Talk:Shutdown of ABS-CBN broadcasting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

congressional franchise[edit]

This term needs to be explained, preferably by linking to an article that explains this term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This topic does need more attention, but there aren't many relevant Wiki articles right now. For now, I've created very short discussion of this under Broadcast_law#Philippines, copying material from this article first. Hopefully this will later be expanded, and "Congressional franchises for Philippine broadcast networks" can have its own article. Erm... cheers.- Alternativity (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the disambiguation page Franchise has a very short blurb about this. Might be good to expand it into its own article at some point, as I imagine the need for operating franchises, emanating from the legislature or elsewhere, is not a solely Philippine phenomenon. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Leaning towards ABS-CBN claims. Concluding, jeopardized jobs of 11K employees, when not everyone was working and a lot of jobs were already sudpended due to COVID. An aftermayh section when it is an on-going event. Doesn't cite the side supporting the shutdown. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which entities do you mean by "side supporting the shutdown"? Duterte's pro-shutdown statements were covered, a whole subsection devoted to Calida's quo warranto petition and questioning the franchise, FICTAP objections were also mentioned. The statement that its employees' jobs were jeopardized is factual, no? Shutting down operations = no jobs for its employees. I would agree that the 11,000 number needs support from 3rd party sources. I also agree that the "Aftermath" section needs rework (still on-going).Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't cite the side supporting the shutdown." - You can edit the article to add missing information, with sources. At a minimum you should post the relevant sources here to support the POV tag and enable other editors to address the concerns. Alsee (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@119.93.40.241: Let us breakdown your NPOV claims of "Leaning towards ABS-CBN claims":
  • Concluding, jeopardized jobs of 11K employees, when not everyone was working and a lot of jobs were already sudpended due to COVID. The "jeopardized jobs of 11k employees" is the consequence of the shutdown. With or without COVID, they will lose their jobs because of the shutdown. Is it an appeal to emotion? I think that's what you are saying.
  • An aftermayh section when it is an on-going event. So you are saying that it is not the right word to choose? The aftermath section is just another term for the ABS-CBN post-shutdown. As I see it, there's nothing else to it.
  • "Doesn't cite the side supporting the shutdown"? What do you even mean by that? I think it's pretty well covered too. Is it lacking? Maybe. Let's check other references. But by all means, feel free to edit this section and improve it but do quote your sources please.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@119.93.40.241: Please clarify what you mean by "leaning towards ABS-CBN claims." Are you saying there are too many cited sources from ABS-CBN News? And what do you mean by "side supporting the shutdown"? What content (or missing content) makes this article's neutrality disputable? See also WP:CONTROVERSY. Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request is not actionable as stated. Unless a more concrete request is made the POV tag will be removed after 24 hours. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidquidlatetadparebit, Alsee, and Allenjambalaya: with all due respect, I think @119.93.40.241: has a reason why the article is slanting towards POV issue. I noticed there's only one mention of FICTAP:

Within the same month, various congressmen urged the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to grant a provisional authority to ABS-CBN to continue operations after the lapse of its current franchise until Congress has made a decision on its franchise application.[90] Having consulted with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the NTC affirmed in March 2020 that it would "likely" issue a provisional authority to ABS-CBN and "let ABS-CBN continue operations based on equity".[91] However, the Federation of International Cable TV and Telecommunications Associations of the Philippines (FICTAP) questioned the provisional authority, stating that it would be unconstitutional.[92]

The article doesn't even include FICTAP's statements that were eventually dismissed by PCTA (Philippine Cable and Television Association, am I correct?) and the experts interviewed by Atom Araullo's Stand For Truth millennial-themed online newscast.

For sources I found some:

I didn't include sources by ABS-CBN News because I thought the context of this article has made ABS-CBN a primary source. The ABS-CBN source about FICTAP (whoever is interested here) is [1]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a separate section for arguments for and against the extension of the franchise is needed. After all, ABS-CBN's answers to why it should be granted one is already in the article. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: for the section, I think so. With regards to ABS-CBN's answers, yes but not all. The article fails to mention the disputed arguments of "one channel, one franchise" by FITCAP versus the "one frequency, one franchise" by ABS-CBN itself, the PCTA, and the experts in the field of cable industry. But I think the inputs of the users I mentioned might provide better opinions and moves regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was written before the frequency/channel issue erupted. We do need what needs to happen so that we'd know what can be done instead of "this is biased I hate it." Howard the Duck (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now included the FICTAP and the PCTA claims about the frequencies, channels, and digital transmissions. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is there anything else that can be done, POV-wise? Howard the Duck (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a separate section for the arguments of pro-shutdown entities? Keeping in mind WP:BALANCE. Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a backgrounder for both sides of the argument is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source support for the hashtag #YesToABSCBNShutDown?[edit]

The article already mentions that #NoToABSCBNShutDown trended on May 5. References included. This hashtag started trending not just in May but as early as the franchise non-renewal issues surfaced (no discussion on this yet).
But there was also a counter-hashtag, #YesToABSCBNShutDown.

  • There's a WaPo report (scroll down to 6:42 PM, or ctrl+F Philippines) that hundreds of Twitter accounts tweeting this hashtag were suspended for inauthentic behavior.

The accounts were found to be in violation of Twitter’s platform manipulation and spam policies, the social media site told The Washington Post in an email. Among the examples of behavior that Twitter says violate its rules on spam are posting duplicate content across multiple accounts, creating duplicate or multiple accounts, and sending large numbers of unsolicited replies or mentions.

In other words, it's just the WaPo report (supposedly based on an email from Twitter) that is the source for all of this. I am wondering if this could be enough support to mention the counter-hashtag, and to connect the hashtag to the Twitter suspension of inauthentic accounts. Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.201.73 (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020[edit]

Can you change the July 13, 2020 to August 4, 2020. Because the Supreme Court was delayed the schedule of SC deliberation sourced 152.32.110.145 (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ Amkgp 💬 10:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN People's Initiative[edit]

Any discussion about the Supreme Court. It's in the article. 152.32.110.145 (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"May 5, 2020" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect May 5, 2020. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#May 5, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 18:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Long-term impacts" Should not be a point of discussion in this article, or at least the way it is written, and other observations[edit]

It seems to imply as if ABS-CBN is the only large media franchise in the Philippines. The Philippines has multiple media sources. Moreover, as with the "POV" problem that a previous talk article has mentioned, it seems to be leaning in favour of the Pro-ABS faction. Looking at the references, some citations are even from a faulty media company whose CEO has failed to defend herself accordingly against a libel suit, which puts into question the credibility of the whole article being written in good faith. The article does not seem to have a discussion on the faults on ABS-CBN's part, which were discussed in detail in the Lower House proceedings. Either no offense to the person who had written this article, (or considering in my perspective, this seems to be written in bad faith), please cease and desist. Wikipedia should be neutral on topics like this. Rather than be focused on information, it focuses on creating a bias.Giratina9999 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Long-term impacts" Should not be a point of discussion in this article, or at least the way it is written, and other observations"
This is about the frequencies assigned to them. There are far flung areas wherein only these frequencies assigned to ABS-CBN reaches them.
"It seems to imply as if ABS-CBN is the only large media franchise in the Philippines." How? In what way? Yes, ABS-CBN is huge but it's not implied here that it's the only large media franchise. If you read closely, there's a part that mentions GMA as its rival.
"Moreover, as with the "POV" problem that a previous talk article has mentioned, it seems to be leaning in favour of the Pro-ABS faction." I agree with you here though. I can only see The Manila Times as having the "leaning" against the renewal of the franchise. I might be wrong on this though.
"Looking at the references, some citations are even from a faulty media company whose CEO has failed to defend herself accordingly against a libel suit, which puts into question the credibility of the whole article being written in good faith." So if the source is from a "faulty media company", then the credibility is questionable? I see. This is up for discussion not only for this article but also to other articles quoting Rappler.
"The article does not seem to have a discussion on the faults on ABS-CBN's part, which were discussed in detail in the Lower House proceedings." Which specifically? This is a good point but you have the burden also of pointing out (or citing) the specific parts of the proceedings. I think if you read the "Congressional hearings for a new franchise" section, it contains the gist of that day's hearing/proceeding regarding the shortcomings of ABS-CBN. You may want to expand them a bit if you can find articles or rewatch the proceedings (good luck here).
"Either no offense to the person who had written this article, (or considering in my perspective, this seems to be written in bad faith), please cease and desist." Sorry, but your choice of word seems like a lawsuit. Also, the article is not written by one person but many. You may too if you will.
Wikipedia should be neutral on topics like this. Rather than be focused on information, it focuses on creating a bias. Whether you support the "YES to the resolution to deny the ABS-CBN franchise" or not, you are very much welcome here. You may want to contribute to the article to make it more neutral as long as you cite your sources well.

english[edit]

write a possible claim and counterclaim for the following issues! 1.) Philippines Respose to COVID 1o pandemic 2001:4454:286:CB00:31CD:1406:D24E:6567 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 March 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Shutdown of ABS-CBN broadcasting. Consensus was against move to proposed title, but in favor of the title suggested by User:Howard the Duck. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of ABS-CBN TV network → Shutdown of ABS-CBN – TV network is redundant; Shutdown of ABS-CBN and ABS-CBN shutdown are more commonly used (see The Philippine Star, Human Rights Watch, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Vice, Rappler, The New York Times, Nikkei Asia).

The proposed title is consistent with both Shutdown of Sky Global and Shutdown of the Min-kuo Jih-pao. It also aligns better with the current scope of the article, which is no longer exclusive to ABS-CBN's franchise. HueMan1 (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Tambayan Philippines has been notified of this discussion. HueMan1 (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common name. Borgenland (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, even if the mentioned examples omitted the type of media that was shut down, I feel like it would lead to some confusion over whether ABS-CBN as a whole had shut down. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No support because of the same apprehensions raised by Ganmatthew. Given that there's so much more to ABS-CBN than the TV network, I feel it would indeed "lead to some confusion over whether ABS-CBN as a whole had shut down." - Batongmalake (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The company continued to exist and produce content even as it lost its authority to broadcast. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Shutdown of ABS-CBN broadcasting. This should make it clear what was shut down, as both TV and radio networks went off the air. Smallcase "broadcasting" as apparently ABS-CBN renamed itself even before this and was no longer just into broadcasting. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this alternative. This would probably clear things up. What do you think Borgenland, Ganmatthew, Batongmalake, and Sammi Brie? HueMan1 (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to support, or some alternative with the words withdrawal and license, since technically what happened was that the government (Congress included), sat on the renewal (whether deliberate is another talk discussion) and then suddenly found a reason to reject the license. Borgenland (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're into technicalities, the House rejected the renewal of the franchise. They may have sat on it (as they rejected the renewal after the franchise expired), but the original franchise itself was not rejected nor withdrawn. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, i'd support that as an alternative title. Broadcasting is concise enough for me. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 09:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support that as well. Seems quite reasonable. - Batongmalake (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do also support the move. It would be better if this page should be renamed as Shutdown of ABS-CBN. Djerick35 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ganmatthew and Sammi Brie. The proposed title is confusing, and the current one is absolutely fine. Solution looking for a problem.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suggested title of the nominator, but no comment for other suggested titles. IMO, the current article title issue began after Iloilo Wanderer moved the article title on the basis of "WP:COMMONNAME", but made the title ambiguous as ABS-CBN TV network can also refer to the TV station itself, which actually still exists. While ABS-CBN's company is ABS-CBN Corporation, the company name of its longtime competitor (GMA Network) is GMA Network, Inc.. The former title "ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy" is much stable IMO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shutdown_of_ABS-CBN_broadcasting&oldid=1216964292"