Talk:New York Post
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. 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.
Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
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. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
Fresh start
Note: A fresh start, using the more serious material, including newspaper history, etc, from this entry, for your editing consideration, is being worked on at New York Post/re-edit. Please help pull this into shape. --Wetman 12:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NPOV?
Particularly in this section: "The Post never affects a dispassionate tone that sometimes falsely imply an objectivity and thoroughness. Its sports section has won universal praise for its comprehensiveness." The first sentence is poorly phrased and sounds like praise. I'm just not sure if the second section is true, though I doubt it. Mariko
The whole article gives the impression -- or at least justifies my preexisting impression -- that the Post is unreliable as a news source. Are there any defenders? ♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Despite my personal distaste for it, the fact tha so many people buy the newspaper suggests that many DO find the NYP's news coverage to be quite satisfactory.
Wikipedia should not report that the NYP is unreliable. Instead, it should report that OTHERS find it unreliable, with sufficient information tha the reader can investigate and make up his own mind.
I realize this is dangerously close to the "We report; you decide" slogan that another Murdoch enterprise has used to promote news coverage that makes no attempt to be fair and balanced, but we can try. ClairSamoht 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Militant?
What would you expect from a newspaper controlled by Rupert Murdoch? It called the French "frogeating weasels": "WAR ON WEASEL WARES"; Mar 18, 2003; BILL HOFFMANN while the british Rupert Murdoch-controlled tabloid The Sun pictured French President Jacques Chirac as a worm on its frontpage. Meanwhile, the French newspaper Libération is characterized as "militant" in its article... Get-back-world-respect 15:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
POV and then some
Now don't get me wrong. I hate the Post just as much as the next guy, and one of the few times I've seen it was the day after US forces took Baghdad. I remember the editorial was titled "Now onto Paris." So clearly this paper is crap.
That said, I don't think that should be stated so harshly in the article.
Agree, this needs serious re-write.
I am happy not to do it though. I'm in enough trouble. Reithy 12:29, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Trying to NPOV this
It's hard to say that a piece of crap may or not be crap. I'll need lots of help in doing it. After all, I didn't make up – Wikipedia didn't make up – HEADLESS BODY FOUND IN TOPLESS BAR or name Gephardt as Kerry's running mate. Rlquall 05:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's my (very weak) shot. In our defence, I will say that the Wikipedia article on Pol Pot is not really equally derisive and lauding; he comes off rather poorly. Some things just can't be polished up. Rlquall 05:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A good example of a fake-"NPOV" entry on a similar subject is at National Enquirer. You wouldn't want to imitate that, would you? Perhaps you would... The "N" in NPOV doesn't mean "No" point-of-view. The mild and mainstream POV in this present entry has reflected the Posts own self-image too. --Wetman 17:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Daily News
Is it worth mentioning that the Post and the Daily News are very similar papers, format-wise, yet the Daily News does not suffer the reputation of the Post? Is the Daily News as outwardly conservative as the Post?
- In New York, newspapers are judged on thoroughness and accuracy of coverage, quality of photos and writing, completeness of sports coverage, personalities of columnists. The orthodoxy of the spin is not generally as important as it is in the bush. --Wetman 23:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- As a "bush-dweller" who has been a few places, is this submitted as an endorsement of the premise that the Daily News is more thorough and accurate in coverage, has higher quality of photos generally, and better sports coverage? Is the Daily News largely lower-profile that the Post here in the sticks mostly because of the fact that it isn't owned by the Murdoch organization, and not flogged to the masses as frequently for that reason? Rlquall 18:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No endorsements at Wikipedia, to preserve NPOV. I characterized the criteria of NYC newspaper-readers, a diminished audience. The readership of the Daily News is blue-collar, sports-minded and with a largely local news-horizon. The readership has shrunk. The News is indeed more notorious than the Post, and the Wikipedia entry should note that. The issues raised about this entry are largely spurious. --Wetman 22:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is this important?
I removed:
- On July 6, 2004, hours before Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry announced his selection of Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, the Post published a front page story headlined:
-
-
- KERRY'S CHOICE Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate
-
-
- – stating that Kerry had instead selected Dick Gephardt. Rupert Murdoch was believed by many to be the source of the erroneous story. The negative publicity generated by this error was enormous, but publicity nonetheless. To its credit, the paper ran an equally large retraction headline the next day and placed the blame for the error squarely upon itself.
This event attracted some attention many months ago, but in the long history of the Post it is of little consequence. - SimonP 07:43, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Murdoch's ownership...
My impression of the recent ownership history was as follows:
-Murdoch acquired in 1977 -Murdoch sold in 1983 due to US regulations on media cross-ownership -it then went through the Kalik-OWE-Hirschfeld transition and became insolvent in 1993 -at which point Murdoch re-acquired it.
If this is not correct, please edit the article and comment accordingly. Ellsworth 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Biased
Many have stated this acrticle needs pov clean up. It is considered by many to have allegedly been written by people who are obviously seen as anti-new york post. Sorry, this article is awful.--Bigplankton 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed a few things. It's still awful, just less so. Got rid of the Columbia Journal Review "force of evil" comment. It's so over-the-top and ridiculous, it needs context. It's too inflammatory and damaging to the article to be sitting there by itself. Who wrote it? What was the rest of the article about? Plus it was said 25 years ago. Got rid of some other biased stuff.--Bigplankton 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Columbia Journalism Review is as highly-respected a trade journal as they come. If Wikipedia were itself were to call the Post a "force of evil", that would obviously violate NPOV. To report that CJR so characterized the Post does not indicate that the Post is, in fact, in the employ of Mephistopheles, but it accurately reflects the feelings of mainstream journalism. They sneered at USA Today as "McPaper" but hated and feared Murdoch and everything he stood for. To a certain degree, that has ebbed some, as he has bought TV Guide, which has not changed much, and DirecTV, which also bears no visible Murdoch fingerprints, but they intensely hate and fear both Fox News and the NY Post. I don't remember seeing that exact phrase in CJR, myself, and I question whether it was said -by+ CJR or -in- CJR, perhaps in a letter. Ripping out everything that happened 25 years ago, that would shred the hell out of Wikipedia. A newspaper is not a fast-food franchise with 300% annual turnover; many of those running any given newsroom today were working in that same newsroom 25 years ago.
- I don't think it unreasonable to raise a discussion on verifiability of the quote, and after a consensus is reached, take action. Discarding it without discussion, because you're too young to remember dial telephones, or because the resulting article is not adulatory is not in line with the principles on which the Wikipedia is built. We don't pass judgments about the subjects of these articles, but neither do we fail to pass along others' judgements, when they are highly relevant to the article. If it did not appear that your intent is to do a good job, if you hadn't posted in talk explaining your actions, I'd have called your actions vandalism. I would ask you to reconsider your actions and revert yourself. ClairSamoht 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The article was awfully biased. I was just attempting to clean it up a little. For example, I got rid of this ridiculous statement:
"Many readers who have no use for its editorial positions or its hard news stories purchase it for its sports coverage alone."
The person who wrote that just made it up off the top of their head. That person has "no use for the posts editorial positions", so they decided to speak for "many readers". Most things on wikipedia aren't sourced, but that statment is ridiculous. Also:
"While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has been accused by many of adopting a decidedly conservative slant, reflecting Murdoch's right-wing politics."
Biased, not cited, unresearched statement. So I just decided to make it simpler:
"While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has adopted a conservative slant, reflecting Murdoch's politics."
Basically it says the same thing doesn't it? Except it has less bias and nastiness, and less weasel words. More:
In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review called the Post "a force for evil." Many in mainstream journalism feel that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage to an unacceptable degree.
More bias. Got rid of the "unacceptable degree" silliness, and kept everything else.
NOW, about the CJR "evil" quote. If you'd like to add it back in that's alright. I did some research for about 10 minutes on the quote, and couldn't find anything substantial. All I found was websites quoting it. I couldn't find the article it appeared in. I'm sure if I spent more time I might be able to find it's origin. The problem with the quote is it's taken out of a mysterious context, and put there by someone who doesn't care about anything except that they don't like the Post. The quote, by itself, has no other purpose. It's being used. But "CJR" said it. Who in CJR? What article? Why? What did the rest of the article say? We don't care, we just want to make the Post look bad. And the fact that the quote is 25 YEARS OLD does make a difference. That makes it more of a piece of trivia than a substantial and relevant piece of information, unless, it's put in it's original context, then it might have some meaning. "Force of evil" is ridiculously over the top, it needs context. But like I said, if you'd like to add it back in go ahead I won't revert it.
user:Lazmac came along and decided to simply revert all of my edits, without a word as to why. No good. At least I put something in my comments and on the talk page about why I changed things. You said:
"because you're too young to remember dial telephones, or because the resulting article is not adulatory is not in line with the principles on which the Wikipedia is built. We don't pass judgments about the subjects of these articles,"
Talk about passing judgement! I remember when we used tin cans and string.:) --Bigplankton 18:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didnt mean to revert the edits the first time, not sure how I managed it. I just wanted to change the Sun link, Lazmac 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You spent about 10 minutes looking for the CJR quote, and all you could find were websites quoting CJR? Gee, do you suppose that might be because CJR was not online in 1970? Did you try checking your local library, or did you just decide that a quote is unverifiable because it isn't *convenient* for you to verify it? Did you go back through Wikipedia in order to find out who originally inserted that quote, and contact them, asking them for more information? Did you contact CJR, asking them for the circumstances behind the quote? I won't argue that the article needs to be improved, but it gets improved by taking some pains to get it right, not by randomly throwing out anything that isn't terminally bland. ClairSamoht 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Did you try checking your local library?" You should have heard me laughing after I read that. Just picture a big hardy laugh. I might as well become a librarian with all the time I'm going to spend there every time I come across something ridiculous in wikipedia. Did the person who originally used the quote get it from the library or any other research? I doubt it. They found it on the web and said "oh goody, I can slip this in there to make the paper I don't like look bad." Who gives a crap what it means. And that, is one of the failures of wikipedia. I'm supposed to waste my time researching someone elses boloney. I can take random quotes and put them on anyones biography and pretend they came from somewhere, and the burden of proof is not on me. Everyone has to waste their time to see if it's legit. But like I said, twice, if you want it back in, put it back in. I'm not doing it. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for the Daily News with all the comparisons you put in there. Is this a competition? Waaaaaay too much Daily News info. Wikepedia can be fun, interesting, and a good time waster, but this example shows what a joke it can be. I don't take it seriously.--Bigplankton 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
--
- "I might as well become a librarian with all the time I'm going to spend there every time I come across something ridiculous in wikipedia." Sir, this ain't the half-fast-pedia.
- "I'm supposed to waste my time researching someone elses boloney." Only if you want to - but you DO need to follow the rules if you want to participate.
- "I can take random quotes and put them on anyones biography and pretend they came from somewhere, and the burden of proof is not on me." You yourself said that you found verification for the quote online. That's grounds for it being included. Your grounds for removing it? That you don't like what it says? Sorry, sir. Life ain't fair.
- "I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for the Daily News with all the comparisons you put in there. Is this a competition? Waaaaaay too much Daily News info." The NYPost does not operate in a vacuum. It's only an opinion that the NYPost is in a life-and-death struggle; giving readers solid statistics for purposes of comparison lets them arrive at their own conclusions.
No, I don't work for a New York newspaper. I published newspapers in Ohio and Indiana, decades ago, so I have a little background. No, I don't care for the NYPost, but I don't care for the Daily News, and while I have a certain respect for the New York Times, I have no fondness for it. I've never seen the new papers; they aren't available anywhere near me.
The only reason I happened upon this page in the first place was their absurd claim that it's the oldest newspaper in the US; I frequently read the 6th-oldest, and it's seven years older than the NYPost. As you point out, this article is awful, but it gets improved by diligent effort and solid scholarship, not by haphazardly cutting away whatever you may happen to disagree with.
If you're looking for fun, get a jumprope. Editing can be satisfying, when you do a good job, but it's not fun. ClairSamoht 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is definatly biased. I'm in favor of a complete re-write. --Riconoen 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sales
FYI, you can verify circulation and advertising sales statistics of most paid-circulation periodicals (including the NYPost) with the Audit Bureau of Circulation, Standard Rate and Data Services. Often Advertising Age has relevant articles as well. ClairSamoht 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This article has WAY too many NPOV violations. It's common sense not to do such things, yaH?
Distribution?
Both this article and the article for The Star-Ledger state that their respective newspapers are twelvth-largest by circulation in the United States. The Star-Ledger article cites a source that no longer seems to exist. Have any reliable circulation data been found? Hairyshoe 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- The ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) figures are taken as gospel by people who buy and sell advertising. According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html, ABC figures for March 31, 2006 show the Post at #11 with 691,420 daily circulation, the Star-Ledger at #16 with 599,628. But it's quality, not just quantity that matters. At auction, publishers would pay far more to acquire the Star-Ledger than the Post. ClairSamoht 01:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
"Supposedly-reputable broadsheet New York Times" is POV. I'm simply removing the adjectives. -Thepinterpause 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
excessive requests for references
I've added references from the Emery & Emery book - a standard text - I happen to have at hand. But the requests for references look excessive to me, and not in accord with the lesser density of references in Wiki articles for other newspapers, e.g., USA Today. The facts questioned in the first few paragraphs are common knowledge - I have been teaching journalism in universities for more than 30 years. I thus suggest that those requests for references be pruned or removed. PaulLev 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sir, this ain't journalism. When someone works for the Wooster Daily Record, they make sure their facts are straight, because if they don't, their boss may fire them, and other bosses will be reluctant to hire them. But what are the consequences if someone errs here, or even if they deliberately lie? It's not like their kids can't go to college. They just register for another user name.
- Official policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.
- You realize, of course, that you're spouting hyperbole. It is not common knowledge that the Post is the 13th oldest newspaper. If you asked 100 people on the street in New York, they'd tell you no, that it's the oldest newspaper, because that's what they claim to be. It is not common knowledge that Rufus King and Oliver Wolcott invested in the Post. Most people have never heard of those two, including most people in the news business. You claim to be an expert in the field. Can you state, off the top of your head, the amount each invested? How many people know that Henry Villiard took control of the Evening Post - and of the ones that do, how many know what year it happened? There are still a lot of people walking around New York who could read in 1933. If you asked them, how many could tell you it was 1933 that they switched to a conservative tabloid format? How many of them could tell you how brief "brief" was? If Tad Thackrey converted it to a "pure tabloid format" in 1942, what date in 1942 did that happen? Surely, if it's common knowledge, and you're an expert in the field, you should be able to rattle off that information immediately.
- The reason this page gets a lot of attention because of edit wars - but if we had the manpower, every article would get that same attention, and attention or not, the rule is the same for all articles: every fact needs to be backed up, stating the source of the information. Common knowledge doesn't need to be in the article. After all, the article on water doesn't say water is wet. If you think those paragraphs are common knowledge, feel free to delete them. Under Wikipedia policies, any editor may remove facts for which no source is given. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 07:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
By "common knowledge," I meant common in any textbook on the history of newspapers in America. If Wiki's policy is to apply the same level of explicit referencing to articles for all newspapers, then we should see the same frequency of footnotes for entries on USA Today, the Daily News, etc. But at present, there are not, as you acknowledge, and this creates - at least, for me - the impression of different standards applied to the NY Post. In any case, I'll do what I can in the next few weeks to fill in some of the requested references in the NY Post article. (It will then be the most referenced Wiki article on newspapers :-) PaulLev 16:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is happy to accept textbooks as a reliable source. Being the "most referenced article on newspapers" is a pretty low standard, though. Wouldn't you like to see this article recognized as a Good Article? One doesn't need to be a brain surgeon; the article simply takes some good solid research and writing, so that it's well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and where possible, have images to illustrate the topic. Print journalism folks have a leg up when it comes to that kind of work. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my pleasure to contribute what I can. PaulLev 01:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:NYPost.jpg
Image:NYPost.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Mob Influence At The Newspaper
I'm new to Wikipedia-editing. Can someone tell me what the standard procedure is for editing sections like this that are a) conversational, b) unsourced, c) detailed? This section is totally useless as is.Atomizer13 05:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
== Mob Labor Racketeering Investigation II ==
This is very badly written. It has last names appearing in the text of people who haven't even been introduced in the text. HORRIBLE.Jonny Zhivago 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Anthrax finger
Wasn't the Post the one that put the picture of their office staffer holding up her anthrax-infected middle finger on the front page? That one seems significant. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:New York Post font page 111307.jpg
Image:New York Post font page 111307.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:NYPost.jpg
Image:NYPost.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Page Six
Shouldn't this feature have it's own article? Dough007 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
