Talk:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

message: Did the Journal under Grant really refuse to carry syndicated material? I'm reading a lot of 1950s Journals and seeing a lot of what looks like syndicated material to me!
--Orange Mike 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndication 

message: I don't think it's a good idea for an encylcopedia article to be tagging a newspaper with a "political position". It's too reductive and simplistic; not to mention that it violates Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. And speaking as someone who has read the newspaper all of my life, I don't think that is an accurate assessment of its editorial stance. Since it merger of the Journal and the Sentinel in 1995, the editorials have shown more of the Sentinel's conservativism than the Journal's liberalism. 
So, the question is, who decides what to call the paper's "political position"?— Walloon 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I didn't reply eariler. First off all, nearly all major newspapers have a politcal stance for their editorial board. The Chicago Tribune is conservative, the Chicago Sun-Times is liberal. The New York Times is liberal, the now gone New York Herald was conservative. And so on... As a long time resident of Milwaukee (I've moved to Chicago recently) I read the Journal Sentinel daily. I do not think that is controversial to say that the Journal Sentinel's editorial board is reliably liberal. It may not be Mother Jones, but that doesn't make it conservative. — Linnwood 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a daily reader, I'd call it conservative, more conservative that the Trib nowadays. Where is the "reliable liberalism" of a paper that consistently endorses reactionaries like Scott Walker and Sheriff Clarke? Since they purged Joel McNally, the only halfway-liberal voice left is Eugene Kane; and he is outshouted by the McIlherans and the like. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

text: So, who decides what to call the paper's "political position"? — Walloon 05:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an ideal world, the paper's editorial staff should be the ones to make that subjective call.  --Chancemichaels 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, many outright claims of political position are extremely controversial, as one person's liberal is another's conservative. A bitter dispute over the political infobox field broke out over at The New York Times discussion page, which was resolved by not using the field at all, and discussing politics in the body text, with reliably-sourced references. Only papers that have formally declared support for a particular political party may be described as "aligned" with that party. This is more common in Europe than in the United States today, although it did happen more frequently in the U.S. in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Otherwise, as for the paper's editorial staff, describing the opinions of a group of people as monolithic is problematic at best. Does the editor speak for everyone else? Did they take a vote? What about syndicated and featured columnists? -Tobogganoggin talk 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points. To me, I go by the editorials, the ideological mix of the columnists, and the endorsements for elective office. By those tests, the Milwaukee Monopoly Paper is conservative to mildly reactionary. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Political position

message: From what I've seen with source citations dated prior to the merger of the two newspapers, The Milwaukee Journal appears to use the "The" preceeding Milwaukee. Shouldn't we be using that same consistency in the article?InfoWrangler (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Milwaukee Journal

message: Is there a good reason there's no article about the Journal or the Sentinal rather than just an abbreviated history of both papers in this article?  169.229.153.89 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia custom is to incorporate information on consolidated newspapers into one article about the contemporary descendant publication, but anyone is welcome to contribute to either section of this article.  If enough encyclopedic information can be written about either ancestor to make this an overlong article, editors may then make the call to give that paper its own article. It's always a work in progress! -Tobogganoggin talk 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal Sentinal vs. Journal and Sentinal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041213054804/http://www.jsonline.com/recruitment/about.asp to http://www.jsonline.com/recruitment/about.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The history section skips directly from the establishment of the Journal's FM and TV stations in the 1940s and 50s to the merged papers in the 2000s without even mentioning when the papers merged or how much the Journal paid to acquire the Sentinel. 207.180.169.36 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 years of history missing  

message: It's no longer printed in Milwaukee.  Printing was shifted to Peoria, IL  https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/real-estate/commercial/2022/10/07/ex-journal-sentinel-production-plant-sold-chicago-tribune-affiliate/8208597001/ Richie-shy (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print location