Talk:Newspaper endorsements in the 2008 United States presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrible[edit]

This is a pretty terrible list. Inaccurate at best. NYTimes and LAtimes endorsing John McCain? Please correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.188.132 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uneven quality[edit]

Obama's endorsements are much more meticulously edited than Clinton's. Moreover, the Cleveland Plain Dealer appears twice. Are there other duplicates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.133.247 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary to add links to candidates' endorsements by individuals?[edit]

I've noticed that a user also added an additional link to Obama's list of endorsements by individuals. This is inconsistent with the format already present in the main body of the text, as all other candidates do not have that link. It appears that most Wikipedians and the general public will find the lists already currently existing under each candidate's main page for his/her campaign. It is redundant and unnecessary to add one for Obama, if the others have not. For these reasons, I have deleted the edit. If anyone has thoughts on this, please discuss here prior to reverting or the such.

Please don't add additional links for only one candidate you favor. Wikipedia is not in the business of endorsing any particular candidate, or being the place where one candidate appears to the public as being more favored than the other. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine[reply]

University paper endorsements questionable[edit]

Do university or college's institutional newspapers generated by students count as endorsements? Given that the papers have limited circulation since the target audience is usually towards the students of that particular college, it seems odd why we are including college newspapers' endorsements as a fact. They are nice, but not necessarily reflective or important compared to leading newspapers (e.g., LA Times, NY Times)..I propose summarily deleting college newspapers' endorsements. If we were to do that, we might as well allow high school newspaper endorsements to be listed as well. If I hear no comments within a week, I'll go ahead and delete the college newspaper endorsements. That would include the Harvard Crimson and Daily Iowan, for example listed under Obama. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine[reply]

  • Agreed, those shouldn't be there. Nor should blogs, radio shows, et al. Those can go under the candidates' endorsements on their campaign pages. -Kallahan (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I also think that trade/Union newspapers are more like newsletters and should not be included in this list. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reconsidering: A University (or other) newspaper endorsement should be considered notable if it was covered by other media outlets (per notability guidelines). I've noticed that some university endorsements appear in mainstream media coverage of the candidates--if there's a reference to the notability of the endorsement it should be included. The Harvard Crimson endorsements for instance were covered by the mainstream Boston media and by the newspapers' own trade magazine[1]. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem still persists...simply because the media outlet mentions the college newspaper's endorsement gives way too much importance upon the degree of influence a particular college may have in that particular community and upon the media outlet's decision to mention it.

For example, Iowa's media outlet will mention Grinell's college paper endorses a particular candidate simply because Grinell happens to be a very influential school in that small state. Similarly, the Boston media outlet will mention the Harvard Crimson's endorsement, simply because it is Harvard. If we give the media outlet's mere mention as the sole criteria for allowing the college paper's endorsement to go onto this page, we give too much undue influence to the media outlet's whim and fancy as to which college newspaper the outlet's editors wish to listen to. This is a slippery slope. How much legitimacy should we give to a tabloid newspaper's mention of the local city college's paper endorsement? How would that be seen as legitimate and Wiki-worthy to be included, if we think that the Harvard Crimson should be included while the tabloid's mention should not, merely because it happened to be mentioned by Boston's media outlet editors? For consistency's sake and the integrity of this page, I affirm the view that college papers' endorsements have no place on this page.

College newspaper endorsements, regardless of whether they are mentioned by the local media outlets, should not be on this page. Aznusmcmarine (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Aznusmcmarine[reply]

Candidate Lists[edit]

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have their own newspaper lists within their Endorsement lists. I merged the Obama lists to avoid duplicate updating, but I don't know how to do the Clinton ones as they're in a different form. McCain should probably be treated the same way. There's no reason I can see that one type of endorsement (newspaper) should be kept separately UNLESS this article is turned into a list grouped by newspaper within state, using color-coding to show which candidate has their current endorsement. I think that's how the Congressional endorsements are being handled.Flatterworld (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in a current campaign, I think that they should be treated the same to avoid bias and remain non-POV. Either both lists should be on this entry, or neither. I will edit Obama's list into this entry (without verification). The reason that I could see that newspaper endorsements should be kept separately from other endorsement is because newspapers should be journalistic, objectively evaluating the choices with fewer biases and fewer opportunities for endorsing for horse-trading reasons. In any case, if Obama's list is removed, Clinton's list should also be removed. Otherwise it is clearly a POV violation. Aardhart (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering[edit]

Why are the Democrat canidates listed before the Republican canidates? I think this is an act of biased beliefs. --Cedarvale1965-08 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Newspaper endorsements in the 2008 United States presidential primaries/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Who is in charge of reviewing the information in this section? There are multiple errors as others have already pointed out. What I will point out myself, and ask, is what is the value of something like this if it is going to be grossly inaccurate? The Oregonian DIDN'T endorse McCain, they endorsed Obama; the Seattle Post Intelligencer DIDN'T endorse McCain, they endorsed Obama? Those were the first two that I checked to confirm. Did I get lucky and choose the only two errors? I highly doubt it. This article should be removed until the information can be checked for accuracy. (64.212.169.195 (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Last edited at 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2008_United_States_presidential_primaries&oldid=1203489687"