Talk:Courier Newsroom

So far, the only sources are Vox, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, MSN, and the newspapers themselves (note own publications are valid sources for statements about themselves). Please add additional sources as you come across them. XavierItzm (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Added The New Yorker. XavierItzm (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

External links

Marquardtika, you eliminated the links to the individual papers. Is there a particular reason? XavierItzm (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I was thinking of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Since we already have the one official overarching external link for Courier Newsroom, I didn't think we needed additional official external links for any of its subsidiaries. Marquardtika (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL also gives room to include: "In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information." In this case, evidently e.a. website is independent and "local". But look, my main concern is the following: since it is unlikely that e.a. "local" outlet will ever get a Wiki page, shouldn't this here overarching Courier page link to e.a., to increase the chances that Wikipedia readers making searches for, say, Cardinal & Pine will find info on "Cardinal & Pine"? I think it important that readers of the "local" outlets be able to find this page. Having said that, if you find this approach counterproductive, I'm ok with not including. XavierItzm (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Let's restore the links. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes seem highly biased.

The recent changes, alleging that the organization is "what appear to be local pseudo-news outlets but which are actually Democratic Party propaganda efforts." Referenced material doesn't support the conclusion. It is, to me, obviously edited by a biased hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:181:6F30:CCE:68B3:9E5E:1959 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with comment above. There are significant issues around this operation, but the tone of the article is clearly biased against them and not up to Wikipedia’s usual standards.

Puffery in lead sentence

I see that back in December, User:Relampaguitoss significantly changed the lead sentence of the article. The lead sentence prior to the changes said, "Courier Newsroom is a digital media company which operates pseudo-news outlets and sponsors political advertising intended to support Democratic candidates." After the change, the lead sentence says, "Courier News is a digital media company that operates one national and seven local news sites that produce original reporting on issues of vital interest to the citizens in these markets." User:Relampaguitoss, in the edit summary, characterized the change as "grammar and organization". As an edit summary, that's a fail. The lead as it exists now is obvious puffery. The lead as it existed before seems like reverse-puffery. The article needs a new lead, for sure. Novellasyes (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for noticing this. I reverted to an earlier version prior to some sourced content being removed in December. Marquardtika (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It happened again! A user, in this case User:Pernicious Fungi, made a fairly dramatic change to the intro. The dramatic change has two characteristics: (a) It introduces puffery and (b) the edit summary is an epic fail. The edit summary says "infobox parameters and punctuation" while in fact, the edit is a significant re-writing of the lede to introduce puffery. This is very similar to what User:Relampaguitoss did back in December. Novellasyes (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: Dang, good catch. Sneaky edit summaries are the worst. I have too many articles on my watchlist to notice this stuff...Marquardtika (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marquardtika:, well, I could have fixed it myself but I got weirded out by it seeming so aggressive. Novellasyes (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Article to add

Inside the new $65 million push from progressives to compete with conservative media. Just came across this one. Lots of good content here. I will try to add some stuff from this article soon. Marquardtika (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Biased changes and content dispute

Marquardtika, You reverted all of my edits and accused me of COI. "liberal dark money group" isn't encyclopedic, even though I agree that's what they are! This page does not read well at all and can use valid updates. It's hard for me to ignore your bias here.

Reverting my removal of the motto from their papers is unnecessary. It doesn't belong, that whole section needs to be updated or changed. You also reverted my trimming of the FreeBeacon LLC source and content, I think the source is bad but if we can discuss I'd be happy to hear why you think it should be on the page along with Newsguard source... Hope we can make this page better with cooperation. Thanks 2601:283:4301:2901:10A1:B3F:CE3A:B5B2 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you please register an account? It's hard to keep track of who I'm talking to. Your IP address is showing Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but the other IP editors on this page are showing Denver, Colorado, and Greenwood Village, Colorado. Since this is the first edit you've made to Wikipedia under your current IP address, I can't tell what other edits you're referring to. Marquardtika (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Vice Citation is about ACRONYM not Courier Newsroom

Cited reference for “shareable viral pseudo ‘news content’” seems to be only about ACRONYM, not Courier Newsroom. Courier Newsroom was acquired by Good Information Inc. in 2021, so the ACRONYM-related references are out-of-date.

References