Talk:La Jornada/Archive 1

Explanation

Hello Rune, I would like to say that the Jornada is a Center-Left paper, whose ideology is comparable to that of the New York Times. I'd also like to say that Reforma is not a "non-partisan" paper, and I tried to modify the Reforma page yesterday, but my changes were undone almost immediately. Why do I say Reforma is a Right-Wing paper. For starters, the day after AMLO accepted his Party's nomination for the presidency in December, the headline read, and I paraphrase, "He says many things, but doesn't say How". Clearly, that was a Right-Wing inspired headline. I have other examples. 66.73.198.84 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Reforma is definitely a rightist paper, just as Jornada is basically leftist and Universal is (very mildly) center-left jackbrown (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism

In other countries, other than the U.S.A. there can be both right wing and left wing liberals. The term Liberalism is only matched in a biunivocal way with left wing ideology in the U.S.A. politics context. In other countries there can even be a position that is left wing and not liberal at all.

Please tell me how La Jornada materially differs from the New York Times, another paper that caters to the CenterLeft Liberal community, except in the USA. The NYT, like La Jornada, promotes the separation of Church and State, and supports progressive fiscal policy, and is opposed to the privatization of pensions. Moreover, should we begin saying that papers like Reforma cater to Mexico's RightWing Conservative community, with its incessant headlines against CenterLeft AMLO? Please attempt to remain objective. [[[User:65.42.93.124|65.42.93.124]] 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]

There is a huge difference between La Jornada and New York Times. La Jornada is totally a leftist paper, with too much influece of UNAM community. It´s not and independient paper at all. The New York Times does serve the CenterLeft and is independient, Jornada is not centered left and it isnt independient at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.15.147 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First, The use of the world liberal can be misleading since liberal = leftwing is only used in the United States, liberalism in most countries, including most English speaking does not mean left leaning. See wikipedia article on Liberalism.

Second, there is a difference between the NYT (of which I have been an avid reader since my youth) and La Jornada. The NYT has a is very well respected for its objective investigative journalism since it keeps its editorial comments and its investigative reporting separate. You seldom find the journalism articles contaminated by the editor’s political view (granted that they are certainly more leftish than the WSJ for example).

In contrast La Jornada has no clear separation between the reporting and editorial comment, it is almost impossible to separate them. In other words the difference is that La Jornada is more biased. However I must say that I try to read La Jornada at least once a week for its helpful insight on left leaning opinions.

Third, on the Reforma issue, I do not believe that a newspaper is solely defined by its like or dislike for a president or candidates (Reforma – Lopez or La Jornada –Fox) it has more to do with the issues discussed on its pages. For example the editorial comment in Reforma is certainly one of the most diverse in México, including some who openly support the PRD like Granados Chapa and Guadalupe Loaeza, and others that clearly dislike that party and Its former candidate like the cartoonist Calderon. The Reforma, which by the way I am not very fond of, tends to cater more to a center middle class public, but it would be very difficult to state that it is a right wing or conservative paper. On the political scale it is less right-leaning than Jornada is left-leaning.

Having said that, I will change the term liberal for left-leaning public. --LS1010 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello LS1010

(i) The New York Times is considered a Liberal newspaper, catering to the Liberal US community. What do I mean by Liberal? I mean embracing center-left politics, intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, a secular society, et al. I would argue that the NYT is AS respected for its embrace of Liberalism, as La Jornada is in Mexico.

(ii) With respect to Reforma, I will concede that its EDITORIAL pages provide a forum for both Liberals and Conservatives, but no one can seriously state that its NEWS pages are not blatantly anti-Liberal, and very Pro-Conservative. Yet, when I go to the Reforma entry in Wikipedia, it claims to be a non-partisan paper? Who says it is non-partisan?

On the day after AMLO accepted his nomination last December, Reforma ran a headline that read, He says many things, but does not say How? LS1010, not even the Jornada, which I admit caters to the Liberal community, is as Extremist in its headlines as Reforma is. Again, I am refering to its NEWS section, not its EDITORIAL pages. [[[User:69.211.22.85|69.211.22.85]] 02:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)]

Hello LS1010, Just came back from the Reforma entry. Part of the entry reads as follows: "The newspaper is, as the other publications of the editorial group, non-partisan" I'd like to ask you, or anyone else, why do we allow that entry to stand. In light of so much evidence, especially that headline the day after AMLO accepted the nomination last December, how can anyone believe that Reforma is "non-partisan". Not even the WSJ, which hated President Clinton, would ever have run such a headline. [[[User:69.211.22.85|69.211.22.85]] 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)]

This is an ongoing debate that I have had with one particular user. If you disagree please contribute on the discussion page and lets try to improve the article! Andy Rosenthal 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, apart from suspcion based on headlines, which are a subjective perspective, what other reliable source is there that Reforma is partisan? Is its board affiliated to a particular political party? Does Reforma NEVER use similar headlines to other political figures (such as those of the party to whom which it is presumably affiliated to)? You'll find that the answer to these questions is no, and that there is no reliable source that will indicate without reasonable doubt that Reforma is partisan. Indeed, a lot of people are of the opinion that Reforma is partisan, but opinions do not consitute facts. If you want to add that "some people are of the opinion that Reforma is affiliated to a party", then you are welcome to do so granted sources, but if you want to add "it is a fact that Reforma is affiliated to a party", then that is something completely different. Hari Seldon 01:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I have found that in the quality of their coverage, as well as their quantity, Reforma usually is a heavy criticizer, but of both sides of the political spectrum. The local PAN government in Monterrey gets as much criticism as the local PRD government in Mexico City from both El Norte and Reforma (Grupo Reforma papers). The fact that Reforma criticizes the left doesn't immediately makes it a partisan paper, it simply makes it a paper with a critical journalistic style if it criticizes with equal power governments from other sides of the political spectrum (which it does). Hari Seldon 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong page, please take this discussion to the Reforma entry. Andy Rosenthal 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether or not the newspaper should be identified as "liberal". The arguments in favor and against are as follows:

Against:

• We shouldn't label newspapers, or should we say that Reforma caters to right-wing readers?
• "Liberal" doesn't necessarily mean "left-wing" (except in US-politics), but in most uses in the english language, liberalism means something else. On the other hand, one of the uses of "liberalism" (i.e., economic liberalism) is identified in Mexico as right-wing.
• Using "liberal" to describe La Jornada as a means to compare it with New York Times is incorrect, because NYT keeps its editorial and its news section separate while La Jornada doesn't.

In favor:

• No arguments.

When the question about labeling newspapers arouse, a user said he did not explain how did we allow the entry (on Reforma being non-partisan) to stand? Since the labeling of Mexican Newspapers discussion here is apparently having an effect in other papers (like Reforma), i thought it prudent to identify what is the difference between partisan and non-partisan. Partisan means that it belongs or adheres to the ideology of a particular political party. La Jornada officials have stated they sympathize with left-wing politics, and sometimes the PRD. On the other hand, Grupo Reforma officials have stated that all 4 of their newspapers do not adhere to any political party, nor are they affiliated to any. The argument that they criticize officials from any party just as heavily is an example of how Reforma practices its non-partisanship. Just as Reforma criticized Mexico City's mayor, Lopez Obrador of the PRD, Reforma, through its Monterrey newspaper, "El Norte", also criticizies Monterrey's mayor, Adalberto Madero of the PAN, with heavy arguments and accusations of corruption, it also criticizes Nuevo Leon's Governor, Natividad Gonzalez of the PRI, on accusations of excessive spending and debt issuing. News coverage beyond the editorial pages is also along that line. In fact, while other media outlets no longer cover Lopez Obrador, Reforma still has coverage of his actions.

Additionally, the argument that NYT keeps its editorial and its news section separate while La Jornada doesn't is interesting, because Reforma also keeps its editorial and its news section separate.

Thus, the relevance of my arguments on Reforma are as follows:

• Labeling the partisanship of this newspaper in its wikipedia entry does not automatically mean that Grupo Reforma should be also labeled according to whatever label Lopez Obrador gave it.
• This newspaper cannot be labeled in the same way as American, or american-style papers, are labeled. Indeed, Reforma is an American-style newspaper (they pretty much practice everything in the american schools of journalism, and this will be said with pride by the paper's owner). So, while Reforma can be compared to American newspapers because they trie to emulate American newspapers, La Jornada does not and therefore cannot be compared to them. If in the end it is decided that both La Jornada and Reforma require labeling, their labeling would be very different. La Jornada's labeling would be about their affiliation, while Reforma's labeling would about its bias. Which IS NOT the same. Affiliation means that they are either actively involved with, or are part of a certain political party or ideology, while bias is simply the tone that an objectively writtern article takes. Bias is innevitable and all newspapers have it, while affiliation is a choice.

So, there you go. Hari Seldon 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hari,

I wish I had as much time as you, I am trying to keep up with the replies but I still need to catch up. First I would like to say that I don't understand why you are discussing here what should be discussed elsewhere, but since you insist on doing so, I will write my reply. The fact that Reforma or it's owner say whatever they want to say means little, they obviously have political affiliations and preferences and interests to protect and I am sure in which political party they put their money in. What you need to understand though is that this discussion goes beyond your opinion or mine, and if it is a matter of opinion it should be the one of people that are knowledgeable on the subject and that can speak with authority about it. I provided several reputable sources of people that with all due respect, know a lot more about this than you (or I for that matter) that state the bias that reforma has; however the argument continues because it is against your ideas and nothing else (look at that poorly written paragraph that you added to the Reforma article, where you state the bias of the paper, you tweaked in such a way that is hard to understand just because you wan to insist on your opinion and want people to think as you do when they read the entry).

I guess you know intimately the Junco family. On my end I can tell you that I had a few conversations with people that worked in the newspaper and they said that Reforma has an editorial line that leans towards the right (hence it is the newspaper with more advertisements for what is called the "A" sector). Of course I cannot write this 'anecdotes' here because it would reflect poorly on myself and I do not think it is appropriate to use gossip as sources, so I refrain from doing it (and I would appreciate that you would do that as well). I also believe is sad that Mr Junco believes in that old lie that in Mexico things are done better north of the border; This is one of the problems that has plagued the Mexican culture. If anything I believe that we should then praise the people from La Jornada for at least being honest on their beliefs and having enough creativity not to regurgitate whatever is made elsewhere (this reminds me of the argument we had about the importance of research in higher education and your support for the TEC as the best school in Mexico). Having said this, I encourage you to read the pages of the NYT, Washington Post, Independent, Haaretz, El Pais, and all of the other major newspapers worldwide in this encyclopedia. When you read them, you will realize that the Reforma entry makes it look way superior than any of these. I have insisted on the inherent bias of that article, but it is an endless meaningless argument, because you are not willing to listen to suggestions.

Finally, as someone that is now a media mogul, I really have difficulty believing that someone that can take $50M USD to start a new business (as Mr Junco did to start Reforma after having fought with his own blood over the newspaper -protecting what 'he believed in' and a pile of money along with his personal interests-) does not have interests to protect. It is the same situation with the NYT, La Times, etc (feel free to read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" so you can understand why this is the case). However, it seems that at least it's enough for someone to say something for you to believe, granted that they are people that you personally like. Andy Rosenthal 05:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy, I don't understand, what do your accusations have to do with my arguments about why whatever is decided here cannot influence what happens in the Reforma article? My only point is that Reforma is different than La Jornada for a number of reasons (including, but not limited to, its ownership and affiliation). I am not the one who brought Reforma to this discussion, it was IP 69.211.22.85, who said that the news focus of Reforma was reason enough to label it as "rightist affiliation".

Finally, we've been through this before. I repeat, bias is not the same as affiliation. Affiliation means "being part of a family", and Reforma is an independent, privately-owned paper with no political affiliation. Does it have a bias towards the right? Perhaps, at least in the Mexico City edition it seems to be true (and at least to the perception of the more left-leaning inhabitants of Mexico City). But that is different and the article on the newspaper already features a section on its bias.

But, then again, my arguments have nothing to do with it. I am merely saying two things: one, that affiliation is not the same thing as bias, and that a paper can have no affiliation, but it can never have "no bias". In the case of La Jornada, I believe that their affiliation is very clear. Which brings me to another argument, La Jornada and Reforma are so different as papers that whatever happens here cannot influence what happens in the Reforma article, despite user 69.211.22.85's suggestions.

That is all. Hari Seldon 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Who owns La Jornada?Andy Rosenthal 06:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

According to itself, they are an "independent" group of journalist (a commune) that started out when leaving Unomásuno for "irreconciliable" differences. It seems to me, they disagreed with the orientation of the Unomásuno and decided to make a paper where they could advance their own bias. The story they portray reads incredibly similar to the story of El Norte, with the difference that the latter is a privately owned company, not a commune.

By the way, the article in which they portray their story seems to talk quite bad about their competition, but it also seems to be incredibly city-centric, committing the all too common mistake of confusin Mexico City with all of the nation.

Though they deny it, their own description, and the adjectives that they use to describe the news they covered throughout the years makes it clear to me that this is a socialist organization. The people participating in this newspaper are actively affiliated with left-wing ideals, commune with them, live them day by day, and actively promote them. There is nothing wrong with this in itself, particularly if it is popular in their readership (and we know that Mexico City leans to the left). However, it would be wrong to leave out of this article that they themselves describe their sympathies and affiliation to a certain ideology. They say that they have not "hidden" their opposition to certain government policies, and indeed, it is the fact that they openly advertise this affiliation what justifies its inclusion in the article.

Hari Seldon 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are advancing your own personal bias here. The commune (which is an interesting term) is a group of citizens that own the newspaper (though I am not sure if this is the case) it makes the newspaper be privately owned doesn't it? I'd be happy to contribute and include your proposal but I fail to see what is that you want to say. Andy Rosenthal 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In Mexico, as in may other free nations, communal ownership is allowed. It is a form of private ownership in which all employees are partners and have a say in the destiny of the company. Some important companies, like tire maker Euzkadi, is a commune. There is nothing wrong with being a commune, it is actually a very interesting form of operating a business, but it is also very uncommon. What I meant to say is that the paper apparently describes itself as a commune, in which all journalists own a piece of the action. If this is the case, it would be a very interesting case of journalism. I don't think that many mainstream newspapers in any nation in the world are communes.

However, communes are socialist in their nature, and again, I don't mean this pejoratively (as in USSR enemy of the States socialist), but as in "caring for their society and the community before than the individual" socialist. This is, however, in opposition with economic liberalism which bases its theory on the individual, and thus, it is noteworthy in itself.

Again, I am not trying to undermine La Jornada (I know at one point I did, but I've grown up, please believe me). Simply, recognize that this newspaper lives and breathes the socialist ideal day in and day out and they are incredibly succesful. They've also managed to do this in a major country, 14th economy in the world, right-wing government, borders with the US, and there it is! If anything, La Jornada should be proud of themselves, and so they are. However, this is also an affiliation and should be noted, as it is their bias. There is nothing wrong with bias, as I've said before, it is inevitable, and if the readers like it, then there it is!

Hari Seldon 08:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that political affiliation does not influence economic progress. In this statement of yours it almost seems that everything that does not agree with the modern liberals (U of Chicago type) is anachronic which this is far from true. Does it really matter that they are successful in a country that is the 14th economy of the world? Spain is the 8th economy in the world and is governed by social democrats. La Jornada is perhaps the only dissenting voice in a country with a past of strict media control, and where the widest read newspaper is "La Prensa". It is the newspaper for the population of Mexico City who's vast majority (as shown in the last election) disagrees with the PAN and PRI Andy Rosenthal 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! First of all, I don't understand what you are saying about me making implications that non-modern liberals are anchronic, and I don't want to make this a general economical argument. I appreciate the Spain example, but how is that relevant to what we've been discussing? Now, what your statement is implying is that anything that is not marxist left-wing cannot be "dissenting". I don't disagree that the paper is well read in Mexico City, where the population is pro-PRD, but what does that have to do with anything? All I was saying is that, if indeed La Jornada had this form of common property scheme, then it is something that would be worth noting in this article, since the paper has been able to be succesful in its niche, despite the fact that the country, in general, is going in a different direction. Hari Seldon 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Marxist? As you might recall the PAN won for a very very thin margin the last presidential election (aka the Rove style) thus a considerable number of individuals dissapprove of the PAN and the neoliberal model IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY. You constantly get upset that people in Mexico City consider that the whole country is like their city, and I think you should use the same standard vs Monterrey. Mexico is not the north and thank God it is not Monterrey (Same sex civil unions would still be illegal and perhaps sodomy would be consider a felony). The newspaper criticizes the neo liberal model, does that make it Marxist? The Spain example comes to an argument against your claims about the geographic location of Mexico and it being a "major" country to say that it is 'surprising' or incredible that la Jornada is able to sell newspapers. I don't want to be harsh, but it seems that your judgement about the political situation in the whole country is really biased as it not account for a large segment of the population that dislikes the PAN, the neoliberal model, they are not business people and think Reforma is not what you think it is. Furthermore, if you realized how diverse Mexico is and how people do not approve of the current direction the country is going, perhaps it would not be a surprise to you that this newspaper's website is the most visited in Mexico. If you understood these points, if you really knew the situation of the country (and not think that Monterrey is a representative example of it) this would be no surprise at all. Andy Rosenthal 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now you are making accusations that lack judicial evidence. First of all, I am not saying that there is something wrong or bad about being marxist or pro-PRD. I am simply saying that left-wing is not equivalent of "dissenting". Dissenting is disagreeing with the government, but if the government is left-wing (like is the case of the PRD in Mexico City), then being right-wing in Mexico City would be dissenting (whereas, federally, the government is right-wing, ergo, being left-wing would be dissenting). That's all I am saying!

Now, going to your accusation (that I don't know where they are justified):

• The reason I am upset about some people thinking that "Mexico City is the whole country" its because it neglects the richness, culturally and economically, that Mexico has to offer beyond Mexico City. Now, you say "it is not the north, and thank god it is not Monterrey". Well, first of all, I don't thank any god about anything. Having said that, I remind you that more than 50% of the population live in northern Mexico. Thus, Mexico is mostly the north, population-wise.
• Is non-economic-liberalism Marxist? Depends on how you define "marxist". If marxism is the economic theory that the nature of capitalism is to create profit, then no... Actually, economic-liberalism is pretty marxist in that sense. If marxism is the moral idea that profit is derived from exploitation, and therefore is wrong, then yes, being non-economic-liberalism is marxist. If, furthermore, marxist is the utopian ideal that the wrong will be corrected dialectically through a revolution and a more just society, then economic liberalism may or may not be marxist (depending on how you interpret the theory)... Is there anything wrong with these interpretations?
• Now, since in Mexico the mainstream of anti-liberalism are marxist proposals, then, yes, being anti-liberal in Mexico is generally Marxist. But there is nothing wrong with this... is there? (And what does this have to do with the issue of cross-ideological dissent?)
• I am not saying that the elevated sales of "La Jornada" are either surprising or incredible. I am simply saying they are worth noting. Why? Because it demonstrates the freedom of speech that our society enjoys now a days. In the not-so-distant past, both right wing and left wing papers (El Norte and La Jornada) where pressured by the government. Now society no longer works that way and that is what is worth noting. That is all I am saying. Another reason (and the main reason for this argument) that I believe that La Jornada's level of readership is note-worthy is because of its ownership structure. We haven't found out for sure who owns La Joranda, but in our last argument we discussed the possibility that La Jornada was communaly-owned, that is, that all the journalists owned a part of the newspaper. I certainly don't know of any other newspaper with this form of ownership structure, and the fact that it is so unusual makes it even more interesting to consider its success. The relevance is not only national, but global, because one could derive an argument that newspapers with this type of ownership structure incentive the journalists to elevate the quality of their writing so that it drives sales, and thus, may propose interesting implications for the journalism industry worldwide. That would most certainly be noteworthy, don't you agree?

Having said all of the above, in a given context, all of your arguments are perfectly valid. I do not agree with many of them, but that is not the point. The point is that, a) it isn't necessary to be left-wing to "dissent", and b) La Jornada's elevated readership given its critical tendencies are noteworthy, but not because of the paper, but because of the nature of our country (in which repression against the press existed not so long ago).

I hope you understand that I am not trying to pick a fight with you on ideological terms. I may not agree with some of your ideas, but I understand them and I know where you are coming from. I also share some of your ideas (believe it or not). However, this is neither the venue nor the purpose for this discussion. I hope that my comments are now better explained, and please do not take them as an attack on the paper, because they are not. Hari Seldon 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say I do not understand your argument about Marxism, and neither can I understand the lack of 'judicial' (??) evidence you are talking about ( If there were any evidence it woiuld not be Rove style, would it?) . The following states: State of Mexico, Distrito Federal, Veracruz, Michoacán, Chiapas , Oaxaca, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Tabasco, Morelos, Tlaxcala, Quintana Roo and Campeche all located within the geographical south hold more than 52% of the population of the country and in ALL of them the PRD won the presidential election (this does not account for Puebla and Yucatan, which are also in the geographical south but are states where PAN won the presidential election) I don't see where are you getting your numbers but it seems that they don't match the factual data. Furthermore, I would argue (as any other foreigner that has traveled through Mexico) that the south houses most of the things that make Mexico unique, in food, ethnicities, dialects and customs.

Even though La Jornada has existed for 24 years Excelsior, way before La Jornada 1983 (and when it was the best newspaper in Mexico before the coup that Echeverria orchestrated in 76 where Sherer was replaced by Regino Diaz Redondo) was a cooperative and still was before Mario Vazquez Rana recently bought it and made it part of OEM. Sadly this bullies -media moguls- with nothing in mind but the hunger and desire of making a buck, have taken over the media. There had been plenty of people committed to journalism as a carreer and not a business (say Mr Junco for example, does he want to sell or does he want to be a journalist?). Andy Rosenthal 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my argument about Marxism is only that you seem to imply in your comments that the only way to "dissent" is by making marxist-type arguments. Though there is nothing wrong with marxist-type arguments, it is not the only way to dissent. If there are left-wing goverments, then right-wing dissent is possible. That is my argument. It is a stretch to include Veracruz in the "south", since it starts way to the north. More accurately, the population of Veracruz that resides in the north outweighs the population that resides in the south. By your own account, I don't understand why Yucatan and Puebla State are left out. Finally, it is a big stretch to include Hidalgo and Estado de México, if you are leaving out Queretaro, Guanajuato, and Puebla. I don't have a map in front of me, but an INEGI document says that population, and population growth, are bigger in the North, particularly, North of Mexico City. As for the south housing most of the things that make Mexico "unique", that's highly debatable (I'm thinking about Guadalajara, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, and Baja California), but an interesting way to politicize an argument. Finally, about your arguments on Excelsior's ownership, that is yet another reason to note the paper's uniqueness. Excelsior tried it and failed due to the government, whil La Jornada no longer has that worry and czan be succesful. I agree what you say about the "media moguls", however, I dissent from your opinion. The only way to "make a buck" is through sales, and sales are only possible when the customer sees value in the product, ergo, Media moguls are very efficient in delivering value to the customer, and value as designed by the customer. It may be an interesting discussion whether "journalism" has an intrinsecal higher value, or if a customer-centered media base is better. However, that is a discussion that trascends the purpose of wikipedia =). Hari Seldon 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am still having problems understanding your point about Marxism, it is my impression that this is due at least partly In what I believe is your prejudice against my ideas (or any other that thinks similarly).

In the last paragraph that I wrote I meant to give a portray of the 'ideological' rather than geographical south. However, If you take Veracruz out of the equation, your figures are still wrong: It's not true that the majority of the people live in the north. Furthermore according to INEGI the states with the highest natality rates were (in this order) Hidalgo, Puebla, Tabasco, Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas.

Excelsior was a cooperative for 87 years. Indeed you are right, the cooperative failed as such because of the government (http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2678.cfm) this happened during Fox's term (the great defender of freedom of speech) Andy Rosenthal 06:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, accusations are not certainties, so I really don't see how you can claim with such confidence that Fox provoked the newspaper to fail. I am sure that their lack of readership had something to do with it...

As for my arguments on marxism, read them carefully. My "prejudice", as you call it, is not due to a misunderstanding of the ideas. I am quite familiar with marxism. The only thing I am saying is that being "marxist" is not the only way to dissent. One dissents by being in disagreement with someone in position of power. If the powerful is marxist, one dissents by being liberal. If the powerful is liberal, one may dissent by being marxist, or by being rational... What I am saying is that you seem to exclude all non-marxist from the possibility of dissent. As if being liberal was automatically a "consent". Really, there are very few misconceptions graver than that. Hari Seldon 15:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberal being a consent? I am sorry Hari but it is being hard for me to follow you. Furthermore, I believe you assume that I said things that I really never said and I don't understand why you keep pushing the Marxist label. Regardless, I did not make any accusations, in any case, you were the one who first said that Excelsior failed as a cooperative because of the Government (something that happened during Fox's term) and I am paraphrasing whatever the editorialist at Worldpress.org said. Feel free to email him and make him aware of how you feel. (Although it is my impression that he might know what he is talking about) Andy Rosenthal 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the "marxist" label something wrong? No, I am not assuming you said things you didn't say, I am saying that whatever you did say "sounded like" a theory that only left-wing thinkers could dissent, when in fact that is not the case at all (and that is my original point, and the only relevant point for this discussion). Excelsior failed before Fox. Whatever the remnants of "Excelsior" after the "no pago para que me peguen" policy surely cannot be compared to whatever the newspaper was before. The accusations that Fox pressured the paper to fail are unfounded, that is, without proof or evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Accusations are easy to make, proving them, however, is the only thing that has academic value. In any case, as I've repeated countless times before, anything that is besides the original point, including discussions on marxism and Excelsior belong someplace else. Lets put this to rest already! And yes, liberal as in "liberty" used as another word for "freedom", and more specifically, political and economic freedom, as opposed to political and economic so-called "equality". Your first argument (the one that started this discussion) --sounded like-- only non-liberals could dissent, when in fact that is not true. Hari Seldon 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know who is the owner of the newspaper. I thought you were using the term commune to denote your ideas about the newspaper as a 'communist propaganda machine'. It might be the case though that there are stock holders for the company and that is why it is an interesting question to ask. Who owns the newspaper? I also want to point out that La Jornada claims not to have a political allegiance. I've read though how they defend the most stupid mistakes the left makes and how sharply they attack the right, that is why I will not fight the label, it is something evident. Andy Rosenthal 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing about La Jornada is that they claim to have no political allegiance, but, though this may be true as far as political parties is concerned, it certainly isn't true about political ideologies, they also state that they dissaprove of policies from the right. This is why I am not proposing to label La Jornada's affiliation as "pro-PRD", but as "left", "center-left", "left-wing", "socialist", or whatever similar label the editors of this page find acceptable.

And, as for the ownership of the newspaper, well, lets do more research on that. Hari Seldon 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If La Jornada regulalry publishes editorials of Chomsky, Fisk, Zinn, et al, I doubt you can call it liberal (in the American sense) or "center-left." These folks are quite outside of the mainstream. Why not do away with this qualification, it is already states that the paper has been supportive of Zapatista and PRD, that is enough of an indication for Wikipedia readers to know what the editorial stanch of the newspaper is. It would be best to qualify this support though. Intangible2.0 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Accesing La Jornada I find that the URL contains the unam.mx sign. It is obviously hosted, or partnered with, UNAM. My question is, is there any government funding going into the hosting of the site, or those La Jornada pays for it? If La Jornada pays for it, then why the unam.mx signs, and if Federal taxpayers (who fund universities) pays for it, when does the Federal Government scrutinize the paper, or what is their political relationship? This is no small question, and I believe it is critical that it be answered. Particularly since it has gone, in 20 years, from being a paper "victimized" by the lack of government sponsors and paper constraints (much like any other oppposition paper of the era), to being one hosted in a server that may be maintained with government money. Indeed, it would be interesting to find this out, because it may simply be that La Jornada uses the url address to link themselves to the prestigious university as a marketing scheme. Either way, it should be made clear to the reader what is going on. Hari Seldon 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be too late but I don't understand your point. Can they do this? link themselves to a University just because they want to sell? I don't know this for a fact but la Jornada and UNAM have strong ties, mainly because most of their columnists work there. I would appreciate though that you explain your point in such a your concerns can be addressed. Andy Rosenthal 07:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is this: La Jornada and UNAM share a URL.

Who pays for this and why do they share the URL?

If UNAM pays, then it is government funding. Why does La Jornada get government funding and how do the people (Auditoría Superior de la Federación) scrutinize it?

If La Jornada pays, how much and where does the money go in the UNAM?

If there is no payment, then what is the reason to tie the URL of La Jornada to the URL of UNAM? One hypothesis is that La Jornada benefits from the name of UNAM, and UNAM benefits from the name of La Jornada. If this is the case, then there is nothing wrong with it, and should be portrayed as an example to other papers who might want to try it.

No, I am not saying that this would help them sell more newspapers. In marketing, you know that advertising doesn't make the consumer buy, but it associates ideas with your product that influence the consumer at the time they make their buying choice (i.e., you don't see an ad and think "buy", you see an ad, forget about it, and then, when you see the product you think about the ideas that the ad wanted you to link with the product, and if they appeal to you, hopefully, the ad agency prays -because there is no scientific data that shows that it actually works-, you will buy). So, it may be that UNAM has a particular good name, and La Jornada has another particular good name each associated with different but compatible ideals, and the purpose is that they both want to capitalize on that.

Again, we really don't know the reason why they share URLs, but whatever the reason, it raises significant follow up questions that, I feel, should be addressed...

Hari Seldon 08:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't understand how this works. The other editions of La Jornada (e.g. La Jornada Morelos) have their own websites. If anything it is interesting that the government finances one of its toughest critics. It is also important to remember that UNAM is autonomous and even though it is financed by the federal govt, it is decentralized and it is completely independent from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy Rosenthal (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, however decentralized UNAM is, taxpayers still pay for it and thus should be (and I think it is) scrutinized. Indeed, it would be interesting if the government where financing its own critics, but it would still be a case of the government benefiting a private entity that should be competing with other private entities.

I insist, it could be harmless, but the question should be answered.

Hari Seldon 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I used to live in Mexico and this question interested me at the time. I don't have an entirely straight answer unfortunately. But the first thing all of you guys need to remember is the meaning of the initials of UNAM -- National AUTONOMOUS University of Mexico. That, of course, means that all of these questions about oversight are in theory irrelevant. Mexico's autonomous universities are supposed to be more or less self-governing and you aren't going to have Felipe Calderon telling UNAM profs how to spend their department budgets without a lot of legal issues being raised. Apropos of the question, now: I seem to remember that there was originally a mild institutional relationship between UNAM and Jornada initially, but that's obviously no longer the case. My friends who were journalists in Mex. City told me that the URL is sort of a leftover, staying with the UNAM tag due primarily to inertia... jackbrown (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

• First or Second?

The original source was more accurate than the second source provided (I checked). Why? Because the second source provided (which said La Jornada was #1) counted hits for La Jornada AND for all UNAM pages. Of course, this is unfair to the competition! We are more interested in watching which hits are exclusive to La Jornada (i.e., first source), and this states that La Jornada is second.

Please go to the source you have listed. Then, place the cursor over the "Site Info" label on both, Jornada and El Universal. You will then see that, according to Alexa, Jornada's traffic rank is 980, while El Universal's is 1,302, and Reforma's is 3,647.

69.210.249.253 01:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)]

The site you have listed is [1]. Go to "Site Info", as I have instructed above, and you will see that Jornada's traffic rank is higher.

69.210.249.253 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)]

Again, same problem. The rank is for the comined unam.mx URL (La Jornada + UNAM). At least, according to what I understand from Alexa.com... It seems that due to the uncertainty, this is not such a useful source, and I move that in the face of the circumstance the sentence be deleted until a more accurate/reliable source can be found. Of course, we could rephrase and say that all three newspapers are among the "top 3 visited", or we could even leave the competition out all together (though I don't see why that would be useful to the reader) and say that "La Jornada is among the top read online news in Mexico" without giving a precise ranking. This, I think, would solve the problem of the unreliability of combining unam.mx hits with La Jornada exclusive hits, and also referencing how widely read is the paper. Hari Seldon 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comparisons

Comparisons are useful to the reader because they add context to the information presented. For example, it is not the same thing being #1 in a market where your primary competitor is Milenio Diario de Monterrey, followed by far by El Porvenir and other small papers (the case of El Norte in Monterrey). On the other hand, if you are #2, but ahead of Reforma, which is internationally recognized and widely used by foreign business analysts, then it adds a lot of context. It also adds context that the first two are free websites. It is of little use to the reader to know that La Jornada is #2. It is of more use to know that it is #2, and that they are ahead from another recognizable name... I don't disagree that the same information should be presented in the articles for said newspapers, but I don't see why we need to hide it here. Hari Seldon 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case...

Just in case anybody likes userboxes in their user page, and is interested, I've created a Userbox on La Jornada:


To add it, simply put the following code in your user page: {{User:Hseldon10/Userbox/LaJornada}}

Enjoy! Hari Seldon 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Percieved consquences vs. perceived negative consequences

On my recent reversal: "Perceived negative consequences" implies that the criticism is against "negative" things that are a consequences, but are only "percieved" negative. Instead, "percieved consequences" does not make the implication. The latter is open enough to include criticism against things that are consequences, and those that are percieved consequences but may not really be caused by laissez-faire capitalism (or can be argued that they are not). "Percieved consequences" is a more NPOV sentence. Hari Seldon 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to their perceivement of economic policies, as policies refers specifically to the actions of government administrations, and thus PRI or PAN. (it would be good to include some examples of those policies). Intangible2.0 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Most Read Newspaper

I removed this:

and according to alexa.com it ranks as the most visited newspaper on the web in Mexico..

because the alexa website is actually using only unam.mx and not www.jornada.unam.mx you can check this by visiting this: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=unam.mx&site1=milenio.com&site2=reforma.com.mx&site3=eluniversal.com.mx&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=500&range=6m&size=Medium&url=http://unam.mx and seeing that they are exactly the same graphs while one says unam.mx and the other one www.jornada.unam.mx Solid Reign (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Solid Reign. We've had this discussion before. Please read above. Moreover, if you type in

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/unam.com.mx

You will find that "UNAM" does not even show up in the rankings.

www.jornada.unam.mx is not the same as unam.com.mx

Moreover, I ask that you go to the Alexa site comparing newspapers...

http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=31401&mode=general&SortBy=Popularity&mode=general&R=&Start=0&BrowseStart=0&CategoryID=31401

and place your cursor over Site Info under La Jornada. Do the same with El Universal. You will see that, according to Alexa, El Universal's traffic rank is 1,742, while La Jornada's is 1,698. 69.211.25.150 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you can help me out here. Try to find a comparison in alexa.com between www.jornada.unam.mx and unam.mx (btw, the unam website is unam.mx, not unam.com.mx. You can see this by going to www.unam.com.mx and seeing that all the other links use unam.mx. I've been trying to get that on alexa but can't, there is no difference in that page. So, unless we can find this there, I don't think we should add this. Solid Reign (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can it be any clearer? Go to the link I left above. Alexa lists newspapers in Mexico. And La Jornada's rank, as I've listed, is higher than El Universal's. Solid Reign, we already had this discussion with other contributors, and came to the consensus that the stat should stay. 69.211.25.150 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)T

This is ridiculous, there is an obvious problem with your source, and I'm pointing it out, I don't understand why you don't address that problem. There doesn't seem to have been any consensus reached above, but regardless, just find me a comparison in alexa between unam.mx (not www.unam.com.mx) and www.jornada.unam.mx so I can see they're different and I'll agree. Do you really not see the problem here? I don't get it. Solid Reign (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Morover, according to Lajornada, they had 144,575 readers per day in 2006. [2], while www.eluniversal.com.mx had 415,000 unique visitors. [3] (click on TRÁFICO. Also, if you search www.jornada.unam.mx, it tells you that in unam.mx, 41% of visitors go to www.jornada.unam.mx, so if you want to use Alexa, I'd agree to reducing it's number of visitors to 41% of the UNAM website's total visitors. Solid Reign (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SolidReign, I went to the LaJornada link you left above...

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/tarifas/

and on the right hand side is an alexa logo with the current traffic rank. It is higher than El Universal's. Nonetheless, given the ambiguity (like an 1H07 M&A contract), let's rephrase to have the entry read that LaJornada is one of the most widely read papers, along with El Universal. 69.211.25.150 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Third Opinion Alexa is a bad source for any comparison. Rather than listing this site as first, second or whatever, make no comparison at all. Alexa's data collecting method has several flaws which make comparison beyond very wide margins (e.g. comparing Alexa #1 to Alexa #35028) impossible. The difference of just 300ish places in the contested comparison here is not enough to list it as fact, and does not comply with WP:V. User:Krator (t c) 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think that we should take away the Alexa source, since it is obviously flawed and just write the # of page views according to la jornada's website. So maybe just change it to "according to la jornada, they get x # of page views per month". Solid Reign (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • So unless someone disagrees, I think it's pretty safe to say that the alexa source doesn't really work, so I'll go ahead and change it like that. Solid Reign (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I've made changes to accommodate your feedback, and I would ask that we leave it as it currently reads. While some of you have expressed some concern about Alexa's reliability at tight comparisons, I can't see anyone refuting the fact that the Web editions of El Universal and La Jornada are by far the two most read papers in Mexico. 69.211.25.150 (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please, just one thing, I know I've repeated it ten times but, did you notice how unam.mx and jornada.unam.mx have the same data? and then it says that jornada.unam.mx receives 41% of trafic that goes to unam.mx? so it's obviously flawed, don't you think? This is my main concern about using alexa as a source. Do you not thing this is a big concern? that unam.mx and jornada.unam.mx have exactly the same stats? Solid Reign (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So, I'm removing this tomorrow, since I feel that Alexa is a pretty bad source for the reasons stated above. If you can find a different source, I'll leave it. Solid Reign (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lajornada logo.PNG

Image:Lajornada logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)