Talk:Newspaper of record

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Older topics found at Talk:Newspaper of record/Archive)

Contents

[edit] People's Daily

Should China's People's Daily be on this page? --Dpr 06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion. It isn't "of record".Deano 19:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Star

I'm not sure that the Toronto Star falls into the category of a "Newspaper of Record" seeing as how it is a regional paper that is not widely distributed outside of Southern Ontario, and also, in my opinion, it's rather left of centre. I believe that a Newspaper of Record should try to keep their reporting as neutral as possible, and should have more "serious" news articles, although I do find that many of their articles about local stories are quite impressive DavidL 15 October 2005

I agree, and I'll remove it...I'd also reccomend removing more from toher countries...most only have one or two that meet the standard.Habsfannova 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2006-04-23 / Removed Toronto Star from list again.

[edit] Category: Newspapers

I'm cleaning up the Category: Newspapers, and I think this article shuold not be listed in such category, because it's not a newspaper itself. I would like to know what you think about making that change. thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 04:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm just doing it, if anyone feels this change is wrong, people contact me. Thanks. --Cacuija (my talk) 04:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK newspapers of record

It seems to me that the term "newspaper of record" refers at least as strongly to the reputation as to the content of the paper. In the UK, it was often said that there were 5 national broadsheets: Guardian, Times, Telegraph, FT and Independent. Although some of these are technically no longer broadsheets and the quality has gone down a lot, I think information about them might be relevant to this article. Something like "X was for a long time considered a newspaper of record, but many have suggested that this title no longer applies." 128.178.14.63 11:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the term is closely related to the reputation of the newspaper.Palmiro | Talk 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Since its purchase by Murdoch, The Times seems to have lost much of its former reguard, and I am not sure if it can still be called the "Newspaper of Record," though certainly, historically it has been. --VonWoland 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic newspapers

I've taken the liberty of adding some Arabic newspapers, despite the fascistic yet justified hidden comment. I don't think these are likely to be controversial. Palmiro | Talk 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of The Guardian; categorisation of entries

Given that most comments on the talk page supported inclusion of the Guardian, I was a bit surprised to find that it had been dropped since my last visit to this page. I have reinstated it as that is clearly the general opinion and no sources have been provided for the deletion. Until someone is willing to put in the legwork to find a media guide or media studies textbook of some sort to authoritatively resolve the issue, all we can go on is the general consensus of editors here who are acquainted with the UK newspaper market.

As regards categorisation of the entries, I think it may well make sense for English-language readers to list English-language newspapers first. Otherwise, the newspapers which are competing for this status in any given market are generally the ones in the same country: in the case of Lebanon, L'Orient-Le Jour and An-Nahar compete with each other despite being in different languages, and the connections between either of them and other newspapers of the same language in different countries are far less important. Palmiro | Talk 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Action on disproportionate number of Australian papers

Australia has a population of 20 million; the United States has a population of 300 million. That's a ratio of 15:1. No offense intended to Australians (some of my best friends are Australian, etc.), but the US exerts a comparative cultural influence vis-a-vis Australia of about that same ratio. And yet there are four Australian papers compared to three American papers. Personally, I think there are too many Australian papers. After all, Canada is half again larger than Australia, and yet it only boasts one paper (the excellent Toronto Globe and Mail). As such, I'm removing The Australian. It is one of three Sydney papers currently listed and it has about half the circulation of The Sydney Morning Herald. It was founded in the late 20th century and also happens to be owned by a certain Rupert Murdoch, who is not well known for putting out unbiased newspapers of record. I'm also very tempted to remove the The Australian Financial Review as it doesn't even have a weekday circulation of 100k (or an impressive Wikipedia entry), but as financial papers fall under somewhat different criteria, I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the Aussie press. StarryEyes 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here...Habsfannova 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd support removing all financial papers... they are financials, not "Newspapers of Record" as such. Deano (Talk) 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Wall Street Journal, I know for a fact, covers far more than finance. (I am not as familiar with The Financial Times, but I imagine it's in a similar mo(u)ld.) Many New Yorkers and Americans consider the WSJ the (perceived) center-right counterpart to the (perceived) center-left New York Times: a conservative alternative that doesn't go to New York Post-esque semi-literate tabloid extremes. Many in the business world proudly proclaim it the "only thing they need to read". I'm going to go ahead and take off The Australian Financial Review, but I'll leave the WSJ and the FT. If anyone can show sufficient evidence for its reinstatement, be my guest. StarryEyes 09:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well at most Aussie Land should have two papers, eliminate the australian (possible conservative bias). Look at Canada The National Post isn't even included (although it shouldn't be, Canada like the u.s tends to focus more on regional based papers rather than National papers)
The National Post has never really been considered a NoR...I'll read it from time to time, it's a decent paper, if a tad grating, but it hasn't reached near the acceptance of the mainstream as the Globe has. I always remember, every day after an election, it's impossible to get a Globe anywhere here, but you can find a Post, Chronicle-Herald, or Daily News easy enough
And that, to me, is the definition of a NoR: The one paper that, if something big happens, regardless of the paper's ideology, it's used as the source for information. Which makes me ask: Does the Guardian meet that standard, or is it just there for the lists' ideological balance?Habsfannova 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"Rupert Murdoch ... is not well known for putting out unbiased newspapers of record." Not entirely true. He owns The Times. Mattley (Chattley) 16:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India

Now, moving to India...should their papers be reduced, or are all concidered "NoR"s?Habsfannova 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Times of India, The Hindu and The Hindustan Times are all definitely NoRs in my opinion - especially the first two. As for Asian Age and Indian Express, I have never read the former and would be indifferent to the status of the latter. Deano (Talk) 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, unless someone can come up with evidence that both Asian Age and Indian Express are NoR's, we should eliminate at least one. StarryEyes 12:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Post vs. LA Times

Lotsofissues replaced the Washington Post with the Los Angeles Times, arguing (in the edit summary) that ProQuest should decide what is notable. I'm not so sure I'm swayed by that argument. Let's hear some opinions on the matter. Personally, I want to avoid the easy solution: including them both. This sort of list is very conducive to slippery sloping, so let's cap American papers at three, unless someone can come up with good and sufficient reasons to include both.

As a New Yorker and Gray Lady devotee, I'm not particularly familiar with either paper. What I do know is the LA Times and Washington Post are 4th and 5th, respectively, in circulation rankings. ([1]) Obviously, high circulation is not the only criterion for inclusion here, otherwise we'd have to include USA Today (perish the thought!) Generally, I'm more inclined to include the Washington Post, simply because they have more thorough coverage of US politics, for obvious reasons. What does everyone else think? StarryEyes 12:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. I think the Post is definitely the third paper of record, not the LA Times. --Lukobe 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that Washington Post has historically been a much more important paper than the LA Times. Why ProQuest availability should be a determining factor evades me. However according to my research the ProQuest Historical Newspapers Database contains a "fulltext archive of the Atlanta Consitution, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post" 128.59.15.64 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think ProQuest availability should be the deciding factor. --Lukobe 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On what constitutes a "Newspaper of Record"

I have added a clarification to the first paragraph of the article to point out there are two meanings to the term: (1) a well respected newspaper and (2) a newspaper that has complied with the requirements to be recognized by a government as a newspaper of record (or newspaper of public record, depending on the local requirements and name used). In some places, a paper has to be recognized by a court as such in order to qualify to carry legal advertising (and have it count as being "published in a newspaper of record"). California, for example, is one such place requiring newspapers to be so qualified. If a paper is not recognized as that, then governments won't use it to publish paid ads such as notifications of public issues, and advertisers such as real-estate companies won't publish foreclosure notices, etc. because, again, it's not qualified as published if not in a newspaper of record. Paul Robinson 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion -v- News Reporting

Following the discussion, I think there should be some distinction made between unbiased reporting within their news organization -v- the OpEd page.

For example, The Boston Globe and NYT both have what are considered "liberal" or progressive OpEd pages (with the token Columnist balancing the conservative opinion), but their news reporting is generally considered un-biased. Conversely, The Wall Street Journal's OpEd page is considered right of center, but their news reporting is also considered un-biased.

The Washington Post, on the other hand and by way of example, is both biased in their OpEd and reporting. As such, they should not be considered a newspaper of record.

Thoughts? Frank 13:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Newspaper

Deleted "JoongAng Daily" since 'Ilbo' and 'Daily' mean roughly the same thing and refer to the same newspaper.

[edit] classification

This classification of newspapers is inherently biased. Who is to decide what high standards of journalism are? Wikipedia editors? The second definition put forth is more concise and actually partitions the world of newspapers, but I doubt many of the mentioned newspapers fall into this category. Intangible 17:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA Today

Why isn't USA Today included on the list. It is a very important newspaper because it has the widest circulation. Facto 07:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"In its more common meaning, a newspaper of record is generally any public newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically unbiased". I think this is why, but I could be wrong. --LucVerhelst 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

USA Today is not considered professional? typically unbiased? Well, how come there are so many newspapers of record under United States now. It's tripled since answers.com mirrored the page. Before we only had The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. http://www.answers.com/topic/newspaper-of-record Now there are nine listed. Can we add more? Facto 10:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Christian Science Monitor

How in the world is The Christian Science Monitor included in this list (US newspapers). if no one opposes, i'll delete this listing in 3 days. --Abid Ahmed 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you read the newspaper ? I don't realy know it, but if you read the Wikipedia article on it (Christian Science Monitor) you'd say it belongs on this list :
- "the paper has won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism seven times. It is particularly well known for its in-depth coverage of the Middle East, publishing material from veteran Middle East specialists like John K. Cooley."
- Project Censored noted that the Monitor often publishes factual articles discussing topics under-represented or absent from the mainstream mass media. In comparison to other major newspapers and journalistic magazines, the Monitor tends to take a steady and slightly upbeat approach to national and world news."
On the other hand : "the paper's staff does operate under the close eye of the church's five-member board of directors, and has sometimes been seen as avoiding issues that involve the church in controversial and unfavorable ways." But then again, nobody and no newspaper, not even the ones on this list, is perfect.
--LucVerhelst 19:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
CSM uses often local reporters instead of wire reports. Together with the Financial Times, it is one of the better sources to get to know what goes around in the world, IMO. That of course does not mean that it should be included as "newspaper of record." Intangible 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khaleej Times Inclusion (UAE)

Khaleej Times is notoriously known for its horrid English and absurd stories. It makes for an amusing read, but it certainly does not fall under 'newspaper of record' by a thousand miles. It certainly appears to have been added by one of KT's staff. The blogging community in the UAE makes note of the horrible and embarassing state of Khaleej Times on numerous occasions (a good starting point would be http://uaecommunity.blogspot.com/). In fact, KT is a daily subject of ridicule within the UAE.

Please remove it from the list.

[edit] Weasel added

Looking over the countries with which I am familar (UK, Aus, HK) - I can see that the list is fair. However, I did just slap on a 'weasel' for the list section. as soon as you see 'generally considered' it looks like a weasel word straight away... and there seems to be no set inclusion criteria (other than some nods on this talk page). Some more concrete stuff would be nice. novacatz 09:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why so slim on US Newspapers?

There seems to be a lengthy diatribe on 1st amendmant stuff at the beginning of the US section, and then the list of 4 papers of record.

I wouldn't argue against the inclusion of those papers, but e.g. the WP always claims to be a LOCAL paper, so why not include the SF Chronicle or the Boston Herald or...

And why not include the CSM? It definetely meets the objective of journalistic integrity.

And as far as the USA Today, if the goalpost is set as low as the Singapore Straits Times then I think USA Today should be included as well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.128.81.201 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Prodding

I suggest prodding the arbitrary list of "newspapers of record". There are no objective criterions to assess the long-term influence of a newspaper. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)