| Revision as of 15:37, 26 May 2005 editNobs (talk | contribs)1,679 edits →Light rail section: questionable material expunged from the Chronicles archives← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:19, 9 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,276,268 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}}. | ||
| (394 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) | |||
| ::The point about the "News Hostage" column is to indicate in some form or another that it covers the Chronicle unfavorably. If you have a better way of phrasing that than stating that it alleges journalistic sloppyness and laziness, by all means share it. Also, you are incorrect about the resolution from the Republican Party. The opening indicates that it was proposed by a Candidate's Committee but the resolution's text itself plainly states that it's from the party as a whole, viz. "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Harris County Republican Party calls upon its membership to exercise its First Amendment freedom to voice its disapproval with media bias by abstaining from subscription, purchase, or reading of the Houston Chronicle as long as that newspaper's known, documented, and demonstrable slant towards the political left and its open hostility toward the Republican Party and its officers persists." It also states in plain sight at the bottom of the page that the boycott was indeed "Adopted by the Harris County Republican Party Executive Committee on May 9, 2005." As usual, you are being obtuse and deconstructive by pursuing this angle. ] 01:48, 26 May 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.'' · ]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :As usual, you are free to add other sections if you like. If you think a history of the paper is proper, or perhaps something about its reporters or its circulation or its style, then by all means add it. To date however, your efforts seem to have been directed almost entirely to deconstructing existing content and inserting extraneous POV material about Tom DeLay. IOW, don't complain about the lack of materials you desire when you are unwilling to add them yourself. ] 01:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Restored text sanitized from Chronicle archives == | |||
| From LexisNexis | |||
| == Light rail section == | |||
| Personally, I think this section is too large. The controversy has blown over and this dedicates way too much detail to the whole thing, even after having trimmed some of it. But I'm anticipating Rangerdude's resistance to any such suggestion, so instead I've just removed the worst of the POV, adding some sourcing and rebuttals and correcting the information at the bottom about the Chronicle's "criminal lawsuit." It was a complaint with the DA's office, not a lawsuit, and certainly not a criminal suit. A Houston lawyer has filed a criminal suit over the issue, but not the Chronicle. · ]<sup>]</sup> 16:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :First off, you are right that I disagree. The section as it stands is 5 paragraphs plus a few brief quotes - hardly an excess by any reasonable measure. Further, since this encyclopedia is historical in nature, retaining the section after the controversy has "blown over" is perfectly proper. You wouldn't propose trimming down, say, the ] article on the basis that it has also "blown over," would you? Second, from all that I've seen you added far more POV than you removed including extraneous detours about Tom DeLay and unsourced claims that the memo was intended for the editorial board. I've also added more source links throughout the section since you requested them. Third, I have absolutely no idea where you got this "criminal lawsuit" stuff from as that term did not appear anywhere in the article as it existed here prior to your arrival. What it did say was this: "the Houston Chronicle's lawyers filed a criminal complaint with the Harris County, Texas District Attorney accusing Texans for True Mobility, the main organization opposing the bond, of fundraising improprieties. The Chronicle's complaint was later dismissed and found without merit." ] 01:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Let me adamently associate myself with the position of maintaining the historical record. The tried and true method employed in the journalistic profession of poo-pooing factual material because it has "blown over" has a long record of abuse in that trade. A cursory look at the Houston Chronicles' credibility yesterday in less than 15 minutes found questionable articles expunged from its archives. ] 15:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
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. |
|
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
- 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:- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- B-Class Texas articles
- High-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Newspapers articles
- Mid-importance Newspapers articles