Talk:Houston Chronicle/Texas Media Watch as source debate

TMW as a source
I'm not removing them for being conservative or liberal. I'm removing them for being a small (probably one-person) outfit who is not sufficiently notable to garner a reasonable number of Google hits and who is therefore not worthy of being used as a source of criticism of one of the 10 largest newspapers in the United States. Johntex 03:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is still POV in and of itself. Unscientific google tests and personal opinions on what constitutes a "worthy" source are not valid reasons for an edit. In its current form the 1-sentence reference on TMW includes both their comment on the Chronicle scandal and a neutral qualifier describing them in a way that neither promotes nor disparages them as a source. Katefan et al wanted descriptions of what TMW was, albeit in a multi-sentence qualifier w/ extensive POV. While this is unacceptable for obvious NPOV reasons, I can oblige the request by identifying Sylvester & her republican affiliation in a neutral way. Rangerdude 03:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no, my rationale is logical in and of itself. Encyclopedias cite reputable sources.  If this was some esoteric subject that only 10 people in the world knew about or understood, then a single-person "media group" might qualify as a source.  There is nothing "unscientific" about checking Google to see how well-known/prevelant a person/group/concept is.  One merely needs to apply the appropriate filter.  For example, one should expect more hits the name of a porn site or computer program than one would on a town in Nigeria, due to the representation of web pages referenced by Google.  In this case, a US-based media group that gets this few hits is simply not worth quoting here.  It is becoming increasingly clear you are desperate to find quotes that disparage the Chronicle, from any source whatsoever.  Johntex 03:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no, your rationale is premised on a personal POV and an unscientific measure. It is becoming increasingly clear you are desperate to disparage sources that are critical of the Chronicle. Rangerdude 03:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How is it POV to want sources we cite to be reputable sources? Johntex 07:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and that from the same guy who wants to include a rabidly partisan hack piece from the Austin Chronicle as a source? Strangely the double standards are multiplying. Rangerdude 15:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not. Personally I agree, I said above that I didn't think the source warranted inclusion.  Sherry Sylvester's organization is basically a one-woman smear shop.  Which is fine.  She's welcome to her opinions, whether they are conservative or liberal (not that that means they deserve a public airing in and of themselves -- I'm sure you both have opinions too, but that doesn't mean you are expert enough to be quoted in a newspaper article... or an encyclopedia).  But what bothers me about her organization is that she bills it as independent and nonpartisan, which it plainly is not.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * As to the alleged partisanship of Sherry Sylvester see this: "She was a speechwriter for U.S. Senate candidate Geraldine Ferraro and served in the administration of New York City Mayor David Dinkins." Nobs 14:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

-Willmcw 04:12, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * And Strom Thurmond and Richard Shelby used to be Democrats, and James Jeffords used to be a Republican. Peoples' opinions change.  Geraldine Ferraro's campaign was 20 years ago, and David Dinkins ended his tenure as mayor more than 10 years ago. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would think David Gergen or George Stephanopoulos, perhaps Bill Moyers (seeing he nurses taxpayer supported PBS for a salary for his non-partisan TV show) are more appropriate comparisons regarding political professionals. The persons you site ran for, and held elected office, i.e. the voters of both major parties passed judgement on thier political views.  That's an unfair comparison, mixing apples and oranges. Nobs 16:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * To Rangerdude regarding his comment to me above, accusing me of double standards: The left or right leaning nature of the Austin Chronicle is not an argument against their cirucluation numbers.  The simple fact is that they are a widely circulated news-source.  Citing them is vastly superior to citing an operation that is apparently run by one person, and which is not even a currently active concern.  Johntex 20:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Johntex: Politely put those rationalizations are grossly unfair. It is not uncommon for non-profit entities to be staffed by volunteers.  You cite 1 source referring to "1 employee".  This is not uncommon at all for a non-profit organization to have 1 paid administrator, especially among so-called "conservative" organizations.  The use of "paid" volunteers among so-called "liberal" groups is itself an issue conservatives have complained about for years, the fact that the law allows non-profit entities to pay those that create them to draw salaries, to-wit, the exact complaints against Barbra Boxer's and Tom Delay's campaign committees.  Also, your so-called "source" is uncorroborated, assuming there was any merit to your arguement in the first place.  Further, one would tend to become sympathetic to the arguments propagated a few years ago when media giants like Hearst Corporation bought out the competetion so they could monoploize a market when one hears arguements that a 2 year old non-profit entity is "too small" to independently monitor the activities of corporate giants. Seeing the Chronicle sees no need to monitor itself with an Ombudsman, the use of the only media watchdog group in Texas (as best I can determine) offers a very appropriate NPOV for this encyclopedia article. Nobs 20:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the Austin Chronicle's "circulation" numbers are NOT actual subscribers to the paper who purchase copies to read or pay for its morning delivery. The Austin Chronicle is one of those freebie throwaway rags that they dump in bulk on the racks outside the grocery stores (or, as is more likely to be the case with the Austin Chronicle, the adult film stores). It's financed by tattoo parlor coupons, ads for so-called psychics and astrologers, boat-for-sale clippings, nudie bar reviews, and personal listings rather than anybody actually buying the thing because they want to read it. Technically they could dump 900,000 copies of the thing at every Safeway, Wal-Mart, Costco, and McDonalds in the greater Austin area then claim to be the biggest paper in the state as a result of it, but that's no guarantee than anybody other than a few thousand regular readers and the homeless guy who uses it for bench linings will actually pick it up. And it's certainly no guarantee that one shred of anything they say is credible, trustworthy, or reputable enough to use as an encyclopedia source. Rangerdude 21:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Throw away rag is exactly appropriate if 100% of its revenue comes from advertising & 0% from subsrciption or newsstand sales. Nobs 22:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Would that be a correct description of the "Houston Press" as well? -Willmcw 22:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be, but then again nobody around here is throwing up the Houston Press's circulation numbers as "proof" that they are some sort of grand authoritative and reputable source. Rangerdude 23:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So what proof do we have that the Houston Press is a reputable source? Are throw away rags usable sources or not? -Willmcw 23:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * For that matter, is the Houston Review a reliable source? It's a student publication run by conservative students at the University of Houston.  I have no idea what its circulation numbers are, but its website doesn't seem to be funcational anymore (unless I have the wrong site... www.houstonreview.com doesn't seem to be working right now).  It's a freebie paper, too, isn't it? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 06:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they are reputable is dependent upon the content of their articles. If what they say is factually sound, or if it has a record of being consistently right on stories, then they are reputable. If on the other hand they publish angry partisan rants, smear pieces, and hatchet jobs that are unverified/unverifiable, distorted by a strong bias, or factually unsound then they are not reputable. To date, very little has emerged challenging the HP articles, and though it is a recognized and admitted liberal publication, it is not maliciously so like the Austin Chronicle. The Austin Chronicle's bias is overbearing and many of its claims are simply thrown out there without explanation, reference, or quotation. That includes the primary claim being used by other editors here about TMW, which is a wholly speculative attack on TMW suggesting that it is a 1-woman operation. In short, reputation comes from content rather than circulation figures and content may only be evaluated on a case by case basis. This applies to pretty much any source. If a neighborhood homeowners association newsletter with 25 readers has the facts right and a large newspaper with 25,000 has them wrong, you go with the newsletter because of its content's accuracy - not how many people supposedly read it. High circulation figures do not make an error any less wrong, and low circulation figures do not make a correct fact any less right. Rangerdude 01:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is false to imply that an angry partisan rant cannot be factually correct at the same time as it is also a rant. It is false to say that the AC's claim that TMW is a one-person shop is unsubstantiated. A look at their own web site supports the claim, since no one else is ever even mentioned, and since the place has been dormant since Sylvester left.  Let's look at what you call "content rather than circulation": the TMW cite has no content other than personal commentary on what other media sources write.  Johntex 02:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As noted previously by Nobs, the fact that they only name one individual on their website is not indicative that she is the only individual involved in the group. Policy organizations such as TMW often have a staff and/or unpaid interns who are seldom if ever named in the group's official publication. To conclude as you and the Austin Chronicle do is accordingly speculation. Rangerdude 03:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is you who are speculating there are other people involved. The evidence is on my side. What do you think these hypothetical people have been doing since Sylvester left - taking a web course so they can actually post something perhaps?  Also, you mischaracterize TMW as being "run by" the Lone Star Foundation.  According to the TMW website, they are/were "sponsored" by the Lone Star Foundation.   For all any of us knows, that may mean LSF gave TMW $10.  Johntex 03:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you know beyond any doubt that Sherry Sylvester is the only person involved at TMW, and you do not, it is speculation on your part and by the Austin Chronicle. Want more examples of speculation? Try your latest uninformed guess that LSF's involvement was $10 cash. Like it or not, Johntex, your entire case is speculative and thus inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Come back when you've got something provable to contribute. Rangerdude 03:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you have any proof that there is more than one person involved, then it is reasonable to state the apparent number of persons involved. The burden is on you to show there is a "group" as you keep calling them. TMW only call itself a "project," which could easily by one persona working part-time. -Willmcw 03:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an arbitrarily imposed burden of proof. If the organization refers to itself in plural (which TMW does), then neutrality dictates that we abstain from describing them as a one-man operation unless it can be conclusively shown by other means that they are such. Right now you've only got speculation, and that speculation is based only on (1) a rabidly partisan Austin Chronicle article and (2) original research by you and others attempting to locate Sylvester's name on the site. Neither is enough to merit an encyclopedia entry change. Of course if the case were as clear cut as you'd like us to believe, you'd be able to come up with a source with a higher reputation and less partisanship than the Austin Chronicle. I've yet to see any though, and right now the fact that the case relies so heavily on such a controversial and suspect source is proof enough that its claims probably should not be included absent further verification. Rangerdude 04:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the editorial "we". And yes, we have a reference to them as a one-person shop. And please provide proof that the editors of the Austin Chronicle have rabies, or stop calling them "rabid". Can you provide even a single source that gives a different number of TMW staffers? If not, then we should go with the best available source, the Austin Chronicle. Cheers,
 * Whether or not it's an editorial "we" is speculative. You are not a member of TMW, are you? If not you cannot presume to think for them. A source that is suspect is no basis for a change even if it is the only source out there. Otherwise you open a whole pandora's box of problems. I suppose if you looked hard enough you could find some kooky internet site claiming that George Bush kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and using your same methodology, it could be included since it is the "best available source" on Bush and the Lindbergh baby and since there's probably not anything out there challenging it. But that, of course, would be absurd, as is taking any source simply because its the "best (read: only) available source" out there, especially when the claim is inherently speculative and the source is highly controversial and suspect...as happens to be the case with the Austin Chronicle. Now, as for the Austin Chronicle itself, I will continue to reference their rabid behavior as I see fit (rabid, as used here, being defined as "raging, zealous, fanatical" per American Heritage Dictionary rather than its other definition of having the disease rabies). If you would like examples please see my previous post on the subject where I listed several examples of raging, zealous, and fanatical attacks made on republicans and conservatives throughout their article. Rangerdude 04:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In a Lexis-Nexis search I just performed on the phrase "Texas Media Watch," all references mention Sherry Sylvester and no others save David Hartman in his role as Lone Star Foundation's wallet. This in and of itself is not conclusive proof that Sylvester is the lone functionary at TMW, but there has not been anyone else associated with the project in print either. Rangerdude, by your reasoning all the partisan critiques in the entire article should be removed.  They're all from sources that are partisan (or believed partisan), so that should invalidate them all.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 06:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * The uncorroborated source in question specifically states, "one employee", i.e. a W-2 or 1099 compensated "employee". That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the size of an organizations staff.  Contributors can provide in kind services, i.e. uncompensated staffing services, (this is extrememly common in so-called "conservative organizations".  You will recall Democrats in the 2004 elections spent millions of dollars for paid employees to (1) register voters (2) get out the vote.  Republicans spent virtully nothing and matched or exceeded Democratic operations)  It is very common for so called "liberal" non-profit organizations to create 501 (c) (3) entities, pay themselves huge salaries, and solicit funds for non-profit activity.  It likewise is very common for conservative groups (and churches) to create non-profit entities and volunteers contribute time and labor, i.e. the EXACT OPPOSITE of being compensated. To make a judgement on the size of an organizations staff and contributors based an biased writing by a ssomeone who knowingly used the deceptive word "employee", is classic and typical of the abuses rampant among rabid anti-conservative writers.  To accept this tripe and blather as somehow being evidence or factual that any conclusion can be drawn reflects only on the partisan prejudices and POV of those insisting on such a judgement.  Nobs 18:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)