Jump to content

Talk:Newsmax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loginnigol (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 18 December 2020 (→Proposed merge (Newsmax TV to Newsmax)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newsmax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to list the channel numbers?

I came here while researching the outlet on my cable provider, WOW! (WideOpenWest), and decided to scroll down the area speaking about the TV channel... I understand they don't want the section to appear scant of detail, but this doesn't seem like the sort of information needed in a Wikipedia article. Surely with the channel being here for as long as it has been (if I read correctly, four years?), there should be more relevant information available by now? It shouldn't be Wikipedia's place to be a TV guide.

RabblerouserGT (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many Newsmax sub-articles

All the content should be in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting itself?

The (currently) second end-note, the one cited where the claim is made that Newsmax is influential among conservatives, links back to Newsmax itself. So, basically, the source saying that Newsmax is influential is ... Newsmax. That doesn't seem to pass the journalistic smell test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.120.189 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters"

As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

this edit should be restored

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Newsmax&diff=982567017&oldid=981840801

soibangla (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for removal was not that biased or opinionated sources can never be used, but that there is no WP:RS coverage of this or anything to establish encyclopedic notability. It would be unencyclopedic to add everything that Media Matters ever writes about a topic to the Wikipedia article, there needs to be other coverage as well. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I question that reasoning simply because organizations commonly get scoops. In an increasingly fragmented media environment, organizations often need to pursue niche stories that distinguish themselves. Others don't cover it not because it's illegitimate, but because someone else grabbed that niche and there's no compelling reason to follow, they need to pursue other niches. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this article AND Newsmax Media?

I think the latter should be deleted. soibangla (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, articles should be merged. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newsmax TV could probably be merged as well. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justification

I have an issue with the statement "Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy justified its pro-Trump coverage, saying 'we have an editorial policy of being supportive of the President and his policies.'".

First, the "." being included in the quote is inaccurate, the actual quote has a comma there and reads "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of the President and his policies, but I think if you looked at our digital coverage, for instance, it's always been very balanced and fair."
More importantly, this is not a "justification" of its pro-Trump coverage, it is if anything a denial that they are overly pro-Trump (spoiler, RS have said that they absolutely are overly pro-Trump).
It is also an answer to a question about other media organizations', specifically Fox News, consistency: "You have said that you think Fox News was inconsistent in its support of Trump during the past four years. How so? And do you think that being unwavering in support of either Donald Trump or the Republican Party is important to conservative media?"
He is not asked to, nor is attempting to, "Justify" the network's support of Trump.
On the other hand, the other quote, which was removed first by Marquis de Faux, and again by IHateAccounts, was in fact stated as a justification for why Newsmax has become a explicitly pro-Trump outlet, despite its founder being "not the sort of true-believing ideologue his viewers may imagine in the foxhole alongside them".
The context is this: "All successful TV programmers have some mercenary in them, of course, but even by those standards, Mr. Ruddy is extreme. He has turned Newsmax into a pure vehicle for Trumpism, attacking Fox News from the right for including occasional dissenting voices. And when Trumpism turned this month from an electoral strategy into a hallucinatory attempt to overturn the election, Mr. Ruddy saw opportunity: Newsmax, available on cable in most American households and streaming online, became the home of alternate reality. 'In this day and age, people want something that tends to affirm their views and opinions,' Mr. Ruddy told me in an interview."
He is "justifying" why Newsmax is "a pure vehicle for Trumpism" despite his personal views not fully embodying that. It is emphasizing "He is, rather, perhaps the purest embodiment of another classic television type, the revenue-minded cynic for whom the substance of programming is just a path to money and power."
The first quote is not a justification. It just says "He justifies them being pro-Trump by saying they are pro-Trump".
The second quote is a justification. It says "He justifies them being pro-Trump by saying their audience is pro-Trump and people want to watch things that affirm that view".

Does that make sense? The problem arises out of the fact that the "justified" language is a summation of the sentiment presented in the NY times article with the second quote. The first quote comes from a source that does not support using the word "justified" because that is not the context in which it was stated. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please break this into readable paragraphs? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NonReproBlue: Thank you for breaking it out into paragraphs. The quotation about the editorial policy is a response to the question "And do you think that being unwavering in support of either Donald Trump or the Republican Party is important to conservative media?" from the New Yorker, so I think it's pretty clear. However, the NY Times article doesn't contain the same language, so I've made a trial edit at including both quotes. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to include the quote in the body paragraph. The lead, however, is supposed to be a general overview, and cover things such as editorial policy of an organization. That's why the initial quote was fairly appropriate. This seems like getting into the weeds of media strategy, and in the paragraph where he gives this quote, he doesn't use it as a way to "justify" the editorial stance either, it's just as a statement of commentary on the state of media. There's absolutely no context in which the quote is given, nor a response to a question, or anything, nor does the article say that. We don't know what Ruddy was responding to, so you can't say that the quote is a "justification" for it's election coverage, because the source doesn't show that. There is no evidence that the quote was uttered with the intention of "justifying" the coverage.
This would be like, on the Fox News page, having a Roger Ailes quote at the top talking about how being conservative increases ad revenue. It could be true, and should be mentioned in the body, but wouldn't be appropriate for a lead summary. Rather, the lead would just cover how Fox News is editorially conservative. If the concern is the word "justification," we can just take that out and leave the quote about being editorially in support of Trump.
Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge (Newsmax Media to Newsmax)

The Newsmax Media article is largely repetitive of content already here and there is very little there about the Newsmax Media entity that isn't already in this article. Laval (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tshuva:, per RFC policy concerning !votes, can you provide a reasoning? IHateAccounts (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added Tshuva (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge (Newsmax TV to Newsmax)

Similar to the discussion of merging Newsmax Media above, I think it's basically merged already. The talk page has had the "Under Construction" section, placed by AKA Casey Rollins, begging "Please do not delete this page! I am still working on it" since 20 October 2014 with little to no improvement. Further, upon reviewing the sources on the page (even after Aquillion's recent attempt to add two sources), it's basically a poorly written copy of material already here:

  1. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. (Roose, "Newsmax courts fox news viewers...")
  2. This article isn't cited at Newsmax but it really doesn't matter, Business Insider is at "No Consensus" level at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. (Lahut, "Newsmax CEO says...")
  3. This article isn't cited at Newsmax but multiple other articles about ratings are. (Tampa Bay Times, "Trump-friendly Newsmax a sudden competitor to Fox...")
  4. This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but an equivalent article from Politico on the DirecTV launch of Newsmax's channel is.
  5. Does not seem to be a WP:RS, and it's a dead link that reverts to the multichannel.com homepage.
  6. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("South Florida's Newsmax rides wave of interest...")
  7. This Sara Polsky article from "Curbed NY" does not mention Newsmax in any way. I have no idea why anyone put it into the page.
  8. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
  9. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("The Next Ailes: Newsmax's Chris Ruddy ...")
  10. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. (""Newsmax has emerged as a landing spot for cable news personalities...")
  11. This is self-sourced to Newsmax.com and is not WP:RS. ("Dennis Michael Lynch Hosts New Show"...)
  12. This is to Mediaite, a "marginally reliable" source. ("Newsmax Host Taken Off the Air...")
  13. This is a good WP:RS, and the content is not yet reflected at Newsmax. It is already reflected at Dennis Michael Lynch. ("Newsmax Host Dennis Michael Lynch Is Pulled Off the Air...")
  14. This is sourced direct back to Newsmax's website, promotional content only. (Howie Carr)
  15. Notations on Spicer joining Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
  16. Notations on Greg Kelly at Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
  17. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Trump voters are flocking...")
  18. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (""Donald Trump attacks Fox News: 'They forgot the golden goose'")
  19. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 8). ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
  20. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Newsmax could end up being the Fox News of the post-Trump era")
  21. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 17). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
  22. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("My two days watching Newsmax...")
  23. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("The misinformation media machine...")
  24. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is again a duplicate of number 17). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
  25. This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but equivalent coverage of ratings by AdWeek is.
  26. This is sourced to hermancain.com and is laughably not WP:RS. (Calabrese)
  27. Once again, just promotional material. I don't see the point of citing to the Newsmax's website, it's not WP:RS. (Newsmax website)

The merging has basically already been done. There's literally only one decent WP:RS source whose content isn't already reflected at the main Newsmax page, and that ONE is only about a specific host leaving the network over editorial-control disputes. I think it's time to finish the merge process and redirect Newsmax TV to Newsmax. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquis de Faux: not to be a nuisance about it but... can you provide your reason? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sorry Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per previous thread. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most of the text is redundant, and the text that isn't redundant (the personalities and affiliates lists) are both largely unsourced and mostly lists of trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as this discussion is now moot since there was a much broader discussion at AfD which resulted in a decision of keep, rather than merge. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For the already mentioned reasons as well as just for the record (Newsmax didn't start out as a TV network. It's A-historic for Wikipedia to all of a sudden falsify the record. The website has history. So it can stand on its own even if the entire organization shuts down. But if it merges into a TV page the non-tv media history that predates the TV will eventually be slashed and virtually edited out of existence as the TV side of the business becomes more notable and leads to expansion of the page. Then we'll be back to square one: someone will suggest a page split and non tv stuff to be put in another page. --Loginnigol (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newsmax&oldid=994992454"