Talk:Houston Chronicle/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 General
2 NPOV tag
3 Restored text sanitized from Chronicle archives
4 Light rail section
- 4.1 Response
5 Ombudsman
6 Editorial practices
7 2nd POV tag
8 People
9 Texas Media Watch has itself been criticized as partisan

General

The bulk of this page is dedicated to questioning the Houston Chronicle's neutrality and has an extremely pro-conservative bent. If you interested in the history of the paper, please go to Houston Chronicle's Inside Story. Keep in mind that you are being directed to the Chronicle's website and it could be also biased. However it does provide more background that the two sentences offered here.

If you wish to include the paper's history, why not add something yourself rather than throwing up a neutrality tag? Also, would you mind detailing the "extremely pro-conservative bent" you refer to by citing specific wordings that you believe are in conflict with NPOV? Simply including material about the paper's controversy and scandals is not POV when it is sourced, and right now this article is sourced extensively.Rangerdude 17:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

While there are many sources, there was a substantial amount of unsourced POV commentary that I've removed. Here is an example of an unsourced, POV statement: " and an equally obsessive practice of attacking Congressman Tom DeLay over nearly weekly political differences, some of them said to be quite petty". Please find sources for any such assertions. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Could we get links to specific articles in the Houston Press? I searched on "Houston Chronicle" and in the first 20 didn't seem to be about the newspaper. For that reason the link to the home page doesn't seem very useful. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

There are already specific HP articles linked as sources within the article, plus the paper is mentioned by name. That alone is more than sufficient to mention them. Also, I did a search for simply "chronicle" on their page and found the Houston Chronicle mentioned by name in the 5 most recent articles that came up & didn't see a need to search any further. There were over 1000 hits total for it. Rangerdude 03:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The articles I saw didn't especially seem to be relevant, but since it's mentioned in the body I suppose it's relevant over all. Still need sources for your "some critics say" type entries. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The words "some critics say" don't appear anywhere in the present article that you just deleted and reverted without justification. At most there are 2-3 general references in the opening paragraphs that are all sourced with specifics in later paragraphs (e.g. conservatives boycotted the paper and accused it of bias - sourced in paragraphs below it, paper has been satirized and criticized over light rail transit - also sourced below). You also deleted the entire section on the Planned Parenthood contributions despite a source existing. Rangerdude 06:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Chronically Biased source, I 've moved it up to be with other criticisms from that source. We need a source for this assertion:

The newspaper also has critics on the political left. The Houston Press, an alternative weekly paper that often takes a liberal perspective, frequently derides the Chronicle for alleged journalistic sloppyness and laziness in a column entitled "News Hostage."

How often is frequently? In any case, we'd need at least several articles of the type you've described to justify that. We also need sources for this:

Recently, questions have been raised as to the accuracy and political leanings of the paper, which frequently professes to be "neither liberal nor conservative" in a statement by company official James Howard Gibbons that appears annually on its editorial page. Despite this claim, conservatives in the Houston area have accused the paper of media bias and targetted it for a boycott.

Thanks, -Willmcw 07:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

A search for News Hostage in the Houston Press page pulls up 279 hits and Houston Chronicle pulls up 979 hits, which is more than enough to justify the use of the word "frequently" in this case. Of course I told you about that previously, and you could have easily determined it for yourself by the same methods rather than deconstructing the article. As to your second example, as noted previously it is sourced in full in the subsequent paragraphs. There are at least two different source links to the boycott of the paper - one to the Republican Party and the other to a story about the radio station. The James Howard Gibbons article is also linked to, and the entire "criticisms" section of the paper is chalk full of links, quotes, and examples of people accusing the paper of media bias.Rangerdude 07:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The "frequently" refers to how often the Houston Press "derides the Chronicle for alleged journalistic sloppyness and laziness". Yes, they have an column devoted to covering the Chronicle. Now are you going to give us original research showing how frequently they deride the Chronicle for being sloppy and lazy? Unitl you provide whatever source you have for that, all we can say is that the column runs frequently and critiques the paper. The source you give for the Republican Party is a resolution by the Candidate's Committee, with no indication of whether the main executive committee adopted it. So I've sharpened the attribution and added some more details from the resolution. Thanks for your contributions, -Willmcw 08:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The point about the "News Hostage" column is to indicate in some form or another that it covers the Chronicle unfavorably. If you have a better way of phrasing that than stating that it alleges journalistic sloppyness and laziness, by all means share it. Also, you are incorrect about the resolution from the Republican Party. The opening indicates that it was proposed by a Candidate's Committee but the resolution's text itself plainly states that it's from the party as a whole, viz. "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Harris County Republican Party calls upon its membership to exercise its First Amendment freedom to voice its disapproval with media bias by abstaining from subscription, purchase, or reading of the Houston Chronicle as long as that newspaper's known, documented, and demonstrable slant towards the political left and its open hostility toward the Republican Party and its officers persists." It also states in plain sight at the bottom of the page that the boycott was indeed "Adopted by the Harris County Republican Party Executive Committee on May 9, 2005." As usual, you are being obtuse and deconstructive by pursuing this angle. Rangerdude 01:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

As it stands, this article is unbalanced. A page of criticism and three sentences about the paper itself is not adequate. From WP:NPOV: The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

As usual, you are free to add other sections if you like. If you think a history of the paper is proper, or perhaps something about its reporters or its circulation or its style, then by all means add it. To date however, your efforts seem to have been directed almost entirely to deconstructing existing content and inserting extraneous POV material about Tom DeLay. IOW, don't complain about the lack of materials you desire when you are unwilling to add them yourself. Rangerdude 01:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

- It is not enough to add information that unbalances an article and then wash your hands of it by saying "you can add other things if you wish." The NPOV section I quoted above makes it clear that all editors are to strive for balance. As for the history, I'll probably work on that once the other disputes are resolved. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since edits here are made on a voluntary basis, it is more than enough. Once again, you are free to add other material if you wish. My point is don't complain if you are unwilling to do the work. Rangerdude 19:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. We are not here to be partisans, relying on tit-for-tat editing to achieve balance. Each of us has an obligation as Wikipedians to strive for balance in each article. Johntex 20:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Edits are still strictly voluntary. While balance is desirable (and again I'm fully supportive of adding a counterbalancing history of the paper etc. at the top), time and interest is also prohibitive. You contribute what you can when you can, and seeing as others all have the freedom to contribute as well, there's no basis in complaining about the absence of something unless you are willing to add it yourself. I see you've added some things and I thank you for that & hope Katefan will follow your lead. Rangerdude 20:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that everyone should contribute "what [they] can when [they] can". However, they have a responsibility to do so in the proper way. What they contribute must strive for balance. It would not be within Wikipedia policy for me to create an article highly critical of Random Topic with the expectation that someone else will come along and add purely positive things until the criticism and the praise balances out. It is up to each of us to strive for NPOV within our own edits. If I add criticism, I should endeavor to balance it with the other side of the issue. If you have time to add one side of a controversy, you have to make time to add the other side of the controversy in order to stay within Wikipedia's NPOV mandate. Johntex 20:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Restored text sanitized from Chronicle archives

From LexisNexis [1]

Light rail section

Personally, I think this section is too large. The controversy has blown over and this dedicates way too much detail to the whole thing, even after having trimmed some of it. But I'm anticipating Rangerdude's resistance to any such suggestion, so instead I've just removed the worst of the POV, adding some sourcing and rebuttals and correcting the information at the bottom about the Chronicle's "criminal lawsuit." It was a complaint with the DA's office, not a lawsuit, and certainly not a criminal suit. A Houston lawyer has filed a criminal suit over the issue, but not the Chronicle. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

First off, you are right that I disagree. The section as it stands is 5 paragraphs plus a few brief quotes - hardly an excess by any reasonable measure. Further, since this encyclopedia is historical in nature, retaining the section after the controversy has "blown over" is perfectly proper. You wouldn't propose trimming down, say, the Terri Schiavo article on the basis that it has also "blown over," would you? Second, from all that I've seen you added far more POV than you removed including extraneous detours about Tom DeLay and unsourced claims that the memo was intended for the editorial board. I've also added more source links throughout the section since you requested them. Third, I have absolutely no idea where you got this "criminal lawsuit" stuff from as that term did not appear anywhere in the article as it existed here [2] prior to your arrival. What it did say was this: "the Houston Chronicle's lawyers filed a criminal complaint with the Harris County, Texas District Attorney accusing Texans for True Mobility, the main organization opposing the bond, of fundraising improprieties. The Chronicle's complaint was later dismissed and found without merit." Rangerdude 01:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me adamently associate myself with the position of maintaining the historical record. The tried and true method employed in the journalistic profession of poo-pooing factual material because it has "blown over" has a long record of abuse in that trade. A cursory look at the Houston Chronicles' credibility yesterday in less than 15 minutes found questionable articles expunged from its archives. Nobs 15:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting find & thanks for the concurrence. Consciously or not, Katefan0 is attempting to insert a very strong pro-Chronicle POV throughout this article including diminishing the references to memo scandal and rewording the section about the criminal investigation of TTM to downplay the Chronicle's activity in that investigation and to obscure its nature in a way that closely resembles the Chronicle's own spin on the outcome rather than the outcome itself (Rosenthal dismissed the complaint because the Chronicle was trying to apply a PAC disclosure statute to a 501c6 organization that doesn't even fall under the PAC statutes to begin with, but Katefan removed this material and instead inserted semantical devices that made it look as if TTM had violated the PAC statute). Needless to say, it's very clear that this memo's accidental disclosure was a source of major embarassment for the Houston Chronicle & one of its advocates seems to be trying to clean up after that embarrassment. While it is fine to reword certain parts of the scandal's presentation to make them NPOV or to add additional material, most of her edits have gone well beyond that and seem to be geared toward removing pertinent material about the incident, obscuring it through carefully spun language, and buring it in extraneous material that reflects unfavorably on Tom DeLay. I have encountered this same editor before and she has described me repeatedly as a "POV warrior" among other things and presented herself as if she's some great defender of neutrality simply making edits in the interest of "balance," but based on this encounter it is clear to me that the strongest POV advocate on this article is her and the POV she's espousing is one that is excessively favorable to the Houston Chronicle in presenting one of its less distinguished facets. Rangerdude 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond to these two things briefly then get into the meat of my changes. Second, from all that I've seen you added far more POV than you removed including extraneous detours about Tom DeLay and unsourced claims that the memo was intended for the editorial board. You yourself keep re-adding unsourced claims about the memo's authorship. I know people who work on the Chronicle's news staff, and the news staff never received that memo. It is clearly intended for the Editorial Board, from the text and thrust of the memo. Those two things together are enough for me, but may not be for you. I removed the information about the audience for the memo, as well as your own unsourced speculation about who wrote it. Second, it is improper to characterize the complaint as a "criminal complaint." It was a complaint. It did not seek criminal damages per se. It just so happens that the investigation the complaint was asking for was into a violation that carries a criminal charge. It is not as if the Chronicle decided whether they would seek civil or criminal damages for a violation of that statute. I have properly characterized the complaint as well as the Texas election code.

I have:

Cleared up the complaint/criminal allegations and texas statute and added criticism of Rosenthal, since you mentioned him.

Removed redundant information about the Chronicle not responding to the situation; it was already mentioned that its only official response was its statement.

Removed your characterization of Cohen's remarks as "unapologetic" when he clearly states he does not apologize twice.

Removed the "headline" for the correction which adds length without value.

Re-added "student" to the descriptor of the Houston Review, which is accurate. :Removed "launched ... into a furor" which is irrelevant and POV; specific examples are cited which are enough.

Restored context about the light rail controversy itself. It's only fair to DeLay, Lanier etc. to list their positions if you want to get into the specific charges the memo makes. The information is all properly sourced.

Removed unsourced speculation about authorship of the memo.

Removed wordy "proposing a" and "political commentary." Editorial commentary encompasses political commentary making that phrase redundant. Removed "seemingly to promote" which is an unattributed POV speculation. Either attribute it to a critic or leave it deleted. Re-added the result of the ballot, which is imminently verifiable and relevant to the text.

Removed "became embroiled in a reporting scandal" because it is a) wordy and b) unnecessary. Begin with the point. Also, it was not a "reporting" scandal. No reporter made inaccurate claims in a story or otherwise was involved in the situation.

I can only assume, based on your past actions, that you'll revert most or all of what I've added, despite its being relevant and sourced. Once that happens, we should probably list this for RfC since we are no closer to coming to a consensus and edit warring is counterproductive. Thanks! · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

While I think some of the information here should be included, this section is clearly much longer than is warranted. Perhaps the quotation and the two paragraphs surrounding it shoudl be kept. --Grouse 15:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

- I agree that it's entirely too long. The problem is that Rangerdude has resisted suggestions about trimming the section. So instead, what that has left me with is trying to make the information included as NPOV and balanced as possible, which has ballooned it in size. This unresolved section is one of the major sticking points between Rangerdude and myself. What I'll do is post another section down below showing specifically our two versions. Then maybe we can all work toward a consensus. I'll call the section "Light rail versions" or something. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Response

Several things, Katefan0: 1. Your personal knowledge of the Chronicle's staff etc. is not an acceptable source for wikipedia per original research standards. That it was intended for the editorial board is thus speculation & this article should not take a stance to that effect unless the Chronicle itself, or some source affiliated with them, indicates as much.

2. Characterizing the complaint as a "criminal complaint" is accurate per Chapter 273 of the Texas Election Code, which is clearly entitled "INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT" and repeatedly uses the word "criminal" to describe investigations made by District Attorneys into allegations of election statute violations. Furthermore, the Chronicle itself in its own coverage of its criminal complaint used the word "criminal" to describe the investigation, to wit its qualifier of TTM as "a group under criminal investigation for failing to disclose its contributors." Describing the complaint as criminal is thus both accurate and proper in this circumstance & by repeatedly removing it I can only conclude that you are attempting to insert a POV of your own that diminishes and obscures the exact nature of the Chronicle's activities.

3. You complained earlier that this section of the article was too long, yet rather than work to make it more concise you insist upon loading it up with lengthy commentaries about Tom DeLay that are at best tangential to the article itself and more properly blong on Tom DeLay's own page and inserting lengthy POV spin toward the chronicle's position about how TTM supposedly violated the law even though the investigation was dismissed and the previous version I included was both neutral and concise to that end.

4. To characterize Cohen's remark as "unapologetic" is accurate and correct as Cohen himself stated that he refused to apologize no less than three times: "I make no apologies for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have nothing to apologize for…There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but I make no apologies for the contents of it." If that is not accurately described as unapologetic, I don't know what could be.

5. Regarding DeLay and Lanier, it is perfectly fair to list their positions and the original sentence, "DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past," does just that. You are attempting to take it well beyond that though and instead launch into a lengthy diatribe about Tom DeLay's supposed motives for opposing rail, which are replete with POV speculation about anonymous "proponents of light rail" who say he's beholden to highway contracters. At best this belongs in the DeLay article itself, and then only if you can write it in NPOV and with more specifics than your own link to the opensecrets.org database.

6. Editorials and political commentaries are two different things, katefan. An editorial is the formal position of the paper's editorial page and is normally authored anonymously or printed on behalf of the editorial board. A political commentary has a specific columnist or guest author and appears somewhere in the opinion section, normally opposite of the staff editorials (as in Op/Ed). Didn't they teach you that in journalism school? Seeing as both were components, mentioning editorials and political commentaries (or opinion columns if you wish) separately is more accurate.

7. To state that the memo's purpose was "seemingly to promote" the referendum is both accurate and NPOV. That it was intended to promote the referendum is the characterization it was given by the HP, the HR, the HFT, KSEV, and virtually all the blogs that commented on it. The modifier "seemingly" neutralizes the article from taking this stance though, since that was only the perception. To remove any indication that the memo was apparently intended to promote the referendum or at least interpreted that way, however, is, in effect, watering down the article with a POV favorable to the Chronicle itself.

And yes, katefan, I did revert many of your changes for the aforementioned reasons though you will note that I did retain some other changes you made that contributed to the section's quality. You may or may not realize it, but a vast quantity of your edits to this section are written with a POV that slants very favorably toward the Houston Chronicle's position. Examples abound:

Removing material about TTM's 501c6 status to distinguish it from a PAC, which is what the Texas law explicitly applies to and the reason why the DA threw out the Chronicle's criminal complaint.
Removing references to the complaint as "criminal" even though the statutes, investigation documents, and even the Chronicle's own reporting of the case before it was rejected use that word extensively
Removing references to Cohen's response as unapologetic, even though Cohen himself clearly says to the effect of "I make no apology" no less than three times.
Inserting extraneous materials about Tom DeLay's financial backing despite repeated requests for you to justify this addition on the talk page on account of its propriety in this article being questioned.

As an additional aside, please source your additions with a footnote link to the article itself, as is the style used consistently throughout this entry, rather than placing hidden text citations. This allows the reader to follow those links and decide for him or herself. Also, please do not remove the existing footnotes.Rangerdude 17:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Language from the memo seems pretty plain: "this specific objective". Nobs

Exactly. NPOV dictates that we portray the memorandum exactly as it is and by what it plainly says - not downplay, spin, or obscure it through semantical games. The memorandum also says of the referendum's success that "There isn't a more critical issue on the horizon." It is also extremely slanted in its portrayal of DeLay and Lanier, calling repeatedly for what are essentially smear pieces against the two. "Telling the story of rail here by examining the long term relationship of the two key players in the local transit wars -- Rep. Tom DeLay and former Mayor Bob Lanier. For better or worse, (mostly worse, I would argue) no two have had a more significant impact on transit decisions here." To pretend, after reading language like that, that the memo was not advocating a very strong slant in favor of rail and against DeLay and Lanier is deceptive. It's also deceptive to pretend that the memo was not intended to influence the election as it openly says just that: "This would be vital information for voters as they come to their decision on rail." To portray it as anything less than a piece espousing the influence of an election through a slanted reporting and editorial tag team is factually erroneous and dishonest. Rangerdude 18:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, at this point it looks like we maybe aren't all that far apart, which is encouraging. Just a few remaining issues though they are important ones. I have so far tried to refrain from fingerpointing and I will ask you to do the same (my mom taught me that, not journalism school). At the end of the day we're all here, hopefully, to make Wikipedia better.

I still object to "political commentaries" because it's a meaningless phrase, particularly if what you were intending was for it to mean op-eds. Many op-eds have nothing to do with politics so this isn't a readily recognizable association for readers. Personally I feel that "editorial commentary" encompasses opeds, in that editorial = opinion as a general matter. But since you insist, I wouldn't object to replacing "political commentary" with "op-eds" for the sake of clarity.

I would like to see the information I detailed on the complaint and Texas statute restored. Your version may be more concise, but mine includes better information and in general is a better explainer of the situation, which is complicated. If you want to add a rebuttal by the folks from TTM, I wouldn't object to that, although the ultimate rebuttal was Rosenthal obviously, who dismissed the complaint.

I will resist any attempts to use "criminal" as an adjective for the complaint. That's not to say that we shouldn't explain that the violation carried a criminal charge -- we should, and I did.

I will continue to insist on the information on Delay and Lanier IF you continue to insist on including specific portions of the memo that assign blame to them. It is only fair to them to delineate their positions if you wish to include specific charges from the memo. If you object to their positions being delineated as too wordy, delete the entire thing, including the memo specifics. If someone's curious enough about the specific text of the memo, they can click on the link.

I think you maybe misunderstand my objection to characterizing Cohen's remarks. We do not as editors need to characterize them as anything, because they speak for themselves. The characterization is wordy and redundant. I will continue to insist that it be removed in the interest of good writing.

To state that the memo's purpose was "seemingly to promote" light rail is POV unless you can source the claim to a critic. Otherwise the memo should stand on its own without our editors' interpretations. If the memo's purpose is so obvious, it should be able to stand on its own without our added commentary.

The Houston Review and Houston Press information I didn't remove, though, I just moved it up earlier in the section, where it starts talking about what sources were critical. I'm going to fix that again because right now it's referenced twice, and the oped portion I referenced above, but otherwise will leave the rest of the text alone for now in anticipation of an RfC since we can't agree. Also, once the editing settles down, I'll gladly place the sources as references at the bottom, but thought it best to include them in the specific places where they are relevant while the article is in dispute. Thanks for your help. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

A couple things:

Op-eds is fine by me. My intent is to distinguish between them and the staff editorials.
Re. DeLay and Lanier, I have no problem stating that both have actively campaigned against rail. But what you are proposing goes well beyond that and delves into an analysis of DeLay's campaign contributors, which is at best tangential to the article. Seeing as the whole second half of the memo was about DeLay and Lanier, stating simply that "the memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion" is directly pertinent to the article. Following that with an equally brief yet accurate statement such as "DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past" is also pertinent. But a multi-sentence attack on DeLay over his fundraising is not.
Opposing the use of "criminal" to describe the complaint is inherently counterfactual because that's what the statute says it is. You and I do not have the authority or power to change the statute, so we should stick to it.
Please propose a better wording of your description of the statute for consideration here. As to the better wording, I contend that mine is superior as it clearly identifies the specific statute chapter and clearly identifies the category that TTM was organized under. Yours obscures these details in favor of a blanket claim based on secondary sources (one of them the Chronicle itself) that inadequatly characterize Texas law. Your description strongly resembled the Chronicle's own POV in the case. The statute used by the Chronicle specifically applies to political action committees and political candidates engaged in direct election advocacy. TTM was not a PAC or candidate, but rather a 501c6 non-profit engaged in informational activities on an election item. Whether you think this is right or not, or if it's a loophole that needs to be closed has no bearing on the case. The statute as it was written simply did not apply to what the Chronicle sought. That is why Rosenthal dismissed the criminal complaint against TTM. Stating that Texas law requires all committees to disclose their finances is a mischaracterization of Texas law, because Texas law does not do that. It only requires PACs and candidates directly advocating a vote. Stating that TTM "refused" to disclose their finances is also a mischaracterization of Texas law because Texas law does not oblige 501c6's to disclose their finances in the first place, only PAC spending.
I disagree that "unapologetic" is wordy on account of it adding just one single word to a relatively simple sentence. As to being redundant, it's a minor one at best and perfectly tolerable since it is accurate and does not substantially lengthen the article. Characterizing a person's remarks when they undeniably meet the characterization given is no vice.
To state that the memo was "seemingly to promote" is accurate because, as User:Nobs pointed out, the memo itself said it was doing just that as its "specific objective." As I also pointed out previously, the memo repeatedly said that the stories it proposed were to be used to inform voters in a manner that favorably portrays light rail or unfavorably portrays its opponents. Given what the memo itself says, the description "seemingly to promote" is actually putting it mildly. Rangerdude 20:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman

What is the significance of mentioning that the Chronicle has no Ombudsman? This statement seems very out of place in the introductory paragraph. The introductory paragraph is meant to provide a general overview of the topic covered. Unless justification is provided for why this fact is one of the most important things we can say about this topic, then it does not belong in the introduction. Johntex 20:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it belongs in the intro paragraph, but it should be mentioned somewhere. The lack of an ombudsman is uncharacteristic of large newspapers these days. It should be noted however that the Chronicle has a reader feedback representative, James Campbell, though allegations of his unresponsiveness have been heavily criticized by the talk radio crowd etc.Rangerdude 20:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ombusmanship: It is curious that a paper whos stated editorial policy is "based upon principles and pragmatism that transcend, or, less grandly, avoid partisan ideology" and is the 7th largest circulating paper in America with 300 employees doesn't have Ombudsman. Nobs 21:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are the salaries of editors [3] who work for the Hearst Corporation (and complain about the rich getting richer). Note Interns (how many of the 2000 employees are Interns?) make $5.15 hour as "independent contrators", i.e. no taxes taken out. This may require further investigation if they can infact be determined to be statutory employees under the Internal Revenue Code. I am having trouble locating either a financial audit of Houston Chronicle or the consolidated financial statment of Hearst Newspapers, a publicly held corporation. Perhaps someone can assist. Thank you. Nobs 20:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

- I'm not sure where they got that intern information, but as a former Chronicle intern I can tell you I was much better paid than that just a couple years ago; more than double that figure in fact though I would think it varies by paper (Hearst has many of varying sizes and the Chronicle is its flagship). We had taxes properly removed from our paychecks, however we were considered contract workers, i.e. no insurance benefits (doubt many interns get insurance benefits). Beyond this, this information can hardly be trusted definitively — the site itself says They were submitted voluntarily and anonymously and are presented for informational purposes only. We have no way of verifying any of the information. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the site in no way discredits the information. As the disclaimer states, the information was submitted voluntarily and anonymously, which in fact can add to its credibility. Question for Katefan: Why am I having a hard time finding a finacial audit for the Houston Chronicle or Hearst Newspapers? seems they have no hard time reporting on other publicly held companies financial reporting. Thank you. Nobs 21:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. As to the rest, I'm sure I have no idea why you're having a hard time finding it. But good luck. I've never looked for it myself so I have no pointers for you. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is somewhat curious, because according to the parent Hearst Corporation website Hearst Newspapers and Hearst-Argyle are separate divisions. I have no trouble finding the complete financial statements for Hearst-Argyle [4] [5], yet nothing for Hearst Newspapers (Hearst Publishing) or an audit for Houston Chronicles. Perhaps the Chronicle investigative reporters should get on it. Nobs 21:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem in using that source so long as the disclaimer is also noted in the sentence that quotes from it. Once again, katefan, your personal experience with the Houston Chronicle is not a permitted source for drafting articles. Rangerdude 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand -- but my personal experience aside, the website does not hold up on its own as a reliable source of information, which it readily admits. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I just read the full text of the website we cite concerning the Ombudsman. Contrary to the statement that "The lack of an ombudsman is uncharacteristic of large newspapers these days", the reference actually says "Of this country's 1,600 or so daily newspapers, only about 35 have an ombudsman, reader representative, reader advocate or public editor on staff to address the complaints, concerns, ideas and questions that readers have right and reason to raise." The same article lists the following papers that do not have an Ombudsman:

USA Today
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Atlanta Constitution
Christian Science Monitor
Houston Chronicle
Dallas Morning News
Miami Herald
Seattle Times
Washington Times

This, the Chronicle is in the company of many other large, mainstream papers. This means that the fact they do not have an Ombudsman is not-notable. Accordingly, I'm deleting the reference to whether or not they have an Ombusdman. Johntex 22:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Editorial practices

Citing Chronicle contents without comment is not criticism. Nobs 21:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The contributor's use of the word "However" is clearly intended to make a contrast between the statement of editorial policy and the selected examples of editorial statements. That is criticism. Johntex 21:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that saying the editorial board is nonpartisan doesn't mean they aren't allowed to criticize Republicans (or Democrats). That's what opinion pages do. They take positions on issues and people. By your selections you are seeking to make it appear that they somehow criticize conservatives more -- is that what you're suggesting? Do you have a source that says this somewhere? Otherwise, these selected contributions amount to original research. It makes a certain amount of sense that when the party in control of the House, Senate and White House are all Republicans, more Republicans during that time period would end up being criticized since they have the reins of power. Also, Cragg Hines is not part of the Editorial Board. He is an editorial columnist, so to include a remark from him in this section is incorrect and also slightly disingenuous. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the word "However" when you took out of the Intro to eliminate the contrast. Also, I am certain this section will grow and I hope it simply reflects the Chronicle's editorial content. Criticism will come elsewhere. In response to Katefan: I am not suggesting anything. Ask James Howard Gibson what he is suggesting in his use of "charlatans" when referring to the people's democratically elected majority. Cragg Hines indeed is not a member of the Editorial board, but wears the title "Editor". This itself is an editorial practice. The newspaper has not seen the need thus far for an Ombudsman to give an independent critique of the product it puts out on the street, again, this has nothing to do me. Nobs 22:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The question, as I see it, is not whether the editorial board is free to criticize republicans/democrats/whoever but rather whether the paper's editorial pages truly abide by Gibbons' frequently claimed policy of even handedness and moderation. The Chronicle has been criticized, for example, for its tendency to attack Tom DeLay on a regular basis while no similar pattern may be observed in their treatment of any of the Democrat congressmen from Houston - a situation that seems to contradict Gibbons' claimed policy. Rangerdude 22:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Properly sourced criticism is fine, but as it stands now it's just cherry picking in what amounts to original research. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is relevant whether the paper lives up to its stated editorial policy or not. However, it is not possible to prove this with a few selected quotes taken from thousands of statements that appear in the editorial pages each year. Katefan also has a good point that prominent people, whatever party they are from, are going to receive more attention that less prominent people. Delay is currently one of the most prominent politicians in America. He is under attack from the opposition party, so there is much to report about him at the moment. The fact that he is from Angleton makes it even more logical that the Chronicle would devote a lot of coverage to him. This is not good evidence that the Chronicle is violating their stated policy. Johntex 22:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't beleive the claim was ever made that the Chronicle violated its own Editorial policy as articulated by its new Opinion page editor. I don't know if he formulated the policy himself which he signs his name to, or if it was inherited. I do know the same writer in question called the democratically elected majority holding office in our cherished institutions "charletons" about four months before he was elevated to the job as Opinion page editor. I don't know if there is any relation between his written views and his qualifications as seen by management to be Opinion page editor. I do know the Wiki article will express a NPOV by allowing readers to read both his statements. Nobs 00:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this line:

Editorial writer Cragg Hines has famusly likened the U. S. House Majority Leader to a rotting fish [3], and referred to the Attorney General of the United States as a "Neanderthal"

Is Hines an "Editorial writer" or a "columnist"? (the Chronicle calls him a "columnist". [6]) Why are we saying that he "famously" likened Delay to a fish? Just how famous is this headline? And why does it matter if he called the AG a name? Politicians get called names by columnists every day of the week. -Willmcw 22:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Chronicle calls Hines work "Editorials" [7]Nobs 00:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Response to Katefan: (1) it is sourced as the same author whose name appears as opinion page editor (2) it is not "cherry picked", it is a direct relevent quote appearing on the Chronicles editorial page by same author 8 months prior to the authors elevation to as Opinion page editor, when presumably same stated policy was in effect. (3) The entire column is accessible. (4) The entire corpus of Gibbons work is accessible. (5) The quote represents this authors, and that of management who selected him to advance as opinion page editor, sentiments towards the result of a democratic process. (6) The paper itslef evidently see no contradictions in its work product and feels no need for an ombudsman. My personal sentiment regarding your censorship of the papers own words confuses me, perhaps you can explain why you feel this quote is embarassing to the Chronicle. Nobs 15:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The quote you keep adding is placed carefully to function as commentary against the editorial position of the paper. If you have a source that criticizies this editorial position, cite it. Otherwise, your choosing a quote to refute that editorial position is original research and is not proper for inclusion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

2nd POV tag

Katefan - would you please explain the status of your NPOV dispute now that you've added a 2nd POV tag to the article? Your original complaint was that the article was unbalanced by a large criticism section and a small top section. Now the top section has been developed thus seemingly negating your original basis for the tag, yet you've added a new section POV tag to the criticism segment. What do you contend is POV and what do you still wish to resolve regarding either or both of these tags? Rangerdude 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

All my unresolved problems I delineated above. And my original objection about it being unbalanced is still not resolved. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

- Simply saying "see above" on a page where you've made several dozen comments that cover an even wider scope of topics is insufficient. If you are going to add, change, or modify tags and the reasons for retaining them, you need to specify your reasons for doing so. Also, if your original objection is "still not resolved" exactly how much new material will it take to resolve it? Since making your complaint the opening paragraph has been expanded, a history section (which now includes the longest paragraph in the article) has been completed, and a section on the paper's editors and major writers has been added. If this is not sufficient, what more do you desire? And if it is sufficient, let's remove the first tag then look at the second, which you have yet to explain or justify. Rangerdude 22:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Just for the sake of being thorough, here is a direct copy of my outstanding complaints, for which I requested an RfC:

I will resist any attempts to use "criminal" as an adjective for the complaint. That's not to say that we shouldn't explain that the violation carried a criminal charge -- we should, and I did.

The article as a whole is still unbalanced. I will consider it balanced when enough other information has been added, and the "controversy" section is resolved. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Responses to the above:

As noted previously, there are many problems with your information about the Texas statute. I noted them in detail previously & you have yet to respond to those problems or propose an alternative.
Once again, "criminal" is the word used throughout the governing statute itself and that is what we should go by.
The DeLay material you wish to include far exceeds the quoted section of the memo on DeLay, and is largely extraneous to this article.
One single word that accurately characterizes a quote cannot in any reasonable way be considered excessive, nor is its characterization problematic given that Cohen is explicitly unapologetic.
The memo itself is explicit that its purpose is to promote the referendum and inform voters in a way that favors rail. Saying "seemingly to promote" is not only accurate, but very reasonably considered an understatement.

As a final note, you have yet to state how much "other information" is "enough" despite my explicit request that you do so. Please clarify your positions and respond to the points raised about your requests. Otherwise retaining both of your POV tags is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Rangerdude 22:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

- I have seen your responses here and also above. I remain unconvinced, so we will have to agree to disagree for now. That was the purpose of the RfC. We'll have to give people enough time to come weigh in themselves and see if they can help resolve the stalemate. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

- - Convinced or not, some of your disputes are not even valid material complaints. Take the word "criminal" for example, which you object to - it's what the statute itself uses for crying out loud. If you won't accept even the wording that the statute uses I don't see how you will ever be satisfied on this point and must conclude that your own personal biases are the sole source of the impasse over it. Take another example on how to portray the Texas statute - I detailed my objections to your wording (which included basic factual errors in your portrayal) and asked you to provide a revision and response that would be more agreeable, yet you refuse to do even that. Once again the impasse is all on your end. And now we reach the question of how much additional material is "enough" to balance the article out - a question which you won't even answer despite being asked 3 times now. Once again the impasse is all your own. Rangerdude 23:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    - As I said, for now we will have to agree to disagree. We both have strong opinions on these items and so far we've been unable to see eye to eye on them, which is why I requested an RfC. Let's see what other eyes have to say. Sometimes new blood can help both sides see the way to a consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

- - - - So you're agreeing to disagree even on matters that are factually verifiable and documented? It's a simple fact that the statute calls what the Chronicle sought a "criminal" matter, yet you want to "agree to disagree" about this? It's simple fact that the Texas statute applied to PACs, which the TTM entity was not, yet you want to "agree to disagree" about this? That's like saying "I still think the earth is flat so let's agree to disagree about it." When the facts are cut and dried as they are in these two cases, there's nothing left to disagree about. Either we portray them factually or we don't, and they way you've proposed portraying them is counterfactual. As to other editors, plenty are participating right now yet you're the one adding new POV tags and the main impasse is still with you. Rangerdude 23:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

People

Information about a contractor dispute does not really belong in a section designed to talk about the people who work for the paper. Besides which, it is a big company. Companies get sued all the time. I doubt this dispute even rises to the level of encyclopedic content. For now, I'm moving it down to the dispute section. Johntex 22:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

- That's the problem as a whole with some of the criticism information herein. It doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If we listed every suit, complaint, whine or gripe against General Motors in its article, we'd have to write 50 pages. I'm not trying to delegitimize real criticisms. Obviously some criticisms deserve airing out. But every little thing doesn't. Does that mean we should list every single Chamber of Commerce award the Chronicle has won? How about delineating individual articles? There has to be a point where you draw the line. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That complaint is uncyclopedic. It is also a clear-cut case of bias to include the statement "In 2003 a lawsuit by a group of former Chronicle distributors alleged that the paper artificially inflated its circulation numbers by delivering excess copies to gradeschool reading programs and by bribing auditors with alcohol and visits to strip clubs." without including any response form the article. It is no wonder the article has to remain under the NPOV tag with those types of edits. Johntex 22:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

- - Certainly there has to be, but (1) you are the one who requested more content and (2) many if not all of the sections you object to are, at a minimum, pertinent to the Chronicle and its perception as a news source. To put it mildly, when a major radio station and one of the two major political parties in Houston are actively engaged in a boycott of the newspaper over alleged biases, a delineation of their allegations and the paper's reporting controversies is both timely and proper. It seems to me that you are not so much concerned about adding content on the Chronicle but rather adding only content that is favorable to the paper while simultaneously diminishing other forms of content. I am actually indifferent about the inclusion of the distributor lawsuit, but added it for the reason of ascertaining your consistency (or lack thereof) in responding to new material to the article. You behaved as expected. Rangerdude 22:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    - RD, I'm really sorry that you feel that way (It seems to me that you are not so much concerned about adding content on the Chronicle but rather adding only content that is favorable to the paper while simultaneously diminishing other forms of content). But if you reversed "favorable" to "unfavorable," the same could perhaps be said about you. I am trying my best to keep this article NPOV. You clearly disagree, which is a shame. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
      - No Katefan. I have yet to object to your addition of pertinent favorable material so long as it remains (1) pertinent to the article, (2) factually accurate, and (3) NPOV. I've openly encouraged you to add a history section and other figures and accepted your addition of material criticizing Rosenthal among other things. Yet when anything even remotely unfavorable about the chronicle is added, your gut reaction is to either remove it or bury it in watered down language, factually incorrect portrayals, or extraneous off-topic material. I'll repeat what I stated earlier in noting that you've done more to add POV to this article than remove it, even when creating a balancing top section (which has been done mostly by other editors rather than you BTW). Rangerdude 23:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Link to the same NPOV irreverent language used by "award winning" journalist James Howard Gibbson "When Will the U.S liberate Texas Nobs 21:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Texas Media Watch has itself been criticized as partisan

Texas Media Watch is a one-woman shop (Sherry Sylvester), so let's be clear about what exactly this organization is. I don't think its criticisms are weighty enough for inclusion. From the Austin Chronicle [8] (look down to "Truth in Advertising"): From its inception during last year's Lege session, Sylvester's newsletter has been entirely dedicated to defending Republican officeholders and policies from critical coverage by the state's major dailies. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Partisan or not, why don't you try creating a Texas Media Watch article and including that material there? In it you should also note that the Austin Chronicle (hint: another article you could create) is itself a notoriously liberal paper as well. Rangerdude 23:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That may be true, but you have had no problem using the Houston Press to bolster some of the criticisms you've included, so why should the Austin Chronicle be treated any differently? · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and I identified the Houston Press as a source with a liberal POV (a characterization that you also diluted BTW). Furthermore, the Houston Press articles i've quoted have all been about the Houston Chronicle on the Houston Chronicle article page. As I said, if you want to quote the Austin Chronicle, create a Texas Media Watch article and put it there then properly identify the Austin Chronicle's POV. Rangerdude 00:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- As noted, Katefan, if you wish to include the Austin Chronicle blurb please do so on a separate article about Texas Media Watch. Counter-counter-sources are too far removed from the original article's content and your quote from the Austin Chronicle only attacks TMW itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that TMW designated the memo scandal as a case of "orchestrated bias" and in fact nothing to do with the memo scandal at all. It's just a tangential ad hominem attack of TMW that you're sticking in this article because you don't like anything that isn't positive and laudatory about the Chronicle to be included. If you want to say TMW is conservative, pro-republican or whatever that needs to be under a "Criticisms" section on a TMW article - not inserted in the middle of anything and everything that links to Texas Media Watch just for the heck of it. Rangerdude 00:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  - The usage of a Texas Media Watch criticism is questionable in and of itself, therefore it is proper to include the context of what this group has been criticized for inside the text of the article. I will revert again. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - And why is it questionable, Katefan? Because Texas Media Watch has a conservative POV that you don't personally agree with? Loading up the article on the Houston Chronicle with 2 sentences of extraneous ad hominem attacks on Texas Media Watch in response to a single link and two-word quotation of their report is absurd. It is our purpose to report what they say about the chronicle and let readers decide by checking out the links and Texas Media Watch article itself - not qualify their every word with a blanket Austin Chronicle attack piece of absolutely no direct relevance to this article. Using your same standard, I might as well go around Wikipedia looking for every single article that quotes anything from the Houston Chronicle and add two sentences to it about how the Chronicle's objectivity on everything is suspect due to their light rail memo scandal. Rangerdude 00:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
      - This is just adding criticism of critics, which some editors found appropriate in articles such as Neo-confederate. -Willmcw 00:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
        
        I disagree. It would be adding criticisms of critics if the Austin Chronicle article attacked Texas Media Watch for its characterization of the rail memo. Instead this is an unrelated blanket attack on Texas Media Watch with absolutely no relevant connection to the Houston Chronicle story. Criticism of critics in the neo-confederate article all pertained directly to the topic of neo-confederate and the allegations made within it. This does not. Rangerdude 02:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        This is a little tricky. If Texas Media Watch were a well-known establishment, I would agree with Rangerdude. We could cite them here and then cite criticisms of them over on their own page. However, they are not a well-known establishment. They get less than 2,000 Google hits - and this is an organization that supposedly deals with media affairs? That is an extremely small number of hits. This means they are not well known and they are not making a big impact. An article on them probably would not even survive VfD. Furthermore, if they are truly a one-person organization (as the Austin Chronicle alleges) they are not worth quoting as an organization, they should be quoted as an individual. The only person mentioned on the Texas Media Watch site is Sherry Sylvester, which gives credance the the Austin Chronicle's view. The Houston Chronicle and others have identified Sylvester as a Republican Party of Texas spokesperson. [9] All these reasons mean they are not a significant source to be citing for an encyclopedia article. I am taking out the reference to them entirely. Johntex 01:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        Well known or not, it is a POV to dismiss or remove them for weighing into the controversy on the basis of being conservative/republican or being deemed unknown by an unscientific google test. If other publications are quoting them and even doing attack pieces on them, a brief one-sentence reference to their take on the light rail memo scandal is entirely appropriate. Rangerdude 02:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        Perhaps its nature as a "non-profit media watchdog" should be included. Nobs 02:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        I don't see where it claims to be non-profit or an organization. It calls itself a "media monitoring project" of the non-profit "Lone Star Foundation", a group that also publishes the "The Lone Star Report", apparently a politically-oriented publication or webzine. Presumably it is non-profit alos, but I don't know about that. Can anyone find a reference? -Willmcw 03:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
        
        Lone Star Foundation site [10]. As an aside, I have 32 years experience as a tax practioner (though not in the area of section 501, but I can get good answers with a phone call) and would be happy to share my preliminary analysis of the relationship between the groups if interested. On balance, the relationship appears perfectly legal and appropriate. I would assume the goal (seeing Texas Media Watch has been in business for only 2 1/2 years) is to eventually spin it off when it becomes self sustaining through its own revenue sources. Nobs 15:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        The Lone Star Foundation is a thinktank that is hardly nonpartisan; it has a conservative-libertarian bent. It, and through it Texas Media Watch, are funded by David Hartman, who was a GOP candidate for Texas state treasurer and is considered a Republican functionary. [11] · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
        
        Funny. You seem to become quite agitated when anybody uses a source that's even remotely connected to the political right, yet at the same time you're pushing for the inclusion of vitriolic far left wing rants from the Austin Chronicle at every corner. POV double standard? I believe so. Rangerdude 15:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
        
        "conservative-libertarian" is a POV label Katefan and other partisan sources place upon Lone Star Foundation and Texas Media Watch. There is absolutely no charge, indication, reason to beleive or veiled accusation that either group is functioning or in violation of any Internal Revenue Code statutes as to the well-regulated activities of any section (501) group, just like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, AARP, ACORN, NRA, GOPAC, FAIR, AIM etc etc etc. The only hint of partisanship comes from critics of its activities. Nobs 16:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm feeling rather chipper today — probably since it's Friday. Happy Friday to everyone while I'm at it. I have referenced the exact same Austin Chronicle article the approximately two times I have referenced it -- all in conjunction with the same subject, Texas Media Watch (and its parent foundation), so I don't see how I can be pushing for inclusion "at every corner." As for Nobs' comments, I made no claims myself, simply cited a critical source that did. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

...and you accepted that "critical source" as valid and conclusive, basing your case against TMW/Sylvester entirely upon the claims within it. Yet you're not being partisan in the least...</sarcasm> Rangerdude 17:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It appears that the National Review editorial board also thinks the Lone Star Foundation is a conservative think-tank. Is the world imploding? The National Review and Austin Chronicle are in agremeent on something. (A second piece of evidence comes from David Hartman, chairman of the Lone Star Foundation, a conservative public-policy group in Texas.: "Careful Whom you Soak," National Review, November 24, 2003). · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain again how leaning conservative somehow discredits a group from participation in the public debate or being used as a source reference? In the meantime, I'll also patiently await you to apply the same standards to the Austin Chronicle article you site, which is so rabidly partisan that the bulk of the article is little more than bitter vitriolic namecalling. The Austin Chronicle is 100 fold more biased to the political left than either TMW or the Lone Star Foundation are to the political right and yet they are acceptable as a source to you? As an aside, by engaging in such blatant favoritism towards not only a liberal POV but a liberal POV from the extreme left, you aren't helping your case much that the Chronicle doesn't do the same. A paper's politics are judged by the politics of its reporters as manifested in what they write. A strong left wing tilt is pervasive throughout most of what you write here, and if you are a former Chronicle reporter as you say we can only assume you did the same there...and that would tilt the Chronicle's content to the left, exactly as the paper's many critics contend. Rangerdude 17:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you may be abusing the term "partisan"; there is no conflict of interest in holding or expressing what may be deemed a partisan view, opinion, analysis, research paper, etc; only when a 501(c)(3) group engages in "partisan activity", such as endorsing candidates, engaging in get out the vote campaigns etc., does their status come into question (as seen in such cases as AARP and recently NAACP). By non-partisan, being in compliance with the law, the group does not endorse candidates or ballot measures, make financial contributions to, or other in kind contributions on behalf of, legitimate partisan political activity, i.e. election activities. (You will recall for example, the Kerry campaigned accused Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (a non-profit entity) of making in kind contributions to the Bush campaign when they had, in fact, endorsed no candidate. What you call "partisan" the Constitution calls free speech.Nobs 17:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but my point in pointing out this information is to question Texas Media Watch's claim that it is nonpartisan and independent. Being funded by a conservative thinktank bankrolled by a big Republican political donor throws that claim into question. I'll also thank you, Rangerdude, to not make personal attacks against me or otherwise impugn my character -- my professional reputation is unparalleled and you don't know the first thing about me personally except what you choose to infer from your own slanted views. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that you've been prancing around this forum for the last several days calling me a "POV Warrior" and making other similar personal attacks on me in messages to both your friends and on article discussion pages alike, I'll take your purported offense at personal attacks with a heavy grain of salt. You've repeatedly trotted your former Chronicle employment around this discussion page and elsewhere whenever it suits your purpose of bolstering a position or change you desire, thus commenting on its negative attributes is fair game. If you want us to take your word and claimed personal experience as a matter of expertise on what the Houston Chronicle _does_ then you have no basis to complain when you are also cited as an indicator of what the Houston Chronicle _is_. IOW, don't throw stones when you live in glass houses because you insert highly biased POV's into articles with the best of 'em and were doing so long before you first initiated that charge in an attack on me. Rangerdude 18:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have information the no one else is party to I suggest you fill out a complaint with the FEC or IRS. Till then your impugning the reputations of the Lone Star Foundation, Texas Media Watch or other high-roller donors by innuendo is POV. Nobs 18:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't called you a POV warrior in this forum. I have stated it as a matter of personal opinion in comments between editors on a personal talk page, which is not the same thing. I challenge you to otherwise show me where I have made a personal attack against you (calling you on POV pushing or bias by selectively using certain information while ignoring other information does not qualify). You have not "commented on [the] negative attributes" of my ex-employer, you have directly questioned my personal integrity as it regards my professional life -- highly personal. I categorically refute any charge that I myself have inserted POV edits. My edits have either served to remove NPOV or to insert balancing statements for what already existed. Nobs, I don't know what you're talking about, so I'll leave it at that. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

You seem not to understand an important feature of wikipedia - it's all public, and that public record indicates beyond any dount that you have repeatedly impugned me with the name "POV warrior" and maligned my reputation here as an editor in your conversations with others. As to your integrity, I've only questioned (and continue to question) your claimed status as a defender of neutrality. I do so based on your actions here, which demonstrate that you have engaged in extensive non-neutral behavior and frequently make edits that exhibit a strong POV toward the political left and/or organizations to which you belong or have belonged such as the Houston Chronicle. If you don't like your POV leanings toward those organizations being questioned or made the subject of a discussion about your editing habits, then don't flaunt your "expertise" about those organizations to justify your edits! Deny whatever you want, but when you make edits that (1) insert rabidly liberal name-calling rants from the Austin Chronicle without qualification as a "source," (2) remove or attack other sources that are critical of your former employer on account of them simply being conservative, (3) dillute specific and neutral language based on plain readings of statutes and other primary source documents to hide the culpability of yur former employer and the severity of its actions, (4) propose removing anything unfavorable about your former employer on account of your perception that it has "blown over" and is thus not worthy of significant mention, and (5) make extensive revisions to the portrayal of an event based almost entirely upon a biased version of that event by a party that was a primary participant in it and thus of highly suspect neutrality despite your passing off those revisions as neutral, it's clearly the insertion of POV material. Throw whatever stones you like from your perch of glass but just remember what you're standing in.Rangerdude 18:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I well understand Wikipedia's mandate and its reach. However, you said I have called you a POV warrior "in this forum," which is untrue (I see you went back to scrub that inconveniently incorrect language later). By refuting your claims I have not done your reputation any damage -- any damage to your reputation you have done by your own hand. You did not only question my neutrality here on Wikipedia, you questioned my professional integrity which is an entirely different matter, and I consider it a personal attack on my character. No matter how much you backpedal, scrub, or try to distance yourself from that ill-considered remark, it happened. I see that you avoided my challenge to show where I have made personal attacks against you (because it's an impossible challenge to meet). The rest of your criticisms are without merit -- rather, you have twisted my words into something you feel is useful as a bludgeon against me. But they are made of paper and will not hold up to any considered scrutiny. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:52, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

- "This forum" as originally intended means wikipedia as a public forum, hence my comment that you were "prancing around" it calling me a POV warrior (as in jumping between different talk pages all over the forum to that end). Using backchannel comments to other users to stir up ill will against me before summoning them to the discussions you are involved in is indeed a form of reputation damage, and you did just that. As to your alleged "professional integrity," you brought any questioning of it onto yourself by flaunting your profession as a basis for justifying your own disputed changes to this article. There is no need to backpedal anything, which is why I have openly stated and will openly state again that you are a severely biased writer who frequently espouses a strong left wing POV and exhibits clear strains of favor and disfavor upon organizations and other article subjects based on your personal relations and opinions about the same. Whether you deny it or not, I've already thoroughly delineated the cases where you have done this, and indeed they are pervasive within this talk page. Your alleged "professional integrity" need only be discussed just as I have mentioned it - if you are indeed representative of insider expertise on the Houston Chronicle (as you have voluntarily purported to be in several places on this talk page), then so is your work here. Since your work here is tainted by a severe personal bias, it is thus fair to say, just as I originally said and as I will say again, that it is symptomatic of the very same problems that so many critics have lashed out against the newspaper you purport to have represented. What we have here, Katefan, is an inability on your part to live with the implications of your very own actions and statements. You cannot "prance around this forum" calling other people names (as you did to me), stirring up ill will against them with other editors (as you did to me), loading up articles with your own POV while simultaneously purporting to be "balancing" the article (as you did here), inserting rabidly partisan POV sources without comment and as if they were unchallenged or unchallengable authoritative citations (as you did here), and flaunting your own purported expertise and personal acquantance with the Houston Chronicle as an end all trump card to remove any edits that you personally don't approve of (as you did here) then expect that everybody else is gonna simply sit back and take it without calling you on the carpet. ALL citations and sources are fair game for challenge, and when you purport your own personal expertise as a source, challenging you becomes a permissible option. The windows of your greenhouse have been shattered, Katefan, and you have only yourself to blame.Rangerdude 21:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  - Asking other editors to examine a conflict is accepted Wikipedia practice. I did not bring your personal attack onto myself -- take responsibility for your own statements (you again impugn my integrity by using the word "alleged" even as you refuse to take responsibility for your comments). I have not and have no reason to insert POV edits (still no proof on this one, nor where I have personally attacked you -- calling POV bias is not a personal attack, it is cleaning up Wikipedia). I find your statement that I am unable to live with the implications of my own actions laughable when you yourself cannot take responsibility for your hostile tone, incivil editing style and unfounded personal attack against me. For the record, I relish the opportunity to have my edits reviewed by other NPOV editors. I have not "called you a name" save to point out your severe POV bias and further challenge you to point me to other "name calling" I have done (an impossible task). I have not inserted sources that were not verifiable and pertinent and intended to balance slanted text. I have not "flaunted" my "purported" expertise with the Chronicle "as an end all trump card" to remove edits and I challenge you to show me where I have done so. I removed a web site that contained potentially inaccurate and admittedly unverifiable information, and said outright that my personal experience would not factor into that decision. You can continue to try to twist my words around, but I will not let your unfounded accusations go unanswered. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Asking other editors to examine a conflict is indeed an accepted practice, but dropping notes to other editors that are filled with namecalling and personal attacks on the person you are having a dispute with is not. You attempted to malign me personally in your posts to multiple editors & got caught. Now you refuse acknowledge the consequences. That you complain about incivility on my part is similar absurd seeing as you poisoned that well long before I said anything critical about you by personally maligning me to other editors. It's all part of the record, Katefan [12], so denying it further won't make it go away. As to flaunting your purported expertise, it's all over this page. And yes, you did cite your experience among the reasons why you removed that link even when it was characterized with a proper qualifier noting the site's disclaimer: "I'm not sure where they got that intern information, but as a former Chronicle intern I can tell you I was much better paid than that just a couple years ago..." The examples continue... "Honestly, I couldn't point to an easy reference... I just remember it being a topic of discussion around the newspaper" - used to add an unsourced segment on pulitzers, "I know people who work on the Chronicle's news staff, and the news staff never received that memo. It is clearly intended for the Editorial Board, from the text and thrust of the memo" to justify your characterization of the memo, and so forth. Your sources that are not pertinent to the article abound as well - links to the opensecrets database for a multi-sentence attack on Tom DeLay, links to the Austin Chronicle hit piece on TMW that is unrelated to anything involving the chronicle rail scandal, etc. No "twisting" of your words is necessary, Katefan. They speak for themself and they indicate a severe POV on your part that initiated the incivility between us by maligning me to other editors behind my back. Rangerdude 00:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      - If you please, point to the portion of the current article where there exists a characterization of the memo as having been addressed to the editorial board. You objected to its inclusion and I did not oppose you. As for the Pulitzer reference, I never insisted it be included in the article, another editor thought it appropriate for inclusion. And I did not remove the website based on my own personal experience (although it was certainly informed by it on a personal level) -- as a matter of fact, my last comment on the matter was "My personal experience aside..." · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

This hyperbole is unneccessary. I am quite sure that none of the sources that User:Katefan0 has used are "rabid." Throwing terms around like that does not give the impression of sober judgement that writing an encyclopedia calls for. And personal attacks are even more inappropriate. -Willmcw 22:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes from the Austin Chronicle article introduced by Katefan0:

"Sylvester appears to be the only employee, and very little thinking visibly goes on there, but OK." "It also devoted a considerable amount of virtual memory to laughable accusations that the papers were insufficiently enthusiastic about Bush's war on Iraq" "LSR's leading lights include The Dallas Morning News hard-rightist William Murchison and Citizens for a Sound Economy's Peggy Venable, whose most recent contribution to the public discourse was to accuse MoveOn.org of being a Communist front-group." "where one of her last features was a fawning profile of GOP big wallet James Leininger, an unctuous performance that perhaps caught the eye of conservative spin-doctors." Sounds pretty partisan and pretty rabidly so to me. In any case, it's not the kind of "reporting" that rings "credibility" when you read it. Try "hatchet job" instead. Rangerdude 23:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight (again), I never "introduced those quotes" into the article. I characterized the criticism of Sherry Sylvester's group contained in the article in an NPOV way and then included a link to the article as a matter of sourcing. This is completely appropriate. I find it curious that, beyond your inaccurate portrayals of my additions (let's see the diff where I inserted these quotes), you have found it convenient to cite criticisms and link to articles from the Free Republic and Houston Review that contain just as much if not more editorial commentary. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives