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. ;.(

Well, this is Wikipedia. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
True, this is Wikipedia, where unsupported opinion is not considered "fact".Ff11 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Censorship and avoiding the truth are typical liberal behaviors. (50.53.159.101 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC))
No one cares about your political position. Wikipedia only cares about WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources. If you can support the claim, it will go in uncontested. Unless you consider providing evidence for statements "liberal", wikipedia is politically neutral. Ashmoo (talk) 15:18, 26 February 20B7 (UTC)
This has apparently come up again, and is still unsupported. --tronvillain (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sky-blue doesn't need such sourcing, and Daily Beast admits to being "progressive' or "liberal" or "left-leaning". But instead of getting rid of accurate information that you don't like being revealed for some reason, then find sources, per WP recommendation. 71.246.96.16 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not "sky blue" - it's at odds with their self description. You might be able to support "described as", as is already in the section I added, or perhaps "sometimes described as. It's still not apparent that it's a sufficiently defining characteristic to require being in the lede sentence. --tronvillain (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
the point is that you have a hang-up about it BEING MENTIONED IN THE LEDE, for some reason. When WP policy says that something that is sky-blue (and also mentioned in the rest of the article) CAN and even SHOULD be mentioned in intro of article. Also, just how is this not at least somewhat "sky blue" when this has been well-established well-known well-sourced and well-admitted that "Daily Beast" is left-leaning and overall very liberal or "progressive"?? Doesn't matter much what their "self-description" is, as many lefty rags will not admit that they have a bias so as to appear "objective and trustworthy", like Washington Post and New York Times (which want to be considered "centrist" even though they clearly aren't.) A fish don't know he's wet, as the saying goes. But many do admit that they're "progressive", let's get real here.
Regardless though, tronvillain, you're not consistent, if you're ok with its being mentioned (in a way) later in the article, but don't articulate any real good reason to not have it on the lede also, and for constantly removing it rudely from the lede. I reached 3RR, hence no more reverts of your unwarranted removal. But in time. I'm tired of your illogical suppressive nonsense on this matter. You have no case or stance (in fact just the opposite if you seem ok to have it mentioned in other parts of the article) for the constant deletion of "progressive" in the lede, to make it clear early on for those who may just read the first paragraph. It will be restored at some point. And if you remove again, you'll be reported. You keep violating "I don't like" and "NO OWN". Regards.... 71.246.98.175 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It's your unsupported assertion that it's sky blue, and it is absolutely not the case that everything from the article should be included in the lede sentence. You claim that the Daily Beast being left-leaning and overall very liberal or "progressive" is "well-sourced and well-admitted", yet you appear completely unwilling to do anything like actually sourcing or supporting it with anything. -- tronvillain (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
For some reason you're trying to have a discussion via edit summary on the main page. And yet there's a total absence of anything resembling a reliable source for your assertions... --tronvillain (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

It's a pro establishment blog (pro israel, anti russia, pro nato wars, etc). They are very similar. Beast started from the start with hand picked writers. HuffPo started with random writers and eventually down to core ideologues.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.196.58 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Current Owner?[edit]

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)

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

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

Clinton[edit]

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)

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 :)

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

Nico Hines, and controversies in general[edit]

Just remember everyone, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a live blog. It is not meant to provide up-to-the-minute updates on hot controversies, nor is it meant to link to or otherwise display every possible point of view or opinion on such controversies. Stick to the basic facts, keep the issue in historical perspective, basically just try not to add something unless it is absolutely necessary to understand a crucial fact about the article's subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talkcontribs) 08:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, apologies to anyone annoyed by my continued inability to place references and punctuation in the right place - please know I will not be offended and in fact will be grateful if you change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talkcontribs) 08:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, wikipedia is not a tabloid to mention every rant of every idiot, per WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the plagiarism and Hines controversies do have an impact - they lessened the credibility of the site in the eyes of much of the public. If I had never heard of them before, I would want that information so I could make a judgment on how much I might want to trust them. Deserves further conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talkcontribs) 18:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

HELLO. Every major news outlet including the New York Times is covering the issue of Hines putting gay athletes lives in danger. This deserves coverage.66.87.113.199 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It deserves mention. I agree, this should be in the article. But Wikipedia is not a news outlet, it doesn't cover stories. The amount of news or internet attention an issue gets at the moment is irrelevant; what matters is how big an impact the facts have on the subject of the article in the broader/historical context. This impacts the reputation of the Daily Beast - that's why it deserves mention, not because a whole lot of people are talking about it.BaseballPie (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This incident is the only reason anyone has ever even heard of "The Daily Beast", an otherwise utterly nonnotable trash gossip blog. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
As demonstrated by the rest of the article, The Daily Beast is a longstanding and well-known publication. That's why this became a story. If it was a 'nonnotable trash gossip blog', nobody would have reported on it or even noticed. Robofish (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Should there be an article about the Grindr-baiting Olympics story, specifically? The incident has received a lot of coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this really a publication?[edit]

Is this really a publication? Or is it strictly on the Web? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

From the lede, "The Daily Beast is an American news reporting and opinion website", but not being physically printed doesn't make it not "really a publication" these days. --tronvillain (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not liberal[edit]

The Daily Beast is among the most independently minded, and respectable publications in all of media. If you accuse it of being liberal, you are a racist/facist/bigot. The writers are great people who only write true stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:A6 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

When did "liberal" become a pejorative? I consider myself liberal. In any case, the site is clearly widely described as liberal - you might try to argue that each of those doing the describing is a "racist/fascist/bigot", but it doesn't change the fact about how they describe The Daily Beast.