Talk:Reason (magazine)

Can the Reason Mag fan club readers here establish the arm's length separation from its corporate funders, giving rise to conflict of interest? One can say that Reason Magazine is GOP Party Lite minus Christian Right Values and military Keynesianism. --220.239.179.128 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be analysis and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. If you would like to talk about politics, there are other forums for that. Jbmcb (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason wb site down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.49.47 (talk) 18:51, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Reason claims to be nonpartisan. --Theaterfreak64 07:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Reason doesn't necessarily support the Libertarian Party (or any other), but it does support libertarianism as an ideology. So in that sense it is nonpartisan. -- Scott e^iπ 07:27, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it--and, yes, I realize that these two messages above are from more than a month ago--I know that Ayn Rand denounced libertarianism, and many agree that she was not a libertarian (although I'm sure many others feel the opposite way, too). While it was reason's choice to put her on the cover and write an article about her, there are probably more neutral covers we could put on here. Also, I'm not sure what the official title of the magazine is, but it seems to always refer to itself (albeit, not in official enviroments) using a lower-case r.

I clarified the picture a bit. You're right that it's confusing. I'll look into the capital-lowercase thing. Dave (talk) 15:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that, while clarification is good, changing to a more neutral cover is still the better solution. I'd suggest the "Database Nation" cover (http://reason.com/june-2004/samples.shtml) as one of the most talked-about (if also a bit counterintuitive for Reason), but any recent cover would probably do. Also, I don't think one company's complaint about their advertising policy is relevant enough to include, let alone devote that much space to. I'm deleting it for now. Though if the article gets big enough I'd have no qualms with a section on criticism.

--Our Bold Hero 06:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're inconsistent about the capitalization. See their front page, for example. http://www.reason.com Dave (talk) 15:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)