Talk:List of state media by country

Content moved from List of public broadcasters by country

Note: the first edits will largely consist of lists of state media that were originally (and counter to the definition of public broadcasting) on the article List of public broadcasters by country Superb Owl (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent US additions

@TNebula, thank you for adding this 2017 op-ed to the conversation on VoA. However, it is not as reliable the 2023 NPR article I cited in my initial reversion. If you have any other reliable sources (not op-eds) to support the inclusion of these groups, that would be helpful. Otherwise, reversion and exclusion are warranted in these cases. Superb Owl (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for starting a thread. The NPR article you cited itself makes no normative claim to the journalistic independence of VoA, only citing VoA's spokesperson and American law, which should are not independent sources (after all, North Korea "legally" has free speech). Considering past allegations of political uses of VoA, the fact that the head of USAGM is directly appointed by the US President, and how Wikipedia already describes the U.S. Agency for Global Media ("It is considered an arm of U.S. diplomacy.", citing Oxford University's Introduction to Political Science), I believe the burden of proof with regards to USAGM and VoA's neutrality should be settled. I would of course be happy to include these sources in the page for further clarification. TNebula (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tnebula, that would be great if you could add sources here and the most reliable one or two in the article that specifically uses the term state media to describe these groups Superb Owl (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@TNebula, after doing more research, I found what seems to be a reliable source ranking all media outlets around the world. They describe USAGM as of 2023 as 'Independent State-controlled and state-owned media,' which also leads me to lean towards USAGM being in the List of Public Media but open to more sources as I'm guessing there are a number of cases that might be disputed or difficult to categorize with consensus and we can put them on both lists and note the dispute Superb Owl (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me to list on both pages, with the note. TNebula (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Added sources, as well as a note that USAGM sources are of variable independence and that they are also included in the public broadcasters page. TNebula (talk) 10:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I added some templates requesting recent sources (from this administration) that take a more global view of the organization (not just focused on a single controversy). This is a current list, not a historical list. Historical sources would be more appropriate in the VOA or USAGM wikipedia page's history section. Will also make some edits to the language of the note Superb Owl (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• The same situation to three medias from Taiwan

According to the source from "STATE MEDIA MONITOR":TBS,RTI are ISFM(the same level as USAGM) and CNA is ISM. None is clearly "IP" or "P".(ISFM: Independent State Funded and State Managed Media; ISM: Independent State Managed Media;IP: Independent Public Media). So I think better put them in both list just like the solution above.--MINQI (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree - Editorial independence is the most notable variable (why it is listed first). It is the most consequential for the reliability of a source. Private media can similarly by captured and not editorially independent of a government (CaPr). VOA is disputed because of other sources disputing the independence of the outlet. Superb Owl (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

These medias' managers are most changed after political party in Taiwan changed.(*政党轮替造成国家媒体困境*)(中央社遭政治介入及干預的問題，在媒體圈時不時就浮上檯面、公共媒體成為政權轉移之際，政黨惡鬥的犧牲品、公共與國營媒體成為政治的工具、加上執政者在黨國思維下，只想牢牢掌握媒體工具)."Although RTI is sometimes criticized for not being neutral, the station generally enjoys high levels of editorial independence. ","Although CNA was created as an agency to ensure primarily that the points of view of the Taiwanese government are promoted and heard, no incident or evidence proving that the agency is editorially controlled by the government or that the government intervenes in the agency’s editorial affairs has been identified.", these clearly showed the definition of "Editorial independence" are influenced by personal view. MINQI (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your argument - this seems to confirm that they should remain in Public Media and not State Media. There is a major update to the State Media Monitor set for September - we can always wait and see what the latest rating is for these organizations Superb Owl (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Some Taiwanese said that the media like TBS and CNA have been influnced by the party in power and there are some critiques but organizations still identified as "editorial independence". Never mind, I do not want to be bondaged by the obvious political matter now. MINQI (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know which Taiwanese outlets are considered generally reliable, but if you can find and show articles from reliable sources (not op-eds) that make that claim, then yes, we should absolutely flag it as disputed and include on both articles. Superb Owl (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)