Talk:TheBlaze

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


TheBlaze is absorbing GBTV and the Marketplace[edit]

"BECK’S MERCURY RADIO ARTS ANNOUNCES MERGER OF GBTV [into] THE BLAZE" [1]
Glenn Beck explains it [2] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Merged the two.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

What the... We've got four info boxes, about 3 stubs that should all be under the Mercury Radio Arts (since that's the company that owns and run's them all. And I actually think Mercury Radio Arts should have its own article. --‎Jetijonez Fire! 04:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

<shrugs> Although Mercury Radio Arts is a media production company a la Harpo Productions, its various platforms, including GBTV, are being re-branded TheBlaze.....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Raising 40 million[edit]

I repeatedly have heard Glenn state that he has no overlords, financially. The news of this equity offering needs to be placed in the article.Wikipietime (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This sounds interesting—what are you talking about? I missed it. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I see a couple blog style sources that mention it,[3][4] but the SEC filing is offline. Once verified by additional sourcing, mentioning a fact that they are raising $40 million is probably fine, but taking that next step of including the opinion of hypocrisy is a different matter and would require much more for WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. Morphh (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this is a month old and not much else has been said. So no... WP:WEIGHT & WP:NOTNEWS. Morphh (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

TV / News[edit]

Not sure I understand why we have two articles. It would seem to make sense to me to just include the news website as a section in this article. For example, the Fox News Channel article just has a section "Online". Morphh (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. LibertarianGuy (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
File a deletion review. (Btw Fox News Online is reeeeally minor compared to FNC whereas TheBlaze is quite a high profile news site in its own right. ((Not that OtherStuffExists is a valid "keep" argument but Cf.: HuffPost Live -- Huffington Post....)))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Posted a deletion review on the website's page.LibertarianGuy (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Buck Sexton[edit]

If someone wanted to do an article on Buck Sexton, this article would help with sourcing. Mercury Confidential: Which member of TheBlaze team briefed the president on national security? Morphh (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was about to suggest also Amy Holmes but in doing a Google-search, I found her WP page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The blaze has over taken the drudge report to become the most popular conservative news site[edit]

I think it should be noted that the blaze is now ranked 59th in the USA according to quantcast. Drudge report is ranked 129th. Both sites are directly measured so these numbers are not estimates. They are fact. [unsigned, undated]

You should sign and date your posts -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Still too promotional[edit]

I've removed some promotional material, unsourced BLP stuff as well. But it still reads as promotional, not encyclopedic. Nothing to do with its politics I'd say, it's a typical problem plaguing our media articles. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Conservative"? / Claims of Bias[edit]

Should it be noted in the top of the article that this is considered a heavy "conservative" leaning source? It is noted well in the "radio" section, but not elsewhere. Beck is also noted in his article as a "conservative political commentator", and while the two don't obviously equate, it does imply that Wikipedia has no problem labeling a spade a spade.

While we're in the vein: have there been any criticisms/claims of bias? This would go further to substantiate what might be obvious to those familiar with the article's subject. 108.212.225.160 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be noted in the top of the article that it is a conservative source. Recent article describes Brooke Baldwin of CNN as left-leaning Beaglemix (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/08/08/watch-mary-katherine-ham-shut-down-brooke-baldwins-absurd-left-wing-bias/ Beaglemix (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
To describe someone as having "absurd left wing bias" substantiates the Blaze as having a conservative bias Beaglemix (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
http://conservativeread.com/the-15-best-conservative-news-sites-on-the-internet-and-more/ Beaglemix (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
One or more neutral reliable sources should be cited if there's any question at all whether "conservative" is an accurate label. See the first sentence of Breitbart News as an example. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)