Talk:Foster's Daily Democrat

message: 24.128.206.1 inserted the following text and Jeffrey O. Gustafson reverted it right back out again. I'll save it here on the talk page.
:Fosters is a right-leaning publication, with a focus on police reporting (crime, car accidents, fires) and public meetings (scandals, elections). Fosters values quantity over quality and good reporting over good writing. Most reporters are made to work over 40 hours per week and told to be reporters first, and writers second. Reporters do not have choice as to what they cover. They are told by their editors. Overall, Foster's is a paper that *responds* to news events that go on in the community -- parades, visits from officials, fires and accidents -- rather than take the time to investigate complex issues and trends that may be ongoing.
Atlant 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point being? The text speaks for itself as to why it was dutifully reverted.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not doubt for one second, indeed, I hole-heartedly beleave, that the jist of the above removed stuff is true.  The problem is, aside from clear bias, the content is definitely OR unless it has appeared in some other reputable source.  As far as saying that the focus is on "police reporting and public meetings," well, it is a small town paper and there's not much else going on, honestly.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text that was removed from the article 

message: How many intelligent editors -- myself included -- have seen this obviously false statement and passed right over it?
I wouldn't have noticed this except that the most recent addition to this article was an editor replacing "conservative" with "pro-slavery" in describing the 1870s Democratic Party (also inaccurate). I doubt any newspaper or national political party in 1873 New Hampshire was openly "pro-slavery". After all, that's almost 10 years after the Civil War. Racist, yes; pro-Southerner, yes; States-Rightsist, yes;  anti-Civil Rights (although they wouldn't have been called that then), yes. But not "pro-slavery", for the same reasons that it would be anachronistic to describe today's Democratic Party as "anti-Reagan" or "pro-New Deal".
The citation (currently footnote 3) does not back up the quoted claim. "The Newspaper Riot of 1865" is about Foster's first venture in daily journalism, a paper called the States and Union in Portsmouth, which did take place during slavery times, in the 1860s. The Daily Democrat did not then exist (it was founded by Foster, as correctly noted here, in 1873).
It's correct to describe Foster as a pro-slavery editor -- he once was. But by the 1870s, it's correct to describe the Democratic Party as anti-Reconstruction or, as in a previous diff, "conservative":
The preceding quote coming from our own article at Third Party System. I have made edits today accordingly. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-slavery in 1873? 

message: I propose that Geo. J. Foster Company be merged into Foster's Daily Democrat. I think that the content in the company article can easily be explained in the context of the newspaper (indeed, does the co. do anything other than publish the paper?), and the newspaper article is of a reasonable size that the merger will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Woodshed (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal