Talk:The Dallas Morning News

Is the Dallas Morning News editorially conservative?

Should the Dallas Morning News be labeled conservative in the article?

Edit: it is definitely a left leaning paper and has been regarded as such for many years. I too remember when we had the News and Times Hearld, (I am born and raised in Dallas) but ever since its been down to just the News they have leaned left.

The Dallas Morning News has a long tradition of Republican endorsements in national elections but it has endorsed many Democrats in local elections... particularly incumbents. While the Morning News did endorse Bush in the 2004 election, it has been quite critical of the Bush Administration at times. For instance there was a scathing editorial on cronyism in the Bush administration that led to wholly unqualified Michael Brown becoming FEMA Director and how this affected the administration's Katrina response.

In State politics, the paper was extremely critical of the Tom Delay redistricting plan pushed through the Texas State Legislature. It said that this plan diluted minority voting rights and should never have passed.

The paper tends to be pro-business or free-market but it is also very civic minded and has endorsed many very expensive government projects such as the Trinity River Project and the proposed Trinity River bridges.

The Dallas Morning News tends to be liberal or at least Libertarian on social issues... particularly since Keven Ann Willey arrived.

A statement that the Dallas Morning News political position is conservative is not accurate and should be removed. Wintd 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; certainly, in the 1980s when we had two to choose from, the News was considerd by far the more 'conservative' of them. I don't see that it's changed significantly since. I think a survey of Dallasites would show they consider the paper to be Republican-leaning, and a generally strong supporter of the Bush administration. That said, said survey has not been done, and the statement (while accurate in my view) is unsourced. I don't really care on the matter; I'm just waiting to see if any Belo employee comes along to soften my edits in re: the Times-Herald any....Eaglizard 11:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Local news sources tend to reflect the politics of their readerships, and it's hard to discuss this sort of thing and remain NPOV. This is a non-notable issue unless there can be some citations. See the page on the New York Times for how to do this. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservative?

The Dallas Morning News has taken positions that support both liberal and conservative agendas, and should be considered a moderate source.

A.H. Belo to Belo

A. H. Belo Corporation no longer owns the DMN. It's now the similarly-named Belo Corporation, so I changed that information on the article. Mr. E. Sánchez (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Corporate divestitures can be a bit confusing, but actually it's the opposite. Belo Corp got the former company's TV stations, and AH Belo got the newspapers. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight given to circulation controversy?

Three paragraphs out of 10 (30%) are devoted to the circulation controversy issue, which is still "citation-needed." The newspaper has been in business since 1885 (127 years), so this seems a bit much given the proportion of the paper's total history to the amount devoted to that issue. Perhaps the solution would be to talk a bit more about the history of the DMN. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Dallas Morning News/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is not very long.. it has a lot of lists and needs an expanded history section along with perhaps a picture of Dealey, the founder. drumguy8800 C T 06:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

bruh incident

i have taken the WP:BOLD move of removing this material, which is given undue weight for the firing of a single employee. its addition was never discussed, but it took up an inordinate amount of the article.173.175.200.238 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a debatable issue, I could find from a simple search of "bruh incident" two articles in the front page of Google, which suggests it might be more notable than you imply, but I don't want to cause any edit wars. Please keep in mind the Streisand effect and WP:Conflict of interest (in case it applies). Splatterxl – talk 21:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

i don't think either of those applies here, thank you 173.175.200.238 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)