Talk:United Press International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	College football Portal United Press International is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments This article has not been rated for quality yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Journalism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Press International article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Helen Thomas 2 Moonie Ownership of UPI 3 UPI Ownership and Helen Thomas 4 External linked article about upcoming event 5 Ownership 6 External links - News/comment - Broken-dead-links 404 7 Reputable News Organization? 8 Ownership history in error? 9 UPI in 1946? 10 The number of UPI's current 'offices'

[edit] Helen Thomas

It's not surprising that Helen Thomas resigned from UPI after its acquisition by the Washington Times. It saved her from being fired.

Listen to the way she badgered the White House press secretary -- worming in patently false statements under the guise of a question:

Q I pick up on that -- what you said. Does it bother the President that most of the world is against this war, and half of America? And I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, this is an issue where you and I will never agree when you state your premise about what the people think.

Q This isn't you and I. This is a very legitimate question.

Q There's a new poll showing --

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think there's a lot of public polling that you can see out there. The recent poll from your neighbor to the right, ABC News showed that 79 percent of the American people think that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States. I've heard you say on many occasions most Americans don't think he's a threat to the United States.

Q I didn't say -- is said the war.

MR. FLEISCHER: So I understand your strong opinions clearly. I'm not sure the American people agree with you.

Q That's a very personal attack. I said the war. Are they in favor of --

MR. FLEISCHER: I thought it was an accurate observation.

Q Are you saying 79 percent of the American people are for this war?

MR. FLEISCHER: What I just said to you is that according to that ABC poll, 79 percent of the American people think that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States.

Q That wasn't what I asked you.

MR. FLEISCHER: In terms of support for a war, again, talking about the public polls, I saw one this morning in USA Today that put that figure at 66 percent, if I recall.

Source: [1]

--Uncle Ed 19:07 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Old topic, but I feel compelled to comment. Fleischer was clearly attempting to skirt the issue and, like most of the Bush administration, did not answer the question that was asked. Helen did not "badger" him. Nelson Ricardo 02:44, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Your answer is a year old, and just as incorrect now as it was then. Thomas was asserting that "half of America" was against the war, and Fleisher rebutted that assertion by citing a USA Today poll putting American support for the war at 66 percent. Since 66 + 50 > 100, eithor Thomas or Fleisher was mistaken. If Fleisher was correctly citing the USA poll, then Thomas was turning 33% into "most", which is dishonest. Uncle Ed 21:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Tired topic and for accuracy sake Helen was not going to be fired. stevensweet

[edit] Moonie Ownership of UPI

I believe it is imperative to prominently explain that a religious cult owns UPI these days. The head of that cult claims to be the Messiah. He may well be for all I know, and I make no judgments but it needs to be stated.

There is genuine confusion about this with the less-informed and the article can play a small part in remedying that. Libertas

Thanks for adding this, it's important. I have tightened and wikified the language. Readers interested in the details of Rev. Moon's claims about himself can consult his article. More fact-checking is needed on the Washington Times issue. RadicalSubversiv E 00:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, which one the ownership or the publication of UPI yarns. Happy to do either.Libertas

I agree that the reference to Moon's ownership needs to be in the first paragraph! Especially since I didn't see the ownership listed in Moon's own wiki article. 202.82.171.186 07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's owned by news world int'l: ^[1] I am adding to article, can someone who is better at markup link the source?202.82.171.186 02:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added reference from Columbia Journalism Review, sayting it's owned by News World Comms, the media arm of the Universalist Church. CJR is a fine source, let's hope that line stays in teh article.202.82.171.186 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed by a UC member - restoring WNDL42 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPI Ownership and Helen Thomas

There are some who have an axe to grind about the Unification Church and it shows in the editing.

I am more interested in a factual representation and history of UPI to honor its journalists who stay true to its editorial mission of independent and unbiased reporting.

Grinding the ownership axe, chronically mentioning speculation about why Helen Thomas resigned, etc., is less about UPI and more about some issue with the ownership.

As any journalist at UPI will tell you, judge UPI on its content and not the ownership.

stevensweet

Information about UPI's ownership is encyclopedic. Deciding how to "judge" UPI is up to readers. Also, please refrain from marking non-trivial edits such as this as "minor" -- it's deceptive. RadicalSubversiv E 23:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Deciding how to "judge" UPI is up to the readers. These are minor changes as this entry is about UPI not the ownership or Helen Thomas. Content and an "axe-to-grind" author bias is the deceptive issue.

stevensweet

I agree no axegrinding but the information about ownerhsip needs to be there becuase it's not on the Sun Myung Moon entry.202.82.171.186 02:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External linked article about upcoming event

I removed that link, an article about a current event, because wikipedia isn't/can't be a breaking-news depository. The article will be out of date in a couple of weeks. If there is there material from the meeting that could be incorporated into the article, fine, but there are new articles every day affecting, oh, about 250,000 of wikipedia's articles. - DavidWBrooks 16:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. The link is revealing about the organisations, and isn't primarily about "the event". (Try reading it properly.) In any case it is currently relevant and will be for some time and can be removed when it isn't any more. Rd232 22:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, as compared to Usenet for a pro/con Web site (wait'll some Moonie posts a link to a pro-Moon article, and then somebody posts another anti, etc. etc.) but it's not worth an edit war. - DavidWBrooks 23:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a few articles which have 'pro' and 'con' sections in the links (usually with neutral ones at the top). I don't have a problem with that, although in some cases the links do multiply rather. I see the External Links as supplementary to the article, and as long they're ordered and useful (i.e. of interest to readers), there's no need to be overly cautious in restricting them. Rd232 10:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Modifying the edit war and recognising that for some the history is second to the owner I made it a stand-alone section as the link is not a history link but a story link. stevensweet

Realising the edit war goes on I quote the anonymous Rd232 "Wikipedia convention is to use subsections (===) or no divisions for External links section)" and have moved this tiresome story link to a subsection of External links.

[edit] Ownership

This is a little embarassing. I ought to know this, after 28 years membership in the Unification Church. But does the church itself own UPI, Washington Times, or News World?

Or are these companies owned by individual members of the church? Uncle Ed 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the church as a corporation does not own these companies. However the church as a body of believers does, in a sense. I considered changing this article but it seemed a little nit-picky.Steve Dufour 06:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems odd: an ever-changing "body of believers" would have difficulty, say, paying taxes or submitting paperwork to show it doesn't need to pay taxes. Churches frequently own buildings/businesses, in the sense that the ruling body of the church - synod, board of directors, whatever - rather than the people who gather in the pews each week, is the legally responsible entity. So we need to be sure before making such a change. - DavidWBrooks 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding, I've been a UC member since 1974 but am not an accountant or a lawyer and live 3000 miles from DC, is that the Times is a corporation owned by some church members. It was Rev. Moon's idea so we often say he inspired it. I think most church members in the USA feel a sense of ownership towards the Times even if we or the church are not the legal owners.Steve Dufour 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Yahoo Finance and Hoover.com say in their capsule summaries of News World Communications that it "is a media company owned by the Unification Church, which is controlled by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon." I'm not sure exactly what "owned by the Unification Church" means, however. - DavidWBrooks 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not either. I don't think the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity HSA-UWC (the official name of the UC) owns News World Corp; however it is owned by the Unification Church movement or community. I'm in favor of leaving the statement as it stands. It is true, in one sense, and it is simple and clear.Steve Dufour 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. The issue of ownership would seem more important if News World was making a profit.  :-)

I work for a financial news service. 'Owns' means the entity actually holds at least 51% of the equity.202.82.171.186 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The article now says that UPI's owner, News World, is an "arm of the church." I guess that is fair enough. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It says only that it is described that way by the CJR, which seems slightly weasel-ish, but not weird enough to be rewritten unless we get a better citation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Expaining it precisely would probably be too complex for most people to follow and wouldn't give much more info than the way it is now. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links - News/comment - Broken-dead-links 404

This message is to advise of broken links, if there is somewhere more appropiate to post this please advise.

The New York Times, Feb. 21, 1988 "NYT Story on FNN's Purchase of UPI in 1988" http://www.auburn.edu/~lowrygr/nytfnn.html gets the following result: 404 Not Found

George Garneau, Editor & Publisher, Oct. 21, 1989 "Infotech Now Owns UPI" http://www.auburn.edu/~lowrygr/e&p35.html 404 Not Found

Associated Press Story, June 28, 1992 "Middle East TV Network Purchases UPI" http://www.auburn.edu/~lowrygr/pat5.html 404 Not Found

Allan Wolper, Editor & Publisher, May 22, 2000 "UPI WILL STILL FLY UNDER OWN FLAG" http://www.auburn.edu/~lowrygr/moonie1.html 404 Not Found

Eve Gerber, Brills Content, April, 2001 "Looking for a Miracle" http://www.auburn.edu/~lowrygr/brill.html 404 Not Found

Please note all of the above pages can be viewed using The Wayback Machine http://www.archive.org/web/web.php just paste the URL you want to locate into the search form and click on one of the archived page links

Servant of the Cat 04:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reputable News Organization?

I was pretty shocked to see how far down UPI has come and I'd guess part of that is the Unification Church ownership. But actually I was most shocked when I learned about UPI employing Steve Sailer as a commentator. He seems to be a neo-eugenicist, i.e. racist, and a "paleoconservative," though I haven't seen anything quite that bad in his commentary at UPI. Is this a one-time fluke or is the whole organization morally bankrupt?

WP talk pages are not soapboxes or discussion forums, or places to review the subjects of its articles. Please read about what wikipedia is not, and keep talk page discussion directly relevant to the editing of the article at hand. Dsol 16:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the talk pages are actually discussion forums - look at the top tab.

Discussion relevant to editing only. Read the policy page I linked to if you didn't know this already. Please sign your posts. Dsol 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership history in error?

The article currently contains a statement "It went through seven owners between 1992 and 2000, ..." which I think is incorrect. The UPI website [2] lists an ownership change in 1991 ("purchased out of its second bankruptcy by a group of Saudi investors") and in 2000 ("News World Communications, a media group founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon that includes The Washington Times newspaper, purchases UPI.") That site indicates that there have been 5 owners after the Scripps family sold UPI in 1982. Anybody got any other references to support/refute the text? I'm certainly not a UPI historian, I only know what I've found in 5 minutes of Googling... Studerby 01:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be written in past tense if UPI's notable days are behind it. Redddogg (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPI in 1946?

The article says, "Arnaud de Borchgrave ... began his journalistic career at UPI in 1946." UPI didn't exist until 1958. Presumably he worked for UP or INS in 1946; I don't know which one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pha telegrapher (talk • contribs) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The number of UPI's current 'offices'

To better reflect reality and not mislead readers, I've changed the two sentence that listed the locations of UPI's current 'offices'. These sentences had read:

UPI is headquartered in Washington D.C. with other offices in Beirut, Hong Kong, London, Santiago, Seoul and Tokyo, which secures UPI's global presence. Beyond those offices, correspondents in all major capitals cover and report about events on-site.

That first sentence misleads readers to believe that UPI has physical offices in Beirut, Hong Kong, London, Santiago, Seoul and Tokyo. At best, the current UPI might be employing freelance journalists who work from their homes in those cities, but their homes are not UPI 'offices' under either the venacular nor formal meanings of the word 'office' (not unless there is a nameplate saying 'United Press International' or 'UPI' on the outside doors and not unless their is a business telephone listing published for those addresses). And the 'which secures UPI's global presences' is certainly an editorialization (besides totally ignoring Africa).

That second sentence is also an editorialization. I do not know how many 'correspondents' the tiny news agency currently known as UPI employs, but the number hardly extends to "all major capitals" and is a huge gap from the old UPI's 185 full-time bureaus worldwide and from the number of full-time bureaus or correspondents currently employed by the Associated Press, Thomson Reuters, Deutsche Presse Agentur, Agence France Press, or other news agency that directly competed against the historic UPI.

I've changed those sentences to read:

UPI is headquartered in Washington D.C. During the mid-1980s, at the height of UPI's expansion, it operated more than 180 news bureaus around the world and employed nearly 2,000 salaried journalists. Today, except for its Washington office, UPI neither owns nor leases any news bureaus, although it does employ freelance journalists in several of the world's major cities.

Vcrosbie (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)