Talk:Mainstream media

Kalki: Your assertions are based on your opinions & what the corporate world (especially the democratic party) have repeated for many moons. Many believe their words, but they are not based on truth. Even when 100 million people believe a sack full of lies, they are still lies. If you must attack, instead of deleting colleague's legitimate & relevant posts that go against your personal opinions/understanding (as you did on 26 December 2018) please launch your attack with quotations from noteworthy people that have been published, in accordance with wikiquote's rules/guidelines. If you can find any proof that Wikileak's is Putin propaganda, please post it. Thank you for all of your dedication & hard work. Om777om (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record: 17:01, 26 December 2018‎ Kalki (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,731 bytes) -768‎. . (this is nothing other than a continued flooding of this wiki in attempts to make it a "Putin propaganda" outlet — Undo revision 2518818 by Om777om (talk)) (undo | thank) Tag: Undo

Kalki Removed the following quote:
 * WikiLeaks has achieved far more than what The New York Times and The Washington Post [major main stream media/propaganda outlets] in their celebrated incarnations did. No newspaper has come close to matching the secrets and lies of power that Assange and Snowden have disclosed. That both men are fugitives is indicative of the retreat of liberal democracies from principles of freedom and justice. Why is WikiLeaks a landmark in journalism? Because its revelations have told us, with 100 per cent accuracy, how and why much of the world is divided and run.
 * John Pilger quoted in New Cold War & looming threats, Frontline, India (21 December 2018)
 * I mean, I'm not totally sure what Putin has to do with anything, but it does feel a little bit like shoehorning when you have to use brackets to relate the quote directly with the subject of the article. It's not entirely clear from the text of the interview that this was intended to be about the mainstream media per se, rather than the media in general. The follow up question that relates it to mainstream media is from the interviewer, and not from the individual quoted.  G M G  talk  20:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You implied that my removal was of a "legitimate & relevant posts that go against your personal opinions/understanding". My own inclination has always been to add material that is fair and honest to counter rather irrational and extremist arguments which I disagree with, rather than simply removing it, but as the editor above noted, the quote I removed actually had only a very tenuous and incidental connection to the subject of this page, and that is precisely why I removed it. If I were simply removing things merely because they were statements I perceived to be noxious propaganda, with major lapses of fairness or reason, there was little that you have as yet added to the article which would remain. What you might presume to be your "completely unbiased" insertion of the denigrative statement that the 2 newspapers mentioned were "major main stream media/propaganda outlets" is about the only thing in the statement that wasn't merely an extravagant and quite unrealistic praise of the presumed virtue and "100 per cent accuracy" of Wikileaks as an agent of truth and justice.
 * I am inclined to value accuracy, and thus I must confess that I believe that such a statement can be characterized as something very close to 100 percent B.S.
 * I am certainly not ignorant of the usefulness and worth of the existence of MANY forms of "alternative media", including Wikileaks, nor of many of the flaws and deficiencies among the ranges of journalism exhibited in the "mainstream media" — but even the largest and most influential corporate media enterprises and generally sincere and honest individuals with careers in that field have to temper their expositions and stated opinions to the existing rational sensibilities of most people, and not merely seek to shape or distort them as they will, while much of the "alternative media" can merely cater to various peculiar extremes of sensationalist nonsense and bigoted delusions which many find most appealing or profitable, no matter how little semblance they bear to actual truth.
 * I had many other thoughts on this matter, and will probably note more, after I have examined a few things more, but I already had to leave earlier, after this discussion began, and must leave again now, but I will probably resume making a few more comments within the next day or so. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Excessive obscure quotes
These quotes by Nissim Mannathukkaren (who is of doubtful notability, he has no wikipedia page) were recently added, the quotes are obscure and only published once in a news blog.

The quote is also in about 10 other wikiquote articles.

This is a high level article. This article should have more quotes from books, rather than websites or newspapers, that have timeless quotability. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)