Talk:Instapundit

Paid promotion

• WARNING gratuitous innuendos follow.... ( which, of course, have absolutely no reason to be in Wikipedia)

• Is the author of this section Oliver Willis?

Looks like someone didn't like it, but it was a fair point that there are allegations that Reynolds took cash from Nick Denton to promote one of Denton's blogs. ( even if true: so? Reynolds makes no secret of the fact that he sells advertising, and hardly claims to be an unbiased source of TRVTH. He runs an opinion site, for cripes sake).

I remember seeing those full-color banner ads in Reynolds' posts and thinking at the time that he had never done that before. Never saw him do it again, either. Perhaps someone should mention that right as Denton began his campaign, Reynolds started running the out-of-character ads.

Can we get some more info on this? its news to me and I dont remember seeing the ads.

Yup. Here's the link to the post where it looks like Reynolds started plugging Wonkette (with her banner ad in the post itself): http://instapundit.com/archives/013684.php

Here's the link to the post he used to plug her the next day: http://instapundit.com/archives/013695.php

Here's another link to her two days later: http://instapundit.com/archives/013750.php

Oops, another on the same day: http://instapundit.com/archives/013750.php

Ummm, another on the same day? http://instapundit.com/archives/013754.php

Hmmm, would you believe another the next day? http://instapundit.com/archives/013776.php

And two days later: http://instapundit.com/archives/013805.php

O.K., the daily plugs seem to be done about a week after it began: http://instapundit.com/archives/013873.php

Actually, the links kept coming very regularlyu every other day or three for a while, with some days getting two or three links to the fabulously lucky Wonkette. It looks like the first week Wonkette was in existence, Instapundit linked to her almost every day or multiple times per day, and ran her full color banner ad in a plug. I don't recall him ever running a banner ad for someone, and I KNOW that he has never given any new blog that kind of coverage. I'd be seriously surprised if Reynolds had linked to any other blog that many times in the course of a month, his own included.

Did Denton pay him? Who knows, I certainly don't ( ED ~ no reason to let that stop you !) ( Right. If it's a good story about someone whose politics you don't like, that fully justifies vandalizing Wikipedia, or so this poster seems to believe.) But I recall hearing people talking about the new sports car Reynolds had just bought and how Denton was known to aggressively market his properties, like Wonkette. Even so, the only thing anyone could say bad about taking money to plug another website is not disclosing to your readers that you took the money makes them think you recommended the site based on merit. Otherwise, who cares? Welcome to the real world.

(From Reynolds: No, Nick didn't pay me. Nor did anyone else. I have a personal connection to Wonkette, and, for that matter, I regard Nick as a friend. Jeez.)

It's unclear to me why Reynolds possibly taking advert money from Denton is an issue. It's clear that Reynolds sells advertising --- there is a whole column of blogads, plus an "Advertise on this site" link, plus an Amazon tipjar. I am thus shocked, shocked to hear he might be taking money for advertising.

If you had a site that receives 140,000 hits per day ( [1] ) you'd want to get paid for it too. And if your advertisers don't like what you write, they can leave. It's been done before. Kos scared off some advertisers with his "Screw them" comment.

Pajamas

Surely these should have a mention somewhere?

Eh, the pajama thing was really a blogsphere thing, not specific to instapundit.

Objectivity

It is possible to present an objective account of the facts here, you know. Just state things as they are. When did Instapundit start? What subjects does it discuss? What kind of traffic does it receive? How has Instapundit influenced other blogs? What is unique about it? What role has Instapundit played in the overall development of the Blogosphere? Etc.

Of course some of these questions are open for deeper discussion. But the purported purpose of the Wikipedia is to provide a free repository of factual information regarding the subject. If you want to write a paper on how Instapundit is a tool of the Right Wing War Machine, do it on your blog. If you want to write about how Reynolds sticks it to the Dummocrats, again, do it on your own site. But if you want this Wikipedia to be worth anything, then please, exercise restraint and stick to the facts.

Matt Howell

• I agree with Matt. This page is seriously lacking in NPOV, as it states quite clearly and demonstrably what critics think of Mr. Reynolds, without any mention of what his "supporters" might think of him and his blog. But, either way, of more interest is what exactly InstaPundit has done. How long has it been around? Why exactly is Mr. Reynolds the BlogFather? Etc. As written, this article is useless blather.
• Chris Breisch

Why does this entry even exist?

If someone wants to find out about instapundit, why don't they just go to his website?

Because then they only find out what Reynolds says about Instapundit.

I am appalled. I thought there were editors that screened entries here for accuracy and bias. This should be simple. Stick to the facts so that I, and other users, can be relatively assured of some level of quality when viewing entries.

Glenn's site is read by tons of people each day. At least some of those people are savvy enough to (or bored enough to) check wikipedia for an entry. If they don't like what they see, they can change it. It's a site overview that you can't get anywhere else. Collaborated opinions do more than a single person's ideas of their own site.

Change "Republican" link to United_States_Republican_Party

The current "Republican" link (changed very recently from "Repuglican") should probably have a final edit to link to the the http://en.wikited_States_Republican_Party page, which is a little more pertinent in that context.

I would have made the change myself but the page was locked at that point.

locked

Glenn's site is read by tons of people each day. At least some of those people are savvy enough to (or bored enough to) check wikipedia for an entry. If they don't like what they see, they can change it.

it would be nice if someone could, but with the page locked it's just not possible.

Wrong article

As well as this article about Instapundit the blog, we have a separate article about the blogger. Some of the content of this article is really about the blogger rather than the blog, and should be moved to Glenn Reynolds. Any volunteers, please? Please?. CWC 13:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's tougher in Reynolds' case, since his blog is so personal, and he writes so freely about his private life--so the two are intertwined to some degree. But you're right: there's a difference between the man and the blog.

Certainly the "Other Writings" material should be moved; what else do you have in mind?Scooge (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarity

can someone rewrite this: He tends to favor free markets, although he sees endemic corruption in the "Mainstream Media".?

I have no idea what point was intended, so I can't rewrite it sensibly. As it is I can't see any link between the two clauses. 192.86.100.34 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and rewritten it, I am fairly sure that I didn't lose any meaning in the process (subject to my not being entirely sure what was meant by the mashing together of those two clauses!). I also replaced endemic corruption with systemic bias, since the former is surely not consistent with BLP unless someone has a reliable citation. Scootastar (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP editors

I am willing to enter into a discussion. Please explain why we should write that Reynolds is STILL so prominent and one of the most widely-read political blogs. He is currently listed in 70th place or so; anyone who reads this text would assume he is at least in the top 10, if not in the top 5! KarlFrei (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source to add? That should take care of it. Kelly ^hi! 15:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pajamas Media, of which Instapundit is only a part, is 59th in the top 100 of Technorati [2]. Wikio does not list them in the top 110. Instapundit is 39th according to this website [3].

I think that whoever wants to claim that Reynolds is still hugely influential and prominent needs to provide sources for that; all I can give is negative evidence. The fact that he used to be prominent is properly sourced in the article. KarlFrei (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(Responding to the WP:3O request) The political blogosphere is fluid. Bold claims such as "most widely read blogs" need to be backed up by reasonably current reliable sources. On the other hand, I don't quite agree with this alternative. I think to say it "used to be..." requires a reliable source to say that the popularity of the blog has declined. We shouldn't use original research from rankings to draw those conclusions. For example, some may argue that 59th is still prominent and widely ready. In the absence of any current secondary sources, it is probably best to remove all mentions in the lead of the current popularity, prominence, or otherwise, of the blog. It's not ideal, but I think it's the safest approach and the approach least susceptible to POV. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Sounds good to me. KarlFrei (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of date statements on popularity

The claims of instapundits popularity and the term instalanch seams pretty out of date. Current Alexa rating in the US is 307,549, compare to e.g. redstate.com which is 3,160 (US). Time for an update?

RandySpears (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

...and pajamasmedia.com is US 1,369. Not that it is relevant for this wikipedia page, but anyway. (Unless we want to change that to pajamalanch ;))

RandySpears (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Quibbles

Can anyone tell me why "bubble" is in quotes? It's not over here. Their use in this article could be construed as implying that, as a concept, this is a usage peculiar to Glenn. Clearly not so, if there's a Wikipedia entry dedicated to the idea. A google search for "higher education bubble" excluding Glenn Reynolds and Instapundit yields 1.43 million hits; requiring either of those terms reduces the number of hits to .25 million. Obviously Reynolds is a small contributor to a real discussion of a real issue whose legitimacy seems called into question by this odd use of scare quotes. Since the quotes add nothing but potential confusion, I recommend they be canned.

The same is true for "Mainstream Media." The link on that phrase, oddly, is to an article on media bias (when there's actually an article on Mainstream Media sans scare quotes -- again, common usage), while the scare quotes seem to relegate "mainstream media", as above, to some peculiar use by Reynolds. Yet I don't see scare quotes around "mainstream mass media" on the Noam Chomsky page.

It's almost as if the writer of this section wished to marginalize Reynolds, and figured objectivity in a Wikipedia page would be a good vehicle so long as s/he could deliver a wink or two with the scare quotes. ;-) --rasqual (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)