, and I linked back to the page as well. Sigh. That's called attribution, not at all uncommon on Wikipedia. I understand you're still smarting from the humiliation of Ben Domenech, so I'll forgive you. Cheers! Eleemosynary 20:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy Edits

There are many WP:ATT, WP:POV and WP:OR problems with this article, but I stuck to fixing what I felt were general copy-editing fixes. I cut out some significant portions, and you can find these cuts and my rational in Talk:Alternative media (U.S. political right)/cutting_room_floor. Here's a diff of all my changes. My re-write of the lead is an attempt to make it more neutral, but I might have over-done it. Please keep in mind, though I have views on this subject, I tried not to make those views a part of my copy-editing. Caveat emptor. --Otheus 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A small comment & a big question

Apologies in advance, I've only got time right now for a quick comment & question. I stumbled on this article more or less by accident; however, "the media", both mainstream & alternative, is a subject I am knowledgeable about. (PS - "media" is plural, NOT singular.)

First the quick comment: the new, rewritten intro, as it stands, is quite simply... absurd. In no way is it correct to say that "Alternative media" ... "is [sic] rooted in the conservative movement's presumption..." etc., etc. Psssst: the "Alternative media" (as we currently use the term) are fundamentally an outgrowth of left-wing dissent, dating largely to the underground press of the 1960s. At least the older version of the intro, whatever its flaws, made better sense in that regard. I would take a stab at re-editing the intro, but...

There's a much larger question that needs to be addressed. To wit: what exactly is properly meant by the term "Alternative media (U.S. political right)"?? As far as I'm concerned, right-wing talk radio is itself a large segment of the mainstream media, so how does it possibly qualify as "Alternative media"? I could go on, but I'm not sure there's much left to the notion of "Alternative media (U.S. political right)" once talk radio is taken out of the picture -- possibly not even enough to merit an article, though I'm reserving judgement on that.

Okay, gotta run now. I'll check back for responses in the next day or two. Cgingold 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope six months isn't too long for a reply... :) To answer your issues with this article: the term 'alternative' in the title is not used here to mean 'left-wing' (as it is, indeed, commonly used), but simply to mean 'non-mainstream'. While the term 'alternative media' might not be the best name for it, it is unarguable that non-mainstream news sources exist with a right-wing perspective: some of them are listed here. While I would argue against the inclusion of, for instance, Fox News on this page (as it's far too successful and mainstream to be called 'alternative'), a blog like Little Green Footballs does meet the criteria. The exact details of what should and shouldn't be included here are open to debate. Terraxos 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

odd title

Why isn't this just called "right-wing media in the United States" or something like that?Prezbo (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Terraxos explains this well in the preceding section. Cheers, CWC 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Prezbo and Terraxos.

Rightwing Media Outlets or Right Wing would serve this topic better.

Media. It's an important topic that needs definition as such. Alternative doesn't include FOX and some other "mainstream" or "mass media" or "major news' outlets. SusanVCarroll (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Since Alternative press (U.S. political right) and Alternative media (U.S. political right) deal with very closely related topics, I see no reason why we can't merge them into one article; that would be less redundant. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. CWC 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And me. Sitush (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No Papers, No Magazines

This article lists not a single paper or magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.157.66 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is Fox News Here

It seems this TP has no recent activity on it. If anyone sees this, I think it's a good idea to remove Fox News, as they are obviously not defined as alternative media in WP's definition, or any.--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your deletion, but it's actually proper to at least keep that mention in the See also section, since that section can include subjects which are tangentially related, and Fox News certainly fits that category. I hope you'll revert yourself.

Even though Fox is a large channel, it is neither neutral or unbiased, but was founded by Roger Ailes to be the unofficial voice of the GOP, and it still serves that purpose, even though Ailes is gone. In fact, it's moved even further to the right and sometimes promotes fake news and obvious propaganda coming from Russia. Now it's not just the GOP channel, but is Trump's channel by supporting him and providing/dictating his policies. It's not even close to the left/right center. It's quite far right and generally unreliable for political subjects. When more reliable sources document the same thing, we should use them, rather than Fox. See this insightful chart. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that what matters here is not whether Fox News has conservative leanings or not, but, instead, if it is an "alternative media" or not. And it isn't. It's as mainstream as it could be. If you check the article on Alternative media (U.S. political left), you will see no mention of Buzzfeed, Vox, or The Huffington Post, despite their liberal leanings. And that's because they are part of the mainstream media as well.

I don't understand if this article was written by a conservative who tried to portrait every single right-leaning news source, be it Fox News or The New Work Post, as some sort of resistance to the "mainstream liberal media"; or if it was written by a leftist trying to put Fox News on the same pot as freaking InfoWars. Regardless of the motivation behind it, this incoherence between the two articles is ridiculous and makes no sense. It isn't how the world's largest encyclopedia should portray things. Gio97BR (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Original Research

Can anyone find sources for The Alternative Media Outlets section of this article? There's nothing in the article as of right now verifying that these outlets are alternative right-wing media. I'll try to collect some sources when I have free time, but I thought I would ask here in case anyone else can start bolstering the list with citations.

And I have a question: I know Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ORIGINAL research, but if a media outlet is to be added, does a source need to call that media outlet "alternative" (and also politically "right"-leaning) for it to be included on this list? I assume so, so I just wanted to point it out on the talkpage so that people can discuss here if they agree/disagree. Because I would suspect then that most of these outlets cannot be included, since it seems like maybe a lot of the media is added as WP:SYNTHESIS. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternative radio and online programs and podcasts

Where is the list of U.S. political right alt news online programs and podcasts? There are nearly 2 dozen listed under /Alternative_media_(U.S._political_left). If we can ignore the question of what news is accurate or fakenews for a moment, let's remember it's important to have a depository of the alt news sites influencing the right. We need to know what others are thinking to have a functioning democracy. I would suggest including a list with the likes of:

Breitbart News The Daily Wire The Hill Ben Shapiro Sargon of Akkad Dave Rubin Stefan Molyneux Milo Laura Southern

and yes, even Alex Jones' notorious Infowars.

Thoughts or criticisms?

100.15.100.48 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.

Necesary for "fair balance"\ SusanVCarroll (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself within a few sentences!

"McCormick family newspapers (particularly the Chicago Tribune) remained staunchly conservative until the late 1960s" A bare few paragraphs later your article states the Chicago Tribune remained conservative until the late 1980s. "After Nixon's resignation and until the late 1980s, overtly conservative news outlets included the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post and The Washington Times." Seems someone is trying really hard to push an agenda. 2600:8801:BE28:A800:8B7:2C3E:74C8:F3A9 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)