Talk:States Newsroom

proposed deletion

I would submit that this article should not be deleted for lack of notability. The main notability guideline says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And this has multiple sources cited that are independent of the subject.

I came here because I saw an article from the Ohio Capital Journal and I wanted to know what that was. It redirected me to States Newsroom. I can see a legitimate argument that each of these state news organizations doesn't deserve its own article, but not having one article for all of them? They've gotten significant coverage and I'm sure I'm not the only person who wondered what the Ohio Capital Journal, the Minnesota Reformer, etc., are. Pha telegrapher (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliability and UBO

I'm trying to decide whether this source is generally reliable or due, given its unusual viewpoint and funding model. I will collect info here while thinking about this as I came across it.

UBO for Minnesota Reformer:

• Business Insider: on local protests, on local Boogaloo events,
• AP News: on George Floyd mural defacement, on political malarkey
• MinnPost: [1] MinnPost notes two big stories broken by MR and mentions that one MR reporter has been on a consistent local beat... generally quite a few local stories sourced to MR
• Politico: on local marijuana policy
• Vice: [2] heavy reliance for a local homelessness story

Looks like MR is quite solid. Usually it is attributed and linked. Jlevi (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

What is UBO? Marquardtika (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UBO. The general idea is that if reliable sources reference a source, it provides a (minor, loose) indicator about the weight and reliability of that referenced source. So, AP News will probably never reference Mike's Fake News Emporium, but it will probably reference the NYT or Fox News where necessary. That gives a minor positive indicator of the reliability of those two sources.

Now, much better indicators of reliability include 1) reliable sources explicitly discussing the source in questions, or 2) indications of a transparent, rigorous editorial process at the source. Anything else I could help out with? Jlevi (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. Re. Minnesota Reformer, IIRC they broke some stories about Jim Hagedorn in the last few months. I remember seeing discussion of the stories they broke (with credit to Minnesota Reformer) in other media outlets, like MinnPost and the Star Tribune. Marquardtika (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I read Minnesota Reformer daily. They frequently break important stories focused on the state and have solid reporters on staff. Other news outlets pick up their stories often, including in my local newspaper, which doesn't have reporters at the state capitol. I think it's highly inaccurate to link States Newsroom, which is filling a statehouse reporting gap, to pink slime. Yes, their editorials lean left but their reporting standards are traditional and solid. I got to this article because I found "states newroom" on my credit card statement. Soon realized my monthly contribution is handled at the national level for the Reformer. But I would have been really confused if I didn't already know these are real news outlets, not fabricated junk created to fool people and collect ad revenue. Itsagazornum (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I added some clarifying quotes to this article. Since librarians (like me) tell students to use Wikipedia to evaluate credibility of publications, I was really bothered by the implication that it's politically-motivated "pink slime" so hope I have given more context without deleting the criticism from NewsGuard reported in Axios. Itsagazornum (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

100% agree with @Itsagazornum - this article should lean on the side of being more comprehensive, especially with regard to listing the smaller outlets that are used to build Wikipedia articles. Everything points to this being an organization that is on track to become a WP:Reliable Perennial Source
The transparency issues seem to mostly be addressed, as evidenced by Nieman, Poynter and CJR evaluations (all reputable). Just NewsGuard that still critiques the operation and trying to figure out how much weight that should carry (NewsGuard gets mixed reviews by Wikipedians on RSN and there seems to be no movement to consider it a reliable source)
I also confirmed that all 11 partner organizations are members of the Institute for Nonprofit News, which enforces journalistic standards on its members and all seem reputable. Superb Owl (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Newsrooms section title

I want to update the 40+ redirects to this article to the 'Newsrooms' section and wanted to first get consensus that this is the right header for that section. Superb Owl (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. What's not fine by me is how this page has become a puff piece for the organization. We can't describe the group's work as "free, high-quality journalism" in wikivoice. The relationship with the Hopewell Fund has been obfuscated. This article has been whitewashed within an inch of its life. States Newsroom is a hatchling of of the multi-billion dollar left-wing dark money group Arabella Advisors. Reliable sources like Axios refer to the States Newsroom as among "partisan-backed outlets designed to look like impartial news outlets." And this article now looks like it is part of that strategy. Marquardtika (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Marquardtika, Axios is just citing Newsguard, which seems to be the only source that is describing States Newsroom in this way since 2020. States' pointed criticism of Newsguard in their 2020 response could also be playing into why Newsguard continues to categorize States this way, which makes me hesitant to orient the article around an unreliable source in Newsguard, even if Axios used the Newsguard chart in 2024.
Poynter, CJR, Nieman Lab, and others have had praise for States' work (including a Pulitzer prize nomination for work in Alabama), especially as the organization has become more transparent over time.
I get the criticism from 2020 when it was not transparent along with questions over Hopewell but if it was just a fiscal sponsorship, that is less nefarious and more ordinary.
I have worked on addressing some tone issues to make it more neutral and if you have specific sentences or sections, I would appreciate more specific flags so that I can address those issues before we tackle the lead. I went ahead and removed left-leaning after discovering that most reliable sources seem not to use it in describing States Newsroom. Describing the opinion/commentary as left-leaning (as well as donors) would likely be appropriate but not sure the entire organization can be characterized that way based on the sources we have. Superb Owl (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A fiscal sponsorship is a financial relationship, by the way, so it's not entirely accurate to say "Hopewell has not provided any funding for the project." It was the fiscal sponsor, meaning it provided valuable resources like HR and administrative support before States Newsroom was spun off to become its own 501(c)(3). The Washington Post says "States Newsroom said it never received funding from Hopewell". In general, this article has become much too focused on what States Newsroom says about itself. We should follow the preponderance of reliable sources, which do, by the way, routinely note that the organization is liberal; see, for example, the discussion of its ideology in CJR. Marquardtika (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems like the case that Hopewell provided in-kind support and is not made entirely clear by sources what that support was or who the initial founders were. I agree that might need more elevation/clarification. Fiscal sponsorships typically involve paying the sponsor organization for those services (usually 10% of revenue) so when I first saw fiscal sponsorship, that did not necessarily mean much. If they waived the fee, then that's different and more notable, but the more distance there is between Hopewell and States over the years, the less notable that funding becomes. Also, Nieman article says definitively that funding was not given by Hopewell.
As for CRJ, this is how they introduce States Newsroom (also without any qualifiers): "The Monitor is one of the latest outlets launched by States Newsroom, a nonprofit operation whose publications on policy and politics have quickly turned it into one of the biggest players in state-level coverage." Seems like the 'left-leaning' qualifier is still considered undue weight by every publication in the last 4 years Superb Owl (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)