Talk:New Jersey governor calls television show "Jersey Shore" negative

The real article should focus on this :

"The ten minute interview also included questions about local politics, including New Jersey's US$11 billion budget deficit. Specifically he was asked about a US$3 billion cut in public pension funds. He said that he “wasn’t going to put $3 billion into a failing system”."

not the soap opera drama show. Perhaps referring to this television series as an anecdote would be a more reasonable approach. Putting the financial difficulties and the role government must play to fix these issues of the state into context would be valid, but this (as it is now) hardly seems newsworthy since it really is just a piece about the opinion a political figure has about a mildly popular television series. Turtlestack (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Much, much more interesting. But, the lede is a hook to draw in readers. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a good hook, no doubt about it, but two of the three paragraphs focus on the negative image of Jersey from the show, not the real issue of economic hardship. Granted, Jersey has a bad reputation in the US (especially when you ask the rest of us from back east), and this show does a disservice to the residents of the state who are not "Guidos", however, this article seems to just focus on this image disparity and does not dig too deep. It's really all hook and no fish. Turtlestack (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not opposed to it being labelled develop, with points of improvement. The stereotypes put forward in such "soap opera dioramas" are invariably a reflection of a far more cruel reality; one where, as you say, the Governor is reinforcing the downward spiral that led to the stereotype. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The information about the show should be included in the article because A) it's a good hook and B) it speaks to a larger issue within the state and makes a good juxtaposition between a soap opera "reality" against the difficult economic reality of many people in Jersey as well as the reality of a difficult and contentious political reality. Further development should be the way to go here, in my opinion. Turtlestack (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hunted down a video of the interview itself, and hopefully added a little more meat to the article from it. the wub "?!"  21:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1066119 [Failed]

 * Good catch on the quote, I've corrected it from the video (it's at 9:35 if anyone wants to check). The focus on the comments about the show is deliberate, that's the bit of this interview that has attracted wider attention in the media, even if it was just intended as a lighthearted bit at the end. And we could hardly use the current headline if the article didn't specifically talk about it. But see the discussion above, it makes a good "hook" to bring people to the article, and we can then give them a bit of information about the more serious issues in the interview. I don't think we should be quoting vast swathes of it though. the wub "?!"  22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth including more of the real political stuff and a bit lees of the "New Jersey Governor takes cheap shot at popular culture", but that's just my opinion (not wearing my reviewer hat). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?   01:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put it back for review. The thing that people are interested in is the comments about "Jersey Shore", sad though that is, so that's the focus. The rest of the interview was just a pretty standard political interview, nothing new or ground-breaking seems to have been revealed by it, and it's not really newsworthy in itself. Without the Jersey Shore comments, I doubt it would have even gotten any write-ups. This isn't an article I would have chosen to write, but it should be moderately interesting to some people and it would be sad to see the work on it go to waste. the wub "?!"  10:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking better
This article is shaping up well, however, the lede, as enticing as it is, goes nowhere - it just kinda falls out halfway through the article which then becomes about the troubles the governor is having. I think if we can find a way to tie the hook back into the ending somehow while at the same time making it relevant to what the governor is talking about, then this story should be good to publish. Turtlestack (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)