Talk:Houston Chronicle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:53, 26 May 2005 editKatefan0 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,081 edits →Light rail section ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:19, 9 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,276,262 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}}.
(393 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)

	*I'll respond to these two things briefly then get into the meat of my changes. ''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.'' You yourself keep re-adding unsourced claims about the memo's authorship. I know people who work on the Chronicle's news staff, and the news staff never received that memo. It is clearly intended for the Editorial Board, from the text and thrust of the memo. Those two things together are enough for me, but may not be for you. I removed the information about the audience for the memo, as well as your own unsourced speculation about who wrote it. Second, it is improper to characterize the complaint as a "criminal complaint." It was a complaint. It did not seek criminal damages ''per se''. It just so happens that the investigation the complaint was asking for was into a violation that carries a criminal charge. It is not as if the Chronicle decided whether they would seek civil or criminal damages for a violation of that statute. I have properly characterized the complaint as well as the Texas election code.

	I have:

	:Cleared up the complaint/criminal allegations and texas statute and added criticism of Rosenthal, since you mentioned him.
	:Removed redundant information about the Chronicle not responding to the situation; it was already mentioned that its only official response was its statement.
	:Removed your characterization of Cohen's remarks as "unapologetic" when he clearly states he does not apologize twice.
	:Removed the "headline" for the correction which adds length without value.
	:Re-added "student" to the descriptor of the Houston Review, which is accurate. :Removed "launched ... into a furor" which is irrelevant and POV; specific examples are cited which are enough.
	:Restored context about the light rail controversy itself. It's only fair to DeLay, Lanier etc. to list their positions if you want to get into the specific charges the memo makes. The information is all properly sourced.
	:Removed unsourced speculation about authorship of the memo.
	:Removed wordy "proposing a" and "political commentary." Editorial commentary encompasses political commentary making that phrase redundant. Removed "seemingly to promote" which is an unattributed POV speculation. Either attribute it to a critic or leave it deleted. Re-added the result of the ballot, which is imminently verifiable and relevant to the text.
	:Removed "became embroiled in a reporting scandal" because it is a) wordy and b) unnecessary. Begin with the point. Also, it was not a "reporting" scandal. No reporter made inaccurate claims in a story or otherwise was involved in the situation.

	I can only assume, based on your past actions, that you'll revert most or all of what I've added, despite its being relevant and sourced. Once that happens, we should probably list this for RfC since we are no closer to coming to a consensus and edit warring is counterproductive. Thanks! · ]<sup>]</sup> 16:53, May 26, 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Houston (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston

United States: Texas High‑importance

This 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).

Newspapers Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This 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.

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: