Talk:Houston Chronicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Richard Johnson[edit]

While combing through the January, 2006, obituaries without a Wikipedia article, I came across Richard Johnson (publisher), publisher of the Houston Chronicle for some time. I haven't sourced it but wanted to tag it as an article stub. Deatonjr 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize[edit]

I like the idea of referring to the Pulitzer Prize. However, it would be great if we can find a more specific reference for the statement that the paper is the only one in its size class not to have won a ? The footnote goes to the Pullitzer main page. It would be a tedious exercise to go through all winners in all categories to verify that (1) the Chronicle is not there and (2) every other paper in its "size class" is there. Also, what do we consider its "size class"? My suggestion would be the top 20 papers by circulation. Johntex 23:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Honestly, I couldn't point to an easy reference... I just remember it being a topic of discussion around the newspaper. Generally it's considered among the top 10 newspapers by circulation I think. Let me see if I can find something... here's a little blurb that's easily accessible: [1]. Might be easier to just change the text to "HC has never won a PP." · Katefan0(scribble) 23:55, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I doubt seriously that your colleagues at the paper would be wrong about this. I think we should leave it as is except to just say "only one of the top 10 largest" instead of the less specific "size class". Johntex 00:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed we need the emphasis on "its own parent" unless you wanna extensive debate on this issue. The "Award" section implies awards the Chronicle recieved, not its "award winning" employees. The "Hearst Distinguished Journalism Award" was awarded to an employee, not the Chronicle, for services he rendered to his employer for which he had been already compensated. The piece, When Will the U.S. Liberate Texas? is the property of the Hearst Corporation, not the employee, for which the Hearst Corporation marketed to the public, and presumably made a profit. Now the Chronicle is free to boast of the "award winning journalists" on its staff. Wikipedia should not be used to corroborate this deception. Should I make the reversion or will you? Thanks. Nobs01 17:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It says the award was given by its parent company. "Own" is POV, as if you were speaking indignantly, at the worst; at the best it's just not necessary from the standpoint of good writing. Nothing in what I changed altered stating that it was given to the employee rather than the paper. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is with the Hearst's Corporation using the word, "Distinguished", because this implies, out of many, this one is "Distuingished". If the name were "Hearst Journalism Award" then there wouldn't be a problem with an employer recognizing the service of an employee. However, this distinction implies the "Distinguished Award" is open to the entire profession, not just those on the payroll. The fact that the Hearst Corporation decided to "distinguish" one of its own, for whatever reason, gives the appropriate NPOV necessary, seeing Wikipedia is already part of the decdeption with Houston_Chronicle#Awards link implying the Chronicle received the Award, when in fact it did not.Nobs01 17:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • While I respect your opinions about whether Hearst or its awards are distinguished or not, or whether they should give internal awards or not, they are simply that -- your opinions. If you have a source criticizing the name of the awards because they feel Hearst is not distinguished, or critical of them giving internal awards, add the citation. Otherwise your argument here does not hold water in terms of NPOV; our own opinions are irrelevant. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • I added some context about the contest being internal among Hearst's papers -- does that help with your objections? Happy Friday · Katefan0(scribble) 18:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'll take on good faith that it's internal without doing the reseach. TGIF. Nobs01 18:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Yellow journalism[edit]

To talk about the Hearst Corporation's role in yellow journalism within the confines of the Hearst article is desirable and proper. To mention it offhand here as a way of casting aspersions on the Houston Chronicle's practices is not. The Chronicle did not become part of the Hearst Corporation until long after the era of yellow journalism was over. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:25, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I dont know if it ever ended. This source says the Chronicle is Hearst's largest [2]. Perhaps that should go in the intro. Nobs01 21:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I concur - to state that the "era of yellow journalism" is over is an opinion in itself, passing judgment on what constitutes yellow journalism. A reasonable argument could be made, for example, that the light rail memo scandal was a revival or continuation of yellow journalism at its worst. Rangerdude 14:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Nation[edit]

I looked at this link and didn't see a reference to the Houston Chronicle or the Hearst Corporation. Is this the correct link? -Willmcw 23:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jensen[edit]

The decision to publish Jensen's articles so soon after the attacks produced allegations of insensitivity against the newspaper, which was said to be giving an unduly large audience to a position characterized as being extremist. Source, please. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sources: virtually every talk radio show in the city of Houston that week plus the flood of angry letters to the viewpoints section in the subsequent days, e.g. "The Chronicle should have used editorial license to delay printing Robert Jensen's Sept. 14 Outlook article, "U.S. just as guilty of committing own violent acts." Such extreme views should not be printed while the nation is in mourning. It is not decent to argue at a funeral." [3] The Chronicle got slammed up and down the board for running those silly Jensen articles. Don't play stupid and pretend it didn't happen. Rangerdude 01:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't make personal attacks. If you can't produce a source, please remove it or I'll do it myself. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I just gave you two sources, Katefan, including one on the Chronicle's very own website. If you're going to respond in your typical fashion of pretending that they aren't there in spite of what's been referenced[4] and supplant the obvious with shrill apologism for the Chronicle, don't act surprised when others express reasonable frustration with your antics. Rangerdude 04:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Controversy"[edit]

A recent editor added the word "controversy" with the comment:

revert stalker edit re: "controversy" - def. n. " A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." - not a POV term

Does this mean that every issue covered in an opinion piece that generates an opposing letter to the editor is a "controversy" and must be so labelled by us? And that calling something a controversy doesn't imply a certain view of the situation? Whew, this article is gonna get long! How about we just say what happened and let readers decide if it's a controversy or not? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily if the opposition is minor, but an opinion piece that generates several hundred opposing letters and some 4,000 opposing criticisms of the author certainly does...and Jensen did just that. Rangerdude 08:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation?[edit]

Back in June, the mediator said he needed another week but he hasn't said anything since then. Has this dispute been solved? I want to edit this article but also don't want to disrupt the mediation. Let me know. Savidan 02:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The mediation never started, and the disputes remain. Nevertheless, since mediation never started I suppose it's also not really in effect. I'd say go ahead and edit. I plan to revisit many of the issues I had with the article after the holidays, anyway. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 04:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Does being/having been formally associated with the subject one is writing an article on constitute a conflict of interest? Because I seem to remember something about one of the people involved in this POV debate doing his internship at the Houston Chronicle. But then again, I also seem to remember the closing of the Houston Post (about which my uncle who was a trucker in east Texas in the late 70's still says "The Chronicle had nothing on the Post,") as being reported something like this: The Chronicle flashed a message on the screens of the computers at the Post informing all the employees that the Chronicle had bought the Post and they were all fired. So just shoot me if my memory's just way off. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ @ 07:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
"Conflict of interest" is not an operative concept at Wikipedia. We edit articles about our towns, our alma maters, our religions, our political heroes (and villains), our favorite TV shows, etc. Editors are even allowed (though discouraged) from editing their own biographies. What matters is the content, not the contributor. -Will Beback 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree with ACupOfCoffee. I think it's a problem if somebody who worked at the Houston Chronicle is trying to add opinions that bias it toward his old employer. If he can edit it without making it biased that would be okay. If the editor who interned there is writing from a perspective in favor of his boss it is inappropriate though. - Antimetro

For the record, the ex-intern is me. I've never tried to "add biased opinions" to the article, so careful about what you toss around. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Nobody should insert biased material into the article. That includes former employees, former subscribers, residents of Houston, U.S. citizens, and any other class of Wikipedia editors that one would like to characterize. Let's focus on the content, not the contributors. -Will Beback 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as you don't add biased opinions to the article that's fine. I'm just saying that it looks like other people think that you have been biased towards the Houston Chronicle in the past. Since you worked there you may want to be especially careful in being unbiased so you don't get accused of supporting them again. - Antimetro

The only person that's accused me of bias is User:Rangerdude, who's been placed on probation by Wikipedia's arbitration committee in part due to his activities related to this article (you can see the case here. I appreciate the sentiment and of course I agree with it (nobody should insert biased statements), but just want to caution you to be careful not to tar an innocent with a dirty brush; it's easy to do when tossing out casual "I think I saw this somewhere" type statements. That's MY only point. I am always careful with my edits and have been dedicated to upholding all of Wikipedia's policies, especially those dictating articles must be written from a neutral point of view, for more than a year now. No hard feelings and look forward to seeing you around. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

But my point is I don't care who accused you of bias or how. I just don't want to see it. I think ACupOfCoffee raised a good point about it too. Now how do we go about fixing this artice? - Antimetro

Does anybody have anything else to say on why there are sections still disputed here? Or can the dispute be concluded? - Antimetro

I've outlined my reasons above, exhaustively. They all still stand. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
There are gazillions of lines of bickering above over the whole article. Instead of pointing to it and saying its everything it will help to start anew and take it line by line or section. - Antimetro
I can appreciate that, even _I_ don't want to go back through it. ;) I won't have much time this weekend to do anything significant on this article, but what I'll do on Monday is start running down the remaining portions I have issues with. How's that? Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sections with disputed headings[edit]

I'll start us off. The first paragraph with a disputed header is

On the political right, the paper's main critics are conservative talk radio stations including KSEV radio and an affiliated weblog entitled Chronically Biased. The paper's editorial page is often a target for satire and derision in Houston's political circles for what critics perceive as an overbearing habit of promoting light rail transit. Chronically Biased features a cartoon character named "Captain Chronicle" who espouses light rail transit as the solution to all of Houston's problems including those unrelated to traffic.
In May of 2005 the Harris County Republican Party joined a boycott of the newspaper, [11] which had previously been espoused by KSEV hosts. The Republican Party accused the paper of having a liberal political slant, of biased coverage of the light rail project, of supporting Planned Parenthood and of waging a "personal smear campaign" against Houston area congressman Tom DeLay.
The newspaper also has critics on the political left. The Houston Press, an alternative weekly paper that often takes a liberal perspective, used to run a a column entitled "News Hostage", which often critiqued the Chronicle. Now that paper only occaisionally picks on the "Chronicle" in its Hairballs column.

Is everything in this correct? I don't see much bias because it represents critics on the left and on the right. The sources links all seem to work fine too. Does anybody have any changes they want to make? - Antimetro

I forgot to mention I'm also okay with this paragraph the way it is and if nobody else oposes i'll ask for comments on the next one. - Antimetro

Okay, I made a fair few changes. I'm open to suggestions; see what you think. I tried to limit discrete edits to significant concepts or significant sections to make version comparison easier. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the changes. I'll disclose up front that I listen to KSEV and voted against light rail, but I'll try to be as unbiased as possible and perhaps we can be foils of each other since your connections are with the newspaper. I'm going to go through and add things that I think need to be included based on what was there already. For example I want to make sure the facts that were there and positions of all the groups are represented, though if they are biased now the language can be made more neutral. Thank you again. - Antimetro

Regarding blogs, "Chronically Biased" and "Lone Star Times" are separate blogs with different staffs. "CB" was not simply renamed to become "LST". LST is currently owned and operated by David Benzion [5]. -Will Beback 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
No - I remember when this happened about a year ago on the radio. They said they were ending Chronically Biased and moving to Lone Star Times - the new site. Right now on the CHronically Biased archives it even has a letter saying that Lone Star Times is the "follow on project" of Chronically Biased and its writers post there now. Thanks. - Antimetro
Actually, it says that LST is the follow on project of Dan Sullivan, not of Whited who actually started "CB". Further, the current LST is owned and operated by someone who had no involvement with "CB". In any case, are they really one of the leading critics of the Chronicle? If they're not then we needn't mention them. -Will Beback 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Katefan - I read through your changes and most of them look good. I did some minor changes such as moving things to parenthesis to make the sentences easier to read. I added back one criticism of the Houston Chronicle that was there in the article, but I changed the text around it to make it more neutral. I also cleaned up some of the repetitive sentences in the discription of the Texans for True Mobility thing to make it clearer where each party stood. I hope it helps! - Antimetro

The Chron is the worst big city newspaper in America. Nevertheless, this wiki entry is so poorly written, it's embarrassing even to me. I've been reading this newspaper for 33 years and I've been certified by the Media Literacy Institute of Texas. Simply put: the Chron has zero liberal bias. KSEV, KPRC, etc. are owned by ultra-conservatives (with loud-mouthed talk show hosts) who often invent a controversy where there is none to boost ratings. Just because it supports rail does not make it liberal, for example.69.150.94.131 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

picture[edit]

how about a newer pic? Savidan 04:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

criticism[edit]

The criticism section of this article is awful. It makes it appear as though the Chronicle is a left-leaning paper that receives criticism only from the right. However, the Chronicle endorsed Bush both in 2000 and 2004, and receives criticism from pretty much everybody who's ever read it. I won't link to examples because there are far too many, but it's by no means a movement from the right only. The section's NPOV is really out of whack. Mysticfeline 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, please DO link to examples. Be Bold. Try to pick the most notable ones you can find, source them, but don't put any undue weight on minor criticisms. If there is notable criticism from the left as you say, your additions could help improve the article. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need this whole massive section about criticism anyway? There's more stuffy blustering about light rail, other radio stations, and Bill O'Reilly than there is relevant information about the paper itself. I'm all for keeping an eye on the media, but this looks to me like pseudo-academic trolling, and this article isn't the proper forum for venting complaints one way or another about the paper's politics. Thornrag 17:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Perhaps we should move all of this to a "Criticisms of the Houston Chronicle" article, and retain a condensed summary in the main article. Postoak 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we delete this part of the article? It is nothing more than a diatribe about what someone doesn't like about the Chroncile, with little use for a page describing the newspaper. I feel it should be taken out as it has no objectivity or apparent authority to make such claims.
I do think that some of the criticism part is helpful for readers but I also agree it shouldn't be so lengthy. Maybe leave the first bit (re-worded) and then move the rest of the criticism to its own article. 80.103.176.138 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Chron is the worst big city newspaper in America. Nevertheless, this wiki entry is so poorly written, it's embarrassing even to me. I've been reading this newspaper for 33 years and I've been certified by the Media Literacy Institute of Texas. Simply put: the Chron has zero liberal bias. KSEV, KPRC, etc. are owned by ultra-conservatives (with loud-mouthed talk show hosts) who often invent a controversy where there is none to boost ratings. Just because it supports rail does not make it liberal, for example. 69.150.94.131 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

After reading thoroughly, I do not believe that anything in the criticism section is neutral. Everything is a ultra-conservative view of what a newspaper should write, what charities its staff should contribute to, etc. If every time that someone disagreed with what the Washington Post or NY Times wrote it was added to wikipedia, each of those entries would grow exponentially. Neither Bill O'Reily nor Dan Patrick are or have ever been journalists, their only motivation is ratings and personal profit. The Chron is still the worst big city newspaper in America, but these entries are hog-wash and obvious plants. Figmillenium (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm the third or forth person to chime in on how you can make just about any publication or channel seem either left or right with enough nit picking any complaining. This is classic conservative strategy. Then, when you go to the FoxNews article, there are a hoard of spin-doctors watch-listing that article so that no-one so much as even breaths a word about its obvious conservative bias. Even the Talk page has other people's comments removed for suggesting there could be a bias at FoxNews. I'm deleting the "Bias" section. End of story. The democratic body of editors here addressing this issue obviously agree. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Postoak Said, "Why do we need this whole massive section about criticism anyway? There's more stuffy blustering about light rail, other radio stations, and Bill O'Reilly than there is relevant information about the paper itself." I agree. this section is entirely distracting to the mission of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a he said, she said rag in a grocery-store checkout counter. I'll be willing to back up Postoak on a condensed version of this section to scale no longer than half the size it is now, if not even smaller. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

NEWSPAPER Circulation Down[edit]

The chronicle continues to drop numbers every year I think someone should make a secion about this I work for the chronicle and they are actually hiding it from the a lot of the people that work for the chronicle how bad it really is it cost a lot of money to put out those papers and no new ads and the thing is sold so cheap that its just not working —Preceding unsigned comment added by they are going to a internet paper so why was it deleted69.151.106.53 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • It's the same at every newspaper. If we have current circulation figures we can add them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, if there is an article about how Chron circulation is down, we will add this point. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Chronicle IS super left sided and continues to censor any opposing views. If any person comments on their blogs that their reporters or columnists disagree with they block them from commenting. A VERY good example is their pro-illegal immigrant stance in their Immigration Chronicles section. Mizanur Rahman requires he view ALL comments and picks the ones he will allow to keep any debate favorable to his personal choice of pro-illegal immigrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.7.172 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Saying point blank in an article that the Houston Chronicle opposes X views would be POV. It would not be POV to say that X politician or X figure says that the Chron is one sided. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt link[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles in Spanish[edit]

These are in Spanish, but I don't know where they would go...

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Chronicle and diversity[edit]

A Houston Press article on a Chronicle 1990s diversity initiative:

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism again[edit]

I've significantly trimmed down the section. O'Reilly's disputes with the paper aren't really all that notable, and the section on liberal bias had a lot of unsourced claims. I think the section on the light rail controversy is still too long, though I'm not sure how to achieve a balance between information and undue weight. If it's really that significant, it might deserve its own article, or a more detailed summary in METRORail. wctaiwan (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

XML with URLs of articles[edit]

Here is an XML document I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: Houston Chronicle articles 1985 onwards are available from the HPL website[edit]

If you have a Houston Public Library card you can get online copies of Chronicle articles beginning in 1985. You can access them here: http://www.houstonlibrary.org/newspapers (see "Houston Chronicle" and click the link) - Just provide a library card number and you can access them.

This does not include Houston Post articles or Chronicle articles from before 1985. For those, you have to go get microfilms at the Houston Public Library Main Library, the University of Houston Main library, or possibly other places. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


NOTE[edit]

Please note that the final 3 Ip edits were made by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferTheEmpress0 (talkcontribs) 20:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Houston Chronicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Houston Chronicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)