Talk:Broadcast journalism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 March 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arinhannah99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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): Kirapyne. Peer reviewers: Camden Marcucci.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I'd really like to hear some feedback on this article. I'm considering adding a history section but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Should I go into further detail with any of the sections? Have I left anything out?

Yeah I think a history section would be good... you've got good stuff so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.246.194 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Jaibhim forcing pictures from his community into the article

User Jaibhim is constantly posting pictures related with a community he is affiliated to, hence the images have been removed under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Wikipedia:Vested interest Nickelroy (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelroy is vandalizing by removing Broadcast journalism photograph

Nickelroy is constantly vandalizing Wikipedia articles. This user never followed WP:BRD. This user is contentiously Wikipedia:Harassment doing for me. This user never stated particular reasons for removing following photograph which is very much relevant to this article. For removing any information follow WP:BRD because image fulfill wiki policies and very much relevant to this article.Discuss on talk page if image is irreverent for this article.

JAIBHIM5 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you, but the topic of "broadcast journalism" doesn't need more than one photograph of a camera crew. Given that the topic has been around for decades, an older, vintage photo like the one about the earthquake in 1989 is preferred over a newer one. There is no particular reason why the image above would help educate readers about this topic any more than one of the many other similar pictures of on-the-scene television reporting. Many (but certainly not all) of the images at Commons:Category:People with television cameras illustrate this topic about as good as the image above or the earthquake image that is in use on the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New image is more educating readers about this topic than old one. And new one it more clear with subject. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with davidwr, the topic of "broadcast journalism" doesn't need more than one photograph of a camera crew. I also prefer an older, vintage photo like the one about the earthquake in 1989. JimRenge (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast journalism is the field of news and journals which are "broadcast", that is, published by electrical methods, instead of the older methods.... The mode of electrical method used in earthquake image in not clear. New one is more clear with subject.JAIBHIM5 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "older" image shows a guy with a laptop and a television camera. While it's theoretically possible that the intended use is something other than broadcast journalism (e.g. archival footage/backup material, material for researchers, material for a documentary to be shown in theaters or direct-to-DVD), I very much doubt that the camera's intended use is for other than "broadcast journalism." The same theoretical possibilities of non-broadcast use exist in File:Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png. In short, 1) both images do the job of illustrating the topic, 2) we don't need both, and 3) an older image, unlike a newer one, shows that the topic is not a "brand new" field. Yes, that last thing is not a major issue, but it does serve as a tie-breaker. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Jaibhim is affiliated with the community that organises the Namvistar ceremony and so the image is being used as an advertisement to promote community events and hence should be removed. Instead an archival picture, that is not an advertisement, should be posted. User Jaibhim please do not post pictures that are related to your community please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest Nickelroy (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@davidwr I agree your description that both does serve as a tie-breaker. But article don't have word laptop and the camera is not clear in old image. In old image camera is hidden by two people standing in the image. New image has all necessary instruments for Broadcast journalism. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only mention the laptop to make it crystal clear that, even without seeing the caption, that the image was of a scene in the "modern age" - that is, a scene where it is exceedingly unlikely that this camera was going to be used for anything other than "broadcast journalism." If you saw a similar photograph taken in the 1950s you might reasonably think that the camera was shooting actual film for use in a newsreel or for some other purpose that was not "broadcast journalism." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickelroy: I endorse the removal of the image for other reasons: It is simply unnecessary to have two images and, as I said earlier, the existing image is (slightly) more appropriate. In other words, even if this image had been uploaded by an editor with no allegedly questionable conduct and even if this image was only used here and other images related to "Namvistar" were not used outside of articles about that topic, I would still prefer the older image over the newer one and I would still prefer that only 1 of these two images be used, not both. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@davidwr Camera, mike, headphone and videographer are relevant in broadcast journalism. New image has all necessary instruments for Broadcast journalism. Dont you think these instruments are relevant for readers when they imagine broadcast journalism ? Old image shows laptop, videographer and focus light which is relevant to broadcast journalism. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the new image (the one that has been removed, but which appears "above" this one on this talk page) have to offer the reader that the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake image that has been on the page for a long time does not? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New one is more educating readers about article. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@davidwrI have explained on 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC). Waiting for your reply. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JAIBHIM5, I red your 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC) message and replied right below it. However, let me do it again. As you point out, the new image (which is no longer on the page) has "Camera, mike, headphone and videographer." I see these elements on the old image as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

davidwr In old image Camera is hidden behind videographer. Camera is not clear. Focus light is clearly seen in the middle of journalist and videographers. Mike is not clear in old image. There are no headphones in old image. These instruments are relevant for readers when they imagine broadcast journalism. Old image is not educating readers about Broadcast journalism. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call for "generic" image(s) to replace contentious images

This discussion had been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism#Requesting images for use on Broadcast journalism. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disagreement over whether File:LOMAPRIETAJOURNALIST.jpg, File:Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png, or the combination of the two would be the better way to have an image for this topic.

As a compromise, I am calling for recommendations of an image or, if necessary, a pair of images that can be used in place of the above images. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is explicitly not promotional, I am asking only for "nondescript" / "generic" images which are not readily identifiable with any person, organization, or event unless the reader looks at the image caption or the file's description page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about image LOMAPRIETAJOURNALIST.jpg: It is less than ideal because it is fairly easy to identify as being in a city whose police department uses the "S.F. [picture of a 6-pointed star] P.D." logo and which has a city department which uses "SFDPW" as a brand/marking. To the extent that any individual or building is readily identifiable, the image is less than ideal. Had there been any "advertisement benefit" to have an image about this earthquake in Wikipedia on a page other than that of that particular earthquake, that would also be a reason not to use this particular image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about image which was on the page for awhile earlier this year Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png: This image is less than ideal to the extent that any signage in the background, any person in the image, or any equipment in the image is readily recognizable. I have a strong reason to believe that the presence of this image on Wikipedia articles other than that of the event it describes would provide an "advertisement benefit." This alone is a good reason to choose a different image to describe "Broadcast journalism." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ideal if many of the major "elements" of broadcast journalism, such as the use of a camera, the use of on-site reporting, the use of in-studio news broadcasts, etc. (see the discussions above for more "elements") can be adequately shown without cluttering the page with too many images. Due to the small size of the page, more than 2 images may be considered by some as "too many." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained how new image is relevant to the article. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal flaw of File:Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png

The more I think about it, the more I object to the use of File:Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png in any article other than one related to the event depicted, the specific topic advertised in the background posters, or one of the notable individuals (if any) clearly featured in this picture. My objections center around the problem of giving WP:Undue weight to the subjects of the photo other than the the topic of Broadcast journalism. Unfortunately, this particular image is inherently promotional of topics other than broadcast journalism. These objections are very strong and are not overcome by any relevance this image may have to the topic of broadcast journalism. There are many other images which do just as good or better of a job at describing the topic of broadcast journalism that are not crippled by the problem of giving "undue weight" to unrelated topics. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The "File:Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png" appears to give WP:Undue weight to Dr. Ambedkar and dalit movement related themes in the context of this article. JAIBHIM5: Please don`t add this picture without consensus. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare two images. File:Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png is relevant for readers when they imagine broadcast journalism. Old image is not or least educating readers about Broadcast journalism. JAIBHIM5 (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Until you understand the concept of WP:Undue weight I strongly recommend that you not add images to articles unless the image has nearly zero content other than that which is relevant to the article you are adding it to. Even though File:Camera operator during Namvistar Din.png has a some content relevant to this article, it also has significant content that is not relevant to this article. In fact, the dominant content of this article is about the "Namvistar Din" event and the people the camera is pointing at, with additional significant content related to the advertising banners in the background. This alone makes this image unsuitable for articles that are not about those topics. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadcast journalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722021806/http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/meteorol.html to http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/meteorol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERIOR MESENTERIC ARTERY DISEASE

THAT AWARENESS, & DOCTORS DO MORE TO DIAGNOSE PATIENTS CORRECTLY MORE QUICKLY! 67.238.176.47 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]