Talk:The News & Observer
|WikiProject United States / North Carolina||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Journalism||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This article refers to a periodical that doesn't have its ISSN information listed. If you can, please provide it.|
I have some doubt about the following:
- "It started one of the first internet service providers in the nation, nando.net," and "In 1994, the paper created NandO.net, one of the first online service providers."
- "The Daniels family hired Claude Sitton, who had been a correspondant for The New York Times and later its editor."
- "A year later, the Mini Page children's supplement was created and published." Maurreen 06:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Most of that infortmation comes from the News & Observer's history page, []. The NandO.net quote is as follows:
"March 1, 1994 The News & Observer creates NandO.net, one of the nation’s first online service providers, and begins publishing the NandO Times electronic newspaper."
You're right about Sitton -- he was the national editor of the Times, not the editor. The history page also has information on that.
The Mini Page info, I think, is mentioned on the history page, but I wrote that from memory, so it may be faulty. But thanks! --The PNM 07:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, you're right about the Mini page. I will attribute the Nando statement. Maurreen 07:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Duke Lacrosse Scandal
The N & O was one of the most ardent supporters of Nifong and the Duke faculty until the innocent announcement came from the AG. This should really be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HoundofBaskersville (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Typical PR with dubious sources
Check out the link posted for the Pope House Museum reference. It leads to a "parking place" provided "free" by the Go-man site. No info on the Pope Museum. How can this be a reference in support of anything? Who/what is the Pope museum foundation?
What does belonging to the new owner mean politically? Isn't that relevant too?
I removed that entire section. The first claim significantly misrepresented the apology issued in the given source. The second took primary sources and then created a narrative around them, which is original research. If someone wants to criticize this (or any other) company, it needs to be done correctly. As it stood that was POV pushing at best. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)