Talk:National Post

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Post and "Color coding minorities in Iran"[edit]

The news is notable as produced huge amount of reactions. After just one day you can find numerous links in google [1]. There is also no controversy as such law never passed or even discussed in Iran. It was simply a lie made by Amir Taheri and distributed by National Post. This is a very unprofessional act in the history of this canadian media. --Mitso Bel18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and personally I think that The National Post will have to answer for the damage they have done. However, misspelled, non-neutral claims do not belong in Wikipedia. I guarantee that someone will edit this straight out again. I would rather not get in an edit war about this; can we leave it as a link to the main article about the 2006 sumptuary law?

-- Neil K

Agreed, but words like "fake" and "unprofessional" are NPOV. Best to describe situation in as simple and non-inflammatory language as possible and to link to main article for details.JFD 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not really in tune with the rest of the article. Up until that point, things make sense. If there was at least a header or something like "Notable Events", it might fit. As it stands, it's just been dropped in. Obviously, it has it's own article and a link should suffice. TrooperScoop 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be beneficial for wikipedia readers to know that "Asper was above anything else an unabashed Zionist and a proud Jew" (according to CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20031007.html)? This information might help to better understand the probable origin of this error. Is such reference to a government owned Canadian media corporation acceptable at Wikipedia? Jhnppv 22:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a conflict of interest that makes it impossible for me to edit the main article, and that should be borne in mind by readers of my comments. But I would like to suggest that the "Controversies" section as it stands is extremely anomalous. Just for starters, whatever your private opinion of the Post, you'd have to be as thick as a plank to imagine that the sumptuary-law controversy was the only major one in the history of the newspaper. Furthermore, the entries for other Canadian newspapers of similar importance lack lists of their own controversies and embarrassments--though, rest assured, they have taken place. At the very most the issue should be handled with a short sentence directing the reader to the obsessively detailed separate entry on the Taheri problem. My personal view is that even this would be rather hard on the Post when like entries on the Globe and the Star are compared--and doubly so given the attention paid elsewhere in the entry to those who view the paper as a "mouthpiece for Israel", which itself borders on an NPOV issue. I suppose it would be asking too much to expect some concrete evidence that "Much of the newspaper's small advertising revenue appears to be contributed by synagogues and Jewish family announcements." On the whole, as it stands, this entry does very little credit to Wikipedia. --Cosh 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to remove most of the weasel NPOV that appeared since the last revert (i.e. late August 2006). Kelvinc 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording?[edit]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this passage: "which pointed out errors of fact, evidence of entrenched left-wing bias, and in particular bias against Israel at the public broadcaster." Sounds POVish. I'd like to replace it with "which pointed out errors of fact and perceived evidence of entrenched left-wing and anti-Israeli bias at the public broadcaster." Thoughts? Blotto adrift 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made Blotto adrift 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salacious article on GG?[edit]

It's been a few years since I lived in Canada, so I may have missed the "salacious article" re the Governor General by the unnamed NP gossip columnist. Can anyone enlighten me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removed Contribution[edit]

Someone removed my contribution to the National Post article which is both factual and supported by news articles. I have reintroduced it under the heading National Post today. Andy--74.100.143.100 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CanWest Computers editing this Page[edit]

Wikiscanner has identified user 204.187.154.49 as coming from a CanWest computer. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wanzhen 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of Wikiepdia edits orgiginate from CanWest computers. See... http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=204.187.154.0-255&ip2=204.187.150.0-255&ip3=204.187.153.0-255 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanzhen (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: WP:COI states that it is not against Wikipedia policy for those with possible conflict of interests to edit related articles on Wikipedia, although it is strongly discouraged. For example, Colby Cosh has set an excellent example where he does not edit articles related to his work, but expresses opinions on their talk pages.
Also, there is no problem with editing anything without a COI, so many of the articles listed in the above link would not be a problem. Kelvinc 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google blurb needs fixing[edit]

I Googled "National Post" because it was cited in a Saturn ad, and I wanted to see if it was a real newspaper since I hadn't heard of it (and frankly, to a non-Canadian, "National Post" sounded made up). The blurb under the heading for this article in the list of search results starts "The National Post is a pro-Israeli Canadian English-language national newspaper based in..." (bold style added for emphasis), which seems to be a relic of some previous vandalism. The article seems to have been fixed, but apparently Google is using an old (vandalized?) version as a reference, so everyone who Googles it sees the "pro-Israeli" nonsense. Anyone know how to fix that? 67.211.128.98 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Post closing???[edit]

This story is on 680 News. I am not sure where/if it should be in this article: The current link is: http://www.680news.com/news/headlines/more.jsp?content=20091029_134542_8432

TORONTO - Bloomberg reports that the National Post will likely be forced to close as early as Friday if it isn't transferred to a different holding company, according to a Canwest court filing. The closure would affect more than 200 employees. The court filing said the paper has never generated a profit and continues to suffer significant losses, more than $60-million in fact over the last four years. Canwest is currently in bankruptcy protection and wants to shift the paper to a unit called Canwest Limited Partnership. There will be a crucial court hearing on the matter, Friday. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monday edition[edit]

For the record, the Post only suspended the Monday edition for a couple months in the summer of 09. I don't believe this is notable enough to include, I'm only mentioning it because an editor had mistakenly edited that the Post no longer published on Monday. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sued[edit]

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-scientist-sues-national-post and [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of this? I'm sure papers are sued all the time. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date[edit]

I've removed the paragraph below because (a) the Aspers no longer have anything to do with the company, and the closure rumours have ceased at least until an IPO of Postmedia; and (b) the amount of money the paper is losing is less now -- $9.3M vs. $15M. I've noted that in the text.

The Post continues to lose money – financial analysts estimate annual losses at about $15 million – and rumours persist that the Aspers will close down the Post due to its lack of profitability. Others believe, however, that the Aspers will keep the newspaper going in order to have a political voice in Canada, notably on issues such as Israel. The Post today operates under the editorial direction of David Asper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.159.90 (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criticism[edit]

Why does the article say this: "Today the Post has to some extent abandoned this ideology that gave the Post a distinct voice and loyal readership.[citation needed] Many of its rival papers, meanwhile, have copied its unique design and layout features." No evidence of either of these claims, nor of the 'distinct voice and loyal readership' bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.85.173 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry on a major Press presence is deliberately being left to atrophy[edit]

Is this page being updated? The Editor in chief listed hasn't been - for months. Someone should write about whats happening here, its implications & fallout. The columnists page is not accurate. Elizabeth Nickson is a colorful example left out in it's entirety. That's for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.109.106 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in the article of Postmedia's acquisition of the Sun newspapers (including the Toronto Sun). Given the emphasis of Postmedia's business and the National Post's genesis (the purchase of Sun media's Financial Post), this omission is glaring. --Hurdingkatz (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place for content of that type would be in Postmedia Network, not here, as it has everything to do with Postmedia and almost nothing to do with the National Post per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far-Right Bias[edit]

I have a screenshot of them having disabled a comment I made reusing the word someone in my previous post--"demonic," but that the previous comment was left alone. The bias here is about as flagrant as it comes. The previous poster was pro-Israel, while I was criticizing Israel.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for Political Stance/Bias[edit]

Hello all,

I am starting on a project to bring improved rigor and evidence to Wikipedia's representations of the bias of major media outlets in Canada. I am currently working on the CBC, National Post, The Globe and Mail, CTV News, and Global News based on available sources. I would like to add some objective perspective and sourcing to the discussions of bias/political stance on the Post's page here.

It has been challenging finding solid acceptable sources to allow for evidence-based discussion. I agree some media bias rating sites have very questionable methodology. Media Bias/Fact Check is judged an unacceptable source. AllSides seems more substantial and is not judged unacceptable but does not have a National Post entry.

There are a few surveys undertaken by well regarded external survey groups (such as Ipsos Reid and Abacus) looking into the biases and balance of Canadian media outlets. I would like to make brief summmary reference to them on the National Post page.

I propose an edit to create a "Political Stance" section (in line with the structure of the Globe's page), with a summary statement along the lines of the below:

A 2017 survey of Canadians found that the National Post was perceived to be middle-of-the-pack for bias among national news outlets (perceived biased by 48% of Canadians overall). Respondents perceived a bias for coverage to favour the Conservative Party. [1][2] A 2010 survey similarly found the Post was more likely to be perceived as right of centre by the public than other Canadian news organizations. [3]

The statement is deliberately crafted not to say the Post definitively has a particular bias, but that these sources at least indicate there is a public perception of a conservative/right-of-centre bias. Some of the existing unsourced discussion on political stance could be removed.

I welcome any constructive feedback on the potential sources and edit. My intention is to have greater evidence-based discussion to be able to hold all media outlets to public account.

My thanks to @Peter Gulutzan: for providing additional sourcing and directing me to open this discussion with you.Balancingakt (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not subscribe to abacus so am depending on iPolitics, which says it's taking from abacus. It says 52% said National Post is biased. and -- if I'm understanding the colours correctly -- most Conservative voters think it's biased towards the Liberals or the NDP. But in that case, unless only a tiny minority of respondents are Conservative, the majority of total respondents (i.e. 52% minus most of the Conservatives) did not think National Post was biased toward the Conservatives. Therefore either you must correct my arithmetic, or "Respondents perceived a bias for coverage to favour the Conservative Party" is improper. As for Media Bias/Fact Check, I don't mind seeing it cited with attribution but don't see why Americans would be an authority re National Post. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 52% is for Conservative voters exclusively (see top right of graphic). FYI you don't need to subscribe to Abacus, you just need to do a free registration to see their website content. Their original report shows the aggregated figures (i.e. for Canadians overall, not broken down by voter group) and 48% of them perceive the Post as biased. For some reason iPolitics chooses to only show the broken-down-by-party figures. Overall Canadian figures are more applicable and useful here. As per the iPolitics article "The tendency was to see...a Conservative bias at the National Post." Similar quote and conclusion from Abacus study. Would a quote be more appropriate?Balancingakt (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI on Media Bias/Fact Check, I had my hand slapped by others for sourcing it. The powers that be judge it unreliable, see WP:MBFC. Balancingakt (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re the percentages: okay but doesn't that still mean that only a minority of respondents, somewhere south of 48%, said National Post had a Conservative bias? Re WP:MBFC: it's neither a policy nor a guideline and attributed opinions should be okay if real policies/guidelines e.g. WP:DUE are met, but if someone attacked you for using it then as a newish user you're sensible to avoid a fight. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see your point. In bias studies the conclusion wouldn't based on what the largest response group is, but what the "average" of the aggregate response is (see p. 25 of reference 3 below for example). Same way that you wouldn't typically compare two groups by, say, their most common age--their mean or median age compared to a central measure is usually a better summary. In this case, the aggregate view is that the Post's average skews (i.e. is biased) substantially right-of-center/conservatve. In fact, on aggregate perception, this bias is larger than any other major media outlet, except for the Sun Newspapers (with which it is tied). I can discuss further if needed. With that in mind let me know if one of the alternate phrasings below addresses your concerns:
1)"The tendency was to see...a Conservative bias at the National Post." [direct quote from article and survey conclusions, perhaps a way to avoid disagreement of interpretation]
2)Respondents perceived a bias for coverage to favour the Conservative Party more than any other major media outlet.
Balancingakt (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am constrained because I will not subscribe to Abacus (or whatever you want to call the login requirement). I gather from the iPolitics summary that Abacus found that, of the total respondents, the number who saw Conservative bias was certainly less than 50% and probably much much less. I gather from your comments that Abacus found that the average response was there's Conservative bias. I can't reconcile these things so I can only ask whether other editors are willing to interpret or opine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there are no objections. Last call on feedback before I execute the edit?Balancingakt (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Balancingakt: Incorrect. I objected and nobody supported. Since so far there is a dispute between only two editors, will you consider WP:3O? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said you could not reconcile things between sources you are not willing to review and did not respond to my constructive attempts to structure an acceptable alternative statement. I will consider third opinion or any other attempt to productively review evidence and reach a solution.Balancingakt (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe what you say about me, but do believe we're at a standstill, which is a WP:3O requirement, and I will accept WP:3O. If an arbitrator wants a short summary of my position, it is: Any sentence suggesting that the 2017 survey found that respondents found the National Post had Conservative bias is not acceptable because the majority found no bias or non-Conservative bias. If you also will accept WP:3O, you can have the last word here and then either of us can post the dispute and wait. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Believe what you like, Peter, but we are supposed to be here to discuss facts and evidence. The fact is you still refuse to read the primary source under discussion and our discussion history above speaks for itself. Your view would mean unless the vast majority of the public perceives a singular political party bias in a media outlet, then any potential left/right bias cannot be discussed. My position is: The primary source (available on Abacus' website through a free, brief sign-up) concludes "The tendency was to see...a Conservative bias at the National Post." The results themselves indicate that indeed, on average, Canadians perceived a right-of-centre/Conservative bias at the National Post. I welcome an arbitrator weighing in, sooner the better.Balancingakt (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of any criticism beyond the one user refusing to read the source there's really no reason to not include this. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balancingakt, the relevant Abacus page no longer requires registration. I've seen now that "% who say organization [i.e. National Post] is biased" is 48%, and "party [that the National Post] organization favours" is Liberal=18% Conservative 23% Other=7% (not specified on the chart but 48 - (18 + 23) is 7). Thus, as I expected, the word "tendency", whatever it's supposed to mean, does not mean that most respondents saw Conservative bias: only a minority saw any bias at all, and within that minority the perceivers of Conservative bias were a minority (since 23 is less than half of 48). So I renew my suggestion that what you added should be removed. Do you still claim otherwise? Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Balancingakt, seeing no reply, I have removed the bit about tendency. You know that I object to other edits in this section but I leave them alone for the moment. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Canadian News Media And "Fake News" Under A Microscope". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2021.(registration required)
  2. ^ "Survey suggests large number of Canadians have likely read 'fake' news stories". April 29, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2021.
  3. ^ "The News Fairness and Balance Report" (PDF). September 2010. Retrieved September 4, 2021.

Political position in infobox[edit]

In RfC: Globe and Mail infobox there was consensus that "political position" should be removed, based on Template:Infobox newspaper ("For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page."). I believe the same applies for National Post so its political position should be removed from the infobox. which has the effect of reverting an 11 August 2022 edit by Luxphos. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Post Political alignment[edit]

I have added citations to sources which track political bias in Canadian media. At least 1 citation was the same as that used for political alignment cited for the Toronto Sun. Lucis-Phos (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The change didn't have an effect that was visible to me but I reverted. This was already discussed in the thread immediately above this = Political position in infobox (in fact I see no need for making a new section). Perhaps it could be discussed again, but so far I'm the only person who has pointed to recommended procedure and related consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Peter Gulutzan. I see your point. Will you support removing “Political Affiliation” in the infobox for all newspapers on Wikipedia? Cheers Lucis-Phos (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sure some newspapers really do have formal alignments, and getting involved with all newspaper articles would be too much for me. You brought up the Toronto Sun and I looked at the citation for it (https://www.worldpress.org/about.cfm) and I think it's poor sourcing due to the admission of "self-published" or "activist" contributions, so maybe I'll look at it later. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Post&oldid=1220635377"