Talk:Media manipulation

First, what is this article about beyond being a grab bag of complaints regarding the media? By that, can someone give a short definition of "media distraction" other than saying "it is a form of censorship"?

Second, as far as I can tell, this term was made up purely for use here on Wikipedia. Can someone reference some authority who uses the phrase "media distraction" to refer to whatever this article is about? -◈¡◈

Google has a massive 170 links for the phrase "media distraction"... you're probably right. -Martin

And Google returns zero hits on the key concepts of this article, such as "Distraction by Phenomenon", "Distraction by Scapegoat", and "Distraction by Nationalism". Can *anybody* provide external support for this article? -◈¡◈

The broad content is pretty standard stuff. Needs a lot of work though. Any introductory Media Studies course will cover his sort of thing. Alas, it's been a long, long time since I did Media 101 and I've forgotten all the proper terms. -Tannin

I'm not debating the content, per se. I'm debating writing an encylopedia article called "media distraction", claiming that such a thing exists, claiming this content applies to it, then making a bunch of interwikipedia links that point here. This doesn't seem to be a term that is used with any popularity, so if this is covered in "media 101", does it go by a more accepted name? -◈¡◈

There probably is a more standard term, but give me a break, BigFatBudda, I did my single media studies unit in ... er ... 1985, and I haven't kept current since. It does need attention, but simply deleting the article is not an answer. The thing this entry calls "media distraction" most certainly exists, and is the proper subject of a Wikipeda entry. Hopefully, someone better qualified than either of us will come along and deal with it soon. Tannin

Tannin, go take a look at propaganda. Just about everything of substance discussed here is already covered there. -◈¡◈

Hello again. If you are just debating the name, it is no reason to blank this article on which several wikipedians have agreed it had the right of being here. Have you checked the history of the name given at censorship in the United States ? Meanwhile, I put the article again, because it not having the right in *your* opinion is no reason to censor it. -user:anthere

The goal was to get your attention, which I have. The term "Media Distraction" has all the appearance of either a fringe concept or one invented just for wikipedia. The article is a random collection of statements that someone here claims can be called "media distraction". I'm asking that supporters of this article show that this concept has some accepted meaning by authorities outside of wikipedia. -◈¡◈

It won't change anything to get *my* attention, as I certainly would not propose any other name for this page myself. You better ask to those who proposed the new name. -user:anthere

Yes, I have the answer. The proper name of this page is: propaganda -Peter Chamberlain

I don't think so. -user:anthere

Propaganda may be the place to roll this in, as it does already include much of the concepts that are presented here. The article, as it stands, is fundamentally a personal essay that someone has written to present their concept of "media distraction". -◈¡◈

I disagree, Propaganda is only part of the content of this article. And what you seem to be fondamentally be missing is that the "author" of the article has not named it "media distraction", User:MyRedDice did. The name "Media distraction" was already proposed to solve an naming issue. So the one you disagree in calling that article poorly name is My Red Dice. Of course, I am perfectly aware it is the article itself you are trying to censor. Your problem is just a bad case of censorship. -user:anthere

It needs a name change or a merge, and lots of work. However, I don't see that it should be deleted because of this. If we had deleted every article that was ever once a personal essay, rather than revising it, I think we'd have a lot less content... ;-) Martin

I agree that it needs a lot of work, and a better name, and I'm not averse to seeing the content merged somewhere suitable. (So long as it is a genuine merge, not just a burial.) Perhaps those who favour deleting this will be a little kinder to it now that I've balanced out the original examples from the "anti-anti-war movement" with ones from the other side of the fence. Tannin

Not only do I object to the naming, I object to the fundamental concept. According to the article, MD techniques "are used to suppress information or points of view by crowding them out of the media". Who claims they are used, and who do they claim use them? This article is so unsupported that it is on the verge of falling apart. -◈¡◈

And are using precisely some of the techniques described in the article to try to blank it out, instead of admitting your pov just makes you react to the example. Just drop it BigFatBudha. If you have a problem with the examples given, add some more. -user:anthere

I'm sure you've had your delight at claiming that opponents of media distraction must be using media distraction, that's about as funny as saying that people who disagree with you on censorship must be censoring you. If you want to write an NPOV article, you simply state WHO believes WHAT. So, WHO believes in "media distraction" and WHAT do they believe about it? -◈¡◈

No, it is not delightful at all. I see not why I would defend a title that I have not chosen myself, or even ever said I agreed on.

Another title suggested was media manipulation

Distraction by phenomenon: (A term which exists nowhere outside of wikipedia) A risky but effective strategy summarized by David Mamet's movie Wag the Dog, in which the public can be distracted, for long periods of time, from an important issue, by one which occupies more news time. When the strategy works, you have a war or other media event taking attention away from misbehaving or crooked leaders. When the strategy does not work, the leader's misbehavior remains in the press, and the war is derided as an attempted distraction. US President Clinton's involvement in Bosnia is often cited as an example. As with most persuasion methods, it can easily be applied in reverse, in this case, France's reluctance to vote in favor of military action towards Iraq

I insist. This example is not good. I really don't see where the distraction by phenomenon is here.

Clarify please - Is this imagined "distraction by phenomenon" one where the public is distracted from any important issue, or does it only apply to distraction away from a misbehaving leader? -◈¡◈

both are interesting...:-) Typical example if Bush trying to hide his very poor internal management behind a military success. So, what does France reluctance to vote has to do with this ? I find interesting to oppose Bush inability to govern the country, Clinton involvment in Bosnia...to France reluctance to vote. I think a better inversion example would concern a leader rather than a country for more similarity. But, then, one needs to indicate what major issue the leader is trying to hide. And...that example has to be crystal clear to readers, so it must be quite widely known what the leader was trying to hide.

By the way, I thought interesting to copy again here that previous comment of you...

And Google returns zero hits on the key concepts of this article, such as "Distraction by Phenomenon", "Distraction by Scapegoat", and "Distraction by Nationalism". Can *anybody* provide external support for this article? -◈¡◈

Strangely, though you mentionned these three points didnot existed, two of them are already mentionned or defined in wikipedia, in the propaganda article. I am surprised these are defined in propaganda without any warning to the readers, as I understand a term not mentionned by google does not exist, and have no credibility. Or...maybe is that the google search which was incorrect ? Should not it be mentionned in the propaganda article that they do not exist ?