Misplaced Pages

Talk:Houston Chronicle: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:13, 25 May 2005 editNobs (talk | contribs)1,679 edits Restored text sanitized from Chronicle archives from LexisNexis← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:19, 9 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,295,310 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Journalism}}, {{WikiProject Houston}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Newspapers}}. 
(401 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
The bulk of this page is dedicated to questioning the Houston Chronicle's neutrality and has an extremely pro-conservative bent. If you interested in the history of the paper, please go to . Keep in mind that you are being directed to the Chronicle's website and it could be also biased. However it does provide more background that the two sentences offered here.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Houston|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|TX=yes|TX-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Newspapers|importance=mid}}
}}


== Alan Michael Coons, WHITE MAGIC for world denomination ==
:If you wish to include the paper's history, why not add something yourself rather than throwing up a neutrality tag? Also, would you mind detailing the "extremely pro-conservative bent" you refer to by citing specific wordings that you believe are in conflict with NPOV? Simply including material about the paper's controversy and scandals is not POV when it is sourced, and right now this article is sourced extensively.] 17:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


tangeable empire instead of conspiracy ] (]) 14:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
::While there are many sources, there was a substantial amount of unsourced POV commentary that I've removed. Here is an example of an unsourced, POV statement: " and an equally obsessive practice of attacking Congressman ] over nearly weekly political differences, some of them said to be quite petty". Please find sources for any such assertions. Thanks, -] 00:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


== Copy under Criticism ==
Could we get links to specific articles in the Houston Press? I searched on "Houston Chronicle" and in the first 20 didn't seem to be about the newspaper. For that reason the link to the home page doesn't seem very useful. Thanks, -] 02:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


{I work for the Houston Chronicle]
:There are already specific HP articles linked as sources within the article, plus the paper is mentioned by name. That alone is more than sufficient to mention them. Also, I did a search for simply "chronicle" on their page and found the ''Houston Chronicle'' mentioned by name in the 5 most recent articles that came up & didn't see a need to search any further. There were over 1000 hits total for it. ] 03:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
While the statements regarding Mike Ward are accurate and factual, the beginning of the section seems to be less objective and relies on a single complaintant with unsubstantiated hyperbole solidifying by a self-generated article.


Suggesting the statements under Criticism remove the following:
::The articles I saw didn't especially seem to be relevant, but since it's mentioned in the body I suppose it's relevant over all. Still need sources for your "some critics say" type entries. Thanks, -] 05:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


, DICK LAW FIRM, 31-Oct-2020</ref> This trust was further eroded.]
:::The words "some critics say" don't appear anywhere in the present article that you just deleted and reverted without justification. At most there are 2-3 general references in the opening paragraphs that are all sourced with specifics in later paragraphs (e.g. conservatives boycotted the paper and accused it of bias - sourced in paragraphs below it, paper has been satirized and criticized over light rail transit - also sourced below). You also deleted the entire section on the Planned Parenthood contributions despite a source existing. ] 06:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


And begin with "In 2018 the ''Houston Chronicle'' retracted eight articles after it was revealed they were significantly based on sources whose existence could not be verified. . . . with the remainder of the section remaining as is.
::::Thanks for adding the Chronically Biased source, I 've moved it up to be with other criticisms from that source. We need a source for this assertion:
<references /> ] (]) 23:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::''The newspaper also has critics on the political left. The ''Houston Press'', an alternative weekly paper that often takes a ] perspective, frequently derides the Chronicle for alleged journalistic sloppyness and laziness in a column entitled "News Hostage."''
::::How often is frequently? In any case, we'd need at least several articles of the type you've described to justify that. We also need sources for this:
:::::''Recently, questions have been raised as to the accuracy and political leanings of the paper, which frequently professes to be "neither liberal nor conservative" in a statement by company official James Howard Gibbons that appears annually on its editorial page. Despite this claim, conservatives in the Houston area have accused the paper of ] and targetted it for a ].''
:::: Thanks, -] 07:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

A search for ''News Hostage'' in the Houston Press page pulls up 279 hits and ''Houston Chronicle'' pulls up 979 hits, which is more than enough to justify the use of the word "frequently" in this case. Of course I told you about that previously, and you could have easily determined it for yourself by the same methods rather than deconstructing the article. As to your second example, as noted previously it is sourced in full in the subsequent paragraphs. There are at least two different source links to the boycott of the paper - one to the Republican Party and the other to a story about the radio station. The James Howard Gibbons article is also linked to, and the entire "criticisms" section of the paper is chalk full of links, quotes, and examples of people accusing the paper of media bias.] 07:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

:The "frequently" refers to how often the Houston Press "derides the Chronicle for alleged journalistic sloppyness and laziness". Yes, they have an column devoted to covering the Chronicle. Now are you going to give us original research showing how frequently they deride the Chronicle for being sloppy and lazy? Unitl you provide whatever source you have for that, all we can say is that the column runs frequently and critiques the paper. The source you give for the Republican Party is a resolution by the Candidate's Committee, with no indication of whether the main executive committee adopted it. So I've sharpened the attribution and added some more details from the resolution. Thanks for your contributions, -] 08:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

== NPOV tag ==

As it stands, this article is unbalanced. A page of criticism and three sentences about the paper itself is not adequate. From WP:NPOV: ''The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance.'' &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

== Restored text sanitized from Chronicle archives ==

From LexisNexis

Latest revision as of 06:19, 9 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Houston Chronicle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconJournalism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHouston (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston
WikiProject iconUnited States: Texas High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconNewspapers Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alan Michael Coons, WHITE MAGIC for world denomination

tangeable empire instead of conspiracy 47.189.92.18 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Copy under Criticism

{I work for the Houston Chronicle] While the statements regarding Mike Ward are accurate and factual, the beginning of the section seems to be less objective and relies on a single complaintant with unsubstantiated hyperbole solidifying by a self-generated article.

Suggesting the statements under Criticism remove the following:

And begin with "In 2018 the Houston Chronicle retracted eight articles after it was revealed they were significantly based on sources whose existence could not be verified. . . . with the remainder of the section remaining as is.

  1. Did Houston Chronicle Write a Hit Piece for Not Buying Ads?, DICK LAW FIRM, 31-Oct-2020

Hattastic Pontificator (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: