Talk:Media speculate over possible presidential bid by Michael Bloomberg

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Running for President[edit]

Just because he's not running doesn't mean he's not considering how much to spend or how he would run such a campaign. Besides that all candidates say they aren't running and suprise!! They're running. I never say he's running I'm just saying he getting prepared.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The 13th 4postle (talkcontribs) 21:37, 15 May 2007

Bloomberg's own comments, hardly a day old, about his candidature shld be reported and be reflected in the headline. see WN:SG on how to present people's predictions about future events - they shld be clearly states as predictions and attributed to those who make them. they shld not be reported as facts or as if Wikinews is making/agreeing with the predictions. –Doldrums(talk) 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to User_talk:Doldrums#Bloomberg: title can be along the lines of New York mayor Bloomberg may run for President, friends say, Speculation over possible Presidential run by New York mayor. his denial shld be in the lead paragraph. –Doldrums(talk) 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations also appeared in French Canadian press: Le maire de New York briguera-t-il la Maison-Blanche? (May 15, Richard Hétu, for La Presse of Montreal: M. Hétu probably reads The Washington Times or hears the same rumours used by TWT...) smiley Hégésippe | ±Θ± 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Once Bloomberg says he's running this will be newsworthy. His advisors' comments may be interesting, but its irresponsible to publish this as news. Only once he actually delcares his candidacy should there be a story. –Demiquave 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation IS newsworthy for the profit news organisations. It ISN'T on Wikinews. This article is not newsworthy unless it is official. Speculation is not news, it's personal POV. FellowWikiNewsie 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet somehow it was deemed ok for this article, Israeli website reports speculation over U.S. attack on Iran in April. Sorry, I couldn't resist. --SVTCobra 22:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is a good quality speculation article :P FellowWikiNewsie 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially good because the report mentioned in the title never made it into the sources, because no one could find it. --SVTCobra 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it did. Reread the sources...Debka File source. DragonFire1024 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very newsworthy because he would be a very significant candidate both for the amount of money he can bring into his own campaign and because he would be a third party candidate. The sources are Time and Washington Times, if it's good enough for them but not Wikinews then there is something wrong with Wikinews.
P.S I have seen much more irrelevant news then this on Wikinews The 13th 4postle 23:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is most certinly newsworthy. I think the author presented it well and I have no problems with this. CNN, Fox News everyone else would publish this. Wikinews should too. We need to get gutsy so we can gain respect. Momodamonkey 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend toward this as newsworthy. But I am not an authority. Also, the article is fairly poorly written with bad grammar and would need a clean-up for that reason alone. --SVTCobra 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have published speculation before; there is no difference between us and commercial media as to what news should be covered or not: if it's being reported, it's news.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is important is to report it as speculation, attribute it and also report other possibilities being reported/speculated. –Doldrums(talk) 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The title has been fixed. Grammar and the overall smoothness of the article looks good to me. I would like to see the article published. The 13th 4postle 01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to respectfully disagree. This is one of the many non-sensical sentences in the article, as I write this: "In the article the Washington Timesalso talked about the previous 500 million dollars Bloomberg was at first ready to consider which TIME magazine also reported." --SVTCobra 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made it more clear even though it was grammatically correct already.
P.S Why don't you just fix it if you think something is wrong with it. There is an edit button you can use. With all the writing you've done on this discussion page you could have fixed the article and more. The 13th 4postle 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one, what previous 500 million? Using previous necessarily refers back to something, which in this case is never mentioned. But forget it. I am tired. But here's another: "One of the major concerns for a third party candidate is getting enough petitions to run in some states and the enormous funds at Bloomberg's disposal would get rid of that problem as well as many others that face third party candidates." This is a huge run-on sentence with no punctuation. And why do "enormous fund" get rid of things like petitions to run in certain states? Can you just pay election officials to look the other way? I don't understand. But do what you want. As I said, I am tired, so I am going to bed. Oh, I can't fix the article myself, because I don't want to read the sources. --SVTCobra 01:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]