Talk:Foster's Daily Democrat
Text that was removed from the article
- Fosters is a right-leaning publication, with a focus on police reporting (crime, car accidents, fires) and public meetings (scandals, elections). Fosters values quantity over quality and good reporting over good writing. Most reporters are made to work over 40 hours per week and told to be reporters first, and writers second. Reporters do not have choice as to what they cover. They are told by their editors. Overall, Foster's is a paper that *responds* to news events that go on in the community -- parades, visits from officials, fires and accidents -- rather than take the time to investigate complex issues and trends that may be ongoing.
Atlant 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Point being? The text speaks for itself as to why it was dutifully reverted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually Jeff I think that text was a fairly good description of Foster's and aside from being unbalanced and biased it had some merit to this article. How about this (bold text suggested revert):
Fosters is a right-leaning publication, with a focus on police reporting (crime, car accidents, fires) and public meetings (scandals, elections). Fosters values quantity over quality and good reporting over good writing. Most reporters are made to work over 40 hours per week and told to be reporters first, and writers second. Reporters do not have choice as to what they cover. They are told by their editors. Overall, Foster's is a paper that *responds* to news events that go on in the community -- parades, visits from officials, fires and accidents -- rather than take the time to investigate complex issues and trends that may be ongoing
Ok so basically all of it get's reverted, but his description of a few things was accurate and useful. (Creator22 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
- I do not doubt for one second, indeed, I hole-heartedly beleave, that the jist of the above removed stuff is true. The problem is, aside from clear bias, the content is definitely OR unless it has appeared in some other reputable source. As far as saying that the focus is on "police reporting and public meetings," well, it is a small town paper and there's not much else going on, honestly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding other local papers is otherwise useless info. Such info would not be in any infobox as suggested, as infoboxes are about the subject of the article, not other subjects. The best thing to do, and indeed the standard thing to do, would be to make a category of New Hampshire papers (try Category:New Hampshire newspapers). The article could use some more cats anyway. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about not citing why Foster founded the newspaper. I thought it was common enough knowledge. By the way who reverted the mention of Colin Manning? Was it because it wasn't cited? I don't think that is extraneous info either. (Creator22 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
- That would probably be User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson; he seems to feel a need to keep this article light and fluffy.
- Atlant 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's a dandy way to show why the community made you an admin, personal attacks! Ho, ho! For the record, I removed it because it seems a tad odd to just name random reporters and their area of coverage, no? If there was a paragraph giving a rundown of editors and significant contributors, which there should be, I reckon, then that would be the place for that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That was a pretty light-and-fluffy personal attack (if it was one at all), but I definitely believe you need to read and heed WP:OWN with reference to this article. I've disagreed with many of your edits to this article and believe you're in the wrong here as well.
Atlant 15:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please, I've read WP:OWN. It doesn't make any sense from a strict quality standpoint to mention random non-notable reporters out of context. Secondly, as an admin who has written a featured article and countless other articles, to disparage my intentions by saying I want to keep it "fluffy" is a personal attack.
- Back on point, could someone please provide a better reference for the pro-slavery thing. I do not doubt the info, but what the hell does "New Hampshire Gazette Literary Lions, Summer of 2006" supposed to mean? I subscribe to the Gazette and trust it in general, but do not recall any such article specifically. Per the MoS, if there was a specific article, we need to be told the date of the issue and the exact title. "Summer 2006" does not cut it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Literary Lions issue was a special one. Its time frame was "Summer, 2006." Since the Gazette doesn't archive all of its issues online I couldn't provide a link. I do however have the issue at home and it most definatly has a section on Foster. (Creator22 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC))
- It'll have to do, though I'd reckon there has got to be another source somewhere for it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Pro-slavery in 1873?
How many intelligent editors -- myself included -- have seen this obviously false statement and passed right over it?
|“||Founded by Joshua L. Foster on 18 June 1873, as a pro-slavery alternate voice in anti-slavery New England||”|
I wouldn't have noticed this except that the most recent addition to this article was an editor replacing "conservative" with "pro-slavery" in describing the 1870s Democratic Party (also inaccurate). I doubt any newspaper or national political party in 1873 New Hampshire was openly "pro-slavery". After all, that's almost 10 years after the Civil War. Racist, yes; pro-Southerner, yes; States-Rightsist, yes; anti-Civil Rights (although they wouldn't have been called that then), yes. But not "pro-slavery", for the same reasons that it would be anachronistic to describe today's Democratic Party as "anti-Reagan" or "pro-New Deal".
The citation (currently footnote 3) does not back up the quoted claim. "The Newspaper Riot of 1865" is about Foster's first venture in daily journalism, a paper called the States and Union in Portsmouth, which did take place during slavery times, in the 1860s. The Daily Democrat did not then exist (it was founded by Foster, as correctly noted here, in 1873).
It's correct to describe Foster as a pro-slavery editor -- he once was. But by the 1870s, it's correct to describe the Democratic Party as anti-Reconstruction or, as in a previous diff, "conservative":
|“||The Democratic Party comprised conservative pro-business Bourbon Democrats, who usually controlled the national convention from 1868 until their great defeat by William Jennings Bryan in 1896.||”|
I propose that Geo. J. Foster Company be merged into Foster's Daily Democrat. I think that the content in the company article can easily be explained in the context of the newspaper (indeed, does the co. do anything other than publish the paper?), and the newspaper article is of a reasonable size that the merger will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Woodshed (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)