Talk:Tabloid journalism

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moreau.hl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kieranmitha98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Can someone please take a look at this section?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarket_tabloid#Supermarket_tabloid Repetition should be edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.237.171 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrong, no such thing as story or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendp (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adding "tabloids"

I note that some editors think that the "examples" should include every tabloid disfavoured by any editor. I demur, and suggest any additions be discussed first. This article is specifically about unreliable or false reportage done in a sensationalist manner. Collect (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Brevities

Well covered at [1] Collect (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dead link. Jodosma (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to [2] [3] etc. . Will Straw is an academic whose blog falls under WP:RS AFAICT. Collect (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did the term get a negative connotation?

It would be nice for this article to indicate when the term "tabloid" got a negative connotation. I've only ever thought of it as negative, but didn't know until today that it also referred to the paper size & format. My visit here was prompted by having heard an advertisement, on a radio re-broadcast of the 1974 Darlington Southern 500, and advertisement for a racing-related newspaper which referred to itself, clearly without any negative meaning, as a tabloid. Gmporr (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here a source that may be of help when discussing when the word "tabloid" received its' negative connotation.
Johansson, Sofia. "Tabloid Journalism and Tabloidization." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. 28 Feb. 2020; Accessed 24 Feb. 2024. https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-877.
This would also be good to tie it back into the sentence on the Wiki about celebrities suing tabloids for libel. Pxm230032 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call for citations.

There is one reference for one bit of info in this article.thos ta come from? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordreader — This article is shocking. There is exactly one source, and the source damns to hell The Sun, the Daily Star, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Record and the Daily Sport, which are all major British media, with paid circulation in the millions. There are no sources for anything else. So what happened to those WP policies that require that everything be backed by WP:RS? And with regard to the cited media, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing... and here there is all of one source? A rubbish article, if I ever saw one. XavierItzm (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs to watch out

An "article" like this crap needs to be deleted as soon as possible; there is no provable notability and it violates Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, being as it is, an entirely personal point of view. My own view is that anybody who supports the views of (Redacted) User talk:Will Beback, (Redacted), should also be long gone. Jodosma (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid journalism truth

If I'm understanding thing correctly, the main thing is don't use tabloids as a reference..

So, what does an editor do when something true is reported on in tabloids and verified, but because the subject is not a popular thing it's not reported anywhere that's trusted? You can't add the reference to the article because it's deemed not reliable or okay by Wikipedia's rules, you also can't add a "primary source" that verifies it either (second paragraph). Information that is true and important to a person that seems to only be reported on by tabloids or through primary sources but other possible sources don't report on it, do you just leave it out? 'Cause that's where I'm confused with Wikipedia. That's basically limiting where you can and should get your sources from, as long as it can be directly verified within that article I don't understand the issue...?

Also, Wikipedia has this rule where you can't use a direct primary source (for example a social media reference on a living persons biography page), but you can use an article that talks about and links to that direct primary source, why does an article need to talk about it for it to be deemed reliable, the only reason that article is being used is because it has the primary source in it? I like Wikipedia but this is where I favour FANDOM (Wikia) due to the freedom to use any verifiable information.

Sawhitney36 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sawhitney36, this is the talk page for an article about tabloid journalism. If you want to discuss Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, try Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, okay Sawhitney36 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Tabloid_journalism"