Talk:Grupo Reforma

Readership
While this article states that Grupo Reforma is the most read news source in Mexico, this is an assumption and not a fact. I think it should be compared to the readership of Organizacion Editorial Mexicana (OEM, which has the presence in 26 states of the Mexican Republic and the nation's capital with 70 newspapers) and is the largest editorial company in the world that publishes in spanish. I really find hard to believe that Grupo Reforma exceeds the number of readers that OEM has (The paid circulation of La Prensa alone is about 220,000 readers). Furthermore, El Universal that has the highest number of readers in Mexico city (>150,000) has a daily evening edition that prints close to 300,000 newspapers. I think that instead of just adding numbers and assuming that this group is the most read a source in the country and state this as a fact, a source that states this should be found, and in lack of thereof this sentence should be modified or deleted. Andy Rosenthal 05:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias and writing style
God knows I hate to sound like a broken record, but I find a few sentences included in this article biased to say the least.

e.g. "The independent journalism model of Grupo Reforma has drawn many attacks, both verbal and physical, from politicians and other powerful groups whose interests have been affected by the true stories that have been published in the papers in the 85 years the group has been around.[citation needed]"

This las paragraph not only is poorly written but portrays reforma as the last bastion of truth in Mexico. Could we fix this? Perhaps say "The independent journalism model of Grupo Reforma has drawn many attacks, from interest groups whohave been affected by the stories published in the newspapers owned by the group"

Also calling grupo Reforma the largest newspaper company in Mexico is inaccurate. As it is mentioned in the paragraph written by me before this one, the largest newspaper group in Mexico (and the largest newsgroup in the spanish speaking world) is OEM.

I will wait for your comments on these so we can work towards an agreement. Thanks. Andy Rosenthal (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the following paragraph:

"Grupo Refoma's independent journalism drew the ire of the powerful Mexico city's carrier union barely a year after it was born. This syndicate controls distribution of all newspapers in the capital city and was traditionally used by the political system to bring down any paper that was deemed unacceptable. The carried??? union boycotted the distribution of Reforma in Mexico city in October of 1994. Grupo Reforma decided to create and independent distribution channel to sell Reforma in Mexico city's streets. The support of the readers was incredible: intelectuals, artists and regular folks joined Reforma's personnel in the process to create this channel. Dozens of people went to the streets to sell the paper, withstandin the verbal and even physical violence of the carrier union. Currently, Reforma is distributed independently to the homes of 85,000 subscribers, to supermarkets and other retail outlets and to readers in Mexico city's streets. The paper's daily circulation averages 200,000 coopies."

It's very biased. All this can be said without praising the newspaper so much and being more objective. The paragraph continues to say that Reforma (please note the article is about the parent group of the newspaper, not the newspaper itself) is unique, unlike any other newspaper in the world. That is quite a statement! Unless it is written by an expert in this subject (who I would expect to have better grammar and english writing skills) it sounds like someone that is just exaggerating. I would like to correct this as well. I will await your comments so we can reach an agreement and improve this article. Andy Rosenthal (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes
Dear all, I made some changes that I think make the article better (less biased) please let me know your comments. Hari, I am disappointed you allowed this silliness to go on. Anyhow, I really made an effort to maintain a neutral POV. See what you think. ALR. Andy Rosenthal (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)