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)

Should we be including all the non-notable newsrooms? I know it was a lot of work to find the websites for all of them, but I think the article reads better to say "26 newsrooms, including A, B, and C" where A, B, and C are the most prominent ones rather than say there's "26 newsrooms: A, B, C, D, E, F...X, Y, and Z" One I clicked on had 5 employees, and naturally no SIGCOV, just the website itself. I'm concerned this is looking WP:PROMO. BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

While most newsrooms might not be notable enough for their own articles at this point, they seem notable enough to be mentioned once by name in this article while others probably need their own subsection. States Newsroom itself is clearly notable and if there are specific newsrooms that you do not think are notable, I would just ask that you flag those with inline citations for now instead of deleting right away. I think it is important for Wikipedia to have a natural place to discuss each of these statehouse organizations and reference of (likely) reliable sources for statehouse coverage in states that do not have a lot of reporters. Superb Owl (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

By "not notable" I mean that Wikipedia does not have an article on it. Even the Alabama Reflector, connected to the Pulitzer in Commentary nomination, exists only as a redirect to the States Newsroom page, and there's no WP:SECONDARY coverage of the nomination in reliable sources. And the States Newsroom affiliate itself was not nominated for anything--the journalist Brian Lyman was. I'm leaning towards deleting this and the self-serving claim of the States Newsroom spokesman saying they've won "hundreds of awards" when there's no sourcing to show any newsroom has won any major awards for anything. BBQboffin^{grill me} 15:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you won't use an inline flag so that your concerns can be addressed? (just added secondary sources for Lyman and fixed the phrasing per your suggestion)
And is that the standard for creating a subsection about an organization in an article? That they have to meet the same bar as having their own article? Superb Owl (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying this sentence is awkward and promotional: The 39 state newsrooms under the States Newsroom umbrella include the Alabama Reflector, Alaska Beacon, Arkansas Advocate, Arizona Mirror, Colorado Newsline, Daily Montanan, the Florida Phoenix, Georgia Recorder, Idaho Capital Sun, Indiana Capital Chronicle, Iowa Capital Dispatch, Kansas Reflector, Kentucky Lantern, Louisiana Illuminator, Maine Morning Star, Maryland Matters, Michigan Advance, the Minnesota Reformer, the Missouri Independent, NC Newsline, Nebraska Examiner, Nevada Current, New Hampshire Bulletin, New Jersey Monitor, North Dakota Monitor, Oklahoma Voice, Ohio Capital Journal, Oregon Capital Chronicle, Rhode Island Current, Pennsylvania Capital-Star, Source New Mexico, South Carolina Daily Gazette, South Dakota Searchlight, Tennessee Lookout, Utah News Dispatch, Virginia Mercury, Washington State Standard, West Virginia Watch, and Wisconsin Examiner. and how would an "inline flag" fix anything? An improvement would be to say instead: States Newsroom has 39 state outlets including the Alabama Reflector, Michigan Advance, and the New Jersey Monitor. where the ones mentioned are the largest and for which, hopefully, there's some coverage beyond what States is saying about itself to promote itself. All the affiliates could be mentioned in a footnote, or not at all, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Which section of WP:NOTDIRECTORY does this apply to?
And I completely disagree that it is promotional - there are many newsrooms with a number of inbound wikilinks from other articles and those newsrooms should be listed here so that people who arrive via an inbound link can know that they made it to the right page.
I can take it out of sentence form and put it back in divided columns if we are worried about awkwardness Superb Owl (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that States Newsroom has 39 state outlets including the Alabama Reflector, Michigan Advance, and the New Jersey Monitor. or something along those lines would be an improvement. Then we can just redirect each state outlet to the main article. Marquardtika (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought we were including every newsroom with a notable citation? Most have that. It would be really helpful after spending all that time tracking down citations if you could explain which ones are not sufficient and why. Superb Owl (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It clutters the article to have 39 different newspapers named in one sentence. Why not add the names of all the reporters in too, as there's WP:PRIMARY sourcing for that as well? And now I see there's a table of them by their founding date, so all the non-notable outlets are named twice. This article is looking like one big States Newsroom advertisement. BBQboffin^{grill me} 22:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I hear you on clutter and am sensitive to that. I am also not interested in adding sources without secondary sourcing. What I am hoping to get clarification on is whether any of the types of sources I have added are not sufficiently secondary or not so that I can focus my search or not waste any more time if this is something that regardless of sourcing is going to be shot down.
I added the table to solicit feedback as to which format is more useful for the sources with secondary source mentions. Superb Owl (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the table is an improvement on the 39-named-newspapers sentence, and adding the founding date is valuable (and a hell of a lot of work on your part, thank you!). But we shouldn't have both and I hope that sentence gets trimmed back to maybe 3 names. BBQboffin^{grill me} 02:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

100% agree - never intended to keep both and will keep the table for now and take your suggestion on the sentence that highlights the 3 most notable newsrooms with a subsection Superb Owl (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree the table is an improvement, thanks for the work on that. But now I think it's a bit confusing with the dating since States Newsroom was not formed until 2019. So I think we need some explanation of why outlets founded before that date are being included. Also looking at the sources, we don't need an op ed for Maryland Matters, especially when there is already another source there. I think it's a bit WP:CITEKILL to have multiple sources, especially when one is marginal. Marquardtika (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove the most marginal sources and was considering maybe an asterisk at 2020 header noting that this is when States Newsroom was under its own 501(c)3 instead of being a fiscally sponsored project or whatever it was at Hopewell Superb Owl (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm too new to editing Wikipedia to have a firm opinion about these disputes, but I do want to say I appreciate the additions to this article that give a more nuanced view of what these publications are actually doing - which is statehouse-focused journalism alongside opinion pieces that, like many traditional newspapers, have a partisan leaning. Since I have routinely advised students to check Wikipedia to see if a news organization should be considered legit, I thought what was here previously didn't do the job. Now it's clearer that they aren't "pink slime" even if they are in some cases condemned by political figures as biased. So thanks for all the work on this article. And I'll try to learn enough to be better informed as a Wikipedia participant. Itsagazornum (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I am in the same position as @Itsagazornum. I have done many small edits to WP articles but have not had reason to become informed on nuances of WP policy for inclusion.

I am, however, deeply involved in understanding the state of local (including state government) news coverage [from an outsider's perspective.] Local news is a vital resource and I would argue strongly that all of these outlets are notable on that basis. It is valuable for people to have a resource for information about these outlets. It would be very unfortunate for them not to be included in WP.

As to issues of POV, they are much more open and transparent about their funding and perspective than most news organizations. To disqualify news orgs because they have biases would results in finding most news orgs are not "legitimate". Jreiss17 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No money from corporations?

Probably this is one of those "Verifiability vs Truth" things, but States Newsroom clearly takes money from corporations. All 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 are corporations. Look at the list: 1610 Foundation is a corporation, Google LLC is a corporation, "Undisclosed Virginia Foundation", unless "Undisclosed" was really the baby's name, is a corporation.[3] What do we do when the secondary and usually reliable sources get the primary source material wrong, as in this case? BBQboffin^{grill me} 01:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are nonprofits, not private enterprises. That is the common meaning of the word corporation. I see no conflict and have never heard of 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 as being described as corporations. Superb Owl (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit that has an article on it that leads off: A 501(c)(3) organization is a United States corporation, trust, unincorporated association or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. And the "C" in Google, LLC, stands for "corporation". BBQboffin^{grill me} 01:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a pretty big stretch... Superb Owl (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the link to the 1610 Foundation's 900 IRS Form.[4] Notice on Line C, "Name of Organization" is "1610 FOUNDATION, INC". Also on line K, where the choices are "Corporation, Trust, Association, or Other" the box is marked for "Corporation". This corporation donates money to States Newsroom year after year. Nothing wrong with that. Something wrong with us saying in Wikivoice that States Newsroom doesn't accept money from corporations when their donor list is filled with corporate donors--some for-profit, like Google, and some non-profit like 1610 Foundation, Inc. BBQboffin^{grill me} 01:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough - let's take it out of the lead and attribute it to the source Superb Owl (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

FanPOV tag (changed to POV tag by Superb Owl)

I added this flag before because of the WP:PROMO appearance of the article, such as:

• None of the individual outlets are notable apart from the umbrella organization, and most have 4-6 employees, so why are we naming each one and recording its birthdate? We don't do this with other corporations and organizations that have local affiliates. Does our article on McDonalds name all the franchisees? Does our article on the Scouts BSA name every troop?

• The article seems to maximize the leverage of any passing positive mention in a source. One article in CJR discusses SR and makes a positive mention, and we write in Wikivoice that "Columbia Journalism Review (has) defended States Newsroom against these criticisms"; it implies an ongoing relationship, when it was a single article that said something nice once.

• Speaking of which...the "Partnerships" heading. Naturally, SR wants to be seen as a "partner" with prestigious news organizations, but when an SR article is republished in a newspaper somewhere, it doesn't make SR and that newspapers partner for life, as we are implying. Name-dropping of large, long-existing, prestigious media organizations and exaggerating the connection with SR is a problem here.

• "Hundreds of awards"? Is there any reliable source for any SR newsroom, anywhere, in its history, winning any journalism awards? Previously the Pulitzer nomination (for Commentary of all things, not actual news) popped up in three different places. And it was for an individual, not a newsroom, and the guy didn't even win the award.

• Pink slime allegations have long dogged SR and Newsguard continues to have them on the watch list for that reason, while other observers have considered the issue and disagree. But no mention of the controversy in the lede?

This is the third time now the FanPOV tag has been added, once before by USER:Marquardtika and once by me. USER:Superb Owl removed the tag twice but the POV issues have not, in my opinion, been resolved, so I think the tag should stay until there is consensus to remove it. BBQboffin^{grill me} 01:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Disagree though can be convinced if someone explains what the bar is for notability for a table like this?
2) Agree and tried to address it with an edit
3) Agree - I think I see the point you are making here, which is that if they are just paying organizations to use their content, it does not imply a broader endorsement of the organization? I would be happy to go back to your suggestion and more specifically describe the nature of the relationship or just mention the organizations with Wikipedia articles.
4) I agree with your fourth suggestion if there are no secondary sources backing it up. I have checked around and it seems to be the case that they are winning Society of Professional Journalist awards in Ohio, for example, and that could easily add up to hundreds...the problem is not all of those awards might be considered notable by Wikipedia and am fine to remove it and cover awards on an outlet-by-outlet basis.
5) I also agree with discussing the pink slime allegation and including the criticisms of it being geared towards swing states early on. That was a big factor in some of the pushback pre-2020. disagree per @LinkTiger's suggestion to keep it simple and more neutral. Superb Owl (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: 1) Should all the non-notable affiliates be listed? Comparing to other media articles like https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/NBC_News#Bureaus and https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gannett#List_of_Gannett_Co._assets the affiliates are included, but they link to their own Wikipedia page. Each is notable in its own right, while not a single States Newsroom outlet is notable on its own to have its own page. I would say naming the Missouri Independent is fine because there was that spat with the governor, and the Alabama Reflector has some coverage thanks to the nominated editor, but not all 39. BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: 5) The dark money and pink slime allegations (past and present) should clearly not be removed from the article entirely (egregiously WP:PROMO to do that) but whether they are lede-worthy I am still on the fence about and I would like to hear multiple uninvolved editors weigh in. I noticed also you changed the FanPOV tag to just POV although the peacocking and flattery remains unchecked, while the criticism from watchdog groups has been pared back, even though that is well-sourced and an important part of the organization's history. I still think the pendulum is far over on the promotional side in this article, and unanswered flurries of edits by a single editor is not going to achieve balance. BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve had a watch on this page since before the recent flurry of edits, and here’s how I would summarize what I’ve seen: the existing article was very heavily biased against the subject, focusing on “secret” “left-wing billionaire” donors and pink slime allegations to the exclusion of all other information. And User:Superb Owl’s perhaps overzealous attempts to correct that have led to User:Marquardtika perhaps overcorrecting in the other direction, to the point where the whole thing is overly detailed and over-cited. The list of outlets should remain as long as those outlets redirect here, so users know why they were redirected, but the founding dates are probably overkill. The pink slime allegations should be discussed, but not in the lede, since it seems pretty clear they are largely unfounded—these are largely award-winning outlets staffed mostly by respected veterans of local newspapers. The awards don’t need a section, but can be used to push back against bias and pink slime claims. Claims are getting made, and rebuttals are added, to the point the whole thing is getting overlong and overly detailed. Frankly, I think this article can be improved by being shorter, with fewer claims of controversy, rather than every opinion ever published about it being listed and rebutted. LinkTiger (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

100% agree with this assessment and have tried implementing some of these suggestions. Curious to hear what others think. Superb Owl (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Scrubbing all the NewsGuard information and deleting the mentions of the company's transparency issues makes the page even more promotional than it already is. We probably need to get some RFC on this or an admin or something. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, that would be great. I don't think we have been getting very far with the three of us having pretty strong views and support bringing in some more fresh perspectives. Superb Owl (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could agree then not to massively edit the page, at least for a few days or weeks, while we wait for other editors to bring those fresh perspectives? BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should air on the side of overinclusion with inline flags showing the points of contention so that newcomers can sort through the arguments Superb Owl (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)