Talk:Newsmax Media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NewsMax Media[edit]

No Controversy or Disputes section? For an article on what some consider a vehicle for scam advertising? Isn't Wikipedia's credibility at stake? (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrowen (talkcontribs)

One of the real problems with NewsMax is that it blends advertisements with news and does not distinguish between the two. Here is just one example, of a link on its primary news page with the delightful title "5 reasons you will get Cancer" and then the "groundbreaking" video that Newsmax promotes:

I believe that these activities make it extremely dubious at best as a news source, and should be referenced in this article

Hasn't been fixed from being an advertisment, and probably never will. Best to nuke it and start anew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2006-07-26 02:49:31

We should not Nuke it... we should telel the truth about NewsMax: shady business. Most edits are done by NewsMax: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I had clicked a link to one of their sites from a news article. The article they had on their site sounded extremist and so I searched for more information about the company. I read the Wiki article about the company and it sounds like an advertisement for them. I would support a close scrutiny of this Wikipedia entry and revision.--LetsReason (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed -- the article is unbalanced, but it will be difficult to prevent advertising without a flag. Bggardener (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I just looked this up after reading a rather extremist shady article online by one of their websites, and this wiki reads like an advertisement. That is why I checked out the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree. A lot of this does read like an ad for NewsMax and I also came to the page to see about their sketchy advertising with links, etc. Cowicide (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing seems to have changed much because the article is still seeming to push the subject as something it actually isn't. Can anything be done to correct whatever biased blather has been edited into it already. I looked at some of the previous edits and there is one that stands out as probably biased. Newsie Yorkie seems to have done nothing except edit this page a huge number of times and a few times edit some directly related ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE25:B3A9:EC8B:A590:77FE:76EE (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012[edit]

Hello Wikipedians, This article seems to be factual, but does not tell the whole story. Please add information explaining that Newsmax is not so much a news organization as a publicity outlet for the Republican party. Dstarnik (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done:. Please be specific about what you want changed, including providing reliable sources to back it up. RudolfRed (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that point. If Newsmax's primary business were to publicize the GOP, they wouldn't engage is such blatant advertising scams as the phony "news" site at which surely alienates more people than it converts.

Newsmax is evolving more and more into a vehicle for scam advertising, much of it fear-based [economic collapse, survivalism, Obama's gonna getcha]. Through its association ith the Disqus commenting system and other ad syndicators, its ad links are appearing all over the web, usually posing as "links of interest".

If there's a reliable source that has observed this, it should be incorporated into the article. Bustter (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

John L Perry Column[edit]

In 2009 Newsmax ran a column by frequent Newsmax contributor John L. Perry advocating a military coup to "solve the Obama problem". It was taken down a few days later. This column generated substantial controversy. Is there any good reason it it is not mentioned in the controversies section? Wefa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If Media Matters is considered a reliable source, the documentation, including a copy of the withdrawn matter, is here: Bustter (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

On a related matter -- scandal wise -- wasn't their a Newsmax columnist (who asked President Bush loaded-easy questions at press conferences) only to be outed as being on a gay webpage or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Newsmax uses dynamic bylines[edit]

Newsmax uses dynamic bylines so that they can publish and article once with wording that does not use any dates to describe events. Every day the byline updates. The deception can be found in the url which contains the original publication date. See this article from November 6, 2012 and look at the webpage with yesterday's date. I have seen this article as suggested reading from the Washington Post every day for over a year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

From: Anthony Rizzo, Information Specialist NEWSMAX Media. to: Wikipedia. >At this time, we respectfully request the following changes be made to our NEWSMAX Wikipedia Page:

>Under the SECTION Entitled:


The PORTION which currently reads: " Additional newsletter publications of Newsmax include The High Income Factor, Goldstock Adviser and Financial Intelligence Report,[28] as well as Dr. Brownstein's Natural Way to Health,[29] and the The Mind Health Report.[30]"


“Additional newsletter publications of Newsmax include The High Income Factor, The Resolute Wealth Letter, Financial intelligence Report, Retirement Profits, and Insider Hotline. Also published are Dr. Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health[37]; Dr. Chauncey Crandall’s Heart and Health Letter; and the Mind Health Report edited by UCLA professor Dr. Gary Small.[38]”

Thank you,

PorterNewman (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Anthony Rizzo

   Information Specialist 
   NEWSMAX Media

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014[edit]

Please change the 2nd sentence to use the word "fledgling" instead of "fledging", because it is the correct adjective to use to describe a young, inexperienced entity. Articode (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsmax Health section needs to warn that the opinions of the doctors, specialists, and experts are not scientifically verifiable, and are connected to the sale of products.[edit]

The warning that the Newsmax article appears to be written like and advertisement extends to the articles in the health section. The articles frequently conclude with links to buy a product. The opinions frequently are against "medical establishment" guidelines and practices. In truth some of the recommendations and warnings could be hazardous to peoples health and to public health, so this goes beyond simple advertisement disguised as advice. The recommendations by Dr Blaylock, supposedly a top neurosurgeon, about Alzheimer's disease are simply lies of omission. He asserts that the medical establishment views Alzheimer's as just a result of aging is false. The Alzheimer's Association site make this clear. The current state is that a definitive cause has not been established. Aging is a factor, not the cause of Alzheimer's. The several practices he recommends have been found to be beneficial to some people. None of them have been found to prevent Alzheimer's, as is implied. The Alzheimer's Association site is — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)