politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.