Talk:The Washington Post

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Washington Post article.
Article policies
This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
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.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified The Washington Post as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Serbo-Croatian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Contributors list

Probably ought to be split into current and past; Bernstein, Brown, Buchwald and others have not been with The Post for sometime; in Buchwald's case, he's deceased. Also, should people who only contribute to the Web site (Froomkin, Steiner) be in a separate section, or listed on the Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive page instead of here? They're separate companies, if that makes any difference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.123.121 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March

Re recent edits: point taken that the march was well described in an existing article. However, the reason why I didn't find that article earlier is that IMHO the title is incorrect. The title of Sousa's piece of music is simply "The Washington Post", not "The Washington Post March".

I think it would be overkill to create a disambiguation page for the two, since the newspaper is a) clearly the primary referent for the name, and b) the article is short enough that it is easy to include a pointer to the article on the march on the newspaper page.

Accordingly, I've moved The Washington Post March to The Washington Post (march). I've reworded the line in The Washington Post to begin

The Washington Post is also...

to reflect the fact that the march and the newspaper both have the same name. Dpbsmith 13:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Militant?

As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the Washington Post's attempt to insult UN Secretary General Kofi Annan by publishing an article with the headline "Annan's Offense" by Charles Krauthammer - an offense reflected wholly in Annan's concern for the lives of innocent civilians would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really, Krauthammer is a op-ed conservative columnist, so the "headline" in question was above his personal political commentary on the op-ed page.Tom Cod 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political leanings

I just reverted a section titled "opinion" which, in my opinion, gave the writer's opinion about the paper. But certainly this article needs mention of the general perception that the Post is liberal-leaning - although as the New York Times article shows, that sort of discussion can turn into an argument that swamps the whole article. - DavidWBrooks 15:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should not be left out though, just because people can get into an argument. This is the kind of information that can be hard to find other places and I think The Economist works as a good example of how this can be done. --Vikingstad 17:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of this section, the second paragraph thereof is wishy-washy and of no real content. Someone needs to find examples of support/criticism of the Post's news coverage, or just take out the paragraph altogether. --zenohockey 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I edited this section, mostly by restructuring pre-existing material, to conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am not as confident of any "general perception" or consensus "that the Post is liberal-leaning" as the previous editor, and would propose on the contrary an equally widespread perception of the Post's implication in conservative-corporate power. If the purpose of this section is to empirically establish the Post's political leanings beyond dispute, it's going to fail. I think a better approach is to identify conflicting perceptions of the Post, ideally with citations, and let the readers judge for themselves. To this end, I restructured the paragraph as a series of points and counterpoints, and included a Manufacturing Consent link to substantiate the liberal criticism of the Post. Someone ought to link the "liberal media" quote as well. --Jdfawcett 05:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove two statements in this article : "dominated by conservatives" and "many of Bush's other policies". They can be put back into the article if someone provides a citation for the allegations. I do not know about the former, but from my reading WaPo's unsigned editorials they do not seem to "stedfastly support. . . many of Bush's other policies" and even their support on Iraq is wavering. Without any citations supporting those allegations, the article not only violates a neutral point of view, it could present an inaccurate point of view. (The sentence as it appeared on 3:46am EDT, July 3, 2006 was: "As well, the Post's editorial board, dominated by conservatives[citation needed], has steadfastly supported the invasion of Iraq and many of President Bush's other policies[citation needed].")-- SterlingNorth 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is awful. Pretending that the Post is anything other than a stalwart of the east coast liberal media is specious. VaGuy1973 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


It is interesting to compare this article to that of The Washington Times, which wikipedia cites is blatantly liberally conservative. Why does the Post's article take the victim stance by saying it is being attacked by conservatives about bias, while the Times' article just states that it's politically biased? You have to be fair here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.96.98 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't Washington Star Publish Daily from 1850s?

Article states the Post was the first DC paper to publish daily. Didn't the Evening Star publish on a daily basis going back to the Civil War? Walt Whitman commented that he first became aware of the assasination of Lincoln from that source.Tom Cod

[edit] Notable Contributors

Is the list of notable contributors intended to include past contributors as well? Anson2995 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I removed the following sentence

The majority of the paper's political endorsements have historically been awarded to Democratic candidates

the Post has never endorsed a canadate

What are you talking about? It endorses lots of candidates! I've returned it. - DavidWBrooks 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Please cite one example of when the Post has endored any canadate. Phil Graham and JFK were friends, yet even then they did not endorse him. The same thing happened with LBJ and Kay. Are you confusing a positive editorial with an endorsement? I have removed it again, please have some evidence before putting it back.
Washington Post endorses John Kerry: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57584-2004Oct23.html - DavidWBrooks

Generally when a paper endorses a canadate the Publisher writes it and it does not apper in the editoral section. I don't think that is a edorsement, it is a positive editoral.

In most U.S. newspapers, the endorsements are written the same way editorials are: unsigned, so they carry the image of being from the newspaper as an institution, rather than from an individual. But they're still endorsements, in the sense that they urge voters to support a particular person. (I don't know that Donald Graham has ever bylined anything in the Post's pages.) The Post provides similar endorsements in local gubernatorial races and DC mayoral races, and possibly other DC-region races. - DavidWBrooks 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents here - Katherine Graham's book "Personal History" makes a very specific point of mentioning, several times, that the Post did not endore candidates for the presidency. On page 148 of "Personal History", there is this quote from Ms. Graham: "In the Truman-Dewey election, the Post maintained its tradition, begun under my father's independent ownership, of not endorsing a candidate for the presidency. Rather, the paper commented editorially on both candidates." It could be that what people are perceiving as endorsements are actually editorials. Or, the Post may endorse local candidates, etc. - these passages simply say the paper does not endorse a candidate for president. NickBurns 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up - the section is much improved

Graham died in 2001 - three years before the Kerry presidential endorsement cited above. - DavidWBrooks 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

David - thanks for pointing that out. I like the change you made - acknowledges the historical tendency not to endorse - adds the 04 Kerry endorsement - maybe policy has changed. NickBurns 02:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of endorsements: [1] Op-Ed columnist Fred Hiatt "How We Endorse, and Why" - DavidWBrooks 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Per the to-do note...

I'm going to try and add a concise section about Deep Throat and Watergate to the article. I have a few books as source material (including the Graham autobio). NickBurns 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction of color

The article states that the first color photo on the front page was used on January 28th 1999, however there is no mention of what the image was. I believe this would be interesting information, and it must be available somewhere. My memory was that the photo was one of the first images from the Hubble telescope, however the Hubble_Space_Telescope article clearly proves the weakness of my memory.

[edit] Comics

Isn't the Washington Post known for its comics pages? Should there be a mention of that? 72.75.9.37 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post and 1919 Race Riot

As the Post in contemporary times has conceded, it's most shameful moment came in 1919 when it served to inflame white racist mobs during the race riot of that year during which many were killed. [[2]] Tom Cod 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lol

I don't think Maryland would appreciate being called a suburb of D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.172.17 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

er, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties are most certainly suburbs of D.C. john k (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political leanings again

Until just now, there was a claim that the Post editorial board had "some" center-left writers and "a few" center right writers. This is rather misleading. Clearly, looking at the list of columnists, on the right you have Krauthammer, Gerson, Novak, Samuelson, and Will. For people clearly on the left you have King, Dionne, Meyerson, and maybe Eugene Robinson, I think. The rest are centrists of various colors. Cohen is kind of sort of a liberal, for instance, but rather mushy and poor one - no actual liberals seem to like him very much at this point, notably. People like Jim Hoagland and Anne Applebaum (and Fred Hiatt, of course) are mostly notable for being hawks, and have no noticeable left-wingness on domestic policy to distinguish them. I suppose if "not clearly a paid agent of the Republican Party" qualifies one as "on the left," then there's more leftists than rightists on the Post's editorial page. But it's pretty ridiculous to consider David Broder to be on the left.

Beyond this, the section is disconnected and not very well written. The key things, I think, about the Wa Post editorial board is that they are a) very hawkish on foreign policy; b) generally socially liberal, but they rarely actually write about such things; c) pretty determinedly centrist on domestic policy - they're deficit hawks; and d) very strongly pro-development in local issues. Except on social issues, this isn't a very liberal profile, but it's obviously not the sort of "obvious tool of the Republican party" profile that gets one labelled a conservative editorial page, either. It's a very establishment editorial page. Anyway, ideally, we should find some good sources on the subject so we can turn it into something besides a mess of quotes and isolated mentions of different endorsements through the years. john k (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)