Talk:News trade

Article, General Comments

Can you show any authoritative sources for the validity of this article? It sounds like "original research" and is highly POV. I've looked, I find zero references to anything even remotely close to this hypothetical article. It seems to be a POV vector designed to somehow propagandize against journalism and journalists by lumping together a host of things into the invented category called "News trade." I'd like to see even once source that backs this hypothesis up with facts. Until these issue are resolved, I would kindly ask any and all to please refrain from linking this into the journalism ethics and standards article and in general I would refrain from linking this into other articles on the field of Journalism or media related articles on Wikepedia. I also suggest that it be promptly removed from templates on Journalism which have recently popped up in several locations.

I hope this does not seem unfriendly, it's not meant to, but I have serious issues with this article and hope, in the spirit of co-operation and Wikipedia policy that those can be worked out. My best, Calicocat 01:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the title: I'm a journalist, and I think "news trade" is uncommon. "News industry" could be better. Maurreen 05:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attention Tags, Issues

Tags placed here to draw attention to issues with this article.
No substantiation given for basis of articles premisis
Origianl research. Article seems to be original research, in violation of Wikipedia policy on such.

Policies:

Calicocat 01:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

Totally disputed

Article seems very POV and factually inaccurate. It appears to be an invented theory by the writer or writers. It gives no substantiation, sources or anything to back up that "news trade" as such even exists. Internet searching brings up no credible references to support this article. Calicocat 01:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tags belong on the article page, not on the talk page. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I second Willmcw's decision to move the tag. One of the editors of this page had placed a so called "attention" tags on another page, journalism ethics and standards, so to be polite and follow his example on a page he's working on, I did the same. I think the page trys to introduce false terms and is an erroneous page. I'm almost certain it should be voted for speedy removal. Nothing personal against its creators, but original research, which I'm kindly willing to call this, is not allowed (nor is patent nonsence). Calicocat 03:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic, and haven't edited the article, but a quick search on google brings up no articles. -Willmcw 04:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I take no offense, and appreciate the challenge, but frankly it seems like a non issue - the terms "News business" and "News trade" are rather common, though "trade" tends to be used more by journalists than by the public. They are almost interchangeable, but I think trade is superior, if only because its one the general public does not use, but the title is debatable. The article itself needs lots of work, Ill admit.

Google tends to confuse "News trade" with "...News: Trade..." but it only takes a closer look to find links like this and this and this etc. More later SV|t|add 15:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Calicocat 16:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC): I saw the links...I still have to take issue with the article.

I don't mind articles being in stages of "draft" and should be tagged as subs, disputed, POV, etc., but they should not be put forward as a 'standard topic' in journalism. I'd suggest a title like "Journalism business economics." or "News business economics," or Economics of the news business, Journalism business economics. The highly questionable article should not be placed on templates all over the universe of journalism articles, or elsewhere until such time is it -- or better still another, new article treating the concepts of the economics of the news business -- can be created.

My main objection is with this article and two related templates, one Journalism, the other news trade. I would ask the author of those templates to remove the links to "news trade." I don't have technical issues with the Templates, they are well designed and useful and were created, I'm sure, with the best intentions and I'm sure can be used, but without and only without the links to this article. I think the term "news trade" is going to cause confusion and suggest the above alternate names, I'd save off the content of this article and put it up for speedy deletion and redraft another.

Whereas it would be in bad faith to spread this out over many pages let us agree to confine disucssion of issues with "news trade" as affecting templates or articles should be dealt with here and I ask for a good faith agreement on that so we don't create a monster for ourselves. Let's agree to 1) remove all references to "news trade" on those and maybe other templates and articles to which it has inserted, I removed several references to it on the Je&s article as a start. (End comment) My best, Calicocat 16:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping your objections coherent. On point one: the incomplete article as main article: yes, if your crying for it to be developed, I will shortly comply, as I agree that its prominence is an issue. Note that I was hoping to attract attention for the development of these articles by using the template. <sarcasm> Yes, I agree its not desirable for the general public to see less than perfect articles on wikipedia, and articles shouldnt ever be "published" until they are "done." </sarcasm> wink wink.

Bad faith: I agree that its unseemly to have such an undeveloped article be so featured. If you bear with me, I will attempt to give it a good rewrite within the next 12 hours, including some comparison justification of the concept, written in my best neutral language.

Two related templates: I had thought you were objecting to the split, but Im glad you agree that theres enough separation of focus there. Do we agree that the split is along professional and business lines, and that their respective composition is fair? I may agree to a retitling of the template as "news business" for the time being, or simply unlinking it, until the article is made satisfactory. -SV|t|add 20:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see youve made some changes to the journalism template. Will comment later. Perhaps Wikipedia:Wikiproject journalism would be a better place of central focus for this, since you and I and Charles, Maureen etal, seem to have some energy currently for making these things work together. I dont know ye if I agree with your simply adding material from business side to the professional side. I had thought you agreed with the distinction of profession and business as a legitimate one. -SV|t|add 20:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support that totally. Now, put up a brief draft and some external links at News industry. I think might be what you were aiming at with News trade, maybe you even mentioned that name in a post.

I opened a new one at News industry, I think some of what you have fits there...this will include:

Financial history of biz.
The business and financial aspects of the news business, budgets, media ownership, talent costs, budget's influence on news, celebrity talent costs, staff costs, technical costs.
The influence of budget constraints or lack of, how that influences, or does not, coverage.

I think the phrase, News industry, is what you were getting it, and is more naturally known as such. Another here suggested that, I agree. I have no time to work on it now. I just wanted to make sure to get back to you on this and again, as far as the others, I think each one has made some excellent contributions on the other article, JE&S and I've been very pleased to have their attention on the topic of jounalism and the JE&S article. Calicocat 00:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is news industry any better than news trade or news business? If anything its a pov characterization of an amorphous many-tendriled entity of paper-scuffing as a kind of material industry, like food manufacture and housing. The product of journalists is not material, its news content. Likewise the product of the general news trade isnt instrinsically industrious either; it produces supplementary content to draw advertising. Granted the news trade article as it is is largely a look at the distinction from journalism, which is perhaps overstated. -SV|t|add 02:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, the POVness of this article is not just its title, there are other issues with it, and maybe how the whole was rolled out with that template, etc. is what I've found problematical. The term "News industry" is confined to that part of media economics that concerns news and news operations, and I guess we could include there even discussion of infomercials and other such information driven programs. However, if you want the largest canvas, then it should be media economics. Personally, I'd rather stick wtih the news/information mix and focus on the economics of news industry, touching on it's impact on journalism, talk radio, information driven programs and perhaps a thing or two more. It's what I know and like. I could do the media economics one too. In any event, there should be an article on media economics, so I started a stub there as well and I'll put in a request for an article on that subject. My best, Calicocat 03:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<snippy remark>Ill remember to make everything I do less unpresentable or "problematic." </sr> Calico, I may agree with your definition of news industry, and may even agree that its worth some explanation on an article. Media economics is probably a legitimate super-aspect of "news media" and all other mass media. (include also non-commercial mass media too please ;) ) Thats definitely something that should have some relationship/explanation to journalism's business side. (template:Media) Again, just as with news trade and journalism, these are overlapping categories that are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the same. The only point in drawing the heirarchy within the so-called "news business," is to assert the distinction from various media from journalism. This is really what gets "lumped together," (said below) and hence what needs clarification. I look forward to seeing your work on a media econ treatment. -SV|t

I also have general disagreement with this article. In my view, it lumps together a bunch of disparate material and subjects. Maurreen 05:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some article do do exactly that: What would wikipedia be if it only had articles about particular things and not things in general? Would you say that the "lumping" would better be done under journalism or under other things? What is the relationship betwen this and the other? And so on. -22:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Project

I'll second this suggestion for the Wikiproject, though I don't know how active I'll be. See you there. Maurreen 05:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine. It will be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism, and there isnt anything there yet besides the basics, so, edit to your hearts content. -SV|t 22:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)