Talk:Infotainment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hard news, soft news, and infotainment - title and vocabulary

The merge here from Hard news, soft news, and infotainment has created a double-redirect from hard news, which is broken. The edit summary pointed to Talk:Hard news, soft news, and infotainment, but there is no discussion there about the title change.

I don't think "infotainment" is really the best title for this article, since the article itself explains that this term has negative connotations. The title should reflect the fact that this article discusses what people think counts as hard vs. soft news.

The article itself uses the term "infotainment" quite frequently, making it sound like it is using the vocabulary of the news trade's most vocal critics, instead of more neutral terms that would more commonly be used by journalists (of whatever kind) to discuss their profession.

I'll ask around for more opinions. -- Beland 7 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

• I would think that "infotainment" would refer to Entertainment Tonight or Extra type shows, rather than to "human interest" stories on self-described news shows, or to the O'Reillys and Matthewses. i.e. "infotainment" doesn't even aspire to be informing the public about the significant political issues of the day, which if you asked an O'Reilly or any news team, they would at least say that was their aspiration. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 02:04 (UTC)

I agree with Dcarrano. This should not be all lumped together. Maurreen 03:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The grammar of this article escapes me at times, notably this part: "infotainment -term change or point of interest, or a general trend—an aspect of the zeitgeist. Many such stories as those cover topics such as health tips or gardening tips, exploring television show genres, travel, shopping, yachting or exploring new wines". It looks as if some words have been accidentally deleted. The examples given also seem a little weak. Loungeposse 11:22, 13 August 2006

Revert

I am going to revert to the original version of the article. Maurreen 03:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Marketing

Shouldn't this article have the {{marketing}} template?--SidiLemine 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Crime

"Politics, economics, crime, war, and disasters are considered serious topics,"

• In Britain, (and I suspect most of the rest of the world) the coverage of most crime stories definitely falls into the infotainment category. Particularly when it involves crimes of a sexual nature, crimes involving a famous person (as perpetrator or victim) or certain kinds of murder.

When it comes to murders certain kinds are definitely deemed more "interesting" than others. For the murder to qualify as interesting the victim has to live in the suburbs as opposed to the inner city (unless they are a high ranking gangland figure) be less than 13 years of age and preferably white and female. The vaguest hint of a sexual motive (the more deviant the better) on the part of the perpetrator is also an outstanding advantage -failing that anyting occult related will do ! Murders can also be made more interesting if one ensures that the perpetrator is a member of an ethnic minority (or some other group despised by the tabloids) provided of course that the victim isint as well! 87.113.3.185 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravo wikipedia!

I want to congratulate you, my fellow authors here at wikipedia. This article is absolutely magnificent, so beautifully crafted. The topic at hand is very flammable and under discussion about the direction the article is about to take. Maybe one of the reasons why this article has been forming so ideally is the people involved contributing to this article. I wish we had more authors and editors in wikipedia who are able to truly work together. Sometimes I have relapses regarding wikipedia, but with time I have grown to accept the idea that wikipedia is a self-governing and correcting landscape, and the contributions of other people, if skillfully enough, can be called an encyclopaedia. Bravo. Tomes80.56.252.93 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A different meaning

In the automobile industry, "infotainment" has a completely different meaning. It refers to the audio-visual accessories in a car (radio, CD player, navigation system, Bluetooth, etc.). See [1] for example. —Angr 13:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fox News POV

Isn't it POV to state that Fox News increasingly relies on inaccurate information, bad fact-checking, etc.? Isn't it more the correct encyclopedic tone to say that its critics claim this? Otherwise it seems like original research (without actually presenting the research either). Parableman (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Infotainer has taken on a meaning which does not do justice to the broad range of those who provide information in an entertaining format. The spectrum is massive with greater degrees of emphasis on both entertainment and on information provision-- as well as as the relative value of the information provided. Phil Ochs was far more an entertainer, yet still disseminated some information. Jim Cramer is highly entertaining, and also disseminates time sensitive and valuable information to investors and viewers alike. Vince McMahon is extraordinarily entertaining (indeed he runs and performs in World Wrestling Entertainment), and provides information regarding the interactions of the personas of his performers on the highest rated shows on cable television. By contrast, an infomercial may have a chalky degree of entertainment value, but nonetheless disseminates minimal information, usually the name of a product and, ultimately, a price. An infomercial is really just a fancy commercial for a single product, and redundant at that. In contrast, the preceding examples reflect a dynamic interactive format and fresh new information on a regular, even daily or weekly basis. Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Links section - WP:NOTCATALOG

Hi. I think, the links section of article should be reduced to 3-4 links. There are some links to "Infotainment" news sites, but why these sites were selected from other? `a5b (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

"In October 2012 at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, American political satirist Jon Stewart made a very strong metaphorical statement regarding the media today..." 'very strong' in an encyclopedia. There's the obvious bias. Actually, should the paragraph with his quote in it even be kept in at all? It just seems like more media bashing instead of anything objectively informative. CheeseDeluxe (Feel like talking?) 23:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Seems it would fall under WP:PEACOCK. Removed those words. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

John Oliver and Samantha Bee are not in this article

I can't think of better epitomes of this concept. The oft-repeated axiom that they excel in coverage above and beyond traditional broadcast and print competitors is extremely dubious bordering on promotional affirmation. I think it likely they're being protected by the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

My edits

I'll admit the only reason I came here is because it had a styling tab, so I tried to make it sound more encyclopedic. I'm also new here so correct me if I have the wrong ideas

Some of the issues I tried to fix: Clearly statements: Saying "Gardening tips and hobby "news" pretty clearly fall at the entertainment end" shows certainty in a editors statement and not someone else's, especially since the article itself says "On the other hand, people frequently find hobbies and entertainment to be worthwhile parts of their lives and so "importance" on a personal level is rather subjective." Quoted words: These are always sketchy; they imply a lesser point of view like how it's used in "news personalities" (Someone may think your "infotainment" news personality is irreverent to theirs) Moving contents: I tried to make it look more like other pages I've seen where the origin is shown first. But in light of importance, I would have done Journalism first since it introduces the core topic at hand.

Overall, this article makes infotainment a bad thing, and since I can't read the books cited, I can't decide for myself If their important. But I think this article is too against this topic. Reading this article, http://cronkitehhh.jmc.asu.edu/blog/2014/11/infotainment-entertainment-information/ shows that it can be used for good.

Also why is hard news directed here? It's the direct opposite of soft news.

Sadonyx (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infotainment. 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/20050430105022/http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=35 to http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=35

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Student Editor

Hello everyone! I am a new student editor currently taking a course at Texas A&M University. I saw that this article needed some improvement, so I'll be editing this page over the next few weeks to complete my assignment. My goal is to shift the tone of the article to be more encyclopedic, as well as reorganize the page and sections to create a more coherent article. I'll be running my major changes through one of my sandboxes first, and moving them to this page when it feels finished, so feel free to check on that if you like!

I'd love to hear from any editor who has questions or comments about my contributions, or tips for a new editor! Thanks, Jsalads (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization

Hello everyone! I just completed my first major edit on this page. I rearranged some paragraphs and reorganized and retitled some sections in order to make the article easier to navigate. I removed sections: Journalism, Entertainment and news crossovers, Commodification, Social media implications, Journalism and subsections: For women, Infotainers. I found these sections/titles to be a bit confusing so I replaced them & removed the subsections. Some paragraphs under each of the sections also seemed out of place so I rearranged them as well. Jsalads (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Infotainment/news/journalism section

The content that used to be under the "Journalism" section (now under my "Infotainment as news" section) I found to be mostly original research. No claim made in this section was cited, and I found that this limited the many viewpoints that are available in the literature related to this subject, so I included/cited more than one point of view on what separates infotainment from hard news. There was also a paragraph that went into detail about the definition of journalism, journalistic integrity, professionalism, etc. while only having marginal references to the topic at hand, (hard news vs. infotainment) so I felt it was best to remove it. Jsalads (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section

The content in this section was written in a way that was argumentative and essay-like. I did my best to correct the tone and make it sound more encyclopedic. I cited some new research about news networks and their connections to large conglomerates as a point of critique. I also separated the instances of real life public critique into its own subheading. Jsalads (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Infotainers, social media, impact sections

I rewrote the paragraph about Geraldo Rivera to sound less argumentative and more encyclopedic, and added a citation. In the section about infotainment on social media, I believed there was too much elaboration on Habermas' theory of public sphere, and a lot of the sentences sounded too repetitive, which I corrected and made more concise. The final section on the impact of infotainment felt too focused on the idea of commodification, and spent too much text defining that instead of relating it to infotainment, so I removed the excess information while keeping the main points. Jsalads (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Final edits

I gave the article a final once-over and found that some parts and sentences still read in an essay-like way. I tried my best to reword all the generalizations and uncited claims. I redid the "news you can use" paragraph because it had both of these issues. It was also provided too many examples instead of using descriptive, encyclopedic language. I rewrote some sentences in the other sections for clarity. Jsalads (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsalads.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)