Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2022 January 3
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 2 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 4 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 3
[edit]Independent media in other nations
[edit]France has Mediapart and le Media and India has Newslaundry and The Quint. Are there any independent media in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, Pakistan and Belgium? Donmust90 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Define "independent media". --Viennese Waltz 18:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- The ones that agree with you and your views wholeheartedly. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Our article Independent media defines this as "any media, such as television, newspapers or Internet-based publications, that is free of influence by government or corporate interests". The examples mentioned do not depend on revenue from advertising. Most media cannot survive without the regular stream of income from ads, and the threat of advertisers withdrawing because of a ruckus over editorial content always hangs like the Sword of Damocles not only over the owners, but over every employee. This can have a chilling effect and lead to self-censorship. Another slippery slope is the intrusion of advertorials that are not recognizable as such. --Lambiam 22:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- But don't the ones who depend on subscribers run the risk of becoming cult-like echo-chambers of conspiracy theories and "alternative facts"? Whether the money comes from governments, advertisers, or subscribers it is still up to the journalists in question to have ethics and standards. --Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The echo-chamber devolution can befall any type of media, independent or not, as with Breitbart News under Bannon – they can even be set up for the purpose, like Newsmax and OAN. Usually, the concessions are much more subtle, like the editor-in-chief killing a story not because it is not of interest, or insufficiently supported by research, but because it may displease advertisers or some high and mighty friends of the editor-in-chief. So the lack of independence is not reflected in what is published, but in what is not published. It does make a difference whether the operation aims to maximize revenue or is a not-for-profit. In the latter case, assuming lack of interference by the state or other agents that do not eschew violence, the journalists do not need to consider making concessions to the goals of their operation. --Lambiam 10:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- And independent media editors can't be pressured by "high and mighty friends"? And the "goals of their operation" may not actually be factual journalism. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am trying to highlight the differences that people consider of interest when they use the qualification "independent". You appear to be seeking (potential) similarities. --Lambiam 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, I am just trying to point out to you that your examples are mixing questions of where the money comes from with questions of journalistic integrity. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, yes, many problems that may potentially plague "dependent" media can also occur with independent media. The journalists may develop collective paranoia. The government may close the operation. And so on. But if a publication does not run ads, the risk of advertizers withdrawing out of displeasure with editorial content is, I think, less. It is hard to assess in the abstract whether this has an effect on journalistic integrity, but people who use the term "independent media" tend to think so. And people in charge of what are called "independent media" rarely have high and mighty friends. --Lambiam 19:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, I am just trying to point out to you that your examples are mixing questions of where the money comes from with questions of journalistic integrity. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am trying to highlight the differences that people consider of interest when they use the qualification "independent". You appear to be seeking (potential) similarities. --Lambiam 22:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- And independent media editors can't be pressured by "high and mighty friends"? And the "goals of their operation" may not actually be factual journalism. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The echo-chamber devolution can befall any type of media, independent or not, as with Breitbart News under Bannon – they can even be set up for the purpose, like Newsmax and OAN. Usually, the concessions are much more subtle, like the editor-in-chief killing a story not because it is not of interest, or insufficiently supported by research, but because it may displease advertisers or some high and mighty friends of the editor-in-chief. So the lack of independence is not reflected in what is published, but in what is not published. It does make a difference whether the operation aims to maximize revenue or is a not-for-profit. In the latter case, assuming lack of interference by the state or other agents that do not eschew violence, the journalists do not need to consider making concessions to the goals of their operation. --Lambiam 10:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- But don't the ones who depend on subscribers run the risk of becoming cult-like echo-chambers of conspiracy theories and "alternative facts"? Whether the money comes from governments, advertisers, or subscribers it is still up to the journalists in question to have ethics and standards. --Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Our article Independent media defines this as "any media, such as television, newspapers or Internet-based publications, that is free of influence by government or corporate interests". The examples mentioned do not depend on revenue from advertising. Most media cannot survive without the regular stream of income from ads, and the threat of advertisers withdrawing because of a ruckus over editorial content always hangs like the Sword of Damocles not only over the owners, but over every employee. This can have a chilling effect and lead to self-censorship. Another slippery slope is the intrusion of advertorials that are not recognizable as such. --Lambiam 22:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- An example in the Netherlands is De Correspondent, a website publishing in-depth articles; the article mentions the German website Krautreporter, inspired by this project. We have lists of "alternative media" outlets in the UK and in South Africa, and even two for outlets in the US: one for the Left and one for the Right. --Lambiam 22:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC
- I would take "independent" to mean "not directly controlled by the government". But whatever a medium is, it's going to be at least somewhat dependent on whoever's paying to keep it afloat. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)