Talk:Reforma

POV debate (really old)

This is truly POV. WAvegetarian 00:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This should be a little less POV Jussenadv 02:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How is it POV? (Hari Seldon 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

This article was written by someone from Reforma, it is very well known that Reforma has a tendency to the right and it is biased in its views, because it is focused to an audience made up of wealthy people (you can tell by their advertisers) they bias their information to please this sector of the market.

This newspaper has also failed to achieve a significant number of sponsors to allow free acess through the internet, as opposed to La Jornada o El Universal. Its the only mexican newspaper that requires you to be a subscriber to read the online version.

Dear Anonymous:

In the first place, this article was not written by "someone from Reforma". As you know, the Wikipedia is a place where everyone contributes. I have contributed to this article, and I am not "someone from Reforma.

Secondly, it IS WELL KNOWN that the PRD and other extreme-leftist, including cometition newspaper "La Jornada" says that Reforma "has a tendency to the right". This perception has been further advanced by the political usage of independent journalism by PRD's presidential candidate Lopez Obrador. However, every serious document supports the fact that Reforma is independent journalism. Please also review the history of Reforma's father newspaper, El Norte.

Finally, the "free access" of La Jornada has more to do with the fact that La Jornada is state financed, and Reforma is a subscription service not because of "sponsors", but because of bandwidth.

Please do not issue POVed opinions as facts Hari Seldon 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hari,

I apologize for not having used my username in my last post. It almost seems that you know what you are talking about, yet you do not cite your sources. First of all I have never heard such a thing as "La Jornada" being financed by the state. My have not hearing it does not make it false, but it does not make sense that a right wing government would finance an "extreme leftist" newspaper.

Second, how come calling "extreme leftist" "La Jornada" is not POV. I would appreciate if you cited your sources, the ones that "scientifically" prove that Reforma is not a right serving newspaper, this in fact, would make your article stronger and my comments a lie.

"it is well known" is not very objective since it appears that you are using rumors as facts. I encourage you, as I did before to cite sources.

It is stupid to assume that a newspaper does not have a tendency; What is really irritating is that you dare to say that they do not have a political tendency when they in fact do. Independent Journalism in Mexico is handsomely represented by people as Julio Scherer, not by Reforma.

Reforma has the share of the market petaining to the upper class. This is evident in many ways, from the advertisers that the newspaper has to the content of their social events pages. In Mexico as opposed to the US or other industrialized countries, the wealth is concentrated in a small percentage of the population, that are for the most part conservative in their political views. This is the newspaper that conservatives read!!

Last, Reforma is the only major circulation mexican newspaper that requires paid access to be seen in the internet. I assumed this was because of the lack of sponsors; because in the begining it was accessible free of charge, and it changed after a few months. It would be a good addition to your article if you explained this thoroughly.

I encourage you to review the Biography of the "extreme leftist" canditate Lopez Obrador on Wikipedia; it sets a good example of an objective article that does not fall into the POV controversy.

Hari, I honestly believe that your article is biased and is not serving the truth, therefore it requires to be challenged.

Dear Anonymous (again you did not signed your comments):

1) Please indent properly

2) Please refer to the wikipedia entry on El Norte, Reforma's parent newspaper

3) Reforma was free of charge from 1992 to 2003. After 10 years, Reforma decided to make the service "subscription-only" not because of lack of sponsors, but to protect their information. I heard this in a conference directly from Reforma. As you know, such things are uncitable. This doesn't mean they did not happen. In any case, your assumptions do not constitute proof. As you said yourself, "it is stupid to assume"...

4) The Lopez Obrador article IS signaled as POV. If you revise my edits, you'll see I have contributed to it as well. In that article, the political character you refer to is described as "center-left", not extreme-left.

5) Reforma's market share is not only "upper-class", and 40% of the population does not constitue a "small percentage". In Monterrey, Reforma's parent El Norte dominates the marketplace. Does this mean that Reforma is extreme-right only in Mexico City?

6) You don't provide any reference.

7) Make a content analysis of La Jornada and you'll see their tendency. As matter of fact, that is unnecessary. They describe themselves as a LEFT NEWSPAPER, and take pride in it.

8) I don't assume Reforma lacks a political tendency, I know it. Their independent journalism allows for many expressions, and many columnists from different political tendencies publish in Reforma. Some columnists express extreme-left views (Miguel Angel Granados Chapa), and others express extreme-right views (Enrique Canales). Their editorial line for reporting news is fail-safed towards non-bias. Reporters are, for example, forbidden of using adjectives. However, the fail-safes are unperfect, which is the same that happens with Wikipedia. I know some articles will tend to favor an agenda, but this is not the norm with Reforma.

9) I know what I'm talking about. I majored in it with a B.A.

10) Do La Jornada's Social Event's page feature social events from poor people? How does that give you any indication on the readership of Reforma? Same with advertisers. Local government and supermarkets advertise in Reforma as well as other companies. Are supermarkets exclusive for the rich and conservative?

11)Again, please sign your comments. Like this: Hari Seldon 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari,

I again apologize for not doing things in the proper way, I am still new to this editor.

I wonder why do you feel so strongly as portraying this newspaper as something it is not. As I said before it makes it look like a non paid advertisment.

1) 73% of Mexico population lives on the margin of poverty anf of these, 40% live in EXTREME POVERTY (Julio Bolvitnik, El Colegio de Mexico). It seems to me that you need to get to know your country better. Monterrey is only a tiny part of Mexico and I am sure under-represents the Mexican population. Nuevo Leon, was the state that provided current right wing president Vicente Fox with most votes during the 2000 election. Monterrey's mayor is from the right wing party PAN. It is a conservative city, therefore, the leading newspaper there would likely be conservative as well.

2) It is obvious that people that can afford an imported car or are interested in the social mishaps of the mexican pseudo royalty would likely be conservative. I do not have the figures but I can assure you that Reforma has it's strongest market in the high income neighborhoods of Mexico City. (Let's not forget that Reforma is a paper made for Mexico City)

3) Granados Chapa is not extreme left, extreme left would be Jose Steinsleger (If we are trying to put labels on people). Granados Chapa comes from Excelsior and worked with Scherer when the paper was taken over by the government. Granados Chapa is center or moderate left. (Is hard to gauge the tendencies of a writer, but I can assure you he is far from being extreme left)

4) If I had sources your article would not be what it is because I would have made a major overhaul to it.

5) I made the remark of Lopez Obrador being an extreme leftist as a sarcasm because you refer to the PRD as extreme left, not Lopez Obrador's Article.

6) El Universal or Excelsior o La Jornada, Ovaciones, Esto have open access. Reforma is made as a business not as a information service. This is a very good example of this.

7) Of course La Jornada is a leftist newspaper, but they do not pretend to be have the philosophal stone or sell themselves as "independent" journalism (No socials section there, I encourage you to visit their website) In your article you make it sound as if Reforma was the best newspaper in Mexico when such assupmtion can only be made based on personal opinions. By far it is not the most read newspaper in Mexico (As a matter of fact the sixth most visited website in Mexico is El Universal; La Jornada is way above Reforma on web Hits -www.alexa.com-) . I wonder why Reforma being the best is not the most read.

Out of humbleness I have not changed your article, because I do not have the authotity to do it, likewise I do not think that you have the authority to say what you say. (I wonder what someone from the Carlos Septien school, the leading journalism school in Mexico, would say about your article)

I encourage you to be open regarding criticism and realize that I as other three people believe that your article is biased.

--Andres lopez 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Andres Lopez: I feel strongly about portraying Mexican Media in the proper manner. The recent rivalry between the PRD candidate and the newspaper in no way represent the paper's 70 years of history. I must remind you that in the controversial 1988 election, in which the PRI commited fraud against PRD, Reforma's parent El Norte defended the right of Mexicans for free elections. Is supporting the PRD in 1988 a right-wing behavior? (You ask me to view the paper as an independent paper in Mexico City, however, since this discussion is about its editorial line, the paper's history and the Newsgroup's editorial line comes into relevance).

Monterrey is a small portion of the country, but is the third largest city. Monterrey is also 10% of the Mexican GDP. Surely, you don't mean to underestimate this important portion of the Mexican population who consider Reforma to be an independent newspaper. By the way, the amount of people living in extreme poverty is not relevant to the tendency of the paper. After all, it is obvious that those 40% living in extreme poverty are not the market for Reforma, nor for La Jornada or any other major printed news outlet.

Why call the Mexican middle class "pseudo royalty"? Reforma as a newspaper is made for Mexico City and its surrounding areas. It is read in Puebla, Mexico State, Queretaro, Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Guerrero, and other states. Mexico City is the richest city in Mexico (producing 30% of the Mexican GDP), and Mexico State is the second richest. Obviously, Reforma's market (as would any other printed media outlet) would be the middle class who can afford such luxuries. That doesn't mean they are rich. Since when is making 20K or 30K a year rich?

You are right, Granados Chapa is not extreme left, but his comments lately supporting Obrador have taken that tendency. In any case, Granados Chapa is not the most leftist columnist in Reforma (neither is Enrique Canales the most to the right), I was just giving recognizable examples.

Esto is a sports newspaper, surely you are not comparing Reforma to Esto. Ovaciones, Excelsior, and Universal are businesses who find it convenient for their market to have open access to their web sites. Mind you that neither Excelsior nor Universal updates their site every 15 to 30 minutes, as Reforma does. All the papers you menctioned except La Jornada are private, which means they are businesses too. La Jornada is subsidized by the UNAM, so it would be outrageous for them to charge for their website. It isn't something to be commended of them, rather is something to be expected. Finally, I need to remind you that in the 1990s what today is Terra Mexico used to be Infosel, a company that provided internet service but also worked as an information agency. It was supposed to be the competition of Notimex. Infosel was started by El Norte, and it evolved into Grupo Reforma when Terra bought the internet portion of the business. Infosel never charged for its information, and it generates so much information that it had to be charged. News pieces by Reforma are regularly bought by other news outlets and it represents disloyal competiton for Reforma to offer for free what they charge to others. Finally, the fee is lower than what is charged by the New York Times, another independent media outlet.

This site is not mine, it is wikipedia's and you, as anyone else, have the authority to change it. However, I would appreciate you provide unbiased and well documented sources. I myself have not added a lot of information I know of the paper because I cannot find a source for it. If you add biased POV, unsourced (or from sources with poor quality), I will delete. If you add something that contributes, I'll respect it. Sources from poor quality: editorials, opinions, unverifiable sources (we prefer links), and so on. Preferred sources: books from recognized authors, particularly historical accounts. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a political pamphlet.

I know some people belive this article is biased. However, it amazes me how no one complained until Lopez Obrador said that the newspaper was right-wing. This controversy is recent, and therefore cannot be considered of any historical account for the paper. The paper has a history of independent, internationally recognized, journalism. I don't support the paper unconditionally and if you find something documented and trustworthy that I don't know about, I'll respect it, but since you can't, then it is your opinion against facts.

I am not against criticism, I am against unnecesarily damaging a page, and possibly the reputation of the paper, based only on opinions that do not correspond to documented facts.

03:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari,

I honestly do not believe you are reading what I am writing. I could not care less about what Lopez Obrador thinks about Reforma, this is an example of how short sighted you are. This is not a recent argument, it is a fact, every person that reads news is aware of this. Just because you just heard it does not make that it did not exist before.

The fact that they defended the truth in the 88 election is EXPECTED and it does not say anything about their tendencies. You are confusing terms. In any case a respectable paper, as I am sure El Norte o Reforma are, would have to take a posture in favor of the truth.

Do you realize that Monterrey is less than 1% of the mexican population? Your generalizations and assumptions are preposterous! The amount of people living in extreme poverty is a figure I provided you so you would how ignorant your post was - "Reforma's market share is not only "upper-class", and 40% of the population does not constitue a "small percentage". " - For being a Mexican it does not seem that you have been exposed to what Mexico is. I guess you follow the philosphy that only those with money count.

It would appear that you have not read Reforma, have you taken a look to it's sections CLUB or MAGAZINE? the people in there are definitely not middle class that is why I used the term pseudo royalty. Reforma exploits precisely this, the aspiring dream of a sector of the mexican population to become upper class (please note that this does not mean a pursue for an improved quality of living). That is their marketing and their selling point.

Over and over again you have used terms that lack foundation and that do not correspond to the truth, your replies make me realize how biased your article is. (e.g. El Universal is updated throughout the day, the use of labels as "extreme leftist", 40%, etc.)

I have provided you with sources in all of my posts, what I do not see are the sources for your comments, and what I often see is that you write your opinions as facts, and that is what makes your posts irritating: you write things that you believe as if they were true.

This is a futile argument. I contested your article because I think it is unfair that you misinform people, I appeal to your personal values and ethic so you would modify this article to make it objective, however, you can do whatever you want with it. I just hope that people that read it, also read this section so they can get an objective view. -Andres Lopez.

Andres Lopez:

I may wear glasses, but I am not short-sighted. What amazes me is that you could not care less about what AMLO says about Reforma, but no one, not even you, complained about their editorial line before AMLO said anything about Reforma...

Monterrey's metropolitan area is of about 4 million people. The population of Mexico is about 100 million. In any case, the population of Monterrey with its metro area is of about 4% of the Mexican population, and not only 1%. I must remind you, though, that El Norte is read in Nuevo León, even outside the Monterrey metro area, San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas, and perhaps other northern states.

La Jornada also writes pieces about the President and other polticians. Does this mean they are targeting the "political class" only? The uses of the media are clear: the middle class want to know about the upper-class. I wouldn't expect Reforma to be read only by people making over a million pesos a year. Obviously, the middle class also consume their content.

My philosophy is not that "only does with money count". All I am saying is that Mexico HAS a middle class, and it is also populous, and it reads many news outles including Reforma. Why are you so manichaeist and can only see a rich vs. poor conflict in society when society is far more complex than that (particularly, Mexican society)?

I am not misinformin anyone. Whatever is written in the article is what is supported by documented facts, including the criticism that people like you make of the paper by labeling it as "right-wing". For a paper to be right-wing, its writing style and its editorial content, such as columns, must be exclusively right-wing. Whatever sector of the population they market for is irrelevant, as rich and middle-class people may also have an inclination for the left (as I assume you do, and I don't think you are part of that 60% of Mexicans living in poverty)... What published evidence in Reforma's writing style or in their editorial columns have been found by analysts that can be quoted in wikipedia? In the end, this is the issue.

The issue is this: you are of the opinion that Reforma is right-winged. I am of the opinion that Reforma is independent. Neither of our opinion matters. However, published evidence points towards Reforma being independent, and so it is what the wikipedia article says. When you find published evidence that Reforma has a right-wing editorial line that influences their writing style and their pick of editorialists, then we can modify the article.

Hari Seldon 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari

I praise your passion and the way you stand for what you believe. However, you are, again, missing the point.

I did not even know that AMLO said anything about Reforma, if he did, he should not have. I have a brain and have opinions, and it might be surprising to you, but most mexicans do too; and I think a lot of them would disagree with you. I do not think that La Jornada is the best newspaper around, sometimes I get sickened by the way they defend the stupidity of the people on the left, but they do not go around selling themselves as something they are not. I wonder though, what makes you so angry about what the left says about Reforma, and why do you feel it is so important to point out that it is an independent newspaper with neutral views (if it is neutral I wonder why no one from the left reads it?).

I fully agree on all what you say about citing sources. I have provided you with mine, and I would be delighted to read an independent thinker label reforma as independent and neutral. As I have said before I encourage you to cite the sources that you used for your article, please do!, so far I have seen none.

In all honesty I think that the most non biased newspaper in Mexico is El Universal. Before saying anything else, please realize that you are in Monterrey, where "4%" of the population of Mexico lives and where 10% of the GDP is made, yet you come and write for all mexicans saying that Reforma is the holy grial of news. This arrogance, that makes you think that you have authority to talk for others, is uncalled for. Monterrey is utterly conservative (please see who the leading candidate for presidency is there, and remember the wonderbra incident, or the graffiti against chilangos). I remember how unhappy people from Monterrey were when they heard a chilango say that Mexico was their city, yet you are doing the same thing. Monterrey is NOT mexico.

What I have no respect for Hari, is that you have made your opinion my opinion in this article. If this were an editorial I would praise you, but the least thing this article has is being Objective. I hope that you understand my discontent with this. -- Andres Lopez.

Andres Lopez: I am not missing the point. I am discussing about Reforma's editorial line, and so are you. How is that missing the point?

If you didn't know that AMLO said anything about Reforma, then you are not following adequately the person whom you chose your nickname from. AMLO has said a lot of things about Reforma on a regular basis.

"No one from the left reads it" is a very generalized statement. Do you have evidence? If we listen to communication and mass media theory on the use of the media, it would be clear to me that at least some leftist read Reforma, at least, to criticize it.

Your sources are irrelevant to the subject of Reforma's editorial line. This isn't a dissertation where you prove a point. This is an enciclopedia where you expose what others have found. I think that the International Prizes Reforma Group has won speak for themselves about their independent nature.

I live in Monterrey, I don't need people telling me about how conservative is Monterrey. However, currently we are governed by the PRI, and opinion polls don't seem to give the PAN an advantage on the local level. It seems you don't appreciate the power of opinions and brains that people from Monterrey have. Or is it that only poor leftist from the south have brains?

I also think El Universal is pretty non-biased, but they also have their failures. I never said anything about Reforma being perfect. I just said they where independent.

Let me clarify this to you. Independent does not mean they are unbaised. It means that they don't have any official political affiliation, and that there is no defined political inclination in their editorial line. Some articles will turn to the right, and some articles will turn to the left. That is what happenes in independent journalism. Obviously, Reforma published dozens of rightist articles, but it also publishes leftist articles. Reforma was a very big critic of the way the President handled the Desafuero, and it was also a great critic of Fox in general. It has also criticized the PRD and the PRI. That is what independence means. It doesn't mean they are not biased. It means that their writers may be biased in any direction.

I am not criticizing Mexico City in any way. Just please recognize that the history of the paper is important in its editorial line! Mexican history in general is irrelevant to the editorial line of the newspaper. I don't understand why you want to make such a specific issue into a great general conspirational issue.

Hari Seldon 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari,

I guess I can call you Dear Hari, after all of this. With all due respect, you do not know me, you do not know anything about me; the fact that my name is the same as Lopez Obrador is a very unfortunate coincidence, you can blame my parents for it. You make me think how many problems I will have if he wins, people confusing me with him. Again you are making non founded assumptions. You have even labeled me leftist when you do not know anything about me!.

My only issue is that you say things without foundation. Please cite your sources so you can shut me up once and for all. Also include the prizes Reforma has won. Enrich your article, make it iron clad. I swear that I will give you an apology if you do so.

I did not say anything derogatory about Monterrey. But you have to realize that even though it is your universe it does not make it mine or anyone else's. I think that Monterrey is as you point out 4% of the population, no more, no less. In a true democracy what they say counts as much as what Tabasco, Chiapas, Veracruz or any other state says.

Hari, your article is biased, that is my only point. Please try to understand that I do not have a personal feud with you, nor I am trying to make your life miserable. I am just trying to make things accurate, reliable and transparent. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Andres Lopez.

I have just realized that the problem is that you have issues with Lopez Obrador. Please do not let your personal feelings against him preclude your ability to discern the truth. Things are what they are, whether we like them or not. The truth is not an option, it is a reality. Andres Lopez

Andres Lopez: I don't have issues against AMLO. Point to me where is the article biased. What specific statements make the article biased? Obviously, it isn't the recognition of Reforma's independent editorial line.

I don't have issues with AMLO. Simply, I don't undersand where do you see your bias, and your arguments are non-conclusive towards the "biased article" issue, and tend to point towards the left.

I will get the proper citations.

Hari Seldon 18:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari,

" The presence of Reforma in Mexico City has changed the face of journalism in the country's capital because of its independence from the unionized newstands and printed media resellers, its non-partisanship (which was a novelty in Mexico City), its writing style, and its love for free speech and criticism. " You make it sound as it were a different world before Reforma. I lived there when it happened, it was not that exciting, believe me. Second, what is this saying about the love of the freedom of speech, you sound like if you were talking about your mother. Please be objective.

You should have gotten your citations before writing your article. Andres Lopez

Granted, the paragraph needs rewording and sources. I am currently looking for sources (I have a job, so I can't give this 100% of my time). However, it is true that, at least in the political spectrum, Reforma caused a breaking point with their journalistic style, and the matter of the unionized newstands is also true. If you want, you may reword it, as long as you keep the article objective and reflect the reality of the paper.

The paper's and the newsgroup's history demonstrate their commitment to free speech (El Norte published eventhough the government boicotted them in the 1970s). Their commitment to criticism is patent everywhere in the paper. These are not biased statements. Probably the wording is misleading, and I agree that it needs rewording. Finally, I'll be more active with the source search.

Greetings! Hari Seldon 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hari

Is there a way I can email you? I have some papers that I would like to discuss with you. Your e-friend. A. Lopez

My email is hseldon10@yahoo.com Hari Seldon 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments Deletion

Hari

Why are you so stubborn? Have you read what the spanish speaking people say about Reforma on Wikipedia in Spanish? That accurately reflects the feelings of the people that read the newspaper. That deletion was to make your text less biased. I honestly do not understand what is your goal here. You handsomely and accurately represent Reforma with your ideas here. Covering up truth to make it sound what serves your purposes. You have had more than a month to cite your sources and make this this article something worth reading, but you have neglected to do so. Outrageous. Nonetheless. Andres Lopez.

This page is not to reflect "the feelings" of anyone, nor mine, nor yours, nor "the spanish speaking people", whomever they may be... Wikipedia in Spanish has its own problems, and in general, is not an accurate source of information, as Wikipedia itself recognizes.

I handsomely and accurately represent Reforma as the consulted sources represent Reforma. Is it a lie that Reforma cause a novelty in Mexico because of its editorial line and its design?

My goal is to represent Reforma for what it really is, an internationally recognized, respected, and laurated newspaper with an independend editorial line.

Finally, deleting without discussing can be considered vandalism, please refrain to do so.

Hari Seldon 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason beyond my understanding you fail to recognize your flaws and your bias in this article. I have said before (as others have done too) that you make it sound as if you were talking about your grandmother not a newspaper. Your con goes beyond the limits of tolerance when you aim an audience that is naive to reality and bias them to believe that your ASSUMPTIONS and points of view are the truth.

You talk like if you really knew what you say, on my last discussions I probed you WRONG on all counts, all of your arguments were supposals and I showed you with proper citations that you were mistaken. How can I even trust your writing after this?

I am not sure if your dad owns the paper or if your circle of friends feel that it is the best thing that has happened to news in Mexico (in which case I would recommend more reading), but you are failing to recognize that converting this into a personal vendetta and using this article to serve your own personal agenda you are failing to communicate and disseminate knowledge in an accurate and truthful manner.

The world is not Monterrey. For the most part and as painful it may be to you, most of the Mexicans could not care less about Monterrey or your personal universe for that matter (yet you come and lecture me about the events occurred in cities that you do not live in, depicted in a very OBJECTIVE way; and then assume that what is true for MTY is true for the rest of Mexico).

Once again you are lying. I resent that you called my edit vandalism. You said that you would cite references in this article and you have failed to do so. You invited me to edit the page with the condition that you would evaluate the modifications as if you were some sort of authority. I can recognize your inability to accept criticism and also your childish stubbornness to keep your preposterous comments, but this should not obscure truth.

I will not rest until I see that this article says the truth and not your biased opinion, contaminating the ideas of people that really do not know the facts, and poor them may fell into believing that you are honoring the truth.

Andres Lopez

Andres Lopez of IP address 201.141.76.5:

No, you did not cite sources. I admit I haven't either, but I find it very strange that you are the only one trying to "correct" the page for a few weeks...

It seemes evident to me that the article says so little as to consider anything in it controversial. It says the basic truths of the paper: it is a paper, it emphasizes design, it is independent, it generated controversy in Mexico City because of its editorial line, and it has been called rightist by opponents. What SPECIFICALLY in the article do you not agree with and why?

By the way, I have no relation to the paper, I simply act as you do, that my responsibility is showing the truth. Unfortunate that we don't have the same quality of information. My information is very first hand in this matter, and I will produce sources.

Hari Seldon 23:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hari,

So we are back to square one. All my time, all of the arguments: Useless. For a hint of what I personally think is POV see my edit. I guess everyone else has just given up and allowed you to believe and say whatever you please. Andres.

In contrast to saying whatever you please? If you showed sources, this discussion wouldn't exist. I will show mine. Hari Seldon 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that. If you were a scientist you would be out of a job. I have requested a mediator to review the article. --Andres lopez 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Frankly, the debate here is a bit hard to follow. But basically, it seems that some editors want the paper to be described as right-wing, while others prefer the description of independent. Not being a reader of Reforma or being at all familiar with their editorial policies myself, I am not really the best person to comment or to make that judgment. But I can tell you what I see.

The article's tone is rather glowing about it's subject. Repeated references to nonpartisanship and independence are excessive and contribute to this tone. The sentence mentioned above --"its love for free speech"-- is the worst offender. Sources for the claims of a right-leaning bias and the conflict with the union would be particularly beneficial. And if the history of El Norte is so important to the history of Reforma, that history ought to be summarized and briefly mentioned in this main article. Also, the history of the paper's web accessibility seems important enough to mention in the article. I will keep my eye on the article to monitor progress and, if need be, provide a third opinion in discussions.--Rockero 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Rockero, I agree with you that the article is not written in its best quality. I agree that the quality of this article can be greatly improved, but the paper is described by many news associations as "independent", and only a segment of the Mexican left would call Reforma "right-wing". I will provide sources for this. I also agree with you that a brief paragraph of the history of El Norte should be mentioned, after all, El Norte founded the article. I will not make any further edits until I find sources, and I kindly ask you, Andres Lopez and other editors to do the same, and to discuss changes here before making them in the article. I find that consensus edits are more productive than edit wars. Hari Seldon 16:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, "independent" does not mean "without a political perspective." It just means not dependent on any outside groups (such as a political party or the state). A newspaper can be independent and still have a political perspective. In fact that notion that a newspaper can possibly not have a political perspective is I think much more controversial than the notion that all newspapers have a political perspective. It seems to me that the newspaper's independence from the state or from political parties can be a fact and at the same time as its conservative political position can also be a fact (and one that ought to be stated in the article, with sources given). Rlitwin 14:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rlitwin, I agree with you. Reforma is independent because it is not dependent on any political party or state. Furthermore, I have heard directly from the paper's owner that to maintain independence, Reforma has refrained from expanding into other media businesses such as radio, or television, contrary to what their main rival, Multimedios (who edits Milenio) have done. Of course, this comment was made in a private meeting and I can't source it, so I haven't added it.

However, I think that Reforma's independence goes further. Their editorial line tries to combine reporters with inclinations to all parts of the political spectrum in Mexico. In Reforma you can find pro-PRI, pro-PAN, pro-PRD, and even pro-(other parties), reporters. The reason Reforma does this, as was expressed to me by one of the reporters, is to maximize the openess of views to its readers. They admit that they cannot be neutral, so instead they publish material that is subjective to all parts of the spectrum. In Reforma I have read the most convincing defense of Lopez Obrador, and in Reforma I have read the harshest criticism against him.

I wish this idea is permeated into the article. I don't want to give the impression that Reforma is the "perfectly neutral" newspaper, but I also don't want to undermine their efforts towards objectivity. I think that Reforma's detractors focus too much on articles written from the right and published in Reforma, but that does not constitute the whole of the paper. Their editorial line is very plural. Hari Seldon 15:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As a good example of this, the other day, the first page of the paper was dedicated to Calderon and his transition team and how they plan to assume the presidency of Mexico, while he has not been even named president elect, and the election is being challenged. What is the owner of the paper supposed to say? There is a saying in spanish that says if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bycicle. That is how all these allegations sound like. Are you on Reforma's payroll Hari? it seems to me that you are getting a juicy check from them every month. Dialectico.

There is a big difference between reporting the news and making an opinion on it. Obviously, Calderon IS planning on assuming the Presidency, he considers himself the winner (even if there is none yet), and rumors abound on who is Calderon planning to include in his transition team. This is news, and if Lopez Obrador would put together a Transition team it would be news as well, simply because it is happening, and it is important. Reporting either news shows nothing on the supposed political preference of the paper, it simply shows that it wants to report news.

On the other hand, you look for other clues to measure if the paper is biased, for example, its writing style. I haven't seen Reforma refer to Calderón as "President Elect", but as "the candidate who got more votes according to IFE", which is true, the IFE did declared that Calderon got more votes, even if this is not a conclusive fact to declare him President Elect (The rightist radio station Imagen refers to Felipe Calderón as "the candidate who won the election", or as "the candidate who got more votes", and so it is clear to me that the "according to IFE" precision that Reforma adds to their reference to Calderon increase neutrality because they increase precision: IFE declares Calderon had more votes, but IFE is not a competent authority to declare a winner). Furthermore, you can also look into how the paper gives spaces to each news. Today, front page Reforma goes to Elba Esther Gordillo of the PRI, and to the TRIFE, and not to any candidate. Plus, a measurement of the amount and quality of space given to each candidate (a measurement that is common in media analisys exercises) can give us a better idea of which candidate Reforma prefers. I've done many of these during my years, and I have found Reforma tries to give each political trend the same quality and quantity of space. Plus, the rules in its writing style (such as the careful avoidance of adjectives) increase my opinion that the paper is trying to be neutral. Please refer to Reforma's Manual of Style to check this.

So no, I am not on Reforma's payroll, I have simply studied the subject, both on theory and on the field. Reforma is not perfect, but it is clear to me that they try to be more neutral than others. And yes, some days they fail completely, but that doesn't mean that it is an institutional tendency or political line. Hari Seldon 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

questional paragraph

"However, detractors claim that Reforma has a political inclination towards the right. This criticism escalated during the 2006 Mexican General Election campaign, when Reforma published a poll on April 23, 2006 that showed a declining tendency in vote preference towards Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Reforma published earlier polls that gave Lopez Obrador as favorite). The politician and candidate to the Presidency claimed that Reforma's poll had been organized in the Presidential Office and that Reforma did not even applied the poll. The newspaper has not officially replied, however commentators in other media outlets have critizied the politician's attitude. The Presidential Office has denied the claims of Mr. Lopez Obrador. Other polls published by other newspapers as of May 02, 2006 have shown the same tendency. (see: Mexican general election, 2006 Polls Section.)"

As a 3rd party netural observer from the US; it doesn't appear that this paragraph belongs in the article at all. The sad fact of the matter is that to a partisan; non-partisian reporting appears to be partisan. (We certinatly have a lot of complaints about partisian leading news media in the US) Certinately if other newspapers polls are showed a decline in Obrador's popularity at the same time that this paper did this particlar claim seems to have no merit and not belonging in this article. On the discusion on registration on their web sites; that proves nothing; in the US there are papers on the left and on the right that require registration. Jon 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I completely agree with you, however Andres Lopez (the user) does not... - Hari Seldon

Hari: If you agree, edit the article!. I have refrained to do any modifications since this article seems to be your personal property. Andres Lopez.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.38.10 (talk • contribs)

Andres Lopez: The reason I thought the paragraph needed to be there was because the article experienced some vandalism in which the reader was made to believe that Reforma had an editorial inclination to the right. The paragraph did the following:

1) Indicate that the accusations of "rightists" where only criticism, for the paper and its readers identify Reforma as independent.

2) Indicate that the accusations escalated during the political campaign, as indeed it did. There was a period of weeks in which Lopez Obrador and his supporters filled the media and the internet with accusations against Reforma.

My intention of adding the paragraph was only to maintain neutrality by aknowledging that the view that Reforma is independent is not shared by everyone, particularly by supporters of the former PRD candidate.

If you think as I do that the paragraph should be removed, then lets remove it. I don't want this article to be, as you claim, "my personal property". I want this to be an article of high quality with content dictated by consensus, as happens in my other experiences in wikipedia.

Hari Seldon 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate that you use my name without my consent to defend your arguments.

I wonder though, if it is your intention to make this article better, why do you have to wait for people to insist on the points to change them?

Please erase that paragraph and lets move on. --Andres lopez 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was "using your name". I am merely listing arguments. My intention is to make this article better, but your edits don't seem to go in that direction, in my opinion, which is the reason we have this dispute. Ok, I'll erase the paragraph. Hari Seldon 14:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You were not using my name? Please review the article's history: my edits were the changes that people asked you to do, however, when I made them you called them vandalism. The word spurious comes into mind --Andres lopez 05:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey check it out so you can notice what objectivity is:

El universal says: " Andrés Manuel López Obrador asentó que el campamento permanente no será levantada del corredor turístico Paseo de la Reforma-Centro Histórico hasta que se haga valer la democracia"

When Reforma says: "López Obrador afirmó desde Chiapas que no será levantado el plantón sobre Paseo de la Reforma, hasta que, según él, no se haga valer la democracia"

The key word being here SEGUN EL. Is it just me or there is some bias here........ I can picture Hari with one of his wonderful excuses after this posting. This newspaper is a piece of crap. You can use it if you have birds for the floor of the cages or to ignite a fireplace.

1.- I think the paper is too expensive for fireplaces

2.- This is no excuse, Lopez Obrador is biased when he askes for democracy to be upheld. I mean, according to the opinion of 57% of Mexicans (this was not published in Reforma) democracy is being upheld through the Tribunal, the partial recount of votes, and the defeat of Mr. Lopez Obrador. So, Lopez Obrador's demand of upholding democracy is his opinion. The "segun el" That Reforma adds is a neutral addition, because it clarifies that the demand is just Lopez Obrador's opinion. Reforma also use it when PAN members, or PRI members express an opinion that may not be agreed by all. This is perfectly valid. Hari Seldon 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The world by Hari Seldon

Following the thread of your contributions I found that you once called someone a "dictator of Wikipedia"... I wonder what are you? if five or six contributors have modified this entry, and asked to denote the right wing bias of the paper and you keep deleting them because you disagree. In our discussions your prejudice and slander became evident every so often, in your obscure and childish arguments. Far from making wikipedia a better place, you are making it what you want it to be (just like Fox's Mexico)Andres lopez 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you can add whatever you want to this article... if it is an unbiased, common knowledge fact. If, instead, it is an opinion, like saying that reforma is "right-wing", then you have to add sources that prove thar Reforma is right wing. Hari Seldon 18:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget Hari that in order for an edit to be here , you have to like it. And if anyone has any question about this, please take a look at the history of this entry or the one from Vicente Fox. Hari Seldon : The man with his own agenda. Pitiful. Andres lopez 19:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As stated innumerable times previously, my liking is not of relevance. The only requirement, as stated in wikipedia guidelines, is a RELIABLE SOURCE. Hari Seldon 19:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hari, Some websites for your review.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

I believe The Guardian, Clarin, San Antonio Express-News, UM school of communication, The Princeton Progressive Nation all of them calling Reforma conservative ought to have importance, What do you think? Andres lopez 07:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed your sources, which are editorials or recommended links, and not first hand research. They are all very valid opinions and I have no argument against a statement that says "In the opinion of some editors in The Guardian, Clarin, San Antonio Express-News, UM school of communication, The Princeton Progressive Nation, Reforma has a conservative bias".

However, please note that ownership and bias are two different things. Reforma's ownership is independent, and therefore has to be considered an Independent newspaper, regardless of bias. (We've discussed this before, but if you still have questions about this issue, we can continue discussing)

Of course, the newsgroup has won awards for its independent journalistic style, but it is very valid that others disagree with world bodies of Journalism and the Spanish Language so, definitely, please add to this article that a lot of people are of the opinion that Reforma has a rightist bias. I believe I had added a similar paragraph, particularly highliting Mr. Lopez Obrador's criticism of the daily, but it was deleted. Hari Seldon 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hari

What do you consider first hand research???? of course they are subjective opinions, what do you expect them to be?

Why don't I write something like: "According to innumberable sources Reforma is a conservative newspaper, however Hari Seldon (and the owner of the newspaper), think otherwise. They believe this daily is independent and probably the best thing ever happened to mexican journalism (for its LOVE for freedom of speech, among other highly admiralble qualities)"

I like the spin you gave to that comment you had here about Lopez Obrador. You made it sound like if it were actually enriching the article.

What are you talking about when you say ownership differs from political stance? I am not following you, please explain this further.

Truth of the matter, I have references and PROOF, you don't (as you once said in your replys to other editors). I invite you to document your article with proper sources..... or accept my edits that have RELIABLE REFERECES.

Thank you. Andres lopez 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First hand resources are, in this case, the official website, and research done on journalism or on the newspaper. Research is different from editorial opinions and may include reports from journalistic organizations such as Reporters Without Borders...

There are not innumerable sources, I counted 5.

It is not "according to Hari Seldon and the owner of the paper", it is also according to the Mergentheler Award, the Real Academia, and other authorities in journalism and the spanish language. Feel free to source their opinion as well.

I don't claim to be the best writer in the world, but my intentions are honest. I felt that representing Lopez Obrador's, and other's opinions of the paper was necessary to balance the article. However, presenting opinions as fact is just too much.

Ownership differs from political stance. For example, Reforma is a privately owned, independent company that has no interest in other media, no interest in the government, and no other company or organization has financial interests in Reforma, thus it is independet. La Jornada, on the other hand, is owned and financed by the government through UNAM. And though ownership in Reforma and La Jornada are different (the first is independent, the second is not), both have independent journalistic styles... We can even take it further and say that style is not the same as bias. La Jornada has a clear, and self-proclaimed, biased to the left. Some also argue that Reforma has a bias to the right, but that doesn't mean its style is not independent. Style represent the writing format, while bias represent content.

You have reliable sources of opinions. I don't dispute that. I am just worried that opinions should not be represented as fact.

Here is a compromise example: "Reforma is independently owned and has an independent journalistic style, and has recieved awards for its independent journalism. However, intellectuals and editors in other media such as Clarín, San Antonio Express (etc...), and former Presidential Candidate Lopez Obrador have denounced the paper of having a bias to the right"... Again, my wording is not perfect and I would like you to comment on them. Greetings!

By the way, if I have not contributed more is not out of will, it is because I don't have time to do this research. I am sorry I am not a more enlightening editor. That doesn't mean I don't know the difference between opinion and fact.

Hari Seldon 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand a bit on the ownership vs style vs bias difference, because I now understand the nature of our conflict. We are talking about two different things. I am talking about style, and you are talking about bias.

Ownership refers to who owns the media. If the media is part of a media group, such as esmas.com who is owned by Televisa, then it is a corporate ownership. If it is privately owned and has no other interests in other media, and other media have no interest in them, then it is independent ownership. If it is owned by the government, then it has public ownership. Esmas.com is clearly a corporate media, Reforma is independent, La Jornada is government.

Style reflects how the information is written. Most papers in the world follow journalistic style: low on adjectives, information based on quotes or evidence, the written information does not directly advance a conclusion. Furthermore, the paper must give similar amount and quality of coverage to all actors, and have a plural editorial section. This style is called independent, and Reforma follows it. On the other hand, Fox News and the North Korean state media are strong on adjectives, information presented is based in conjectures or extrapolation of quotes and evidence, and have unilateral editorial sections. These type of media may be called "biased media".

Bias, however, may or may not have anything to do with style. Bias is present in all media, and though independent-style journalism tries to avoid it, it cannot completely do without it. For example, El Norte, Reforma's parent, is famous for favoring Rayados del Monterrey in its sports section. El Norte covers Rayados and Tigres with the same amount of space, the articles are written with little adjectives, and editorialists in the sports section are plurally selected to reflect views on both teams. However, the selection of the content is what drives an indirect or implicit conclusion. The media is independent in style, but clearly pro-Rayados in its bias.

The problem with bias in an independent style is that it is difficult to identify, and requires a lot of research to be "stated as fact". The identification of bias is greatly a matter of opinion and context. For example, in Mexico, my opinions are regarded as "rightist". In the US, they are regarded as "leftist".

I will not disagree with you that Reforma's bias (inevitable in all media) is slightly to the right of what the normal tendency is in Mexico City. However, this doesn't mean that my opinion (or any opinion) is a fact, and it doesn't mean that Reforma is not of independent ownership and follows an independent writing style. Therefore, I would try to reflect this in the article: Reforma is of independent ownership (or affiliation), has an independent writing style, but opinions are consensual that it has a bias to the right.

Is this better? Can we live with this? Does this settles the dispute?

Hari Seldon 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up

I've added a "bias" section. I hope this finally settles the dispute. Hari Seldon 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is OK, however I would change "accused" for labeled as a more appropriate word in the context. It would be nice as well if you could provide sources that depict or show "the independent" style of Reforma as true and not only your opinion. Also your source says that El Universal has 420,000 readers, can you please source your statement saying that at 400,000 readers grupo Reforma is "the widest read news source in the country".

It also might be a good idea to add the fact that the newspaper has the greatest number of "A" advertisers, and it is read mostly by the upper and upper middle classes. This would give a wider idea of what the newspaper is and what people choose it over other news sources. Andy Rosenthal 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the specific case of Lopez Obrador, the word "accused" is the appropriate. He didn't just label "Reforma" of being right-wing, he accused the paper of manipulating surveys and of attacking him because, presumably, the paper is right-wing. In the case of all the other sources, labeled is fine.

The source says that El Universal has 320 thousand yeaders. Grupo Reforma has a cumulative readership of more than 400,000, 395 thousand come from Reforma and El Norte alone, but date is unavailable for Palabra or Mural, however, it is a reasonable assumption that they are read by more than 5 thousand people. I would estimate, at least thirty thousand each.

The newsgroup has been recognized for its independence in journalism. Only a review of the articles on the newsgroups other papers, particularly El Norte, should be enough. Since they are linked, and part of wikipedia (and sourced there), I think it should be enough. But, if you insist, I'll copy and paste the info here as well.

The "A" advertisers, I don't have a source for that. I believe you, but it leave it to you to find a source and add it. Finally, the "it is read mostly by the upper and upper middle classes" statement, I think that requires a very good source before adding to the article. Hari Seldon 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

here is a paragraph from reference number 1: "Según el informe de Bimsa que cita Expansión, entre los diarios de información general, el mayor número de lectores lo tiene El Universal, con 419 mil 500; en segundo lugar se encuentra La Jornada, con 287 mil 100; en tercer sitio aparece Reforma, con 276 mil 700; en cuarto Excélsior, con 117 mil 800; en quinto unomásuno, con 78 mil 400; en sexto Novedades, con 65 mil 700; en séptimo El Sol de México con 56 mil 900; y, en último lugar, Milenio con 46 mil 900 lectores. Bimsa no incluye a La Crónica de Hoy." Regardless you NEED a source for that statement. Please read an article before you cite it!

You added the Lopez Obrador statement, it does not have sources and it is ONE versus several: PLEASE REWORD THE PARAGRAPH. It almost seem that you were looking for a way slip that in. In the context that sentence is irrelevant, honestly. Since day one we have been arguing and you do not have provided a single source, you ought to correct this. Please make the changes accordingly. Andy Rosenthal 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've sourced the Lopez Obrador comment. It is not that I am trying to "slip that in". It is not irrelevant, because it is important to contextualize who accuses the paper of having a right bias: a politician who was not favored by the paper.

Finally, if I haven't sourced the readership, is because I have yet to find a respectable source. According to this blog: [10], Mural (Reforma's news outlet in Guadalajara), publishes about 25 thousand papers. If we assume this is so for Saltillo as well, and we assume that all papers published are read (see below), then we can say that Grupo Reforma has a cumulative readership of about 450,000, which is above El Universal's 419,500. Even if we assume that Saltillo's Palabra is not read at all, the number for Reforma's cumulative readership in Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara would be 425,000.

It is not an unreasonable assumption to state that all papers published by the newsgroup are read. The source quoted in the article makes reference to a BIMSA survey to analyze readership, and also makes reference to an estimation of papers published. In all cases, readership is greater than papers published, and if we analyze papers published alone, then Reforma plus El Norte, lead El Universal by a wide margin. Unfortunately, there is not enough quotable information available. However, what we have seems to be a clear picture.

But really, lets not make this personal. This shouldn't be an "I am right and you are evil" argument. Assume good faith on my part and I'll assume good faith on your part. If you want, we can change the wording so as to establish Reforma's importance nationwide, without comparing to other papers.

Hari Seldon 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hari,

1) I inisist that the Lopez Obrador statement is out of context and the paragraph needs to be reworded. If you want I can work on it and make a proposal.

2) According to El Universal (which is the only paper that has its circulation audited) the afternoon edition of the paper "El Grafico" produces 300,000 copies. This including the ones from "El Universal" for sure makes more than 500,000 readers, therefore Reforma is not the most read news source in the country (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/disenio/directorios06/historia1.html).

3) "Organizacion Editorial Mexicana" owns la Prensa (the highest circulation newspaper in Mexico City) along with about 29 other papers (Including ESTO and "El Sol de Mexico"). Have you checked their cumulative readership? I am sure is a lot more than 500,000 readers, for sure it is the highest read news source in the country. According to this website OEM is the largest news company that publishes papers in spanish and the third laregest news company in the world. (http://mx.geocities.com/rpgaby/Mexico.htm) This is supported in the article Mario Vazquez Raña.

I think this becomes personal because instead of arguing sources I am arguing you!. I dont want to make this personal, but this keeps happening, you assume your beliefs are realities and you paste them here as if they were, I please encourage you to find sources for your statements. Thanks. Andy Rosenthal 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy, of course, El Norte also distributes smaller tabloids in Monterrey, such as Metro and El Sol... I am pretty sure Reforma does the same in Mexico City. In the end, there are no reliable sources because, as you said, there are not enough audits for Mexican media. In any case, Televisa takes all printed news media away in terms of influence...

I will try to find sources for my statements. However, you yourself quoted just now an article from geocities... A personal website should be completely unacceptable! But, that is the best we have. I have the same problem.

Please, I'll like to see your proposal to the Lopez Obrador paragraph. As you can see, I've added sources. Exactly why do you feel it is out of context? [11]

Hari Seldon 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewording

I have modified some of the sentences in the article because I believe they were cumbersome and partial. I am also proposing to change the sentence that reads:

The presence of Reforma in Mexico City has changed the face of journalism in the country's capital because of its independence from the unionized newstands and printed media resellers, its non-partisanship, and its writing style.

To Reforma changed the traditional distribution of newspapers because of its independence from the unionized newstands and printed media resellers. It also was innovative because of the inclusion of people of all political opinions.

Saying that it changed the face of journalism because of its writing style undermines the serious efforts of the people before Reforma (as the founders of Uno mas uno, Excelsior (when directed by Scherer), Proceso, La Jornada) or people as Ero Ramirez del toro, Miguel Angel Granados Chapa, Manuel Buendia Vicente Lenero and Luis Spota that were professional and independent journalists that fought for freedom of expression and a new era of journalism many years before Reforma even existed. Including that line makes it seem that Reforma was the first and only newspaper that did this. Andy Rosenthal 07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with said re-wording. However, I do not agree with the re-wording you did a while ago. Reforma not only "claims" to have an independent editorial style. It has an independent editorial style, in its very foundation lies the editorial council (which is not just one person, but a group of invited people from the community in which Reforma papers print). Editorially, no one government or company dictates what it is to be printed, freedom of speech is practiced by Reforma editorialists, and indeed, editorialists from different viewpoints print in the newspaper. Journalistically, they use a style that does not allow adjectives or judgement in the body of the article. Indeed, this is with the intention of being as neutral as possible. Reforma's independence cannot be questioned without serious proof of foreign influence. Is it being suggested that Reforma is controlled by somebody into limiting the freedom of speech potential of its writers?

Indeed, I don't deny that bias is inevitable, and accusations of a right-wing bias have emerged, particularly recently and in light of the polarization of Mexican society due to the 2006 elections. But this doesn't mean the newspaper is dependent of someone for its income, or its editorial line. The newspaper is independent.

Additionally, the newspaper has no political affiliation, at least not explicitly. Are there "implicit" affiliations? Well, I don't think wikipedia is a place to advance theories. If someone can be quoted (sourced) by saying that Reforma has an implicit affiliation )(i.e., Lopez Obrador saying that Reforma is a "panflet" of the PAN), then it should be added and credited that someone with this opinion. I also feel it is unfair to the paper not noting in this article that this criticism does not seem to be as widespread outside of Mexico City. I don't see anybody complaining in Monterrey, or Saltillo, or Guadalajara (on the latter I have no experience, so it doesn't mean anything, but in Monterrey and Saltillo I have plenty). So, it should be noted that the criticism may be because Reforma operates in an environment that is stronly left-leaning (And please don't tell me that Mexico City is not left-leaning, ever since Mexico City has had free elections, when have its citizens ever elected a non-left government? Has the right ever had a chance?) And I am not saying that he city's political leanings are the only cause of the criticism. But at least some of the cause may be in there.

Hari Seldon 07:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree but the paper is intended for Mexico City! and the references are from international sources. I think that stating that the perception of bias exists should suffice, however, I do recommend improving the wording of that sentence. Andy Rosenthal 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph

Hari, that paragraph is really poorly written, at least try to make it look better. Improve the wording see if you like this

Despite its independent editorial style, Reforma has been labeled as a right-wing newspaper. Former candidate, Andres Manuel López Obrador has also accused the paper of this bias, and even denounced the paper of being a "press bulletin for the PAN". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy Rosenthal (talk • contribs) 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I've incorporated some changes, but I do felt that including in the article page who made the labeling was also important to the reader. This is not just the case of a politician doing the labeling, this are other news outlets and a communication school. Hari Seldon 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Licitation

Though it doesn't surprise, since I had suspicion that this was going to happen since Reforma's whining of the so-called "Televisa" Law, the following is news to me:

In 2006, when Reforma planned to announce the licitation of the third Mexican TV network. TV Azteca launched a campaign against the newspaper exposing the battle within the Junco family for the control of the newspaper's interests as an effort to coerce the newspaper into not publishing the licitation.'

Of course, it would be nice if a source was provided on the intentions of Reforma to get a TV network. The time I spent with them they where always proud about their independence because, contrary to the competition, they where not bound by commercial interests in multi-media (i.e., TV and Radio)... Seems that this is gone, huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hseldon10 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps this is too old to even bring it up, but it is funny that now you said you spent time with Reforma (I assume that you worked for them, did an internship or somehting of the sort) when you in the beginning of all of our debates denied this.

Dear Anonymous: In the first place, this article was not written by "someone from Reforma". As you know, the Wikipedia is a place where everyone contributes. I have contributed to this article, and I am not "someone from Reforma.

You were in fact related to the newspaper, hence, you had a conflict of interest. I think the ethical thing to do would have been to disclose this. Anyway, I just wanted to point this out as an example of how personal interests conflict with objectivity. This back and forth we had when I was trying to talked you into improving this article was really a waste of my time. I had to drag someone here to make you realize that the article was biased and needed improvement. I would encourage you to avoid this in the future, and realize that when things liket this occur, you ought to look for the best interest of the article not yours. Andy Rosenthal 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not some one paid by, or with any interest of any sort in the company. I "spent some time" studying with them, but that was a while ago, and it does not represent a conflict of interest, because I do not get, nor did I ever had, any compensation from them of any sort. If it were the case that editing articles we have an interest in represented a conflict of interest, then no Mexicans could edit Mexico, and I, who cheer for UANL Tigres, shouldn't be editing UANL Tigres. Are you suggesting that being obscure is better than being transparent because it provides impunity? (Sounds like the tactic of certain politician I did not vote for!)

As for the need to learn from our mistakes, you are right. Indeed, I think I've learned from this. Hari Seldon 22:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I am getting dumber cause I ain't got no clue what ya talkin' bout. Talk bout a lesson learned, i've seen the progress! Andy Rosenthal 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I just wanted to point out the fact that the paragraph where the presumed bias of the paper is mentioned, one of the sources used is one of the partner newspapers of Reforma: The San Antonio Express News. I guess they have more authority than anyone to label the newspaper right wing biased since they work in close collaboration with them. (Hari, please see my comments in the Reforma Group article). Thanks. Andy Rosenthal (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New & Updated Sources Needed

Of the 11 sources offered, 10 relate to only one small section (Bias Accusation). The first source, referencing the Reforma's readership, is from 2002 and is thus 7 years outdated and probably very inaccurate. The rest of the article needs reliable sources. (BretN (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Headquarters Inconsistency

The infobox says La Reforma is based in Monterrey. The lead says La Reforma is based in Mexico City. Does this inconsistency serve a purpose?  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Archive this http://www.reforma.com/entradaiphone.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Magazzine or Magazine ?

titled Top Magazzine76.170.88.72 (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reforma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060406181451/http://www.pulso.org:80/Espanol/Nuevos/transparencia%20prensa020809.html to http://www.pulso.org/Espanol/Nuevos/transparencia%20prensa020809.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061022014230/http://www.puntog.com.mx:80/guias/periodicos.htm to http://www.puntog.com.mx/guias/periodicos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reforma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901110221/http://com.miami.edu/ecommunique/hmexicoed08142006.html to http://com.miami.edu/ecommunique/hmexicoed08142006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217050521/http://alt1040.com:80/archivo/2005/12/29/el-rediseno-del-periodico-reforma/ to http://alt1040.com/archivo/2005/12/29/el-rediseno-del-periodico-reforma/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reforma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929111810/http://www.mysanantonio.com/specials/weblogs/mexico/archives/2006/06/dane_schiller_c_3.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/specials/weblogs/mexico/archives/2006/06/dane_schiller_c_3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)