Talk:The Daily Beast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Comment[edit]

"Socially minded companies" is editorializing. Someone please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.241.116 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

political position[edit]

Whats the political position of this site? conservative, liberal, progressive, etc?Patcat88 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is liberal, but whenever I edit the page to make that fact evident, someone deletes the wording. ;.(

how is it same or different from Huffington Post[edit]

we need it Lingust (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC) As far as I know, The Daily Beast refrains from continually posting nude celebrity photographs.50.147.26.108 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Liberal, what else?[edit]

The stance? Liberal. Which means that any attempt at labeling it as such on the wiki page will be met by rapid re-edits and censorship. Anything right of center is, without exception, described as conservative. Anything but the most glaringly outspoken lefties are described by the Wiki "moral majority" as being simply neutral or objective. Try editing that Helen Thomas is a liberal journalist (as said in her CBC interview) and be astonished at how quick it gets redacted.--58.246.182.66 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that Wikipedia was FOUNDED and RAN by a guy who has a right-wing libertarian ideology, right?

There is a big difference between a true left-wing source and a source that will actually report on bad news about the political party you favor. If all you want to hear is unquestioningly flattery, Fox News is there for you, and you've even got MSNBC for liberals who want the same thing. This is also how the tabloids are in the UK. The majority of people there read whatever matches their ideology and makes them feel good while being deprived of the other perspective. We are on this very course in this country too it seems.

The loudest and most politically active of these tea party conservatives exclusively get their news from websites or right-wing think tanks. Sources they can rely on to be the most consistently pro-conservative, pro-Republican, and of course the key ingredient: anti-Liberal. They are somehow the loudest critics of what they perceive to be media bias, while Fox News beats every other network by millions of viewers per night and is guided not by political ideology, but a political PARTY.

--174.44.124.123 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, and guess what the most visited political blog on the internet is by a factor of 10? That would be the Huntington Post, a fiercely leftist site which doesn't even disclose any political lean at all. And guess where all the loudest and most politically active liberals get their news? I am a conservative who spends as much time on the most backwater radfem and anarcho-socialist atheist blogs (not to mention Kos and Huffpo) as I do on Townhall or Hotair, and I've seen how people act on both sides. Believe you me, there is a personality type common to both sides which buys in whole-heartedly, believes that nobody on their side of the fence can do any wrong, and proceeds to "other" (to use a favorite progressive term) the hell out of anybody who might disagree. They think all who disagree are evil, stupid, or some combination thereof. Don't try to put one side on the pedestal on this topic. 108.67.192.196 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)