Talk:The Daily Beast

Journalism Start‑class

	Journalism portal 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Unassessed

	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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Comment

"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)[reply]

political position

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

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

Well, this is Wikipedia. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that with other liberal sites also. I guess they feel that world view is the only valid one. Sirtheoir (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship and avoiding the truth are typical liberal behaviors. (50.53.159.101 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

how is it same or different from Huffington Post

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)[reply]

Current Owner?

The history section would strongly suggest that IBT Media is the current owner, as they were the last company that it says bought them, but they are in fact currently still owned by IAC, as the infobox says, IAC's page says, and the Daily Beast's "About Us" page says. What is the history section missing? Emosy (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe it is important to state that Chelsea Clinton is also a significant "potential" influence on the content of the Daily Beast, being named as IAC Board of Directors on their wikipedia page, when there is potential conflict of interest on reporting on her mother's electability in the 2016 Democratic Primary Elections.Spirot67 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC) spirot67[reply]

We have zero reliable sources that say so or that the matter is even significant. Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton

We've got a SPA that wants to keep adding the fact that Chelsea Clinton is on the board of TDB's parent company. The board has many members. Focusing on one in particular is very disproportionate. That and this article is about TDB and not about its parent company. I'm reverting these edits on sight, but if anyone disagrees, please discuss it below. Rklawton (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fact is that Chelsea is listed as the sole Board Of Directors on the Wikipedia page for IAC and the Daily Beast refuses to disclose its conflict of interest when it editorialises about Bernie Sanders' ability to win the Democratic nomination. This is a major conflict of interest that should be disclosed. Spirot67 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC) spirot67--- ps I'm new to all this, so I have no idea what is a SPA. I'm just trying to keep the site real :)[reply]

Chelsea is not the the sole member of the board of directors for the IAC. Rklawton (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I removed the paragraph which was solely sourced to yourtube. I would not object to reinserting the paragraph if it gets reliably sourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of reliable sourcing. We'd also have to keep this in proportion to prevent POV pushing. I'm sure we can find a reliable source that some fringe person is beating this drum, but at present this is entirely insignificant and unworthy of mention. Given the use of single purpose accounts, sock puppets, YouTube as a source, and the laughable notion that the only member of the board of a multi-billion dollar parent company is one Chelsea Clinton - and it's pretty clear we're dealing with editors who have no *valid* reason to edit this or related articles. Rklawton (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a matter of credibility. Rumor and innuendo rarely rise to the notoriety necessary for inclusion in an article. If, on the other hand, a reliable (i.e. unbiased) source published evidence that Chelsea, through her role as a member of IAC's board of directors attempted to influence TDB's editorial slant against Sanders, that would indeed be notable. What we have at this point are pundits drawing imaginary lines and saying 'what if'? And that's exactly the sort of thing we really don't need in our articles. Rklawton (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]