Talk:Newspaper photos highlight New Zealand PM's husband's friendship with gay doctor

No kidding

"The story has very little substance." --12.216.67.70 05:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

tabloid journalism

Is the story really about "sparked speculation"? Just seems a smear. How about a title something like 'NZ tabloid smears New Zealand PM's husband'. Not a great title either, but closer to the truth. TRWBW 13:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What an utter nonsense item. So what if het was? Aleichem 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Wikinews is not a tabloid, go ahead with the title change. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)} 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being biased but there seems consensus that this is a smear, and it sure looks like one to me, so I stated it as fact in the title. If it matters on a question of bias, I give you my word that I don't give a rat's ass about New Zealand politics. TRWBW 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the first pure tabloid story I've seen on Wikinews. The title change makes it a tabloid story with some garish. A politician had his picture taken with a gay man... and this is news? Come on, this isn't CNN... this is a news site.

I agree, it focuses alot on the article from the Investigate. FellowWikiNews (W) 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brianmc changed the title to just state the facts, and I think he was right. I made some minor edits to the article to focus more on the facts. Let the reader figure it out, that's their job. TRWBW 05:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The photos, etc have gained a lot of media attention here in New Zealand, and so did the Don Brash affair (briefly mentioned in story). --Nzgabriel | NZ Portal | Talk 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What would have been a perfect way to finish this off would have been if someone could get a quote from one of the political parties describing the paper as "gutter press" or a tabloid. Then the term could have been used in the article, and possibly in the title. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you were right before, and wrong now. I'll say it again, state the facts and let the reader come to their own conclusion. It's not like it's hard for them, this is obviously tabloid journalism. TRWBW 07:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm usually in favor of "let the reader come to their own conclusion", my reaction to this article's title is "Wtf? Why is someone's friendship news, especially when that someone is not really notable, only his wife is and the person he's friends with isn't notable either?", and then reading the story I found out that this is really about smearing (or alleged smearing if you really contest that intent). If the story is about (alleged, attempted) smearing and reaction to it, then it is newsworthy; if it is about the photograph or the friendship, then it is not. The title should also say what the article is about. As it stands, it smacks of tabloid publishing. Coffee2theorems 11:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought but I didn't want to get involved in this huge debate. It is also too wordy. --Nzgabriel | Article list | Talk 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)