Talk:Truthdig

description

Seriously? "Progressive"? This page drastically mischaracterizes the website, its radical, it has a reputation for borderline extremism. I know political Wikipedia articles are babied by their biased protectors, but this is just plain misleading.

True- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B15F:9C14:19AC:8C0E:D2B9:760 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

blog

It's not really a blog -- it's an online magazine. It has an editor, regular and freelance contributors, and publishes much of its content in article form. It does have several blogs within it, but I think it's miscategorized. Nep 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nep. Truthdig is not a blog.--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above - it is not a blog. Meh33 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)meh33

Follow the Money

interesting article and also as far as I have read some articles a interesting news-site but... no word where the money came from. Who pays the site, the costs, the bilts etc. Is this a free hobby from journalists just for fun or do they earn money with it? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 02:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism as a source

I've removed a reference to the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism (DeMos 2011-05-06) as a source. It did not support the claim for which it was cited; I've marked that claim as {{cn}} pending discovery of better sources. But, more fundamentally, the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism has too close a connection with Truthdig, through both founders, to be acceptable as a source for this Wikipedia article. Kaufman did her master's there; Scheer is a professor. Publications from Annenberg about Truthdig must be treated essentially as PR. It's not a matter of source reliability—Annenberg is highly respected—but of source independence.

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Source independence?" Assuming you are not incorrect in implying that that is a Wikipedia guideline, are we to mechanically try to follow imagined rules, —or; are we to seek a representative description of reality? I believe the answer is; Wiki has guidelines, NOT rules. Guess why? (That's intentional, and this is a perfect example of why.) Since Annenberg is indeed highly respected school of journalism, that seems to hugely devalue your suggestion of reported bias. There may be a case there, but you have not made it. Please explain your reasoning, if any. Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Citation to Webby Awards site

I've introduced a number of citations directly to the Webby Awards site, to document and clarify the claim that Truthdig has won six Webbys. The use of an awards site to document the awards it has given is of course WP:PRIMARY sourcing, and may thus seem counterproductive in the effort to reduce use of primary sources, but it's exclusively for the awards given, and for that purpose there is no more reliable or definitive source. Incidentally, mere arithmetic to count the number of awards (and of each type of award) does not count as original research (see WP:CALC within WP:NOR).

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Awards from Los Angeles Press Club

I'm finding it difficult to source the precise claim that Truthdig has won 22 awards from the Los Angeles Press Club, so I've replaced it with the claim that it has won "numerous" awards, including 11 awards in 2017 alone, sourced directly to the Los Angeles Press Club (similar considerations apply as for direct citations to the Webby Awards site, discussed above). This is without prejudice to restoration of the 22-award claim if it can be sourced.

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

some problems

Much of the section on origin is puffery, particularly the 2nd paragraph The list of non notable contributors is inappropriate content, resembling a news release (that's the nearest availble tag). The overal tone is praise of the publication. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe any of these tags were justified, and for the reasons stated below, I have removed all of them.

The majority of the contributors listed are notable. Accordingly, I have linked their names to their Wikipedia articles, and removed the "news release" tag, which was based on a false assumption. Also: notable or not, a list of frequent contributors is encyclopedic information about any publication.

Supporting a charge of NPOV requires more than just exhibiting a positive end result. Neutrality under WP:NPOV is fundamentally a question of whether the article reflects the balance of information in the sources. Please do not retag this article with {{NPOV}} unless you have evidence that well-sourced negative information has been systematically omitted—not just that positive information has been included. If you do have such evidence, please at least give some indication of what it is.

While some of the language used may sound laudatory, it would be difficult to tone down the positive language without distorting the factual account. For example: asserting "high journalistic standards" is a factual claim, not empty praise, and is supported by the sources; removing it, or even toning it down, would be a distortion of the facts. Similarly for the assertion that Kaufman took a strategic chance on longreads. I have accordingly also removed the "peacock terms" tag.

—Syrenka V (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)