Talk:State media

This line: "The press in the United States, Canada and Australia has always been the responsibility of the private commercial sector since its inception." is ridiculous. Canada and Australia's largest broadcasters are legally under the ownership of the State. I have independently reviewed the cited reference and can find no evidence the above phrase exists in the cited page, or the preceding or following pages. I request consensus for editing of this phrase to delete Canada and Australia. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. The ABC is controlled by the ABC Board, which is appointed by the government of the day. While I agree that this is often problematic, to say that the ABC is the largest broadcaster is, I'm afraid, just not true. Most of the media in Australia is produced by the commercial sector. I cannot comment on the Canadian system as I don't know anything about it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm curious as to whether you did indeed review that source. On page 3 it reads:

"In the Western European countries, opening up the market to competition represents a significant change, as there had previously been a monopoly of so-called public broadcasting in most of these countries. However, in the United States, Canada and Australia, broadcasting was the responsibility of the private commercial sector from its very inception. In these countries, public broadcasting emerged later, originally in the form of educational broadcasting. Such a duopoly of public and private broadcasting first began to develop at the beginning of the 1930s in Australia and shortly thereafter in North America. It did not reach Europe until 1954 when the British broadcasting system was set up."

Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang. Regulating Media: The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in Six Countries. Guilford Press, 1996. ISBN 978-1572300293, page 3.

Something tells me you didn't read that source at all. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's all the right wing drivel deriding North Korea and Xinhua but nothing's been written about that tyranical state-run monolith, spewing propaganda to all corners of the world from there sinister base in 'Shepherd's Bush'. I am of course talking about the BBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.101.132 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fix that grammar, it's right-wing with a hyphen! --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean, because the word tight was not mentioned, nor stated within the first comment of this talk section. They did use the term RIGHT as in right-wing drivel though. --Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

This is not directly relevant to the matter under discussion (I am also unconvinced by the supposed distinction between "state" [biased] and "public" [neutral] broadcasting, for what it's worth), but I believe the unsigned comment above is jokingly alluding to a somewhat infamous remark made by Bill Clinton during impeachment proceedings: "it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is".

In this instance, I think the implication of that allusion is something like the following:

"Whether or not you classify a given state-owned broadcaster as 'state-controlled' depends in large part on how tightly you regard the broadcaster to be 'controlled' by the state." Because Wikipedia upholds a distinction between "state" and "public" broadcasters, this sentiment is attributed to "Slick Jimmy, presumably".

In the original context, Clinton was attempting to defend, on obscure, technical grounds, what most people would take to be an obvious lie. I would hesitate to conclude, therefore, that the author of the unsigned comment is necessarily defending the distinction in question. It's a characterisation of existing Wikipedia policy, rather than a personal commentary on the dispute. Foxmilder (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The BBC isn't really free of reproach themselves. It was reported in the past that the BBC screened it's editorial candidates to make sure they were suitable by the Mi5 central intelligence agency of the U.K. government.

• BBC used MI5 to vet pacifist staff
• The vetting files: How the BBC kept out ‘subversives’
• THE BBC WORKED DIRECTLY WITH MI5 TO BAR LEFT-WING JOURNALISTS AND PREVENT A LEFT-WING BRITISH GOVERNMENT

This is hardly a 'gold standard'. CaribDigita (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Must admit it seems quite crazy to me that the BBC doesn't even get a mention in this article. I mean even to name it, and describe why it might not be classed by many as falling under the "state media" designation, and to go through the arguments for (or against) not including it. Saying "the BBC isn't really 'state media', and here's why" might be seen as right or wrong depending on viewpoint (either of the BBC, or the definition of the term), but it is at least a defensible position one could take. An article on "state media" that doesn't even 'mention' the BBC on the other hand? Even in Passing? That reads as pure propaganda honestly...

Another time I think I might have to take a proper look at this article some time because at the moment it's a bit of an embarrassment to wikipedia really isn't it. And it's just a mess too, different voices throughout that internally contradict each other. Without having delved into the history of the article at all yet, reads to me like a classic "battleground" article where people open it, don't like something, make their own little insertion, removal or change, and then move on. So you get this upside down article that doesn't seem to know what it's about, doesn't adequately address the topics it touches, and doesn't even really agree with itself. What a mess!

Needs a proper think and a proper cleanup/rewrite, salvaging the good bits and putting them into a coherent whole, and addition of some quality and sourced material to tie it together. A project for another time perhaps...

--Tomatoswoop (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KPower082 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with public broadcasting and public sector media (state-funded), which is funded directly or indirectly by the state or government but over which the state or government does not have editorial control." What is the proof for this distinction exactly? What is the evidence "public broadcasters" are free from the editorial control of their funders and legal owners in the state? Seems just that if you like the country, it's a "public broadcaster", but if you don't like the country then it's "state media". Would either of these articles care to explain what happens at a totally independent "public broadcaster" when it starts attacking its own government? Would someone survive long at a BBC news desk, for example, if they urged another country to invade the UK? VolatileChemical (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The article as it stands is mess yeah. Public service broadcasting and State media are a venn diagram with some overlap. Some organisations are both, some only really one or the other. Nonprofit public service broadcasters for example aren't state media for instance (and so only belong in the other article), and, conversely, state media pointed purely abroad, as discussed at International broadcasting (especially those with a direct govt involvement in content), doesn't really fall under Public Service Broadcasting (the Radio Free X for instance aren't likely to be included in a "public service broadcasting" article or conversation for example, because they are pointed outwards.). And, in the middle of the Venn diagram, covered by both terms, you have something like the BBC – generally considered to be a "public broadcaster"/"public service broadcaster" and obviously relevant to an article on that topic, and also obviously falls under State Owned media too (and so clearly within the remit of this article).

What this article needs to be is just a sober appraisal of all the types of broadcasters that full under the designation "state media" (which includes everything from objectively state-owned and/or funded media, regardless of what one thinks of its editorial independence, to state run / controlled etc. media, regardless of its ownership model, and everything in between), the distinctions between them, how the term does and doesn't intersect with public (service) broadcasting, what the academic consensus is on the degree of editorial independence of different models and/or institutions, ideally a bit about history and too (when did state-owned/run broadcast media arise, how did the different models arise, a look at commercial vs state-owned broadcasting over time particularly in Europe, for instance, that sort of thing).

If people then also want to have a section in the article discussing the degrees of editorial independence (or lack thereof) of different models/and or examples of these state-owned,-operated,-funded, and/or -controlled broadcasters, with a well-cited and balanced/nuanced/accurate view of it, then by all means, great. Even a discussion of the term "state media" itself as a neutral descriptor vs as a pejorative is on topic. But before any of that, the article needs to at least meet the level of a basic outline, and it doesn't reach even that at the moment...

The above is what article 'clearly' should be. Instead just trying to take the approach of having one article be about the "good kind" of state media, another separate article to be about the "bad kind" of state media is, frankly, silly. At the moment the latter approach seems to be more what this article does (or half does, because it also contradict itself because that's obviously a silly way to approach the topic). Not sure how it ended up this way precisely, but it's fairly absurd as it stands... It undermine's wikipedia's credibility, and as it stands continually undermines itself if you actually bother to read this confused and sorry excuse for article line by line, beginning to end... Tomatoswoop (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)