Talk:Real News Update

"Mainstream media outlets state that most of what Trump TV reports is untrue and has been labeled as propaganda.^[1]"

"BuzzFeed noted that the stories that Lara Trump claimed were unreported, such as the plans of Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin and the donation of President's Trump's salary to the Department for Education, had in fact previously been reported by broadcasters and publications sometimes described as "mainstream media".^[2] Snopes and CNN contacted the White House for a comment on the videos yet received no reply.^[3][2]"

*Reasoning*

The independent link is just a video of laura and the CNN is disingenuous, but it doesn't call her show propaganda. The Buzzfeed article is just as disingenuous as the CNN article, but it does not call the show propaganda either.

Furthermore, Laura never claims that MSM ignored or failed to report on anything. She just says "in case you missed it" as a result of too much fake news or fake news overload. Her point of view is that the MSM is letting overwhelmingly negative, non-newsworthy stories take precedent over more newsworthy ones.

Coverage of Trump has been disproportionately negative, compared to other presidents, that has been demonstrated in this harvard study https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ Summarized very well in this tribune article http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html

Blob Blobbed (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This content was very poorly written and you were right to object to it in my view. That said, the cited sources are reliable and if content is written that reflects them, then it should remain. The Independent link was more than a video; it also included a Washington Post article. The Buzzfeed and CNN sources are reliable. Regarding your comment that coverage of Trump has been disproportionately negative, it isn't our job to compensate for that. The principle behind our core policies is that we reflect what the reliable sources say, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

watch the video provided in those stories. She never says 5he story was ignored. It is patently false. Cnn and buzzfeed cant refute a.claim.she never made

Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I only added those citations as an example of what she is talking about btw. either way, she never said anyone failed to report on anything in that video, it doesnt matter if you cite a CNN article that says she said that when she never said it. Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Blob Blobbed (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The CNN and Buzzfeed sources are explicit in the basis for their stories. Lara Trump said, "I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week..." and then followed with, "Watch here for REAL news!" It is quite reasonable to interpret those words, as CNN and Buzzfeed did, as saying that the stories she followed with were unreported or underreported by the news media. (Feel free to keep discussing, but please don't remove the content again without consensus.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:You're misquoting. "Watch here for real news!" is the header the video was tagged with when it was posted.

Laura's full remark is ( https://youtu. be/dXZfY0JzGkw):

"Hey everybody, lara Trump here, I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president has had this week because there's so much fake news out there! We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week"

Her tone when saying "so much fake news out there," is patronising and facetious, which is the tone "fake news" has been co-opted under. it is a facetious slight, not a literal accusation.

Trump has made countless remarks (and tweets) referencing fake news and the two narratives he avoids are the two most subject to plausible deniability. He never (or at least very rarely has) said they lied, and he never says they failed to report on something. CNN and most other mainstream outlets for that matter, publish articles deliberately miscategorized and/or buried in the abyss of the front page, or even off the front page, they run 3 minute segments on whatever may be adverse to ther agenda in arbitrary time slots.

The most common theme in Trump's tweets using the term "fake news" is the demonstrably disproportionate amount of negative coverage of him and his administration.

With all of its phony unnamed sources & highly slanted & even fraudulent reporting, #Fake News is DISTORTING DEMOCRACY in our country!

Wow, more than 90% of Fake News Media coverage of me is negative, with numerous forced retractions of untrue stories. Hence my use of Social Media, the only way to get the truth out. Much of Mainstream ...

I win an election easily, a great "movement" is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state! 4:44 AM - 11 Jan 2017. 28,076 Retweets;

The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest! Even a dinner arranged for top 20 leaders in Germany is made to look sinister! 5:59 PM - 18 Jul 2017. 26,966 Retweets; 106,503

FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn't tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad! 7:09 PM - 24 Feb 2017. 25,774 Retweets; 105,939 Likes;

The Fake News Is going all out in order to demean and denigrate! Such hatred! 5:45 AM - 12 Oct 2017. 16,833 Retweets; 79,960

· The Fake News Awards, those going to the most corrupt & biased of the Mainstream Media, will be presented to the losers on Wednesday , January 17th, rather than this coming Monday.

While on FAKE NEWS @CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties! 4:14 AM - 12 Feb 2017.

(And yes that did happen to Bernie https://youtu. be/tcTlM-EHXt4)

The term "Fake news" employs plausible deniability as a catch-all to address plausible deniability. In Trump's case, like I said before, it is primarily utilized to address the histotically disproportionate amount of negative coverage him and his administration have been receiving.This is why every news station was tripping over itself at the beginning of 2017 to re-establish the colloquial meaning of the term as it became more popular.

this politifact article (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/ oct/18/deciding-whats-fake-medias-definition-fake-news-vs/) assumes to reveal that Donald Trump is out of touch with reality by breaking down which situations Trump is most likely to employ the term with out even considering the possibility that the word "fake" in "fake news" does not literally mean "fake," When Donald Trump says it.

Going to such great pangs as the aforementioned politifact piece to say "No, donald.its real," is just ridicous at this point. Clearly demonstrated by by the essencs of shit that emodies ths politifact piece. A glistening pillar of fake news, indeed.

The situation we are facing with this CNN and Buzzfeed article ventures outside the scope of Trumpian fake news, and into the realm of objective bullshit. What they are asserting is patently false, and what you are rebutting is that since they are reliable sources, it is not false. Suggesting a reliable source is impervious to correction, and ignoring the vindictive spirit with which these two pieces were obviously written to begin with.

In no way did lara imply that anyone failed to report on anything with her remark. It was a patronizing slight.

And the gatekeeper who never saw the original video to begin with is giving me a hard time now for removing false claims, because apparently if CNN and Buzzfeed said so, lara must have technically implied what she obviously never did implied.Blob Blobbed (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. I don't understand why we're talking about Trump's views about the fake news media. Can you please summarize your argument in, say, no more than 5 sentences? Meanwhile, please stop edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lara is doing the show as a surrogate of Trump, she is obviously employing the term as an extension of him. Could you explain how anything lara trump says in that video could be reasonably interpreted to imply "CNN did not report on this story," Blob Blobbed (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand your question. Who interpreted Lara Trump as saying that CNN did not report on the story? CNN didn’t say that, and neither did I. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I puzzled over your comments here some more and I think I understand what you're getting at. Your interpretation is plausible. The problem, however, is that you're interpreting Lara Trump's words just as CNN and Buzzfeed did. They came to a different understanding than you. Fine. But the thing is--here at Wikipedia, CNN and Buzzfeed are reliable sources, whereas your own independent analysis is not. It's original research, which i disallowed. If you have a problem with how CNN and Buzzfeed interpreted Lara Trump then you should write to their editors or write a blog or something. But here, verifiability is king. It's not insane; it's just how our community standards work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made my case perfectly clear, Fleischman. All of the rules you're citing pertain to content left on Wikipedia and make no case for the outright removal of content. They describe how to appropriately cite material on a Wikipedia page.

WP:Editing policy states "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information."

Also this "explanatory supplement" of original research,entitled WP:NOTOR:These are not original research

Section 9 Removing incorrect claims and pointing out errors states:

In many cases, the best solution is to remove minor incorrect claims. This streamlines articles by letting them present only true facts. Making this determination is a core editing activity, and is not original research if the contradiction is obvious, unlikely to be challenged, or is supported by reliable sources that either directly address the inaccuracy or firmly establish that academic consensus contradicts the claim. Incorrect claims can be simply removed by editors who notice they are incorrect, or after consensus is reached on the talk page that the claim is incorrect. It is always helpful to explain why a claim is believed to be incorrect, since at least two people (the cited author and the editor who added the claim) believed it to be correct, and to cite sources in the edit summary or talk page when removing.

I'm removing the claimBlob Blobbed (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're doing is edit warring. I tagged the disputed content. Please leave it be until this dispute is resolved. You are mistaken about how our community standards work. WP:OR is absolutely about outright removal of content. I have lost patience in this discussion so I'm going to start a Request for Comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Added criticms to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blob Blobbed (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Blob Blobbed - 'Criticism' or 'Objections' as section is generally iffy, see WP:Criticism part WP:CSECTION. As a section title this seems to either cast the section as one-sided and/or to invite negatives, neither of which seems desirable. I'm going to WP:BOLD-ly relable it "Media Response" which would focus to coverage from media instead of something for IceT or Schumer quotes. As an aside, I offer the thought that by this time some coverage about more than the week now 5 months ago might suit, and perhaps some right-side and international views. But there is just not much coverage over a Facebook page by the re-election campaign, other than the first week by US media. (Looks like none at BBC and London Times, for example.)

• The Telegraph Lara Trump becomes face of Donald Trump's 2020 re-election campaign The Telegraph
• Evening Standard
• Washington Times Former CNN commentator Kayleigh McEnany hosts 'real news' program on Trump Facebook page (week 2)
• CBS news Trump launches "real" Trump TV news with Kayleigh McEnany (week 2)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Markbassett Thanks Mark. I think that works. I have been meaning to add a little more substance to this article. Thx for the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blob Blobbed (talk • contribs) 07:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this article. I see some problems: months-long edit warring over the same issues, not discussing in good faith. Let me remind you that we do not decide what goes in here by asserting our own opinions. Things like “This is false”, “I’m done with this, the excerpt is out”, etc., are improper comments. Nobody owns this article or gets to decide unilaterally what goes in here. We don’t decide what to say by how often or how loudly or how firmly someone expresses their opinion. We do decide what goes into the article by what sources actually say. If we have a difference in the interpretation of what somebody said, we talk it out until we agree on a wording we can all accept. So let’s do that.

In particular, it looks to me as if the long-running argument here is over what she said in the first episode: whether she said “the media has ignored stories about the president’s accomplishments”, or whether she implied it, or whether she never said or implied any such thing. Whether she said it or not is a factual issue, easily settled; it looks as if she did not use those exact words. What she did say was “I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there. We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week.” OK, obviously that quote should be included.

So all that remains is, how much interpretation of that comment should be included? For example, it seems like we could say “some of the accomplishments she reports on have also been reported by mainstream media”, citing snopes and other sources, without saying she claimed they were ignored by the media. If we want to go beyond that - to include the snopes complaint that she appeared to insult White House coverage by other news outlets, or to offer more reaction to her “fake news” terminology - we can do that in the Media coverage section.

Let's talk about this, respectfully and in good faith and with brevity instead of walls of text. And let's agree here on what to say, rather than edit warring things in and out of the article. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of pointing out that they were reported on when no one said they weren't reported on in the first place? This is just an attempt to say "Lara Trump was wrong" about something she never said to begin with. I don't care if you include the actual quote from her video, but there's not reason to take that quote and construe it in any manner that would insinuate she meant to imply that those things were not reported on, which is exactly what pointing out that they were reported on, in any capacity, would do. Pardon me for getting a little fed up here, but these people are obviously just looking for an excuse to malign the program.Blob Blobbed (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And I'm trying to move beyond all that and actually discuss. You don't appear to be ready to do that. Please try again, and this time discuss my actual proposal and questions, instead of repeating what you've been saying for two months. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Please, open up the discussion. How do propose we fix this excerpt?Blob Blobbed (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus among the last few discussions, including among some who !voted for Remove in the withdrawn RfC, that this subject matter is appropriate, supported by reliable sources, and should be addressed in some way, shape, or form. Repeatedly deleting our content with "it's false it's false it's false" is counterproductive and disruptive to the consensus-building process. I'm sorry Blob Blobbed, but you will simply have to accept that consensus is against you, and work with the rest of us to improve (but not delete) the content. If you cannot do this then you will likely end up getting receiving an administrative sanction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Melanie, your most recent removal isn't in line with WP:CONSENSUS. If there's really no consensus for the content you deleted, then we should follow WP:NOCONSENSUS and revert to the last stable version, which is 15:25, 8 December 2017. The subject matter in dispute remained in the article and untouched from the creation of the article August 2, 2017 to January 6 when Blob Blobbed made their first edit here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman, BullRangifer, Emir of Wikipedia, Parkwells, Mandruss, and Markbassett: Folks, PLEASE let's move beyond the either-or edit warring and let's talk. DrFleischman, I removed your latest re-addition of the disputed content, because there is NOT consensus (much less "clear consensus" as you claimed) in the above RfC. And now you’re doing just what Blob Blobbed originally did: ignore my call for a new approach, and simply re-assert your previous arguments and continue to edit war. Blob has agreed to move beyond that attitude and start talking. I am hoping you, and the others, will do the same.

I am proposing a new approach in hopes that we can all agree on what to include and how to word it. For starters, we don’t have to be (and shouldn’t be) all-or-nothing about the disputed content - that is, insist on either including all of it or deleting all of it. My proposal is to take it apart and look at the individual components. My conclusion is: 1) We obviously should include what she actually said in her first broadcast. 2) We obviously should not quote her as having said something she didn’t. 3) That leaves the media commentary and interpretation of what she said. (CNN, snopes). Let’s agree on whether to include any of that commentary and where (Media response or Reception seem like obvious places). Now can we talk, please? --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see that you added some of the material under "reception". We can work with that (I made one change and asked for one missing reference), and we can see if others have opinions about doing it that way. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am all for going through it in detail and making whatever changes are necessary to reflect the sources. What I will not abide by is outright deletion because the sources are wrong wrong wrong. (Btw no need to keep pinging me.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. How do you and Blob feel about adding something like this to the "Launch" section? In the first episode, a video posted on July 30, 2017, Trump introduced herself and the webcast by saying, "Hey everybody, Lara Trump here. I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there. We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week." We could cite snopes or NPR for the quote. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody objected so I have inserted this into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

...and I see you are continuing to tweak the material under "Reception". That's good. So far it looks to me like the material is neutral and sourced, and isn't putting words into her mouth. Of course others may want to tweak it as well, that's the Wikipedia way, but you've made a good start and good improvements. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fine with that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I like MelanieN's approach: "In the first episode, a video posted on July 30, 2017, Trump introduced herself and the webcast by saying, "Hey everybody, Lara Trump here. I bet you haven’t heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there’s so much fake news out there. We wanted to give you a glimpse into his week," with the Snopes and CNN articles cited. The current version: "In response to Lara Trump's statement that, "I bet you haven't heard about all the accomplishments the president had this week because there's so much fake news out there," various outlets noted that the stories she highlighted, such as the plans of Foxconn to build a factory in Wisconsin and the donation of President's Trump's second-quarter salary to the Department for Education, had in fact previously been covered by the mainstream media," still unfairly implies that she meant no one reported on those things, in my opinion.Blob Blobbed (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And yet 3 reliable sources all interpreted Lara Trump's words exactly that way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What about about WP:DUE and WP:ONUS though?Blob Blobbed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that she claimed those things had not been reported by the media. We are reporting, per multiple sources, how those sources interpreted her meaning. As far as I can see that is fair and honest, and consistent with all Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Melanie -I have not been following this one since my failed attempt to have the rfc reflect the dispute. The “I bet” quote is common enough to mention, though the Telegraph and US News skipped it. The “ignored” is not supported, and to lesser extent the phrasing of ‘in response’ (to the quote) and the over-emphatic ‘but, in fact, actually’ language is not supported. It would be more neutral to have the same line without the emphasis, simply relaying the statement sticking closer to the sources simply stating much of the material was also in mainstream media. Also, it seems iffy to stop there — Buzzfeed and a few others followed that by mentioning other stories getting more coverage that week. Lastly, NPOV.... should include due weight to less incendiary and even right-wing coverage. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're aware of any reliable "less incendiary and even right-wing" coverage then please post links here and I'd be happy to include it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Throughout this article she is referred to as "Lara Trump" (possibly necessary to disambiguate her from Donald Trump, but maybe not; he is hardly mentioned) or as "Lara" (we shouldn't do that, Wikipedia uses last names). How do you all think we should handle her name? Wikipedia style would suggest we call her "Trump," to the extent possible while avoiding confusion with Donald. --MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to call her either Lara Trump or Ms. Trump to distinguish her from DJT, since DJT is the elephant in the room. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We certainly can't say Ms. Trump. We don't use honorifics. I agree it could be confusing to refer to her as "Trump". (We have the same problem at Melania Trump, although we do call her "Trump" in places.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should call her L. Trump and refer to DJT as "the president". I am concerned that this article refers only to the first month of this program, and early responses by the media. My attempts to expand it have been deleted. It hardly rates as an article at all, if there is nothing more to be said. I can't find an episode program on Facebook past January 2018, and another editor had said the webcast had been discontinued. I am also concerned about the new content under Background: it is all about Lara Trump and not the webcast, and relies repeatedly on her criticism of the media, rather than third-party reviews of the program or the context. The article no longer even identifies who or what is financing this webcast - i.e., the DJT Re-election campaign. I think it is overstating the case to say that L Trump creates this webcast; she is host but no doubt there are other people working on it. She was only an associate producer at Inside Edition, and one source described her as not much beyond an intern. But this article is not supposed to be about her anyway.Parkwells (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is an episode from just last week, tagged as Week 58 and hosted by Lara Trump. On uspotus.com it is titled "Donald Trump Real News Update With Lara Trump". There is no doubt that this is still a real thing and that she hosts it. The article is tagged as needing to be updated, and we should do that, but it does appear to be ongoing and she appears to be featured, so that is appropriate for our article to be doing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking that down! The challenge with this article is that the news media only covered this stuff when the first videos came out, and then again when McEnany hosted an episode. Since then the coverage has been minimal at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It was mentioned above that we no longer say it is funded by the re-election committee. According to CNN Money back in August, it wasn't clear at that time whether the webcast is funded by the re-election committee or the RNC. Do we have any definitive information on that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This NBC News item says “Trump’s presidential committee is listed as having paid for the news spot.” In this article they quote a campaign executive as saying her program “helps drive donations to our war chest.” I think it’s pretty clearly funded by the campaign. I'm going to add it back to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The source which was used to justify inclusion of 'state media' and 'propaganda' is from a quote from a Washington Post op-ed earlier on the page. Firstly, since it is an op-ed, it is not reliable enough to justify such a controversial addition to the See also section without violating WP:NPOV. Secondly, the quote states "felt a lot like propaganda -- or state TV." So even the author is saying it "felt" like that -- not that it *was* that.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Jay942942, please avoid edit warring and respect the BRD process next time. Can you please explain your re-revert summary? I don't know what source you're referring to, and I personally didn't rely on it. Fake news, state media, etc. certainly seem related to the subject of this article. By including them in the See also section we're not implying that Real News Update is fake news or state media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're implying that. The source I'm referring to is the one where a Washington Post op-ed writer is quoted; I explained this earlier on the talk page. There's also no mention of Real News Update on the articles you linked in See also. So if your additions to See also weren't based on the WaPo op-ed, then they have no basis at all other than your own thoughts, and are thus WP:OR.--Jay942942 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that's really not my intention. Just as critics of RNU might say that RNU is fake news, the RNU folks might say that the purpose of their show is to counteract fake news. So either way you look at it there's a nexus with fake news. Items in a See also section don't need to be linked by sources or content. They just need to be related. It seems ridiculous to suggest that Real News Update isn't somehow related to fake news. In fact many sources bear this out. Here are some examples: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A wikilink to fake news in now included in this short article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that takes care of fake news. How about the others? Also, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is already linked in the article as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I undid that wikilink for two reasons: (1) we don't wikilink within quotations, and (2) the Trump administration means something entirely different when they say "fake news". After his election, Donald Trump began to use the term "fake news" to describe negative press coverage of his presidency. Their use has nothing to do with truth, factuality, "fake", or accuracy, but purely whether it makes Trump look bad. It's a very deceptive use of the term, used exactly as Hitler used the term "Lying press", and for the same reasons. See also Lying_press#United_States.

I have now used the proper and direct wikilink in a place that is not in a quotation. The scare quotes should remain to signal that the term, as used by the Trump administration, is not the normal meaning. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I'm fine with that. FWIW I wasn't the person who added that link. In any case, we still have the question of whether we should include State media, Propaganda, Media bias, and Corporate media in the See also section. I see you restored them, but perhaps you can add your reasoning here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

RS describe it as such, and it obviously is. We expect this in autocratic countries, not in democratic ones. The rules for See also links is that they must, at the least, be tangentially related to the subject, so these are good ones. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)