Talk:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
Can we please expand this article
_nkreindl271
Did the Journal under Grant really refuse to carry syndicated material? I'm reading a lot of 1950s Journals and seeing a lot of what looks like syndicated material to me! --Orange Mike 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Political position
I don't think it's a good idea for an encylcopedia article to be tagging a newspaper with a "political position". It's too reductive and simplistic; not to mention that it violates Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. And speaking as someone who has read the newspaper all of my life, I don't think that is an accurate assessment of its editorial stance. Since it merger of the Journal and the Sentinel in 1995, the editorials have shown more of the Sentinel's conservativism than the Journal's liberalism.
So, the question is, who decides what to call the paper's "political position"?— Walloon 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't reply eariler. First off all, nearly all major newspapers have a politcal stance for their editorial board. The Chicago Tribune is conservative, the Chicago Sun-Times is liberal. The New York Times is liberal, the now gone New York Herald was conservative. And so on... As a long time resident of Milwaukee (I've moved to Chicago recently) I read the Journal Sentinel daily. I do not think that is controversial to say that the Journal Sentinel's editorial board is reliably liberal. It may not be Mother Jones, but that doesn't make it conservative. — Linnwood 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, who decides what to call the paper's "political position"? — Walloon 05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- In an ideal world, the paper's editorial staff should be the ones to make that subjective call. --Chancemichaels 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels
- Actually, many outright claims of political position are extremely controversial, as one person's liberal is another's conservative. A bitter dispute over the political infobox field broke out over at The New York Times discussion page, which was resolved by not using the field at all, and discussing politics in the body text, with reliably-sourced references. Only papers that have formally declared support for a particular political party may be described as "aligned" with that party. This is more common in Europe than in the United States today, although it did happen more frequently in the U.S. in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Otherwise, as for the paper's editorial staff, describing the opinions of a group of people as monolithic is problematic at best. Does the editor speak for everyone else? Did they take a vote? What about syndicated and featured columnists? -Tobogganoggin talk 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, who decides what to call the paper's "political position"? — Walloon 05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Journal Sentinal vs. Journal and Sentinal
Is there a good reason there's no article about the Journal or the Sentinal rather than just an abbreviated history of both papers in this article? 169.229.153.89 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Lucas Westmaas
- Wikipedia custom is to incorporate information on consolidated newspapers into one article about the contemporary descendant publication, but anyone is welcome to contribute to either section of this article. If enough encyclopedic information can be written about either ancestor to make this an overlong article, editors may then make the call to give that paper its own article. It's always a work in progress! -Tobogganoggin talk 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
