Talk:Free Press (advocacy group)

Rewrite

Okay, good information here but it's not formatted properly. It reads like a FreePress.net website. I'll see what I can do to find more information on them from other sources and to rewrite the descriptions so they are more objective. Help would be appreciated! - KellyLogan 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was copied from the FreePress.net website, apparently by someone affiliated with them. That copy has been deleted and the old version restored. —Centrx→talk • 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Barker, Michael

Can anybody in the know have a look at the references of Barker, Michael - since User:Mike31 just added that, I'm a little suspicious about its relevance. Same goes for Media democracy‎ Amalthea (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Free Press net neutrality coup

"The Net Neutrality Coup; The Campaign to Regulate the Internet was Funded By a Who's Who of Left-Liberal Foundations," by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Added in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

Nominated this article for DYK: Template_talk:Did_You_Know#Free Press Jaobar (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been taking part in the DYK discussion, and a few issues have come up. I don't want to correct the problems myself, since that would compromise my neutrality with respect to the DYK discussion, but I'd like to suggest a couple of changes to the article that should make it easier for the DYK nomination to proceed.

(1) As Neelix rightly pointed out in that discussion, the sentence in the article's lead which says,

With its membership of more than 500,000 activists, Free Press is the largest and most prominent media reform organization in the United States.

isn't supported by its cited source with respect to "and most prominent". I'd suggest that phrase be deleted.

(2) Likewise, it would be helpful, in my opinion, to cite an independent source for the 500,000 members claim, since that claim could make it into the "hook" for the article that will appear on Wikipedia's main page, and just because it would be good practice, besides. It's currently just cited to Free Press itself. Here's a Washington Post article that supports the 500,000 members claim.

(3) There are still seven or so links to external web cites embedded within the body of the article, e.g. to StopBigMedia.com, SaveTheInternet.com, to conference sites for Free Press, and one to a PDF for a Free Press report entitled, Saving the News. It'd be great if someone would convert these website mentions to references, or (if appropriate) move them to the "External Links" section or the article, before this hits the main page. Such links in the body of an article are disallowed, and although it's an extremely common mistake, it's not what we'd like to present, in my opinion, as a DYK from the main page.

(4) There a few spelling errors, eg "examins", "shapeing", and "currect" (for "current").

 – OhioStandard (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Advert tag

I see as I was writing this that user OCNative placed a tag in this edit indicating his opinion that this article "sounds like an ad", according to his edit summary. I presume he saw the discussion at DYK, since he frequently contributes there. He didn't comment there, nor here.

In general, tagging an article without making a good-faith effort to express one's specific, actionable concerns is discouraged; the usual term for doing so is "drive-by tagging". If OCNative would like to express such actionable concerns here, he's welcome to do so. I'd especially ask him to communicate in as civil and welcoming a manner as possible, remembering that the editors who've contributed most to this article recently are new users involved in a college class project through our campus outreach program.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the advert tag. Without a justification for placing it there, I see no reason to include it. Free Press' controversial stance on a variety of issues is not reason enough to label a description of the organization as "biased." In fact, at the end of the article is a section on Glenn Beck's criticism of the organization. Nothing more than red-bating to me, but criticism nonetheless. Jaobar (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually helped this class rescue Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 from being turned into a redirect, so I am familiar with this course and have helped them before. However, I am concerned about the tone of this article (and upon closer examination now, I am concerned about the sourcing as well). Though I thought the ad tone was self-evident, I guess I was mistaken, as others do not see it, so I will explain here:

1. Y At the time I originally tagged, it that "prominent" language was an issue, but Dr. Obar has solved that problem with this edit.
2. Y The lead makes no reference to Free Press's ideological orientation. While it is nonpartisan, that does not mean it is non-ideological. Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are nonpartisan but certainly ideological, and their leads include their ideological orientation. (resolved)
3. This sentence is copied almost verbatim from here: "Through public education, organizing, research and advocacy, Free Press promotes net neutrality, diverse media ownership, government funded public media and universal access to communications."
4. The group claims to be the largest media reform organization. Is there any independent verification for this claim?
5. The citation about Free Press contributing to the media reform movement does not reflect the source.
6. These quotes are wholly gratuitous: "The National Conference for Media Reform is the biggest and best conference devoted to media, technology and democracy." Their "purpose is to strategize, network, share skills, swap information and inspire one another during three days of workshops, panels, caucuses, keynote speeches, meetings and parties."
7. This portion hardly sounds neutral: "To bring light to these issues Free Press has released a report, Saving The News: Toward a National Journalism Strategy and launched SaveTheNews.org to develop and discuss to address the journalism crisis."
8. This portion just lists the gray bullets from this page: "Through education and policy they aim to encourage media diversity, advocate for the 'free and open internet,' close the digital divide, and allow the public to hold media companies accountable for serving their communities."
9. This portion is copied almost verbatim from this page: "to create a media that informs and educates the American public, reflects the diversity in the United States, and serves the information needs of local communities while giving the public an active role in shaping future media policies."
10. This portion is copied almost verbatim from this page: "The Policy team is dedicated to monitoring and analyzing media policymaking to increase public awareness and participation. Tuner has written about a wide range of media and technology issues, and regularly speaks before Congress and the FCC." This portion is copied verbatim from that same page: "His reports have examined the state of broadband competition in America, the role of the Universal Service Fund in the 21st century, and the lack of female and minority media ownership."
11. This article declares its studies "Landmark Studies" without any explanation as to why they are "landmark" as opposed to normal studies.
12. The criticism section is confined to Glenn Beck, who (as Dr. Obar correctly points out) engages in much demagoguery. Including Beck as the sole critic seems to be a way to simply discredit the critics. The more reputable John Fund has criticized Free Press, and indeed an article by him was posted on this talk page above a few months ago.
13. With the exceptions of the list of founders in the lead, "The Media Reform Movement" section, and the Glenn Beck section, all other portions of this article are cited to Free Press itself, to one of its board members, or to one of its employees.

OCNative (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

( Replaced bullet points above with numbers for easier discussion. Revert this edit if you object.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) )

Thanks, OCNative. It wasn't that I disagreed with you that the article sounded too much like a press-release; I just thought the students needed more specific help in knowing how to correct that... And, well, I'll admit I felt somewhat frustrated, too, at just having reached consensus, as I thought, to ignore all rules and let this go forward for a "Do you know" credit on the main page, and then to see a new problem come up. But you're right, of course: These problems do need to be addressed. I'm not sure every one of them needs to be dealt with perfectly or entirely before the DYK can proceed, but I'd say that most of them do need some reasonable effort, at least.

The copyright violations due to copy-pasting or to close paraphrasing that's just too close are an obvious no go. I'd suggest that students take care of the easy points like that in your list first, and mark those items completed with a green checkmark - see item one, so they can have a more manageable number of issues to deal with. If you see anything you don't agree is satisfactorily completed (i.e. "good-enough for now") then you should "un-mark" it, of course. I don't see that this process has to take long, at all, especially with timely assistance from e.g. the helpdesk if they get stuck on any kind of technicality like formatting references, or whatever. If student's aren't already aware of it, questions posted there are usually answered within 15 - 30 minutes, at least in a preliminary way, depending on what time of day they're asked.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed the students to get them involved. Jaobar (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the "advert" flag: The opening sentence on August 20, 2013 is blatantly biased: "Free Press is building a powerful nationwide movement to change media and technology policies, promote the public interest and strengthen democracy." "Powerful" is a Marketing term as is "movement" in this context.

I'm replacing it with "Free Press is an organization devoted to changing media and technology policies to promote what it believes will strengthen democracy and promote the public interest." There are doubtless more problems with the text, but I don't have the time to worry about those right now. I hope others will agree that this change makes the tone more neutral without substantively jeopardizing the content. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Recently Added Fully Unsourced Section

In what appears to be a soapbox promotional campaign for a law professor named "Marvin Ammori" this page (among several others) was recently supplemented with a fully unsourced section, which I include below. I didn't want to remove it in full; instead, per the verifiability guidelines, I am including it here for archival purposes and to leave open the opportunity to add citations so that it is appropriate for inclusion. Note, the user (IP: 69.181.199.191) may be worth observing for future soapbox activity.

What follows is the original unsourced content.

Section Header: Formal Complaint of Free Press & Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corp. for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications Free Press has been perhaps most active on the issue of network neutrality, partly through leadership of Save the Internet and partly through leadership on the most prominent network neutrality case in the United States. Free Press led a group of consumer groups seeking to declare that Comcast had chosen an illegal means of managing peer to peer protocols. The DC Circuit reversed the FCC’s decision in favor of Free Press. Free Press General Counsel Marvin Ammori handled the case before the FCC and argued it for intervenors, alongside the FCC, on appeal.

FreePress.Org

Columbus Free Press now appears on the Internet as The Free Press

CICJ Mission Statement

The Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism provides progressive activist news, political analysis, and social issue commentary through freepress.org, CICJ Books, alternative media projects and sponsorship of community events promoting journalism and social justice.

CICJ Program Services

The Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism (CICJ) currently publishes the Free Press newspaper, Free Press Express broadsheet, the website freepress.org, books, and other educational materials. The CICJ sponsors journalistic activities such as community radio, video production, the local film festival, film screenings, speakers, conferences, educational workshops, election protection, and other special events. The CICJ partners with local activist organizations, holds monthly community salons, and an annual awards dinner to honor community activists. The CICJ also acts as a fiscal agent for other nonprofit organizations and individuals.

History

The original Columbus Free Press grew out of the anti-war movement on the campus of Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio in October 1970. Inspired by the activism against the Vietnam War and the senseless killings at Kent State, the underground paper was published for a 25-year tumultuous history (1970-1995). Like other underground alternative publications around the country, the Free Press went through many changes through the years. It served as the voice of the students in the early 70's, reporting on social justice issues such as sexism, racism, peace activism, corporate misdeeds, politics and the counterculture. Constantly struggling to survive on a shoestring budget, it encountered opposition from without and within. Internal ideological struggles were compounded, for example, when police arrested four of the editors in 1971 for "inciting riot."

The Free Press founders grew older, less militant, got jobs but the paper survived. Changing faces on the editorial staff show different politics and policies through the years. The Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism 501(c)3 nonprofit organization was founded in 1986 as the sponsor of the Free Press newspaper.

Finally, after floundering through the Reagan-Bush '80's and hampered by a lack of an activist movement in the city, the Free Press faced so much competition in the "alternative" newspaper marketplace in Columbus that revenues dried up. It published its 25th Anniversary issue in October 1995, only with dollars donated from then-Columbus Guardian publisher Ron Williams; and ceased publication temporarily. The Free Press was resurrected as a website in early 1996 courtesy of longtime volunteer and activist Tim Wagner. The website developed during the next two years and the printed publication emerged as a quarterly journal in the Winter of 1998. A new Board of Directors formed and gradually the Free Press is back up and running in Central Ohio.

The Free Press now honors community activists annually with a "Libby" Award for Community Activism, named for a former Free Press editor, Libby Gregory, who lost her life in 1991 in an airplane accident. In 1998, a Selma Walker Award for lifetime achievement in Human Rights activism was added in honor of Selma Walker, the founder of the local Native American Indian Center.

The CICJ is a member of Community Shares of Mid Ohio, earning a small amount of funds through workplace campaigns. Look for the Free Press/Democratic Socialists of Central Ohio wine booth at the Community Festival each year during the last weekend in June. The Free Press is dependent on subscriptions, donations and fund-raising events to stay alive.

Believing that there's still a place for community-based journalism, the struggle moves forward, awaiting the rise of the next left mass movement that's willing to speak truth to power.

Inaccurate Info re: Funding

Someone keeps adding info about supposed funding from George Soros and Barbra Streisand, but the source is weak -- the editor is citing UNNAMED SOURCES in a Washington Post article. The group does get some funding from Soros' Open Society Foundations but has never received $$ from Streisand. It appears the editor is using her name b/c she's a right-wing punching bag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriander12 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

THE STAFF

Editor & Publisher | Bob Fitrakis Managing Editor | Suzanne Patzer Senior Editor | Harvey Wasserman

External ling

About The Free Press

—Pawyilee (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Countering Claims of a Liberal bias

The organization has been accused many times of having a liberal bias; however, their work is consistently non-partisan, with many efforts involving individuals occupying a variety of political positions. One needs only study their media ownership work to see their connections to right and left wing politicians and advocacy groups. Net neutrality is also not a "liberal" issue, no matter how it is framed in the news. One should not forget that many American liberals support neoliberal policy approaches. I am modifying the edit made to the political leanings of the organization as the information is not accurate. If citations are required to demonstrate their work with conservative and liberal politicians, I will be happy to add them at a later date. --Jaobar (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Free Press is a socialist group founded by three self-declared socialists and pursuing a socialist agenda. Advocacy groups are all partisan in the sense that they have ideological goals and preferences and this one is no exception. Denying that Free Press is left of center, strongly allied with the Democratic Party and funded to a significant extent by the Soros and Ford Foundations is delusional. Get serious. RichardBennett (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard - this citation does not appear to support the claim that the group is "leftwing." If you disagree, please identify a specific page number and text from the source that you believe directly supports this material. Neutrality^talk 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Free Press

Neutrality is adamant that the political agenda of Free Press not be mentioned on this page. This is odd because this is lobbying group with a clear agenda. Here's some evidence:

"Eric Klinenberg’s Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media (2007) is the first to chronicle both corporate media consolidation and its discontents, although it builds off of Robert McChesney’s work on both fronts (e.g., McChesney, 2007; McChesney, 2004; McChesney & Nichols, 2002; Nichols & McChesney, 2005). Engaging in an overview of media reform activism presents some uncertainties over who and what merits attention. By the “media reform movement” (or the “media democracy movement”),2 I mean those groups and individuals whose primary political goals target the regulations governing media institutions. Though promoting a vision of media localism, these organizations tend to be focused on national regulations, primarily those of the Federal Communications Commission, as well as Congressional funding for public broadcasting and the malfeasance of corporate media. National non-profit organizations, mainly Free Press (created by McChesney, along with progressive journalist John Nichols and activist Josh Silver), occupy a central position in the thinking, actions, and visibility of such activism...

"It is too simple to point out that a victory for media reform tomorrow would be insufficient to solve the world’s problems, or even the media’s. But the structure and articulated vision of a political coalition bespeaks its hopes and the possibilities it seeks to actualize. So it is on this ground — that is, taking the movement at its word — through which I analyze the struggle for national media reform. While a specific consideration of genre and cultural policy is outside the scope of this article, I argue below that the national media reform coalition is hampered by pursuing a strategy oriented around FCC liberalism and economistic arguments while ignoring media texts and rituals. I conclude by discussing other contemporary attempts at media-based activism that orient their struggles for democracy within a framework of expanding social justice. These efforts are arguably more reminiscent of media activism in other countries, where challenging media content is fundamental to battling authoritarian control of both the state and the market."

Given that McChesney and Nichols founded Free Press and McChesney is still on the board, this more than justifies my claim that Free Press is a leftwing organization. But for bonus points, here's more from McChesney:

"Of course, given the existing power structure of U.S. society and the seven-decades-long ceiling on civilian government purchases as a percentage of GDP, all of this may appear to be pie in the sky. And our message is that it is, unless the power structure of U.S. society can be altered. Only a reform movement so radical that it would appear revolutionary within the context of the existing U.S. economic and social order, fundamentally reducing the field of operation of the capitalist market, holds any chance of substantially improving the conditions of most people in society. Needless to say, for such a struggle to succeed people will have to have a sense of real things to struggle for that will materially affect their lives.

"These gains will only be made through an enormous class struggle from below. If won, they will not, we underscore, eliminate the evils of capitalism, or the dangers it poses for the world and its people. In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. This is something that the great majority of the population will undoubtedly learn in the course of their struggles for a more equal, more humane, more collective, and more sustainable world. In the meantime, it is time to begin to organize a revolt against the ruling class–imposed ceiling on civilian government spending and social welfare in U.S. society."

This quote was cited by FCC Chairman to support his claim that Free Press has a socialist agenda. RichardBennett (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Ajit Pai is not a reliable source for statements in Wikipedia's voice. I've recast the content to attribute the statement ("Pai, in turn, has been critical of Free Press, asserting that Free Press has a 'socialist' agenda."). This page, as it stands, describes Free Press's views and how the reliable sources have characterized it. It also includes the views of a prominent critic, Pai. This is exceedingly fair; I'm not sure what you want. We are certainly not going to characterize Mr. Pai as a champion of "free enterprise" or classify Free Press as "socialist" in Wikipedia's own voice, as you've sought to do in your recent edits. Neutrality^talk 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert McChesney, media scholar or socialist writer?

Per the Wikipedia article on Robert W. McChesney, he is "an American professor notable in the history and political economy of communications, and the role media play in democratic and capitalist societies." As of 2022-12-03, the word "socialism" or "socialist" does not appear in that article. Those words also do NOT appear in the reference given for that claim in this article on "Free Press (organization)":

• Dan Berger, Defining Democracy: Coalition Politics and the Struggle for Media Reform, International Journal of Communication 3 (2009).

Accordingly, I'm changing "socialist writer Robert McChesney" to "media scholar Robert McChesney". DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved, as proposed by Necrothesp (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• Free Press (organization) → ?
• Free Press (magazine) → Free Press (Malayalam magazine)
• The Free Press (media company) → ?

– All of these titles are too ambiguous to form good disambiguators - the first and third cases are ambiguous with each other (the article company describes nonprofits as a type of company and "media" is sufficiently vague that this article could be described as media-related). Unfortunately both are American so that doesn't work, and both are still active so the next attempt of disambiguating by year would be odd. Any better suggestions?

Meanwhile Free Press (magazine) can be moved to be much clearer about the subject without any conflicts given that the dab page describes The Free Press (media company) as a magazine. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Organizations, WikiProject Freedom of speech, WikiProject Journalism, WikiProject United States Government, WikiProject Law, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Move Free Press (organization) to Free Press (advocacy group), Free Press (magazine) to Free Press (Malayalam magazine), and The Free Press (media company) to The Free Press (online newsletter). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Works for me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.