Jump to content

Talk:Politico: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Politico/Archive 1) (bot
 
(71 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
<!-- please do not remove this tag -->
<!-- please do not remove this tag -->
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|DC=Yes|DC-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Journalism |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |American=Yes |American-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |DC=Yes |DC-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Virginia |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Mid}}
}}
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice

|age=90
|index=./Archive index
|bot=MiszaBot I}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Politico (newspaper)/Archive index
|target=Talk:Politico/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Politico (newspaper)/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:Politico/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}
Line 22: Line 21:
|counter = 1
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Politico (newspaper)/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Politico/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{ISSN-needed}}
{{ISSN-needed}}
{{Connected contributor
| checked = 22-3-2018 by {{u|AgnosticPreachersKid}}
| User1 = MSwiatkowski | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = no |U1-otherlinks = |U1-banned =
| User2 = 216.250.232.21 | U2-EH = yes | U2-declared = no |U2-otherlinks = |U2-banned =
}}
{{refideas|1={{Cite web |last1=Beaujon |first1=Andrew |title=Politico Says It's Doing Pretty Well During the Pandemic |work=[[Washingtonian (magazine)|Washingtonian]] |date=2020-07-17 |url=https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/07/17/politico-says-its-doing-pretty-well-during-the-pandemic/ |language=en-US |accessdate=2020-07-18 |df=mdy-all }}
|2=
}}


== Politico's "take" on Freedom of Speech ==
==Move?==
Respect for Politico publishing Shapiro, and standing by its position of doing so; yet Politico retains its "leans left" status, as exemplified by over a hundred of its staff actually putting their disdain for publishing the 'right of center' Shapiro perspective. Journalism used to be about presenting facts as facts, and opinion as opinion. If those hundred politico staff have lost their journalistic objectivity, they should be released. There are plenty of 'left' news organizations to employ them. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.111.41.146|65.111.41.146]] ([[User talk:65.111.41.146#top|talk]]) 12:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

wondering whether this should be changed to ---politico--- rather than --the politico--, since that is what appears on their website. Their legal name is still the politico, though. [[User:Iowawindow|Iowawindow]] ([[User talk:Iowawindow|talk]]) 17:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
:It's a bit odd. Seems to me the paper is The Politico (at least in the version reflected in the article), but the web page drops the "The". Whatever we have, we should make sure there is a redirect of the other I would think.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

they changed the name to "politico" a lonnnng time ago. paper and online. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.18.106.131|88.18.106.131]] ([[User talk:88.18.106.131|talk]]) 23:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The website and print edition do not include "The". (Scroll down to the bottom of politico.com's [http://www.politico.com/ home page]; digital copies of the newspaper are accessible.) I guess the infobox needs an updated image of the newspaper's front page. [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><font color="#000080">'''APK'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid|<font color="#99BADD">'''whisper in my ear'''</font>]] 00:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Any movement on this at all? I dont know how to do a vote, although it would seem the consensus is for switching to '''Politico'''. [[User:Metallurgist|Metallurgist]] ([[User talk:Metallurgist|talk]]) 06:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

==possible sources==

{{collapsetop|[[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><font color="#000080">'''APK'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid|<font color="#99BADD">'''whisper in my ear'''</font>]] 04:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)}}
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/business/media/13politico.html "More Journalists Join Political News Venture"], by Katharine Q. Seelye, ''The New York Times'', December 12, 2006.
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/business/media/08washington.html "For Journalists, Politics Not as Usual"], by Katharine Q. Seelye, ''The New York Times'', January 8, 2007.
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/21/ftn/main2381362.shtml "The Politico Roundtable"], by Caitlin A. Johnson, CBS News, January 21, 2007.
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/28/AR2007012801355.html "Politico: Niche Web Site Isn't Yet A Notch Above"], by Howard Kurtz, ''The Washington Post'', January 29, 2007.
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301201.html "Politico Rushes to Crack the Story And Ends Up With Egg on Its Face"], by Howard Kurtz, ''The Washington Post'', March 23, 2007.
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301014.html "washingtonpost.com Goofs on Headline"], by Howard Kurtz, ''The Washington Post'', March 23, 2007.
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/business/media/23politico.html "USA Today to Use Items From Start-Up News Site"], by David S. Joachim, ''The New York Times'', April 23, 2007.
* [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10015195-38.html "Yahoo, Politico to put Democratic, GOP conventions online"], by Stephanie Condon, CNET News, August 12, 2008.
* [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4592705.ece "Forget Obama, The Huffington Post and Politico are the real political news"], by Richard Siklos, ''The Times'', August 23, 2008.
* [http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/28/dnc-politics-politico-biz-media-cx_ja_cl_0828dnc-politico.html "Politico's Moment"], by James Erik Abels and Carl Lavin, ''Forbes'', August 28, 2008.
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/166849 "The Beltway’s Man Who Never Sleeps"], by Suzanne Smalley, ''Newsweek'', November 1, 2008.
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/media/15politico.html "Politico and Reuters Forge a News Distribution Alliance"], by Richard Pérez-Peña, ''The New York Times'', December 14, 2008.
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/15/reuters-politico "Reuters strikes deal with US political website Politico"], by Sam Nichols, ''The Guardian'', December 15, 2008.
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/business/marketwatch/main4676677.shtml "And The Journalists Of The Year Are..."], by Jon Friedman, MarketWatch, December 22, 2008.
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/business/media/03post.html "Pay-for-Chat Plan Falls Flat at Washington Post"], by Richard Pérez-Peña, ''The New York Times'', July 2, 2009.
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071100290.html "A Sponsorship Scandal at The Post"], by Andrew Alexander, ''The Washington Post'', July 12, 2009.
* [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/23/opinion/main5260784.shtml "Web + Print: A Powerful Combo"], by Frédéric Filloux and Jean-Louis Gassée, CBS News, August 24, 2009.
* [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/insular-insider-a-must-read-for-political-junkies/story-e6frg6tf-1225769700580 "Insular insider a must-read for political junkies"], by Brad Norington, ''The Australian'', September 5, 2009.
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804473.html "Politico's parent company plans a Web site for D.C.-area news"], by Howard Kurtz, ''The Washington Post'', October 29, 2009.
* [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9274182 "Pulitzer Board Elects Politico Co-Founder"], by Samantha Gross, The Associated Press, December 7, 2009.
* [http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4843 "Texting instead of yelling"], by Carl Sessions Stepp, ''American Journalism Review'', December/January 2010.
* ''And Then There's This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture'' (2009) by [[Bill Wasik]], pp 154&ndash;156, ISBN 9780670020843
{{collapsebottom}}

==Requested move==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

Page moved to another title. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

[[:The Politico]] → [[Politico]] — Politico is current name [[User:Shortride|Shortride]] ([[User talk:Shortride|talk]]) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' "Politico" should be a dab page. [[Special:Contributions/65.94.253.16|65.94.253.16]] ([[User talk:65.94.253.16|talk]]) 05:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' in agreement with the above comment, a [[WP:Disambiguation|dab]] page should be created. '''Suggested alternative''': Move to Politico (publication).--[[User:Polly Ticker|Polly Ticker]] ([[User talk:Polly Ticker|talk]]) 18:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Seems to have been resolved by the move to [[Politico (newspaper)]]. Perhaps the mover would like to complete the move by closing down the Requested Move discussion and listing, in accordance with the guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closing the requested move]]. [[User:Skinsmoke|Skinsmoke]] ([[User talk:Skinsmoke|talk]]) 17:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
==Criticism==

<blockquote>
Former [[John McCain]] chief of staff and campaign aide [[Mark Salter]] has argued that Politico has "taken every worst trend in reporting, every single one of them, and put them on rocket fuel. It’s the shortening of the news cycle. It’s the trivialization of news. It’s the gossipy nature of news. It’s the self-promotion.”<ref>Leibovich, Mark (2010-04-19) [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/magazine/25allen-t.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all The Man the White House Wakes Up To], ''[[The New York Times]]''</ref>.
</blockquote>

Ok this was stuck in Content section by an IP, it didnt really fit there so putting it here for now. Somone want to Create a Criticism section or something go for it. i just dont like ip putting ciritical commentary <small>-Unsigned comment by [[User:Weaponbb7]] 18:12, 22 April 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politico_(newspaper)&diff=357664913&oldid=356827965]
</small>

:Separate criticism sections are generally discouraged in favor of working the criticisms into the text. I don't think the article is big enough for a separate section, anyway. The above quote needs some context, perhaps just from the NYT story itself -- I don't know how much clout Salter has in the Republican party [now] or if his opinion about Politico carries much weight. Although I can see how someone might argue that a Republican criticizing Politico could be used to counter the claims of conservative bias, that might also be a stretch. I may take a shot at working it into the text. And while I'm at it, I'd like to move some of the intro detail into the body, the lead is way too long in proportion to the rest of the article. Perhaps renaming the section "Distribution and content" to something else would be appropriate, too. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 13:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

==lead change==

On May 6 of this year, the following sentence was added to the lede at the end of the 2nd paragraph:
"The connections between Politico's leadership and conservative and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of conservative bias." [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Politico_(newspaper)&diff=360551675&oldid=360415680]
It was soon reverted. I restored it then added a cite tag. ([[User_talk:PrBeacon#.22vandalism.22_charge_by_Weaponbb7|more details about this edit history]]). It's now been removed, reverted again, re-reverted (ie, removed again) and now restored again with the following sourcing:

(which is already quoted above in '''[[Talk:Politico_(newspaper)#Bias|Bias]]''' but it could still use more context, even just for the talkpage):
<blockquote>
''<small>From 2 user comments:</small>
:At one of his Press Conferences, Bush specifically asked a Politico representative if they wanted to "introduce" Politico to the rest of the WH press corps. ... Bush wasn't merely introducing them. He was endorsing them. Even the editors at Politico admit as much:''<br />
<small>From '''primary source''':</small>
:"In response to a letter from ''Media Matters for America'' accusing ''Politico'' of a Republican tilt, Politico Editor in Chief John F. Harris asked Senior Political Writer Ben Smith [and others at Politico] to participate in an e-mail exchange about the merits of the piece. ... '''[''Politico's''] Ben Smith says Media Matters has a point''' ... I'll pick another point of his to agree with: His implication that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." - [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3013.html politico.com] </blockquote>
Though there is plenty of criticism from groups like [[FAIR]] and [[Media Matters]] (both sources considered reliable as watchdog groups in at least two RS/N threads) including the letter referenced by Politico above (!) to substantiate this, personally I think the source from the horse's mouth is more than enough. However in the spirit of cooperation I will make the following change as well as add the new tag at the end for confirmation: "The connections between Politico's leadership, conservative and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of right-leaning editorial views." <sup>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3013.html]</sup> {{primary source claim}} I will look for specific secondary sources and also add some of the above detail to the article's body text. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
: Forgive me, I did not realize that the RFM for "Media Matters" thread had anything to do with this current discussion. I am merely going of what i see, We have an accusation with a "{fact}" tag thus i consider it Vandalism until a source is provided. I am not opposed to the content as long as it has a source and is not jst a vague allegation. [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 14:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

<blockquote>
"The connections between ''Politico's'' leadership and Republican party establishment has led to accusations of right-leaning editorial views."
</blockquote>

:That is so vague it make it sound like the the GOP owns it behind the scene, that is not remotely what the source says so please dont imply there is smoke when there is no fire [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


I have not read this entire article ... nor this entire "Talk:" page; but the part I did read, seems interesting.
::: Please see '''[[WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism|"What is not vandalism"]]''' You can look at edit summaries to see my explanations. You should have come here first to discuss it. Not just remove it because you don't like it. Frankly, it's insulting. Also do not move this discussion to another page without asking first. [[WP:TPG]]
::: &nbsp; &nbsp; I understand if you like Politico but I disagree with your claims of 'vague' and 'undue' and inferring "GOP owns it behind the scene." Did you read the full story? My first version for the lede was close enough to the source & [[WP:Revert|you should not revert so quickly without trying to improve it]]. The article already mentions ties to previous Republican leader '''Ronald Reagan'''. The quote i listed above makes a clear tie to '''Bush'''. I already said I'm looking for secondary sources, but surely you can see how the above primary source (Politico) already makes reference to a secondary source of criticism (Media Matters). Please also see the above threads for [[Talk:Politico_(newspaper)#Bias|other user comments about Politico's bias]]. Thanks -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)<br />


I came here after reading https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/29/inside-the-online-cesspool-of-anti-semitism-that-housed-robert-bowers-221949 ... an article which could be interpreted as implying that Politico '''does not like''' the idea of "freedom of speech" for certain "speakers" ... those individuals or groups whom Politico -- (or some ''other'' 'arbiter' of thought or opinion) -- disagrees with.
:::Ok, I've revised the line and added it back: ''Politico has acknowledged a "Republican tilt" from its ties to conservatives.''[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3013.html] If you don't like it, explain why here. Don't just revert. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


Am I reading it wrong? Or does Politico seem to be arguing that the part of the [[United_States_Bill_of_Rights|U.S. Bill of Rights]] that mentions -- (right in the [[First amendment]]!) -- "Freedom of Speech", should apply only to some speakers, but not to all speakers?  Politico seems to focus [in that article] on one web site -- [[Gab (social network)|Gab]] -- where ... apparently, some of the "Free Speech" that appears on that web site, is of a kind that Politico may dislike and/or disagree with.
::::That is not what they said. One editor said that MMfA had a point, that is a far cry from admitting that they have a Republican tilt. Furthermore, the other editors in that article all disagree with the general premise to varying degrees. I would like to know how you came to your conclusion? [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 20:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::: As i Recall Beacon, you insisted the disusion was going on at RFM so i merely took the conversation there, and Cherry picking quotes to fit an agenda helps nobody as this is flimsy stuff at best. I fear consensus is against you 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


Is Politico saying that, in their opinion, any web site should restrict the "Freedom of Speech" of users who hold opinions that are "controversial" or otherwise objectionable in some way -- ? --<br/>
:::::::@ Arzel: So let me get this order straight -- first you revert then you discuss? You're experienced enough to know that is not in the spirit of this project. And "far cry" you say -- yet there's clearly a concession to right-leaning. Both the chief editor and the senior writer acknowledge it, with the headline "Ben Smith Says Media Matters Has A Point (Dock His Pay)" [the parenthetical part is sarcasm, obviously] .. and Smith's words: '''"Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House."''' It's right there. The other editors' denial can be included, then. Seriously why are you so keen to keep this out of the lead? Your edit summary of "guilt" is overstating the impact.
::::::::@ Weaponbb7: this is not cherry picking quotes. The last version is even tame compared to what the source actually says. You two are tag-teaming this article. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: Please be civil, Tag Teaming requires active collaboration, Dont make such accusations like just because Two editors disagree with you. Secondly Arzel is perfectly within the his rights as it appears you two have a history. When there is stuff that does not match up to the source and especially when you contributions seem to imply things that proably are not true. It looks like cherry picking to me. [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::But you see it's not 'just 2 editors disagreeing' -- unless you mean that you show your disagreement by reverting first & asking questions (maybe) later. And are you also implying that because Arzel & I have exchanged words, that he is free to disregard [[WP:revert|revert]] principles? -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Thats because you think Politico has no conservative bias, despite what the source says. And I have been civil, you are the one who first called my edit "vandalism" and ignored my request for explanation. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
Furthermore, you both have shown no inclination to work with me (and opinions from past editors who agree with me) to improve this addition. Only block it. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:i never said it didnt what you have written makes it sounds like the its the mouth peice for the Republican illuminati [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:: allow me to Cherry pick, [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html Politico Admits its biased to Obama] Also Cherry picking a singular quote from thier web Site is Called Original Research [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 23:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Your link doesn't say what you want it to say, the title you provided there is misleading. The writer only remarks on how their coverage of the Obama-McCain race reflected reality, how each was doing. ... I'm not sure from your previous reply ("i'm not saying they didn't") but are you saying they do have conservative bias? Then '''you could have simply suggested alternate phrasing''' or at least say what you think Ben Smith is admitting to. But neither of you have done that. Whatever it is, it could be qualified with something like "..other Politico editors deny this" or whatever. Lots of different ways to say it, the English language is pretty amazing that way. And I see this article as much a spin piece for Politico, it needs the balance of a little criticism. I know I'm not alone on this.-<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
*<small>For the record, this thread's issues are discussed further at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#minor_edit_war_at_Politico.2C_possible_tag-team_.26_retaliation|WP:ANI]] for conflict resolution. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 06:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
</small>
:Follow-up: the ANI was archived [[WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#minor_edit_war_at_Politico.2C_possible_tag-team_.26_retaliation|here]] -- for some odd reason it doesn't come up in a normal search of ANI archives. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


:::: This issue has been nipped in the bud by Axel Springer Company (publishing BILD) buying Politico. They are system conform in the way the Murdoch media are. No more controversies in that area. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A070:7F00:894F:A4B4:BEF:26B2|2001:8003:A070:7F00:894F:A4B4:BEF:26B2]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:A070:7F00:894F:A4B4:BEF:26B2|talk]]) 03:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
===Outside view===
I have closed the ANI thread as unnecessary. This minor content dispute can be resolved here. Some comments: 1. Weaponbb7, please do not characterise someone adding back unsourced material as "vandalism". 2. Everyone, please stop making weak interpretations of what sources say. Stick to what independent secondary reliable sources have said about Politico's position, not what they say about themselves or what their political opponents say. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
:Let's see what you make of these sources: the [[Boston Phoenix]] wrote about [http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/40089-politico-and-its-discontents/ accusations that Politico is partisan] in some detail. [[Glenn Greenwald]] on Salon has written about Politico several times, on [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/05/04/politico_funding/index.html who runs and funds them], [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/05/30/allen whether they are right-wing] due to a Politico reporter accusing critics of the Bush administration of being "left-wing haters", and [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/05/03/politico/print.html whether they are an example of 'our broken political press'] because of their reporting of John Edward's hair and other trivialities.<br />
Not on the topic of bias, but Time's Swampland blog has written about [http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/15/time-blogger-the-politico-is-transforming-our-approach-to-news/ their practice of "bite-size" news items], and Business Insider talks about [http://www.businessinsider.com/eamon-javers-bails-on-politico-for-cnbc-2010-5 their recent rapid turnover of staff]. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
:Has this primary source been considered.[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3013.html] The charge has been made, some others have picked up on it, and Politico has discussed it. The claim does not deserve an amazing amount of weight and the primary source might need to be used with a little extra care but I don't see the problem. I know this goes against Fences and windows "not what they say about themselves or what their political opponents say" but some mention of it might be acceptable as long as editors make sure not to scandal monger. There is a difference between acknowledging a minor controversy and [[WP:NOTSCANDAL]].[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 09:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::I really meant "not ''just''...". Their discussion of the charge, and [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3011.html the charge itself] (hosted on their own site!) can be referred to, but with care taken not to add our own interpretations of what is said and to avoid cherry-picking comments. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 20:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::: Really i could care less about wether or not they are biased, the Cherry picked quote was baloney and so were the insidious accusation in the Lead, i am not and have never been opposed to well sourced criticism. The sources you have presented look fine and do not cherry pick into a POV. [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Just as an outside voice, I would say that I agree with the version as is. There is really no need for such a statement to be in the lead and the statement as it stands in the body of article reflects the facts: one of the editors agreeing that the accusations had some merit, others didn't. It seems to be fine as is. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::::: I concur the current version is appropriate to the scale of the "Controversy" (if it is even that), I am always thankful for outside editors to be willing to step in a provide outside views. [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::: Weaponbb7 the quote you keep calling 'cherry picked baloney' still appears in the body text. There is some disconnect between that and your agreement with Soxwon. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 16:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Even if Politico is '''not''' suggesting, there, that [[someone from the government]] should censor ''all'' -- (or maybe just ''a certain kind of'') -- "bad" speech<sup>[or perhaps writing ... in the case of written words on a web site]</sup>, they still seem to be arguing that [[a web site]] has -- (or, it "should" have) -- a responsibility to ''restrict'' or otherwise 'answer for', content that they allow to be hosted on their platform.
===Republican connections, bias===
There has been some question about ''Politico's'' ties to Republican party leaders in light of their perceived conservative bias.<br />
'''•''' ''Politico's'' CEO [[Fred Ryan]] is a former Assistant to Reagan (including post-presidential Chief of Staff) and current chair of trustees for the Reagan Library. <br />
'''•''' ''Politico's'' owner [[Robert Allbritton]] is "a noted conservative CEO<sup>[1][2]</sup>" with ties to the Bush family. His bank is well-known for its support of [[Augusto Pinochet|Pinochet]] (regime ties which became a divisive, partisan issue in the 1980s and '90s). <br />
'''•''' ''Politico's'' political writer/editor Smith's quote acknowledges (at least) a semblance of connections at the time of "Bush's public endorsement" <br />
• the [http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/40089-politico-and-its-discontents/ ''Boston Phoenix'' piece] cited above by Fences (and which is already referenced on the [[Robert Allbritton|Allbritton]] page), says "the issue of nonpartisanship — or lack thereof — has plagued ''Politico’s'' brief existence" (based on progressive/liberal criticism), mention's ''Politico'''s connections to [[Matt Drudge]], and paraphrases Greenwald: "<small>Given Ryan’s political loyalties, and the conservative bona fides of owner Robert Allbritton’s family, Greenwald concluded, it’s hard to take Politico’s claims of nonpartisanship seriously.</small>" To be fair, the ''Phoenix'' piece includes a rebuttal from Harris as well as observations about Politico's "critics on the right, though they're less numerous or less vocal." And it even remarks on ''Politico's'' "transparency" in publishing the MMfA's critique (which I don't see online anymore, but I may have missed it) as well as ''Politico's'' response which is quoted at the beginning of this thread.
-<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 21:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, but at this point you REALLY seem to be grasping at straws. Perhaps you should focus on other things? [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::You can't dismiss the connections so easily. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 22:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What, that people who write a political newspaper happen to have political connections? I would hope so or they would most likely be pulling things out of their ass. The connection has been mentioned in the BODY of the article, as it should be. You need FAR more for it to reach the lede. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 05:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
:::: I agree with Soxwon here, I am not opposed to such material being added as long as the wording does not imply more than what the sources say and it is not given WP:UNDUE and it is not used to support original thesis. [[User:Weaponbb7|Weaponbb7]] ([[User talk:Weaponbb7|talk]]) 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::From ''[[The New York Times Magazine]]'' - "Before he goes to sleep, between 11 and midnight, Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, typically checks in by e-mail with the same reporter: Mike Allen of [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/magazine/25allen-t.html Politico], who is also the first reporter Pfeiffer corresponds with after he wakes up at 4:20....Allen also communes a lot with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Robert Gibbs, the press secretary; David Axelrod, President Obama’s senior adviser; and about two dozen other White House officials. But Pfeiffer is likely Allen’s main point of contact, the one who most often helps him arrive at a “West Wing Mindmeld,” as Playbook calls it, which is essentially a pro-Obama take on that day’s news. (Allen gets a similar fill from Republicans, which he also disseminates in Playbook.)" [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><font color="#000080">'''APK'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid|<font color="#99BADD">'''whisper in my ear'''</font>]] 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot believe a criticism section isn't here.. it absolutely has to be included. The right leaning bias on Politico is quite palpable to anyone who is aware of the concept of media bias. Irritating really, as I'll admit to having unusually high demands for neutral reporting. The comment section especially gives it away, where comments are absolutely *dominated* by either self identified conservatives and republicans as well as many "independents" or N/A's who coincidentally comment right on track with republican party line opinion. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.187.8.149|24.187.8.149]] ([[User talk:24.187.8.149|talk]]) 03:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Dominated? Really? Have you read either a story about Palin or the comments about a Palin story? Venom will actually drip off your monitor from all of the hate directed from the left. [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 17:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
::(Dis)approval of Sarah Palin is no barometer. Plenty of conservatives don't like her, either. -<small>[[User:PrBeacon|PrBeacon]] [[User_talk:PrBeacon|(talk)]]</small> 04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Could this be "related" to some of the recent controversy over [[Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act|section 230]] -- ? --
== noteworthiness of Cain sexual harassment ==


<big>PS: </big> I think I can guess what [[Deborah Lipstadt]] would recommend. I think she would be '''for''' "freedom of speech".
Politico broke the news about Cain's sexual harassment and subsequently received alot of mention in mainstream media for it. This should be mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/98.92.189.110|98.92.189.110]] ([[User talk:98.92.189.110|talk]]) 03:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:They've boroken quote a few stories and spearheaded quite a few accusations. Unless several independent reliable sources make mention that Politico has done so with the characterization that it's notable I'd say we should hold off on any further narrative on the subject. [[User:TomPointTwo|TomPointTwo]] ([[User talk:TomPointTwo|talk]]) 08:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


'''''Thanks for your patience,''''' since '''(a)''' this may have become kinda long and rambling, and '''(b)''' I have not even checked, yet ... to see whether this article already mentions (or comments about) Politico's "take" on "Freedom of Speech".
Politico is not only liberal, is extremely liberal:


Any comments would be appreciated.<br/>
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/16/daily_caller_publisher_hits_politico_for_liberal_bias.html
Any comments? --[[User:Mike Schwartz|Mike Schwartz]] ([[User talk:Mike Schwartz|talk]]) 14:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


== Politico cookies ==
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/politico-following-in-msnbcs-path/
It has become commonplace for websites to give readers a choice of which cookies to accept, but this choice is offered on the politico site in a way that I don't understand. For some reason, their buttons are not marked "off" or "on", nor even with a "green button". There's no realistic way of reaching these guys anymore, so can anyone here say what it should be -- with actual reasons, i.e. how you *know* that's right. (Does anyone know why Politico would choose an obscure system when it would be just as easy to use something more obvious?) [[User:Professor alacarte|alacarte]] ([[User talk:Professor alacarte|talk]]) 14:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


==The Issues with the Collaboration with Welt on COVID-19 global response criticisms section==
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/steve-doocy-and-hugh-hewitt-politico-has-lost-its-way-and-loaded-up-on-lefties/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/177.42.121.183|177.42.121.183]] ([[User talk:177.42.121.183|talk]]) 02:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Why is there this emphasis on this particular article? This article did not have much, if any, newsworthy impact, and it and the writers that contributed to it did not win any awards. The current owner of Politico, Axel Springer, has a history of promoting anti-vax sentiments (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-media-scandal-germany-bild/), and I have not seen evidence from credible sources that the Gates Foundation is responsible for misconduct. Also, this section leaves out the detail that Die Welt is a tabloid also owned by Axel Springer, and there isn't even a link to the the Die Welt page. This section also sticks out from the rest of the article since it lacks links altogether and reeks of astroturfing. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:2000:E960:915F:67A5:E782:A411|2600:1700:2000:E960:915F:67A5:E782:A411]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:2000:E960:915F:67A5:E782:A411|talk]]) 19:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
:Your sources are not reliable. The first clip is from Fox News, which has a tendency to call anyone who disagrees with them for left wing. It is an interview with Neil Patel from The Daily Caller, who seems to agree with them. Here is some of what he said in that clip: "...almost the entire media, minus Fox News, the Daily Caller and maybe a handful of others, are on the liberal side...". If you think that everyone, except you, are biased, you should take a long hard look at your own bias. [[User:PerDaniel|PerDaniel]] ([[User talk:PerDaniel|talk]]) 11:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


== Наверное в стиральной машине можно засолить грибы .. ==
== Needs Update ? ==


Это я о современной политике пытаюсь порассуждать .. [[Special:Contributions/176.59.206.201|176.59.206.201]] ([[User talk:176.59.206.201|talk]]) 01:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Visiting Sept 2012 looking for information; much of the material references appear pre-2010? Does this need a "fresh" overall review by some editors unbiased and knowledgeable about "POLITICO"? Just asking. Thanks. [[User:HalFonts|HalFonts]] ([[User talk:HalFonts|talk]]) 17:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:Politico is a left-wing news outlet, and has been described as such from many credible conservative news outlets. Of course, at Wikipedia, leftist bias is treated innocuously whereas conservative POVs are always identified as such. In other words, conservative media outlets/personalities are ALWAYS labelled as such, while leftist media outlets/personalities remain unlabelled, as if they are unbiased and apolitical. Hilariously, this article actually implies that Politico is Republican/conservative-leaning! Another gem of an article at Wikipedia. Your request MUST be fulfilled if this article about Politico is to have any integrity. [[User:Bobinisrael|Bobinisrael]] ([[User talk:Bobinisrael|talk]]) 16:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


== Inclusion of the employee "pledge" to Israel and the transatlantic alliance ==
== Desperate attempt to characterise Politico as conservative/right-wing/Republican. ==


I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have been a longtime reader and donor. This is actually the first time I have ever been so stunned by an article that I felt the need to say something. I'm sorry, but I am a journalist by trade, and including this alleged pledge to Israel and its allies is beyond unnecessary for the first section of a page. In terms of politics, at least as the public perceives it, this is likely not relevant. Is this not the kind of content that should be placed in the controversy section? This just seems odd and targeted. [[Special:Contributions/37.170.126.129|37.170.126.129]] ([[User talk:37.170.126.129|talk]]) 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The opening paragraph has an irrelevant statement about Politico's sponsorship of a 2008 Republican debate, with the second paragraph with another irrelevant statement about Frederick J. Ryan's former role as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. The intent is clear, to dishonestly characterise Politico as a conservative/right-wing/Republican leaning news outlet. If one wants to play the association game, all one needs to do is visit [http://www.politico.com/staff.html the Politico staff page], where one sees an abundance of former employees of notably leftist media outlets: The Washington Post, The New York Times, National Public Radio, Time Magazine, and on and on and on. Another disgracefully politicised article from the usual suspects masquerading as objective, and another gem of an article at Wikipedia. [[User:Bobinisrael|Bobinisrael]] ([[User talk:Bobinisrael|talk]]) 16:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:In the same two paragraphs there are also mentions of sponsorship of the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates debate, and the fact that the editor and editor in chief left The Washington Post to start Politico. It's important to read passages in their entirety. [[Special:Contributions/76.248.149.47|76.248.149.47]] ([[User talk:76.248.149.47|talk]]) 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
::The sponsorship of the debates is completely irrelevant, to start with. Moreover, there is still no description of this outlet as left-wing, instead sourcing a ridiculous suggestion that it leans to the right. [[User:Bobinisrael|Bobinisrael]] ([[User talk:Bobinisrael|talk]]) 04:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:::From the article: ''After the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt", Politico's Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons, and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[13]''. Again, it really helps to read pieces in their entirety. No thoughtful contributor will take headings like the one above, nor the subsequent claims, seriously. [[Special:Contributions/76.248.149.47|76.248.149.47]] ([[User talk:76.248.149.47|talk]]) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:13, 22 August 2024

Politico's "take" on Freedom of Speech

[edit]

Respect for Politico publishing Shapiro, and standing by its position of doing so; yet Politico retains its "leans left" status, as exemplified by over a hundred of its staff actually putting their disdain for publishing the 'right of center' Shapiro perspective. Journalism used to be about presenting facts as facts, and opinion as opinion. If those hundred politico staff have lost their journalistic objectivity, they should be released. There are plenty of 'left' news organizations to employ them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.41.146 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read this entire article ... nor this entire "Talk:" page; but the part I did read, seems interesting.

I came here after reading https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/29/inside-the-online-cesspool-of-anti-semitism-that-housed-robert-bowers-221949 ... an article which could be interpreted as implying that Politico does not like the idea of "freedom of speech" for certain "speakers" ... those individuals or groups whom Politico -- (or some other 'arbiter' of thought or opinion) -- disagrees with.

Am I reading it wrong? Or does Politico seem to be arguing that the part of the U.S. Bill of Rights that mentions -- (right in the First amendment!) -- "Freedom of Speech", should apply only to some speakers, but not to all speakers?  Politico seems to focus [in that article] on one web site -- Gab -- where ... apparently, some of the "Free Speech" that appears on that web site, is of a kind that Politico may dislike and/or disagree with.

Is Politico saying that, in their opinion, any web site should restrict the "Freedom of Speech" of users who hold opinions that are "controversial" or otherwise objectionable in some way -- ? --

This issue has been nipped in the bud by Axel Springer Company (publishing BILD) buying Politico. They are system conform in the way the Murdoch media are. No more controversies in that area. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:894F:A4B4:BEF:26B2 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Politico is not suggesting, there, that someone from the government should censor all -- (or maybe just a certain kind of) -- "bad" speech[or perhaps writing ... in the case of written words on a web site], they still seem to be arguing that a web site has -- (or, it "should" have) -- a responsibility to restrict or otherwise 'answer for', content that they allow to be hosted on their platform.

Could this be "related" to some of the recent controversy over section 230 -- ? --

PS: I think I can guess what Deborah Lipstadt would recommend. I think she would be for "freedom of speech".

Thanks for your patience, since (a) this may have become kinda long and rambling, and (b) I have not even checked, yet ... to see whether this article already mentions (or comments about) Politico's "take" on "Freedom of Speech".

Any comments would be appreciated.
Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politico cookies

[edit]

It has become commonplace for websites to give readers a choice of which cookies to accept, but this choice is offered on the politico site in a way that I don't understand. For some reason, their buttons are not marked "off" or "on", nor even with a "green button". There's no realistic way of reaching these guys anymore, so can anyone here say what it should be -- with actual reasons, i.e. how you *know* that's right. (Does anyone know why Politico would choose an obscure system when it would be just as easy to use something more obvious?) alacarte (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Issues with the Collaboration with Welt on COVID-19 global response criticisms section

[edit]

Why is there this emphasis on this particular article? This article did not have much, if any, newsworthy impact, and it and the writers that contributed to it did not win any awards. The current owner of Politico, Axel Springer, has a history of promoting anti-vax sentiments (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-media-scandal-germany-bild/), and I have not seen evidence from credible sources that the Gates Foundation is responsible for misconduct. Also, this section leaves out the detail that Die Welt is a tabloid also owned by Axel Springer, and there isn't even a link to the the Die Welt page. This section also sticks out from the rest of the article since it lacks links altogether and reeks of astroturfing. 2600:1700:2000:E960:915F:67A5:E782:A411 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Наверное в стиральной машине можно засолить грибы ..

[edit]

Это я о современной политике пытаюсь порассуждать .. 176.59.206.201 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the employee "pledge" to Israel and the transatlantic alliance

[edit]

I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have been a longtime reader and donor. This is actually the first time I have ever been so stunned by an article that I felt the need to say something. I'm sorry, but I am a journalist by trade, and including this alleged pledge to Israel and its allies is beyond unnecessary for the first section of a page. In terms of politics, at least as the public perceives it, this is likely not relevant. Is this not the kind of content that should be placed in the controversy section? This just seems odd and targeted. 37.170.126.129 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politico&oldid=1241697668"