Talk:Old media
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Old media article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Very strange article
[edit]This article entitled "Old Media" is actually devoted to a discussion of new media. It lacks focus. Even if it was about traditional media (the term that is used in the marketing and advertising professions), it would simply replicate content that is more than adequately covered in a number of WP articles including: Advertising; Advertising management; Marketing communications and Traditional media among others. If we accept that an article that purports to be concerned with "old" media can actually discuss new media, then that subject matter ia also adequately covered elsewhere on Wikipedia including most of the preceding articles as well as New media; Digital media and others. This article adds to the value of nothing and is a good candidate for deletion. BronHiggs (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- What the heck is going on here? Traditional media is (now?) a redirect to this article, which basically doesn't discuss it beyond saying "it's old, there's new media now, get over it". As you say, "old media" is not exactly a common or widely accepted phrase. People who work in new media generally refer to newspapers, radio, and the rest as "legacy media", which is slightly less patronizing and more respectful I guess.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @BronHiggs I agree with the original comment: this is a good candidate for deletion. It is not eloquently written, the references (those that there are) are so outdated as to be useless, and there are several claims that don't have citations. Keddleman (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- So reporting facts is now a "legacy" pursuit? News is news. Period. Reports are reports. Discussions are discussions. I'm not sorry that too many humans have swallowed the lesson that their clicks somehow improve reporting. If audience members want better news, let them learn the craft of journalism. Allowing our reality to be commandeered by clear commercial goals is, at some point, our fault. If anything, we must reinforce the message that "journalism" is about news and "media" - with whatever adjectives surround it - is, in the final analysis, about entertainment. Jetpower (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Digital Media Literacy
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 8 November 2024 and 16 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kwillnus25 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Reneehobbs (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Visual arts articles
- WikiProject Visual arts articles
- C-Class Media articles
- High-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- C-Class Internet articles
- High-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- C-Class Journalism articles
- High-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles