Talk:Media democracy

The media’s relationship with democracy has allowed people the right to participate in media and share the information they found and want to contribute to the people through the media. Since media democracy allows people the right to participate in media, it extends the media’s relationship to the public sphere, where the information that is gathered and can be viewed and shared by the people^[1]. The public sphere is described as a network of communicating information and points of view from people, which is reproduced through communicative action through the media to the public. ^[2] The relationship of media democracy and the public sphere extends to various types of media, such as social media and mainstream media, for people to communicate with one another through digital media and share the information they want to publish to the public. ^[3]

The public sphere can be seen as a theatre in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through a medium of talk and a realm of social life in which public opinion can be formed. ^[4] The public sphere is also a democratic system that is open to any free citizen who would like to participate in media if they have any information they would like to share to society. The public sphere has changed because of the development of mass communication, giving people opportunities to participate in media and the right to share information through all channels of communication. ^[5] The democracy of the public sphere is in the participation of citizens who provide information to the media and share it with society. Nick Mundy (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

When first referencing "The Public Sphere", put a link to its Wikipedia page. I had to google what it meant, and others not as familiar may have to too. Consider using a wider variety of sources. Using just two websites, although with different articles, could lead to a possible bias in writing, and it is safer to source more than two websites on a whole new Wikipedia section. Mnsutherland (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence could be broken up a bit. I do not believe that you need the 'best' before describing. Maybe make the last sentence before "The public sphere can be best described as a network of communicating information and points of view, which is reproduced through communicative action [2]." Also for the first sentence in the second paragraph, you could break it up to say "Media democracy and public sphere have their relationship because of their functions towards the media. The public sphere allows people to share information and media democracy allows people to right to contribute to media." Andreaosborne (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Can anybody in the know have a look at the two references of Barker, Michael - since User: Mike31 just added that reference, I'm a little suspicious about its relevance. Same goes for Free Press (organization)‎ Amalthea (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking of making the definition of media democracy (with in-text citation) in the first part of the article a bit clearer, in terms of the fact that media democracy can pertain to both the using the media for democracy and that media should be democratic (ie. media should provide information from different sources and not just from concentrated media providers). I will also try to add some citations to support other previous comments made. --Farah-baleine (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I added clarification with citations to support the original definition of media democracy.

I also added some other statements with citations to support the original content of this article.

I complicated the understanding of media democracy by pointing out that individual beliefs, interests and habits also factor into determining what sort of media they choose/interact with and how media will affect them. I hope this complicates and balances out the article a bit more in terms of the fact that while media democracy (providing avenues of democratic, independent media) is very important, other facets influence democracy and choice too (eg. individual education, background, knowledge, access to media resources, etc.)

I added Democracy Now! description and link as an example of a media democracy independent news medium. --Farah-baleine (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC) --> it's 10:26am in Toronto

I am thinking that the article has a clear definition of media democracy, it tells that media democracy is media being used for democracy to provide information for people in the public and that the media promotes democracy. Media democracy is about the free use of media and strengthening public broadcasts and that information provides people with public information about what is going on in the world by being more open to the public and not keeping its media information private. However, something that I noticed that was missing on the page is the relationship between media democracy and the public sphere because I think the two are connected. Media democracy is about having the right to participate in the media and publish the information they find in the media. The public sphere is about a network of people presenting the information they found to present to the media and expressing their opinions about what they have researched. I feel that since these two involve gathering and presenting information to the people watching the media that it proves that there is a connection between the public sphere and media democracy and it should be mentioned on the page about media democracy on Wikipedia. I noticed on the Wikipedia page about media democracy that it doesn’t talk about the public sphere and I want to exploit the public sphere more to better understand the connection between it and media democracy. .Nick Mundy (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I added a new category entitled "Feminism and Media Democracy," to discuss some criticism of media democracy (as its currently practised). I also populated this new category with content concerning the relationship between feminist media theory and media democracy, including some discussion of key criticisms regarding gender and exclusion in the media. Feel free to add/revise/subtract content, as desired - there are various other aspects of this category that could be explored in greater detail (as well as other criticisms more generally). It would be good to introduce a new category for "Media Democracy as Practice" to better elucidate what media democracy is and how it is performed, using real examples like Indymedia (the Independent Media Center) to better clarify the concept Rhiamyers (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at this article, and I have a few concerns:

1. The 'Key Concepts' section seems very biased at first glance. I suspect that this is partially due to poor formatting, as what should be part of the list of 'Beliefs/Notions' instead comes across as statements of fact about the media in general. I have created a list to clear this up. However, the source for these 'notions' is not listed, and without proper references, I don't feel this list is appropriate as an encyclopedia entry. One's perception and experience don't make for a good basis of fact here.

2. 'The second section strikes me as fairly biased as well. I feel that in some cases, this article is written with the purpose of "establishing points of view as fact,", instead of "documenting a point of view". For example, the following excerpt is written as an opinion piece on the topic at hand.

"Cultural studies have investigated changes in the increasing tendency of modern mass media in the field of politics to blur and confuse the boundaries between journalism, entertainment, public relations and advertising.[5] ... While it is vital to be able to scrutinize the choices made by media providers in terms of what information is included and excluded,[9] individuals possess distinctive knowledge, habits and interests that affect what media they will view and how they will be affected by the media they are exposed to.[10] The content is only one factor among many others that will shape an individual’s powers of judgment.[11]"

Elsewhere, undocumented critiques i.e. "As a response to the shortcomings of the mainstream media," are used instead of an NPOV stance. I.E. "As a response to these perceived shortcomings of the mainstream media,"

Finally, this all seems to be cited by two books. I am not certain if these are legitimate secondary sources. Would anyone care to comment or fill me in, so that I can attempt to justify these claims?

3. The 'feminism' section seems to be based on 10 pages in a book. Every sentence carries a citation to the same section of this book. While I applaud this attempt to document, I would either like to get another source or condense the section down as is appropriate.

I'll leave this up for a bit, as one of the original authors may wish to correct these problems. If no one is willing to rewrite this from an NPOV stance, with proper documentation, I will look at other options.

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikh86 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Something that I noticed that was missing on the page is the relationship between media democracy and the public sphere because I think the two are connected. Media democracy is about having the right to participate in the media and publish the information they find in the media. The public sphere is about a network of people presenting the information they found to present to the media and expressing their opinions about what they have researched. I feel that since these two involve gathering and presenting information to the people watching the media that it proves that there is a connection between the public sphere and media democracy and it should be mentioned on the page about media democracy on Wikipedia. I noticed on the Wikipedia page about media democracy that it doesn’t talk about the public sphere and I want to exploit the public sphere more to better understand the connection between it and media democracy. Nick Mundy (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The relationship between media democracy and the public sphere should only really be referenced in one section, as it has been in one of the other subheaders. The sources for the public sphere paragraph above need more sources. Mnsutherland (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

We are currently working on THE TRANSLATION into Spanish of this article. Translation work will be ready by the end of June 2014. For more information see Wikipedia: School_and_university_projects/Universitat_Jaume_I_-_E-translating PLEASE, DO NOT TRANSLATE THIS PAGE. IF YOU DO SO, PLEASE INFORM US AT Mcptrad --Mcptrad (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media democracy. 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/20121120063554/http://www.mediaaccess.org/about/ to http://www.mediaaccess.org/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102121813/http://culturalpolicyjournal.org/past-issues/issue-no-5/are-new-media-democratic/ to http://culturalpolicyjournal.org/past-issues/issue-no-5/are-new-media-democratic/

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) 17:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media democracy. 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/20060118062953/http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/wemedia/ to http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/wemedia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110803055645/http://www.cpbf.org.uk/body.php?doctype=join&ref=0&section=0 to http://www.cpbf.org.uk/body.php?doctype=join&ref=0&section=0

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

It seems the entire two-second paragraphs should be removed. The one source that is sighted is an outdated or invalid link, and the content in the second paragraph seems to be based on original research. Additionally, the second sentence in the "Definition" subsection should be changed to not be phrased as a personal opinion, but as a fact cited from (Exoo, Calvin F. (2010). The Pen and the Sword: Press, War, and Terror in the 21st Century. California: Sage Publications. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4129-5360-3,) and be made more clear in wording. CarlyBates (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Carly Bates

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) 03:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Restrictions in media may exist either directly or indirectly. Before internet usage of media as well as social media became prominent, ordinary citizens rarely had much control over media. Even as the usage of social media has increased, major corporations still maintain primary control over media as they are acquiring more and more platforms that would be considered in public use today [32]. Media has been compared in the sense that it is the usage of media that determines how the content is considered, rather than the actual messages of the content. According to Alec Charles edited Media/Democracy, “It is not the press or television or the internet or even democracy itself that is good or bad. It is what we do with them that makes them so” [33]. The role government plays in media and the regulations and restrictions in media have been debated as well. The government's involvement in media is possibly due to distrust between the government and media, as the government has criticized media before. Partial blame for distrust between the government and the public on both sides often goes to the media as the public may feel as though there is false information through the media and the government may feel as though the media is giving false public information [34]. These functions of media in the way that it exists are described in a review of Victor Pickard’s book, America’s Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform, where Josh Shepperd wrote, “If one approaches the historical question of media ownership from a public service model, the private emphasis of the system requires praise for its innovations and self-sustainability, but deserves deep interrogation for its largely uncontested claim that the system, as is, provides the best opportunity for social recognition” [35].

32. Mack, Robert L. Ott, Brian L. (2014). Critical Media Studies: An Introduction Second Edition. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

33. Charles, A. (2013). Media/Democracy : A Comparative Study. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Retrieved from http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=ssc&db=nlebk&AN=632062&site=eds-live&scope=site

34. Cammaerts, B., & Carpentier, N. (2007). Reclaiming the Media : Communication Rights and Democratic Media Roles. Bristol, UK: Intellect. Retrieved from http://corvette.salemstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=ssc&db=nlebk&AN=179161&site=eds-live&scope=site

35. Shepperd, J. (2016). Victor Pickard, America's Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform. International journal of communication [Online], 4723+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A491909998/LitRC?u=mlin_n_state&sid=LitRC&xid=c0249fc4

Ben 2cette (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s really good and really well written and detailed as well as clear. I am the one thing that stood out to me was where you say “The role government plays in media and regulations and restrictions in media has been debated upon as well” I’m confused as to what has been debated so are you trying to say “the role that the government plays in the media and their regulations and restrictions have been debated upon.”? Other than that everything looks good. JaleesaM (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am editing this page for my Media literacy class. Here are some things I noticed about the article, and what should be changed.

This article is biased from a pro-media democracy standpoint, with the author writing about their opinion on the subject rather than neutral facts. Many of the lines and sentences seem to be plagiarized. The article is unstructured, with information scattered all around, in fact at one point it starts listing bullet points in the middle of the article. The author(s) didn’t think this article out too well when writing it.

The article uses direct quotes at some point, while cited, still counts as plagiarism by Wikipedia standards, as the information should be paraphrased, not directly quoted.

Expanding on the sources, certain parts of the article, like the section on feminism, rely solely on one source or very limited sources. While that source appears credible, a broader spectrum of sources and data sets would legitimize the article more and make it seem a lot more well-researched.

Some obvious improvements would be to remove all the opinionated parts of the article. Many of the sources are legitimate however many lines seemed ripped right from the source, so removing the plagiarism and focusing on summarizing the info would help make the article more professional. Remove all weasel words and direct quotations. It is also obvious more care was placed on certain sections compared to others.

VU68 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am adding to this section for my media literacy class, any constructive criticism or notes you wanna make to this just leave a comment. thanks.

Internet Media Democracy

The internet has opened up media democracy in ways not possible before. With the easy accessibility of information, untrained journalists can put out information that isn't always necessarily sourced or cited correctly, however, access to reliable information is also easier to obtain as well.[1] The internet has also allowed for near-instant global communication, however, there are some worries this will lead to unified and more splintered politics.[2] There also fears that this will lead to the established capitalist politics and not create new ones.[3] More positive outlooks include more independent, less corporate media outlets with the internet. [4] However, the overall impact that the internet has on media democracy, and whether or not it will create a new kind of democracy, and its impact, has yet to be fully understood.[5]

VU68 (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is Shannon from your media literacy class giving you some feedback on your possible article contribution.

Overall, your contributions are well thought-out and add good information to the article. However, in your third sentence, you contradict yourself by writing that instant global communication might result in “unified and more splintered politics.” This is confusing as unified and splintered are complete opposites.

The other thing I noticed was that instead of writing “is not,” you wrote, “isn’t.” I suggest avoiding contractions to make the article sound more professional. Also, you used the wording “this will lead” twice in two sentences that directly followed each other. Maybe try rephrasing the second sentence and using a different verb.

The sources that you used for your contributions were difficult for me to check as they seemed to all be books. Other than the corrections I listed above, your contributions seem fact-based and follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Most importantly, unlike some of the content on this page, they do not contain your personal opinions.

Shan24680 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the "flags" raised on the Wikipedia page, this article lacked enough citations for evidence, contains vague phrasing that might be biased, is written like a personal reflective essay that has strong personal opinions, and contains original research. I plan to add more scholarly articles from other reliable sources as well as learnings from books about media and politics. I also plan to rephrase a lot of the biased sentences in this article.Yifanbao1 (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Yifan Bao, UC Berkeley

• The Article includes many sources although some may be outdated
• Phrasing of words can come off as biased (one point of view)
• Additional points of perspective would elevate information already included
• Information can come off as rushed, this may be to formatting errors
• Formatting errors are present in the second and third paragraphs of the piece

Lieberthal444 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Lieberthal444 (3/5/2020)

Media Democracy (Draft) Lieberthal444 Mainstream media is a place where people the public can contribute to important issues and ideas. Media Democracy encompasses this idea of letting people have a voice of opinion on important issues and ideas. There is a fine line drawn when these issues become state-owned or public. The question and issue at hand do these issues benefit the public if the public itself is not allowed to contribute? Sources Mwengenmeir. “Media and Democracy.” Media Studies 101, BCcampus, 28 Feb. 2014, opentextbc.ca/mediastudies101/chapter/media-and-democracy/. Trump. “Media & Democracy.” Social Science Research Council, 22 Oct. 2019, www.ssrc.org/programs/view/media-democracy/.

Peer Review: The information in this draft is relevant to the article topic and is organized well within this paragraph itself. For the most part, this is neutral, but the last sentence should be worded differently or might want to be taken out and replaced with different information as it is stating a question. Proper citations need to be included within the draft, and all the information needs to be cited properly within the paragraph itself to support each fact. There are only two sources provided so two more need to be added. Lastly, there are a few grammar errors that should be fixed.Mmason7 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review: I like that the information used in your draft is relevant to the topic, and as Mason said, it is organized well. Your paragraph was thorough and had great information that was not shown to be one-sided. Other than that, make sure to check grammar errors. Just a few errors there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonf7 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Please would someone assess the material added in 2012 in the copy of this article at User: MattDusenbury/sandbox (with citations), incorporate what is useful, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The article defines the normative roles of media in democracy, however, it lacks much objectivity. Most of the article sounds like an essay by using transitions such as "should be". Although it isn't the author's purpose, I perceived it as stating a point of view instead of presenting neutral information. I suggest the author should watch the academic language used. The article's purpose is to inform and not convince as the language presented suggests. Secondly, the author should include a diverse description in the paragraphs of each section. For example, in definition, I perceived every paragraph or sentence as a different way of defining Media Democracy. Include citations for verification, remove vague wording and biased information, and make sure to cite original research. I thought the language used tried to convince rather than inform. I'll make sure to avoid that with my article. Candreaangulo (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am currently going through the following sections to proofread them, making sure they are clear and error-free: Lead, Definition, Media Ownership Concentration, Feminism, and Restriction in Media. --Charosiers (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently mention of a media democracy model in the section "Internet Media Democracy," however, it is very ambiguous as there is no mention of it elsewhere and no definition or explanation of the said model. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Noor Machtoub (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I am also going through sources that are not listed in the article so far to add information. I will also try to add references where there is uncited information in the article. --Charosiers (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I added the first image to this article to make it more visually coherent and help the reader with visual representations of the theory. --Charosiers (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the order of some sections to make the article flow better. I wished to inform everyone since this feels like a rather major change. Also, I plan on deleting parts of the section explaining what the Public Sphere is since this information belongs in another article. Thank you! --Charosiers (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the following content from the article: "The public sphere is described as a network of communicating information and points of view from people, which is reproduced through communicative action through the media to the public. [...] The public sphere can be seen as a theatre in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through a medium of talk and a realm of social life in which public opinion can be formed. The public sphere is also a democratic system that is open to any free citizen who would like to participate in media if they have any information they would like to share with society. The public sphere has changed because of the development of mass communication, giving people opportunities to participate in media and the right to share information through all channels of communication. The democracy of the public sphere is in the participation of citizens who provide information to the media and share it with society." This is unnecessary to the article and is information that can be found on the page on the public sphere, which is why I eliminated it from this article. I wished to let everyone know since this is a rather major edit. --Charosiers (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)