| Revision as of 17:49, 26 May 2005 editRangerdude (talk | contribs)3,171 edits →Light rail section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:19, 9 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,331,872 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}}. | ||
| (390 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) | |||
| :::Very interesting find & thanks for the concurrence. Consciously or not, Katefan0 is attempting to insert a very strong pro-Chronicle POV throughout this article including diminishing the references to memo scandal and rewording the section about the criminal investigation of TTM to downplay the Chronicle's activity in that investigation and to obscure its nature in a way that closely resembles the Chronicle's own spin on the outcome rather than the outcome itself (Rosenthal dismissed the complaint because the Chronicle was trying to apply a PAC disclosure statute to a 501c6 organization that doesn't even fall under the PAC statutes to begin with, but Katefan removed this material and instead inserted semantical devices that made it look as if TTM had violated the PAC statute). Needless to say, it's very clear that this memo's accidental disclosure was a source of major embarassment for the Houston Chronicle & one of its advocates seems to be trying to clean up after that embarrassment. While it is fine to reword certain parts of the scandal's presentation to make them NPOV or to add additional material, most of her edits have gone well beyond that and seem to be geared toward removing pertinent material about the incident, obscuring it through carefully spun language, and buring it in extraneous material that reflects unfavorably on Tom DeLay. I have encountered this same editor before and she has described me repeatedly as a "POV warrior" among other things and presented herself as if she's some great defender of neutrality simply making edits in the interest of "balance," but based on this encounter it is clear to me that the strongest POV advocate on this article is her and the POV she's espousing is one that is excessively favorable to the Houston Chronicle in presenting one of its less distinguished facets. ] 17:49, 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) | |||
| ===Response=== | |||
| Several things, Katefan0: | |||
| 1. Your personal knowledge of the Chronicle's staff etc. is not an acceptable source for wikipedia per original research standards. That it was intended for the editorial board is thus speculation & this article should not take a stance to that effect unless the Chronicle itself, or some source affiliated with them, indicates as much. | |||
| 2. Characterizing the complaint as a "criminal complaint" is accurate per Chapter 273 of the Texas Election Code, which is clearly entitled "INVESTIGATION OF '''CRIMINAL''' CONDUCT" and repeatedly uses the word "criminal" to describe investigations made by District Attorneys into allegations of election statute violations. Furthermore, the Chronicle itself in its own coverage of its criminal complaint used the word "criminal" to describe the investigation, to wit its qualifier of TTM as "a group under '''criminal''' investigation for failing to disclose its contributors." Describing the complaint as criminal is thus both accurate and proper in this circumstance & by repeatedly removing it I can only conclude that you are attempting to insert a POV of your own that diminishes and obscures the exact nature of the Chronicle's activities. | |||
| 3. You complained earlier that this section of the article was too long, yet rather than work to make it more concise you insist upon loading it up with lengthy commentaries about Tom DeLay that are at best tangential to the article itself and more properly blong on ]'s own page and inserting lengthy POV spin toward the chronicle's position about how TTM supposedly violated the law even though the investigation was dismissed and the previous version I included was both neutral and concise to that end. | |||
| 4. To characterize Cohen's remark as "unapologetic" is accurate and correct as Cohen himself stated that he refused to apologize no less than three times: "I make '''no apologies''' for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have '''nothing to apologize for'''…There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but '''I make no apologies''' for the contents of it." If that is not accurately described as unapologetic, I don't know what could be. | |||
| 5. Regarding DeLay and Lanier, it is perfectly fair to list their positions and the original sentence, "DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past," does just that. You are attempting to take it well beyond that though and instead launch into a lengthy diatribe about Tom DeLay's supposed motives for opposing rail, which are replete with POV speculation about anonymous "proponents of light rail" who say he's beholden to highway contracters. At best this belongs in the DeLay article itself, and then only if you can write it in NPOV and with more specifics than your own link to the opensecrets.org database. | |||
| 6. Editorials and political commentaries are two different things, katefan. An editorial is the formal position of the paper's editorial page and is normally authored anonymously or printed on behalf of the editorial board. A political commentary has a specific columnist or guest author and appears somewhere in the opinion section, normally opposite of the staff editorials (as in Op/Ed). Didn't they teach you that in journalism school? Seeing as both were components, mentioning editorials and political commentaries (or opinion columns if you wish) separately is more accurate. | |||
| 7. To state that the memo's purpose was "seemingly to promote" the referendum is both accurate and NPOV. That it was intended to promote the referendum is the characterization it was given by the HP, the HR, the HFT, KSEV, and virtually all the blogs that commented on it. The modifier "seemingly" neutralizes the article from taking this stance though, since that was only the perception. To remove any indication that the memo was apparently intended to promote the referendum or at least interpreted that way, however, is, in effect, watering down the article with a POV favorable to the Chronicle itself. | |||
| And yes, katefan, I did revert many of your changes for the aforementioned reasons though you will note that I did retain some other changes you made that contributed to the section's quality. You may or may not realize it, but a vast quantity of your edits to this section are written with a POV that slants very favorably toward the Houston Chronicle's position. Examples abound: | |||
| * Removing material about TTM's 501c6 status to distinguish it from a PAC, which is what the Texas law explicitly applies to and the reason why the DA threw out the Chronicle's criminal complaint. | |||
| * Removing references to the complaint as "criminal" even though the statutes, investigation documents, and even the Chronicle's own reporting of the case before it was rejected use that word extensively | |||
| * Removing references to Cohen's response as unapologetic, even though Cohen himself clearly says to the effect of "I make no apology" no less than three times. | |||
| * Inserting extraneous materials about Tom DeLay's financial backing despite repeated requests for you to justify this addition on the talk page on account of its propriety in this article being questioned. | |||
| As an additional aside, please source your additions with a footnote link to the article itself, as is the style used consistently throughout this entry, rather than placing hidden text citations. This allows the reader to follow those links and decide for him or herself. Also, please do not remove the existing footnotes.] 17:34, 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