Talk:Tampa Bay Times/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tampa Bay Times. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What exactly are we basing this claim on?
Largely indeterminable 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess they're saying that because when compared to that rag across the Bay, the Tampa Tribune, it's definitelty more open. However, I don't think a "liberal" paper would have endorsed Republicans in this past election, but let them have their fun. I bet the one who wrote that works for the Trib anyway; hey, whatever "helps" boost their readership, I guess they'll try! :-D Jimbo 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I live in the clearwater/st.pete area and yes, the Times is considered to be a liberal paper here.

The people calling the St Pete Times liberal are just doing what they always do. Following Bill O'Reillys marching orders. Do a search for st petersburg times bill oreilly if you dont believe me. Its scary how many people Bill-o has brainwashed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.92.100 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When our current republican governor was elected a few months ago The Times published a front page article posing the question "why was a republican governor elected here in Florida when Democrats swept the rest of the country?" They provided their own answer by stating that he was bankrolled into office by Disney and other big businesses in the area. I'd cite sources if this wasn't the talk page.

Note: that wasn't in the editorial section, it was on the front page.

The Times isn't just liberal, it is extremely liberal. That is the general consensus here in the community.

Atshields0 10:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny...I live in the same community (well, St. Pete, but it's all Pinellas) and I don't hear "liberal" thrown around except by the extreme right. I would, however, admit that it's definitely not "conservative"; that's the beauty of being owned by itself and not by a media conglomerate like the Trib. You're free to print whatever you want and not worry about what the stockholders think. I'll say the Times is definitely "moderate", but liberal they are not; only the best, GOP or Dem., get nods from the Times, irregardless of party. The Trib (and other far-right media outlets) would endorse a monkey if he were the GOP candidate. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard anything to the contrary nor see sourcing for these statements, I'm removing the connotation of a "liberal" paper come Mar. 7, since that will have been one month since my last comments. Any objections, please find a source. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to lack any formatting beyond paragraphs, with the exception of the controversies section. Anyone volunteer to re-format it? I'm adding a Politifact.com section, and adding a note of the pulitzer prize win in 2009.Max.inglis (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a table with some additional sources on the newspaper's Pulitzer Prizes. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the fact that they were criticized by a Scientology magazine really notable? As it is that takes up a major part of the article. Borock (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Agree with you that it is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Cirt (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It owns naming rights for the St. Pete Times Forum in Tampa.

In October 2006, a full partnership was formed between the Times and Bay News 9. The partnership's foundations actually began in 2005, with Bay News 9's political-themed program Political Connections.

In October 2006, the newspaper was completely redesigned, as roughly a dozen new sections were added, the size of the paper was reduced by one and a half (1 1/2) inches, the coloring of the paper was changed to be "more vibrant", and the general news area (formerly known as "The Times Today") was moved to the left side of the paper and renamed "In the Know."

The Times had spread throughout the Suncoast over the years, adding bureaus in Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus counties. In April 2007, however, the newspaper closed its outlying Citrus County bureau.

The newspaper's slogan is "In the know, in the Times".

The newspaper also ranks as one of the largest customers for CSX Transportation in the Bay Area, receiving many boxcars of paper on a daily basis using railroad tracks that run right next to the printing center, located in St. Petersburg at the corner of 13th Avenue North and 34th Street North (US 19). ^{[citation needed]}

Among the subjects it has covered is the Church of Scientology, which has a base in nearby Clearwater, Florida.

---

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Added sourced info to Awards and nominations box, with help from EaglesFanInTampa (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole subsection seems to be a bit POV pushing, as well as WP:NOR violation. Especially the recent bits. -- Cirt (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I added "the recent bits". I have reinstated them, and I will attempt to justify their inclusion here. Firstly, the political slant of a media outlet is important and relevant. In the case of the St. Petersburg Times it is more important than usual, because much is made of the fact that they are independently owned and operated, and they use this fact to bolster their non-partisan credentials on sites like PolitiFact.com. Secondly, I contend that this section follows WP:NPOV. Presidential endorsements are an objective, concise, and easily understood benchmark of the slant of an editorial page. Thirdly, I contend that this section does not violate WP:NOR. From WP:NOR:

• "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context."
• "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." (Emphasis in original.)

The only interpretation I have made is that the "Times has a long history of endorsing Democratic candidates". I believe that this is a "descriptive [statement] that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge". Perhaps an alternative can be found for the phrase "long history". If you have further suggestions for how to enhance NPOV or NOR without removing relevant information, I would be grateful for them. -- NilsTycho (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have changed "has a long history of endorsing" to "has historically endorsed". I have also retitled the section "Editorial page position" (from "Political slant"). --NilsTycho (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

...and removed an extraneous "only" from a prior sentence. --NilsTycho (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Heck, why not; I removed "historically" as well. --NilsTycho (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is POV pushing. Especially the WP:NOR violations to list all the endorsements in such a fashion. Please remove it. -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed it again. I checked but did not see this sort of POV-pushing and use of violations of WP:NOR to advance an agenda on any other articles about newspapers. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, what POV do you believe I am pushing? Secondly, what agenda do you believe I am advancing? Thirdly, why do you contend that the quoted sections of WP:NOR (regarding primary sources) do not apply in this case? I do not believe I have added any statements that make "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". If I have, please remove the statement itself rather than the entire section. --NilsTycho (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

After an extended period without a third opinion, I have refactored this section to have a smaller footprint, a greater emphasis on recent elections, and a synthetic secondary source. I still assert that it violates neither WP:NOR nor WP:NPOV for reasons given in my previous comment. --NilsTycho (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's funny that you added back the evaluative word "only" in this section. That seems more POV than anything I've added. :-p --NilsTycho (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the study at http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/?f=h_top indicates that the conservative columnists make up 29% and progressive columnist make up 43%. To say that the opinions are in the same proportion may be misleading unless all those columninsts individually express exactly the same number of opinions. ElderHap (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I have two further concerns about this statement. The first is that I cannot verify these numbers at mediamatters.org. Does the journalist referenced have privileged knowledge of the report, or am I just not looking in the right place at mediamatters.org? The second is that I think MMfA should be referenced as a partisan source. From their website: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." I would therefore support the removal, rephrasing, and/or resourcing of this statement. --NilsTycho (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Did you look at the PDF at http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/oped_report.pdf ? 2. Good point. ElderHap (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at that PDF. I don't see anything about the Times. Do you? --NilsTycho (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the three reasons given above, I have removed the statement: "A 2007 study by Media Matters for America found that the St. Petersburg Times was one of four newspapers in Florida that featured more progressive opinions than conservative, with 43 percent of columnists considered progressive and 29 percent considered conservative.^[1]" --NilsTycho (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Keeping this on the talk page pending resolution of the above dispute. Maybe it can be used in place of the sentence that constitutes my alleged original research. --NilsTycho (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"It is true that the Times editorial board has never recommended a Republican candidate for president of the United States in a general election." Times editorialist Jeff Webb, 2000. ^[2]

I wish I had a more recent source for these ones. I don't know if it's still true, but if it is, and somebody reliable has said so, that should probably replace the Webb quote. --NilsTycho (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"In all their many years of endorsing and recommending candidates, the Timess editors have never endorsed a Republican for President of the United States. They have never endorsed a Republican for governor. Nor have they ever endorsed a Republican for U.S. senator." - Rep. Dennis McDonald (R), 1976^[3]

"Their record of never endorsing a Republican for President, U.S. senator or governor is indefensible." - Rep. Dennis McDonald (R), 1976^[4]

The Times' list of Pulitzer Prizes included an error in 1980. (It was the wrong award.) The Wikipedia article listed it correctly. I wrote them a letter, and they fixed the error. --NilsTycho (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not dead-set on this, it just seems like Times Publishing Company doesn't stand on its own. I suggest working it into History or Other Brands on this page, or making a new section for it. We could also move Other Brands to the Times Publishing Company article, but since most of its endeavors are co-branded with the Times, I suspect that people will just add them back to this article. --NilsTycho (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The other article could be substantially developed, within the model of The Washington Post Company and The New York Times Company. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Go for it. --NilsTycho (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The independent notability is there. Just can't focus on it myself at the moment, however feel free to work on that other article yourself if you so desire. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Retract suggestion to merge. With the Properties section having been moved to Times Publishing Company, I think that it can stand on its own. It's a little bit odd that Politifact.com stays on this page while (for instance) tbt* doesn't, but I don't have a better suggestion. --NilsTycho (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove the External links section. It is standard for articles on Wikipedia and it is an additional helpful resource for the reader. -- Cirt (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's start with three of them. One link is to tbt*, which isn't mentioned on this page. One link is to Bay News 9, which isn't mentioned on this page (and is only tangentially related in the first place). One link is a dead link to an article at The Deal (and I'm not sure why it's there in the first place). Are these necessary? --NilsTycho (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, removed those 3. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind about the remaining two. :-) It does look like most other newspapers duplicate the official website link on the sidebar and the External links section. --NilsTycho (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In 2004, the St. Petersburg Times described its editorial page as "the more liberal voice of Tampa Bay", contrasting itself with the Tampa Tribune, "Tampa's conservative torch".^[5] The Times makes an endorsement in every election.^[6] In 2000, Times editorialist Jeff Webb stated that "the Times editorial board has never recommended a Republican candidate for president of the United States in a general election."^{[7][note 1]} The Times endorsed Al Gore^[22] in 2000, John Kerry^[23] in 2004, and Barack Obama^[24] in 2008.

This whole swath of info that NilsTycho (talk · contribs) keeps attempting to push into this article is POV pushing, and also a violation of WP:NOR in order to further that POV pushing using 99% primary sources. It should be removed, unless secondary sources can be found. -- Cirt (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Removed, [1], as POV-pushing, violations of WP:NOR, using only primary sources and no secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked above what POV you suspect me of pushing. You have not answered. Without knowing what POV I am supposed to be pushing, I am unsure how to change this to make it acceptable to you. I have also explained why I believe it does not constitute original research. I quoted sections of WP:NOR that specifically allow primary sources, and I believe my edits fall within the bounds it sets out. I understand that you disagree, but I would like to know why, so that I can fix it.

Let's start with this particular sentence: "In 2004, the St. Petersburg Times described its editorial page as "the more liberal voice of Tampa Bay", contrasting itself with the Tampa Tribune, "Tampa's conservative torch".^[25]"

Why do you believe this violates WP:NPOV? Why do you believe this violates WP:NOR? --NilsTycho (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you bring forth any secondary sources to support the POV you are attempting to advance on this page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Have I stopped beating my wife?" :-) I'm trying to work through this one piece at a time, so that you can help me understand where you see a POV in my edits. Would you please answer the two questions I asked about the first sentence? --NilsTycho (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The POV pushing is through attempting to push out multiple primary sources in order to advance an agenda on the page, to advocate and give WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a viewpoint regarding what you perceive to be the publication's bias. This is inappropriate, unless it was already given significant weight in WP:RS secondary sources. Thus, my question asking you about secondary sources is appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'm just talking about that first sentence right now. It has only one source. Are you saying that the Times article "Newspaper's presidential indecision roils its readers" is an inappropriately used primary source? You appear to have no objection to the use of the Times article "St. Petersburg Times wins two Pulitzer Prizes" or of the page "St. Petersburg Times History - From 1884 to present". --NilsTycho (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wherever possible, we should try to use secondary sources in order to inform the article on what is most significant and noteworthy of inclusion. Do any secondary sources give significant commentary to this? -- Cirt (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I would welcome additional secondary sources on the topic, but I have not found any that are more reliable than the one I gave. Sources, even unreliable sources, may be used as sources of information about themselves. It is common practice to do this: check the number of times the New York Times article references New York Times articles, such as the column by Daniel Okrent "in which he concluded that The Times did have a liberal bias". Also, the difference between primary and secondary sources can be muddy. I am not combining individual primary sources to synthesize the subjective conclusion that the Times has "the more liberal voice of Tampa Bay", I am quoting a source that has already synthesized that subjective conclusion. I would argue that this is a secondary source. --NilsTycho (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a primary source. And it should not be used to add WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to advance a disputed POV agenda on this article. If this were the predominant viewpoint shared already among a significant amount of secondary sources, there would be no problem and I myself would support its inclusion in this article. That is not the case here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have "Poynter, who died in 1978, was the owner of the St. Petersburg Times, a bastion of journalistic excellence and liberal tradition." from an opinion piece at the New York Times. I'm still working on additional external reliable sources. --NilsTycho (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Actually, the margin of victory is in itself amazing given the constant barrage of anti-Bush/pro-Kerry reporting from the liberal newspapers (St. Petersburg Times near the top of the list)" from an editorial by a "liberal Democrat" at the St. Petersburg Times, so not external. Still looking. --NilsTycho (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"The usually liberal St. Petersburg Times denounced House Speaker Johnnie Byrd in an editorial, saying the Republican who led the campaign 'to save Terri Schiavo' was engaging in 'immoral politics' to further his U.S. Senate hopes." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, not an opinion piece. --NilsTycho (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give the full citation for that, and an alternate link? That link does not seem to work for me. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Fixed. --NilsTycho (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not surprisingly, the 2009 list of winners and nominees reads like a who’s who list of liberal “journalists” and writers. On the “journalism” side, the left-of-center New York Times claims the majority of awards with the left-of-center Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times grabbing a piece of hardware that simply confirms their bias." Washington Examiner. The Op-Ed appears to be written from a pretty far right perspective. --NilsTycho (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That source fails WP:RS. -- Cirt (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean because it's written by a former press secretary of Bob Dole? It's obviously quite biased. --NilsTycho (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you liked the last one, you'll love Bill O'Reilly: "We believe the following media operations have regularly helped distribute defamatory, false or non-newsworthy information supplied by far left websites: The St. Petersburg Times" and also in a list of "Media Outlets Soft on Child Predators". LMAO. --NilsTycho (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added info, cite, from source suggested above by NilsTycho (talk · contribs) - the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, see [2]. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good for now. I'm done for tonight. I will probably argue for adding additional material after a break. :-) --NilsTycho (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have listed this disagreement at WP:3O. At issue is the following sentence:

In 2004, the St. Petersburg Times described its editorial page as "the more liberal voice of Tampa Bay", contrasting itself with the Tampa Tribune, "Tampa's conservative torch".^[26]

As I understand it, User:Cirt opposes the inclusion of this sentence on the basis that it violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I disagree. You can see our arguments above. Right now, I would like to keep the discussion on this sentence only. --NilsTycho (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is whether NilsTycho (talk · contribs) is attempting to advocate and push out a POV agenda regarding his perception of this article's subject's bias, and promote this view in the article (see [3] followed by large amount of primary-sourced material, [4]). Per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, we should take our cue from independent reliable secondary sources, and not simply rely upon primary sources for this sort of disputed usage. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Right now, I would like to keep the discussion on this sentence only." I am not attempting to defend anything else at the moment. --NilsTycho (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NilsTycho (talk · contribs) clearly wishes to add a huge amount of material overweighting this article with a POV about the newspaper's perceived bias, for example, [5]. NilsTycho (talk · contribs) has failed to suggest independent reliable secondary sources to back up this inappropriate attempt at making this article be primarily about the perceived bias of the newspaper. -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at NilsTycho (talk · contribs)'s link, I have to agree with Cirt (talk · contribs) that a sentence reading, in full, 'On the other side has been the St. Petersburg Times editorial page, with it's reputation as the more liberal voice of Tampa Bay.' (bolding mine) does not qualify as evidence that said newspaper does have any such reputation when sourced from that newspaper. However, that does not mean there is no such evidence in existence, and I do not believe it violates WP:NPOV to have that reputation mentioned, *provided* there are suitable, independent sources confirming that that reputation exists. (tl;dr: I think the ref violates WP:NOR, but that the referenced information does *not* violate WP:NPOV.) --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call regarding "reputation". The sentence as I wrote it is strictly wrong. I should have written "In 2004, the St. Petersburg Times said its editorial page had 'a reputation as the more liberal voice of Tampa Bay', contrasting itself with the Tampa Tribune, 'Tampa's conservative torch'." They do state that they are on "the other side" of the political divide (not that they have a "reputation" of being on the other side), but that's more awkward to cite. And it sounds like there would still be a 2-1 vote that it would violate WP:NOR. --NilsTycho (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In 2012 there was a story about how the Times could no longer fund Poynter institute. And in 2014 the Tampa Tribune reported Tampa Bay Times finances strained. I realize it's a rival paper, but it's pretty interesting stuff. Have other media picked up the story at all? Is the Tampa Bay Times in trouble and selling off assets? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In comparing the Wikipedia page for the Orlando Sentinel to the one for the Tampa Bay Times, different standards seem to prevail. The Sentinel page says the Sentinel "has historically tilted conservative" with no supporting citation apart from mentioning that it has endorsed only three Democrats for president since 1964.^[1] If that's an acceptable measure, it's worth noting the admission from Times editor Tim Nickens that the Times had never, as of 2010, endorsed a Republican presidential candidate in a general election.^[2]Zebrafc (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).