Talk:Digital First Media

Bare bones, very corporate PR edit

The page has the feeling of being denuded by someone at Digital First Media. There is no mention of the ouster of CEO John Paton, who created the name of the merged company.Ocwarner (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Gary Warner

What Newspapers Do They Own?

This article tells me nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.174.225 (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital First Media. 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/20120723064436/http://www.journalregister.com:80/press-releases/digitalfirst/ to http://www.journalregister.com/press-releases/digitalfirst/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be modified: "Digital First Media, formerly MediaNews Group," in the first sentence should be changed to "MediaNews Group, dba Digital First Media," Explanation of issue: MediaNews Group is the legal name of Digital First Media. Digital First Media is solely the dba. I work for MediaNews Group, so I have a COI. References supporting change: See https://www.digitalfirstmedia.com/. The language utilized on the website is MediaNews Group, dba Digital First Media. The logo also shows MediaNews Group as the primary, with Digital First Media underneath. Jen.d.flanagan (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 13-JAN-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Section headings with "controversy" in them

My understanding per WP:Contentious labels is that it is frowned on to use the words "controversy" or "controversies" in section headings. This article does that twice. Novellasyes (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

2006 litigation section

That whole section is starting to seem pretty WP:Undue. Novellasyes (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the section in its entirety because as I considered the situation from 15 years ago, I couldn't see that even a very short summary wouldn't still be undue. But here is what it says in case anyone wants to work with it. Novellasyes (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"On July 14, 2006, San Francisco businessman and real estate investor Clint Reilly filed a lawsuit against MediaNews Group and San Francisco Chronicle parent Hearst Communications, alleging that the two companies have been conspiring to control advertising rates, a violation of antitrust laws. In November 2006, Reilly's attorney presented to U.S. District Judge Susan Illston a letter from Hearst senior vice president James Asher to MediaNews President Jody Lodovic that said the two companies agreed to "offer national advertising and internet advertising sales for their San Francisco Bay Area newspapers on a joint basis, and to consolidate the San Francisco Bay Area distribution networks of such newspapers ...." Illston, suggesting she had been misled by the companies when they said they had not been collaborating, issued a 14-page ruling forbidding Hearst and MediaNews from working together on national advertising sales or distribution.

On December 21, 2006, the San Francisco Bay Guardian and nonprofit Media Alliance filed suit to make the details of Reilly's lawsuit—and MediaNews and the Chronicle's response—public. As a result of the filing, many documents in the case were voluntarily disclosed by the defendants. The judge allowed redacted versions of two more documents to be released. She kept 17 others under seal. One of the documents unsealed was the deposition of Hearst's Asher, who says that as of September 2006, his company had recorded cumulative losses of $330 million on its investment in the Chronicle, which it acquired in mid-2000. He said Hearst proposed selling the Chronicle to MediaNews, but MediaNews didn't offer enough money. Asher also said Hearst and MediaNews have discussed working together for years. Although the trial was scheduled to start Monday, April 30, 2007 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the parties announced Wednesday, April 25, 2007 that a settlement had been reached."

"Areas served" in infobox

There's a section in the infobox called "areas served" which lists these states: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, California. I propose to remove that part of the infobox. If they are the country's 2nd largest owner of newspapers, they must be publishing newspapers in at least several dozen states, so this very short list is obsolete and I don't imagine it makes sense to list dozens of states. Novellasyes (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to fix out of date key people

• Steve Rossi retired in 2017

My confusion around Digital First versus Alden Global Capital

Alden Global Capital owns DFM. DFM is the division of AGC that actually operates and runs the newspaper chain. Thus one might think, and the way this has been approached on Wikipedia in the past, is that more specific details of operations would go in the DFM article. In October, AGC told its 200 newspapers that they can't do editorial endorsements anymore. That's important but what article should that go in? DFM or AGC? Both? The New York Times article doesn't mention the name DFM. It only talks about AGC. That is increasingly the case. Novellasyes (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)