Talk:Media circus

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Earliest use of term

Here's the earliest I could find, from 1972: https://www.newspapers.com/image/81347237/?terms=%22media%20circus%22&match=1. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat

The examples section is much, much longer than the article itself. Maybe spin off to List of events described as media circuses or just trim back hard? How many examples do we really need in this article? Valereee (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either leave as is or create a list. I don't think trimming it is a good idea. Greglocock (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think leaving as is won't work. There's really no reason to have 100+ examples. For a reader to understand the concept, the two or three best examples would do. A single instance of something being called a media circus probably shouldn't be enough for inclusion. It probably should be limited to events where people are actually discussing the fact it's a media circus, not simply calling it one. So that would mean List of media circuses I guess, rather than list of events described as? Valereee (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a list or cat would be good, and I very much like this suggestion for events mentioned on this page "It probably should be limited to events where people are actually discussing the fact it's a media circus" - that's a good and usable criterion. Greglocock (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think categories have to be for an immutable characteristic of the subject? I've no expertise with categories, I just accept whatever the experts tell me. :D

I'm thinking for now, maybe we go through and remove any entries that are cited to sources that just call it a media circus without discussing it in any depth? Maybe start with the US, since that's the one with the most bloat? Valereee (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines

I have removed several items from the Philippines because there are no presentable criteria for them to be considered media circuses or spectacles nor do some of the sources cited acknowledge them as such. However, 49.145.14.39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39 has been recklessly piling them back without providing a decent edit summary as to why or providing any argument or info that could justify them being called a media circus, raising suspicions of WP:OR. Borgenland (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland: Related to your message as i agree with it, i had observed some problematic matters on the entries made by an IP/non-WP editor. To enumerate some, if i couldn't mention all:

WP:RECENTISM – seems like repository of recent events, especially those developing stories covered by media from time-to-time; as if the editor assumes that's MC as it's widely reported NOW. (Uncertain if the coverage either ends thereafter or lasts for months.)
Controversies in entertainment and sports, in particular, those occurred in events (i.e. coronation in pageants and brawl in a sporting event) as well as family conflicts & parties. These are short term unlike that of 1994 Manila Film Festival scandal. (I doubt, that editor had been or would add reports on mere allegations even if these aren't proven and don't last for long; in contrast with WP:NOTGOSSIP.)
For a tourism campaign and a new logo of a government agency, such things are just happening; receiving mixed comments and criticisms is normal.
I also doubt why a disaster i.e. an oil spill was included in the list while the effects and the aftermath are normally being reported.
And the recent death of a media personality as additional entry? (Really?) I thought that's also normal for a media network.

In general, i may conclude that this editor doesn't fully understand the article, as insists "updates" and "additions" without any solid reason why these should be in the list.

Meanwhile, i recently added some of the entries there (those might be known at least) with definition of MC as the basis, including elements of sensationalism. I have to consider if these are suitable for the list. (Anyone is free to accept or reject any edit/s.) In addition, i would like to share this piece from the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, stating that as per Ethics Manual, hostage-taking situation, massacres, fatal bombings, and the like are "inherently sensational, but need to be reported;" hence i assume that while all MCs are sensational, not all sensational are MCs.

I hope such things are to be addressed. We can give good examples, but WP:NOTNEWS & WP:NOTDB.—Raider000 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights! Hopefully that editor responds before more drastic action is taken, considering that they are taking me close to a 3RR Borgenland (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are straightforward. Firstly the event itself must be notable. Secondly a reliable source must mention that there is a media circus around it. Ideally, you would also have a source discussing the event and media circuses. The first 2 are non negotiable. Greglocock (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem we have with 49.145.14.39 is that their sources provide no hint of it being a circus. Some of their entries don't even have a standalone entry. What it worse is that they refuse to participate in discussions regarding the topic even though I had called them directly on their talk page and warned of sanctions. Borgenland (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland Maybe we're dealing with a prolific Filipino LTA who likes to bloat timeline articles with non-notable events. IP geolocates to somewhere in PH. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ran through a background of the case. One related IP range is quite similar. Borgenland (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just raised the matter in the ANI board. Borgenland (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon boy?

is it possible to add the Balloon boy hoax? I remember this was not only a media circus in the USA but a the whole world, at least in my country a few news broadcasters were relaying the live transmisions from the USA about the incident. I thought it would fit the criteria Osw719 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link addition

There’s already a Wikipedia article on Fatal traffic accident of the Neville-Lake children and their grandfather (2015)that could be added to this page in the Canadian section. I don’t know how to add it or if I’m even allowed to. Here it is:

Deaths of the Neville-Lake children

please add it here 2600:6C48:7A7F:70B4:2DBD:EEE5:8E40:3D1D (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]