Talk:Boston Herald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?