Talk:Boston Herald

Untitled

"Aggressive" and "an alternative" are code words here for "conservative." The Herald's ideological leanings are very well known; why did the writer of this article choose to obfuscate them in favor of using more misleading and POV-laden terminology? (That is, the Herald is only "aggressive" in an objective sense if we define aggressive to mean "only going after non-conservatives." The use of "an alternative" is murkier, but such tropes are often used by conservatives in an effort to differentiate conservative media sources from more mainstream ones.

If the Herald's bias is well known, so is the Globe's, and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Both the Herald and Globe articles probably ought to note that their news columnists tend to lean a certain way; and if proper citations can be found, should also note specific allegations of bias. I disagree, however, with your assertion that the words used in this article are incorrect. Objectively, the paper is agressive; the fact that it goes after Democrats more often than Republicans is a function of the fact that Boston and Massachusetts government contain many more Democrats than Republicans. And the paper is "an alternative" to the Globe in more ways than simply in providing a different ideological slant; the Herald points out the Globe's journalistic missteps, highlights crime stories and has a different journalistic style than its broadsheet competitor: shorter stories, heavier on human drama, with more sensationalist headlines. Whether or not these can be considered improvements, they are definitely alternatives. Wiki Wistah 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, today's Boston Herald is a conservative newspaper and a descendent of the old Herald-Travelers of the past, which have or rather had a convoluted history. The change in ownership business isn't my point in posting but rather the perception that today's Herald is indeed a quite conservative paper, though not, to the best of my knowledge, with any bias toward one political party or another. The days of daily papers being "Republican" and "Democratic" are pretty well over. In years past, going back a couple of generations, the old H-T was more the Republican of the major newspapers in Boston, while the Globe always learned towatd the Democrats.

However this can be misleading. The two major political parties were not nearly so driven by ideology as they are today and the party loyalty of many voters (and readers) often did not fall into rigid ideological categories, as is so often the case today. Thus there were progressive and reform minded newspapers with a strongly Republican readership (and ownership), and Democratic papers that could veer from conservative to liberal to often non-commital, depending on the issues. In the days before American involvement in World War II (1939-41) a number of Republican papers, mostly on the east coast, came out as strongly "interventionist", which is to say supportive of Churchill, Lend Lease and of President Roosevelt's desire to get America more involved in the world war, and in particular in his support of Great Britain. Many Democratic papers were "isolationist", believed that the U.S. should stay out of the war, that it was none of our business. A lot of this had to do with the readership of these Democratic papers, heavily Irish-American (and often German-American, though that was stronger in the Midwest), with the former. being largely anti-British, opposed to any effort to aid Britain or, more generally, the British empire.

Thus things were seldom cut and dried in the old days even when party loyalty was strong. There were Republican papers that took on corrupt Democratic political machines with ties to organized crime, and in some cases were influential in bringing down mob bosses and their (mostly Democratic) political allies. And there were Democratic newspapers that were essentially the voice of the local pols, supericially on the side of the Common Man, and yet disinclined to rock the boat and look crime, graft, political patronage and corruption generally in the face, as their readership was made up largely of Democrats, thus the status quo prevailed and their was little in the way of investigative reporting.

Wikipedia in the Boston Herald

In the [[1]] article, there is:

   While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information, although this usually ceases to be as significant a problem as articles mature. Inappropriate edits are often noticed and corrected within a relatively short time on most articles.
   (See for example this 2005 incident [1] reported by the Boston Herald, resulting from a person who inserted a fake biography linking a prominent journalist to the Kennedy assassinations and Soviet Russia as a joke on a co-worker, saying afterwards he "didn’t know [Wikipedia] was used as a serious reference tool.") 

this should be included in this article. 71.250.1.198 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Every newspaper of any size in America has written similar articles about wikipedia by now. - DavidWBrooks 01:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ownership Controversy

"(Some Boston broadcast historians accuse the Boston Globe of being covertly behind the proceeding. The Herald Traveler was Republican in sympathies, and the Globe was allied with the Kennedy family interests, although at the time of the licensing dispute, the Globe had a firm policy of not endorsing political candidates, and the proceedings regarding the WHDH-TV license were initiated long before John F. Kennedy was elected president.) "

-This is not cited, and "Some Boston Broadcast historians" sounds a lot like "Weasel Wording." Can somebody please cite a source for this?

Fictional inspiration for title?

Wasn't Major Winchester of M*A*S*H seen reading a copy of a fictional broadsheet newspaper called The Boston Herald? Mal7798 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What was fictional? According to the article, the Herald was a broadsheet at the time of the Korean War (and, for that matter, at the time of MASH's 1970s television run). _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>W</sub> a s s a p <sub>```} 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers in Education

Do we really need a section on the Boston Herald's distribution of papers to classrooms? Virtually every daily newspaper has this type of program, including the Boston Globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.18.12 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Boston Evening-Traveler

The Boston Evening Traveler is the name of the newspaper I remember being delivered to our home when I was growing up. It was the evening edition of the Herald-Traveler and was, to the best of my recollection, just called the Evening Traveler. The formal change of the paper's name didn't occur till 1967, when the two editions were merged into the Boston Herald-Traveler. I don't remember the paper being called that beforehand. There were two separate editions till then, essentially two papers, the Herald and the Traveler. This is what I recall. Needless to say, I could be wrong. The corporate name was and had been for some time the Herald-Traveler but not the newspaper itself (or rather themselves, as there were two editions), not until 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegonus (talk • contribs) 11:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

the Boston Herald and Evening Traveler merged after a newspaper strike in 1967. The Traveler was, like many evening papers, a separate edition from its AM counterpart. It competed with The Evening Globe and the first edition of the next day's Record-American. In competing with the Record-American, the Traveler used the slogan "The paper that goes home" to distinguish it from the Record-American which was too lurid to be seen in suburban homes.

The newspaper Boston Herald Traveler was not hyphenated. The publishing company, Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. was hyphenated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.11.248 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Section "The Boston Herald-Traveler" does not mention "The Boston Herald-Traveler"

Instead, it talks about radio and television. There is no talk about newspaper history and names. Section appears mis-titled. Rename it e.g. "Radio and television". --Jim Luedke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Boston herald Front Page 09082011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Boston herald Front Page 09082011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)