Talk:Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Difference between revisions

{{ISSN-needed}}

 

*[[Talk:Pittsburgh Tribune-Review/archive1]]

*[[Talk:Pittsburgh Tribune-Review/archive2]]

 

==Copy edit==

 

 

:Thanks for the editing, it was overdue. You can always take a BMP screenshot of the PDF image; BMP is easy to convert to JPG. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 06:59, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

 

 

==Awards==

The citation seems to be from a very old article. Haven't they won something in the last three years? I ask this from a position of knowledge, and am somewhat bemused to see people thrashing about for three-year old web searches when much of that sort of information is typically offline. [[User:Lionel of Pittsburgh|Lionel of Pittsburgh]] 13:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)Lionel of Pittsburgh

 

:I did this the old fashioned way. I walked around the newsroom and wrote down all the plaques. Please note that we're missing a good portion of the newsroom walls because we're expanding the size of the operation. Unlike what's suggested in the main article, the newspaper is hiring quite a few reporters and we're bursting at the seams. It's also interesting to see that we are somehow part of the Greensburg edition. It's the other way around. The last person I know who tried to tackle these simple corrections was blocked, so I hesitate to make any changes without consensus (and she was a student intern, loosely affiliated with this newspaper).

:I'm not sure I see the point of adding awards unless they're prestigious, national ones.

 

 

::The awards listed were the ones that I was able to find by searching on the paper's website. If they've received awards that they don't report on, well, those are unreported. As for sources, newspapers (and other media) are notorious for under-reporting about themselves. Other newspapers in the same city are natural sources. Whether there is a layoff, a new hiring program, etc, we can only include what has been reported in one place or another. Regarding the anonymous editor who was blocked, that blocking was due to uncollaborative behavior that was inappropriate in Wikiepdia, including behavior that would be inappropriate in a newsroom. Other users who employ the same computers and viewpoints as that editor are likely to be associated with him or her and viewed with less good faith than we typically extend. In general, it's best not to edit articles about topics that one is very close to, such as one's employer, because it is hard to be objective. Thanks for participating in the project. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 18:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Slim. These awards have been published elsewhere, although they likely are not online. Some very prestigious awards are notoriously offline, including some SPJ awards and APME. I went to check on some of my awards, and not all are listed online.

 

 

In a traditional research setting, circulars, print journals, etc., would enjoy some sort of bibliographic categorization. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's standards are. Certainly, however, POV would not be violated by simply listing the most prestigious awards earned. The problem is that the current awards in the second graf are hardly prestigious, and seem to have been affixed for that very reason.

 

 

It's not that many of the Trib's awards went unreported. They were reported in print, not bytes. This also is part of the problem with newspapers. They are built on pulp paper, not necessarily mainframes.

I like the notion that other newspapers are "natural" sources about their competitors. Yes, and from now on I'll trust what GM tells me about Ford automobiles. Ibid, David Brock, a man Slate calls a "serial liar," among other lovely adjectives chosen to describe him. slate.msn.com/id/2063759 Nice to see he's anchoring a bibliography, of sorts. This also begs the question of "Cite Sources." There is a ranking of sources for any journalistic enterprise. Some are considered of great veracity, others of poor repute.

 

 

Having David Brock as a character witness begs someone's attention. I'm somewhat surprised the callow intern who was blocked didn't notice it, but she's all of 23 or thereabouts. Certainly, an unpaid observor of this and other newspapers couldn't possibly know as much about the subject as somebody in New Zealand.

 

 

I also liked this latest attempt: "Though nominally costing $.25, it is freely available in the city and its circulation is added to that of the other Tribune-Review papers."

If so, I want my quarter back from Friday's visit to the 7-11.

 

 

By the way, I've chosen not to intervene in the actual blue pencil process. I'll let you hang yourselves. So far, the press wags on a local journalism gossip board are treating the compilation as something of a joke. Since my name, unfortunately, graces the damned thing, I have a certain natural interest in mentioning what else is accurate, or wrong, but I'm not going to intervene.

1. Outdated and insignificant award citations in the second graf (see above);

 

 

2. The "significant" circulation loss was unquantified and dated (summer of 2004). Considering the mergers and acquisitions of other newspapers, the published total of 221,000 paid subscribers in mid-2005 seems the show the journal is doing quite well. That might explain all the dry wall, new hires and generous travel opportunities. A cited source in another graf says as much.

 

 

3. The price of Trib PM (see above);

 

 

4. Staff reductions: Ed Harrell never "announced" staff reductions. He certainly mentioned consolidations and mergers. His exact words, in the article cited, were, "The changes most likely will involve a yet-to-be determined number of staff reductions." But four months out, no staff reductions, and a net gain of employees throughout the organization. "(M)ost likely" fortunately meant "not likely." There probably should be some way of noting this.

 

 

5. The Theresa Heinz Kerry episode: This version reads, "McKnickle later asked her what she meant by 'un-American traits.'" Actually, the source cited says he asked her what she meant bu "un-American activity."

Cheers, [[User:Lionel of Pittsburgh|Lionel of Pittsburgh]] 22:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 

 

 

:::Regarding [[User:Lionel of Pittsburgh]]'s list and adding to what [[User:SlimVirgin]] has already written:

:::Regarding the other points, GM and Ford are not news media outlets. By extension the same logic would indicate that the Trib-Review's reporting on the Post-Gazette is untrustworthy. I hope that's not the case. And as for your intern, she volunteered that she works for the competition instead of for the Trib-Review.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pittsburgh_Tribune-Review&diff=next&oldid=9889493] I must say that having an unpaid intern in your newsroom who works for the competition is an unusual arrangement. Also, the anon, someimtes called "Tribfan", only had a temporary block. If she can find her way to stop threatening us with libel suits and to contribute in a collaborative manner then she is welcome to contribute to the project (though again, it'd be better if she worked on articles about topics that she is not so closely involved in). Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 01:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

 

 

An instruction? - I thought it was a command. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 04:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

::I wasn't part of any of this and so don't know the details. I've looked through the archive and although the posts are all unsigned (apart from regular editors' posts), they appear to have been written by the same person, who at one point says s/he's a reader, at another says s/he's working for a competitor newspaper, and who I believe is then found to have an IP address that links back to the newspaper, so someone was playing games. Sorry if I have that wrong: that's just based on a cursory glance. Moving on, I'd say it's important to drop any reference to legal threats because that hinders constructive cooperation. Lionel, I'd also like to point out that most WP editors edit under user names, so it isn't possible to tell how many professional journalists, or professional anything else, have visited this page. I hope we can all treat each other with mutual respect, and make sure this article is accurate, fair, and encyclopedic.

 

 

 

What sources (apart from the PT-R) do we have for this alleged quote? [[User:MrJones|Mr. Jones]] 19:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 

 

 

If you google the phrase, you will get a zillion hits from mainstream publications echoing the words, including USA Today, L.A. Times, etc. I like the TV bit because you can hear it for yourself.

Cheers, [[User:Lionel of Pittsburgh|Lionel of Pittsburgh]] 21:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 

 

::McNickle, who said he had received death threats as a result of the confrontation [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040803-121322-5779r.htm] — distinguished between the ''Tribune-Review's'' news content, which he said was apolitical, and his opinion page, which was very conservative:

I don't see where he said that the paper's news content is apolitical either. We should probably remove both. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

 

 

::Beautiful. Thanks for doing that. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

::As part of a general cleanup I deleted the clumsy sentence about Heinz's defenders, which had been mis-sourced to a blog which didn't say anything like that. I took out a sentence about which local media outlets covered the speech (who cares?), and moved the video link down to the end. This way the speech and the exchange are presented in one continuous flow. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

 

 

This entire "Heinz Kerry" incident comprises a full half of the article, and has become quite dated. It should probably be reduced to three or four sentences. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As a competitor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I would not ethically feel comfortable writing about their operations in an encyclopedic format. [[User:Lionel of Pittsburgh|Lionel of Pittsburgh]] 19:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Lionel of Pittsburgh

 

 

 

 

The source provided did NOT back up the notion that Kleinberg was the "brainchild" of the newspaper but, rather, "helped" to create it.[[User:LionelDPittsburgh|LionelDPittsburgh]] 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)LionelDPittsburgh

 

== "Gossip"? ==

 

:::::I'm going to move the article back to its old title for the time being. I recognize that the issue is fluid, and that the "TTM" name may be more appropriate in the future. I think there is likely a third way to handle the matter of the parent corporation and the subsidairy properties. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)