Jump to content

Talk:The Boston Globe

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

Expand

[edit]

this is a rather short article for the most circulated newspaper in New England. I'm sure we can do better than this, just not sure how to go about improving the article.--Alhutch 10:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon controversy?

[edit]

I'm going to get rid of the "Cartoon Controversy" section. If they didn't publish the cartoons, than there was no controversy. If their refusal to publish the cartoons led to outcry, than it needs to be sourced. AFAIK nobody really cared that they didn't. -Xcm 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted, but I agree. Including this implies that the Globe was an actual player in the controversy itself, as opposed to merely reporting it, and, to my knowledge, it was not. --Elcocinero 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other controversies

[edit]

Should mention be made of the Mike Barnicle and Patricia Smith fabrication controversies? Coming right after one another the way they did made the Globe look really bad for a time.--ColForbin 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can write it in a WP:NPOV way, then be bold and do so!
Atlant 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
done, hope people like it.--ColForbin 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section on Peter Quinn, and I also suggest deleting the "Big Dig" section unless a citation is provided Mateo LeFou 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Barnicle case was more complicated and less clear-cut. Wasn't the accusation at him more about his re-using his own old material without acknowledging it? I don't think that pure fabrication was ever proven in his case.
24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy / Political Bias

[edit]

Most wiki articles about major newspapers have a section on controversy and accusations of political bias. This article conspicuously lacked one-- so I added it. 24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe is, of course, a kneejerk liberal newspaper, so it is fair to add a section on its political tilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. It is a mainstream newspaper that tries to fairly and accurately cover its community. It has an editorial page (that operates separately from the newsroom) that leans a bit to the left, but has also endorsed moderate Republicans. But the paper overall tries to be fair. Muckrkr (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section?

[edit]

I added a couple of lines to History on the false 'GI rape' photographs of 2004 - the story is on a Wikipedia "scandals" page (List_of_United_States_journalism_scandals) and needed to be wiki-linked. I didn't go into any detail - but left 3 citations. Don't you need a controversy section? It might be a bit much for a History section, this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be a section on how they covered up for former Senate President William Bulger and the Bulger crime family and were light on reporting on the sexual misconduct of Ted Kennedy and the child rapist Gary Studds.173.48.197.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe had some of the key reporting exposing the Whitey Bulger. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/22/magazine/how-spotlight-revealed-secret-deal-between-whitey-bulger-fbi/ Muckrkr (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Co will be closing the Boston Globe in 60 days

[edit]

Could someone back this up please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.110 (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper conspiracy

[edit]

In a May 2002 interview with the Italian-Catholic publication 30 Giorni, Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga claimed that Jews influenced the Boston Globe to exploit the recent controversy regarding sexual abuse by Catholic priests in order to divert attention from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. This provoked outrage from the anti-Defamation League, especially since Maradiaga has a reputation as a moderate and that he is regarded as a papabile. [1] Another interesting issue is that journalist Michael Paulson writes that certain high-ranking Church officials had called for divine intervention against the Boston Globe during the abuse scandals, and that the newspaper is currently in decline because of the financial crisis. [2] ADM (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

michael paulson

[edit]

Ok... alright, where is this man's column. He is the man who made this paper famous and he is one of the minority journalists who does not have his own page?

I believe somebody (more qualified than me) should make his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 'declining circulation' sentence from first section

[edit]

In an encyclopedia article, discussion of declining circulation over the last decade does not belong at the top when the business has existed for 140 years. It looks like someone just wanted to kick the Globe for ideological reasons. There's nothing wrong with including that information, but it does not belong at the very top.

MarkinBoston (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

[edit]

The History section suffers from a bad case of recentism. Not surprising on Wikipedia, but still, the section needs to be expanded beyond ten years ago - the average memory of most Wikipedia editors.

And while I"m at it - does the seal story deserve notice? Granted it's hard to get newspapers to do retractions or even corrections, but how big an issue was this?

MarkinBoston (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrication by journalist

[edit]

Be careful about using Patricia Smith articles.

She admitted to fabricating quotes in some of her columns. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Boston Globe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Boston Globe. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend merging content into new section

[edit]

The subsection on the 2018 death threats duplicates content also found in the editorial section. The effect of this duplication appears to limit and remove Trump's stated involvement in the precipitating events leading up to the threats. Currently, there is no mention of Trump in the threats subsection, and little explanatory info about the threats in the editorial section. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]

This content needs to be merged and rewritten to show the proper order of historical events which have been muddled. The order should appear as follows:

1. Trump attacks the press as the "enemy of the people"

2. Boston Globe responds to Trump's attacks with an editorial

3. Right wing media and Trump claim they've been "attacked" (?)

4. Boston Globe receives death threats from a Trump supporter

In August 2018, the editorial board launched a coordinated campaign for newspapers nationwide to respond to President Donald Trump's "enemy of the people" attacks and "fake news" rants against the media by publishing locally produced editorial responses on Thursday, August 16.[1][2] Within a couple of days, an estimated 100+ newspapers had pledged to join the campaign,[3] jumping to roughly 200 a few days later.[4] On Aug 13, the Radio Television Digital News Association and its Voice of the First Amendment Task Force encouraged its 1,200 member organizations to join the campaign[5] while other media organizations also helped spread the call to action.[6] Even as some right-leaning outlets portrayed the Globe's campaign as an attack on the president, rather than his rhetorical attacks on the fourth estate,[7][8] some newspapers got a head start, releasing content on Wednesday the 15th, including the Virginia-based Connection Newspapers group,[9] the combined East Bay Times and Mercury News,[10] and the Baltimore Sun.[11] On Thursday the 16th, 350 newspapers participated in the event.[12][13]

The president responded with a tweet accusing the media of collusion. The Globe later received several phone threats with at least one threat mentioning an afternoon bomb. While authorities did not consider the threat to be "super serious", uniformed police nonetheless raised their presence in and around the building, building management notified other tenants, and the FBI was investigating.[14][15][16]

Between August 10–22, 2018, approximately 14 threatening phone calls were made to Boston Globe offices. The caller stated that the Globe was the "enemy of the people" and threatened to kill newspaper employees.[17] On August 16, 2018, the Globe and more than 400 news outlets from across the United States jointly published editorials in support of free press.[18]

References

  1. ^ Wootson Jr., Cleve R. (August 12, 2018). "'Not the enemy of the people': 70 news organizations will blast Trump's attack on the media". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
  2. ^ "Globe calls for war of words against Trump media attacks". Associated Press. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
  3. ^ Stelter, Brian (August 11, 2018). "More than 100 newspapers will publish editorials decrying Trump's anti-press rhetoric". CNNMoney. Retrieved August 13, 2018.
  4. ^ Reiss, Jaclyn. "200 newspapers join Globe effort on freedom of the press editorials". MSN. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  5. ^ "RTDNA calls on members to join campaign defending press freedom". rtdna.org. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  6. ^ "Boston Globe seeks coordinated editorial to stand up to attack on journalism – CNPA". cnpa.com. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  7. ^ Scarry, Eddie (August 15, 2018). "Media coordinate with each other to battle Trump". Washington Examiner. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  8. ^ Flood, Brian (August 15, 2018). "Coordinated anti-Trump editorials 'sure to backfire,' critic warns". Fox News. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  9. ^ Kimm, Mary. "Opinion: Editorial: Freedom of the Press, Friend of Democracy". McLean Connection. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  10. ^ "Editorial: President Trump, we are not the nation's enemy". The Mercury News. August 15, 2018. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  11. ^ "Opinion: Editorial: Freedom of the Press, Friend of Democracy". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  12. ^ "Editorial effort in support of the free press sparks both praise and pushback". The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 17, 2018.
  13. ^ Stendahl, Max. "Trump slams Globe's op-ed project, makes false claim about 2013 sale". www.bizjournals.com. Retrieved August 17, 2018.
  14. ^ "Boston Globe steps up security due to bomb threat in wake of Trump tweet". WHDH 7News. Retrieved August 17, 2018.
  15. ^ "Boston Globe Reports Bomb Threat as President Trump Assails the Paper". Democracy Now!. Retrieved August 17, 2018.
  16. ^ Snider, Mike. "Boston Globe gets bomb threat after editorial blasts President Donald Trump's media attacks". USA Today. Retrieved August 17, 2018.
  17. ^ Ellement, John R.; Andersen, Travis; Valencia, Milton (August 30, 2018). "Calif. man charged with threatening to kill Globe employees he called 'enemy of the people'". The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 30, 2018.
  18. ^ Editorial, Board (August 16, 2018). "Journalists Are Not The Enemy". The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 30, 2018.
Assuming the desired result is the three paragraphs of narrative text (excluding the numbered list), I think this would be a good change. As you say, the context of the editorial and bomb threat need to be explained in one place. My only concerns are (a) the length of this narrative, possibly WP:UNDUE-ly long for an encyclopedia article that's supposed to cover all of the nearly century-and-a-half history of a Pulitzer-winning newspaper; (b) the number of references. Each fact needs just one good citation. My vote would be to focus on references from sources that are widely accepted as impartial, such as large print media (USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, the Globe itself) and local TV news (WHDH). With respect to point (a), I think a good copyedit could tighten the language to reduce the word count substantially without sacrificing too much detail. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to still fix this if it hasn't already been addressed. I tried to do it in my user space and I failed. I will make a very strong cup of coffee tomorrow morning and give it one last try, but I had no idea it would be this difficult. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Dmoore5556 fixed the issue more than a month ago, so I'll cross this task off my list. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should be at bottom of page

[edit]

I am typing this at the bottom of the source page, having intended to add another talk entry. But markup of content somewhere above is malformed causing interposition of more text below. Once fixed, delete my entry.

Jimlue (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) <End of my entry.>[reply]

 Done: I assume the text you'd seen below was the list of references from the previous section, which defaulted to a listing at the bottom of the page. I fixed that. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 04:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

citations

[edit]

Added a few inline [citation needed] as I noticed that some key facts are lacking links. L.K.amila (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Boston_Globe&oldid=1194475649"