Talk:niezależne media

RFD discussion: January 2019–March 2020
Not widespread, it could refer to any political force that one believes controls the media, but such a new sense would leave us with something like what this CFI rule covers. Wrzodek (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the usage note is correct that this is a right-wing propaganda term, then it is newspeak rather than sarcasm. Can you enlighten us regarding the use? Perhaps this should move to rfv. --Lambiam 12:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can barely make sense of it too (in my opinion this neologism doesn't exist [widely enough]). The usage note is misleading because Law and Justice (all other right-wing forces get abysmal attention) doesn't propagate this definition, it sounds like what an opposing (left-wing or center) party would the voters to believe. Maybe when the entry was created was this definition more up-to-date (the government and the opposition switched places months later), yeah, a neologism should have some longevity. The fact that political neologisms do happen is true, but this one is unlucky because it's a SOP, therefore we'll find mentions instead of uses. And so the subject (who controls those media) varies, like in one of the first Google Books hits, when it's the former government. IIRC now the crucial sentence was highly sarcastic. Whether this should go to RFV or stay in RFD, someone with more experience should decide. Wrzodek (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. HeliosX (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)