In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had “taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders” since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine’s elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer’s opinion section and podcast.
maybe don’t direct traffic to a conspiracy-peddling right-wing rag?
Newsweek (2013–present): Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek’s quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013).
It’s in the warning category of ‘no consensus’ per Wikipedia’s source standards.
I point this out all the time in /c/politics and /c/news, but the mods (AFAIK) have never responded to my suggestions of source guidelines (such as generally following Wikipedia’s in the link above).
My argument isn’t based on journalistic integrity as much as political aims, Newsweek is ideologically committed to right-wing politics and we should boycott them as a result.
because on journalistic integrity standards, some Newsweek articles are acceptable to use, but by political standards all Newsweek articles should not be shared - there is a moral reason to not drive traffic to a right-wing website and help them profit. Of course that’s not to say journalistic integrity doesn’t matter, just that it under-determines what is already established by other reasons.
So it seems you’re trying to say that some of new week’s articles may not be of high quality so we shouldn’t dismiss them as a reliable news source.
I feel like that’s a very low bar for a news source in a world with a lot of fake news, that ultimately makes Newsweek unreliable.
IMO this article seems fine (at a glance). But I also think it’s reasonable to point out one should be wary of Newsweek, and probably avoid it when there are a sea of alternates for a headline like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#Controversies
maybe don’t direct traffic to a conspiracy-peddling right-wing rag?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
It’s in the warning category of ‘no consensus’ per Wikipedia’s source standards.
I point this out all the time in /c/politics and /c/news, but the mods (AFAIK) have never responded to my suggestions of source guidelines (such as generally following Wikipedia’s in the link above).
My argument isn’t based on journalistic integrity as much as political aims, Newsweek is ideologically committed to right-wing politics and we should boycott them as a result.
Eh, understood, but I’m a bit puzzled as to why you’d say that, as unreliable sources shouldn’t be linked either. Should they?
because on journalistic integrity standards, some Newsweek articles are acceptable to use, but by political standards all Newsweek articles should not be shared - there is a moral reason to not drive traffic to a right-wing website and help them profit. Of course that’s not to say journalistic integrity doesn’t matter, just that it under-determines what is already established by other reasons.
So it seems you’re trying to say that some of new week’s articles may not be of high quality so we shouldn’t dismiss them as a reliable news source. I feel like that’s a very low bar for a news source in a world with a lot of fake news, that ultimately makes Newsweek unreliable.
I mean what Wikipedia said:
IMO this article seems fine (at a glance). But I also think it’s reasonable to point out one should be wary of Newsweek, and probably avoid it when there are a sea of alternates for a headline like this.
Agree
Ahhh that’s why all the pictures of the nazi smiling, waving kids around.
Yeah its a damned shame.
What Newsweek is now.