Talk:The Seattle Times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as High-importance).
 

A criticism of the 'Criticisms' section[edit]

I'm a bit dubious about the "Criticisms" section: as it stands, none of the stated criticisms are backed up by references. (Where there is a statement of the form "The Times was criticized for doing X", some of them have references showing that the Times did do X, but none have references showing that the Times was criticized.) What's more, nowhere does it state who did the criticizing, merely referring to unnamed "many critics". --Paul A 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have removed pending citations of actual criticism. Even then, I'm not sure that it is noteworthy that some people disagreed with the Times' political endorsements, since it is pretty much given that someone is going to disagree with any endorsement. CAVincent 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

An area of expansion for this article would be explaining the papers conservative bias because of the Blethen families hate of the estate tax. It is well known in journalism circles that editorial decisions and political endorsements have been made and lost because of the Blethen obsession on this single issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.29.244 (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Kwan headline[edit]

Is a controversy relevant to this newspaper. One the newspaper felt it needed addressing. All controversies involving a publication would be deleted under your criteria. It's actually part of this newspaper's history, as is Stephen Glass controversy at The New Republic, and countless others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talkcontribs) 02:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not being from Seattle, I don't know how big of a deal the controversy was. But Wikipedia submissions should at least be accurate. The subheadline was not "American outshines Kwan," but rather "American outshines Kwan, Slutskaya in skating surprise." I think the entire coverage is unfair, though, to include the subheadline out of context at all. It gives the impression that the intended focus was that an American beat Kwan, as if the winner wouldn't be an American if Kwan won. The true focus of the article was that Sarah Hughes had won; the subheadline only intended to let the reader know that Hughes was an American. The notion that the editor didn't consider Kwan an American is simply not credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.57.0 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)