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.
Lines up with the "nothingburger’ headline. Probably case-by-case is appropriate. Thanks for showing me that!
Oh wow, theres more to this discussion, nicely useful!
says:
evaluate on case-by-case basis
So its kind of in a grey zone, not reliable doesnt mean bad source in that case. Useful link, altough wikipedia is also a grey zone in the sense that its information based on open source (everybody can edit it, and most liked proposals get through as I understand)
maybe as European im not too well versed in US sources and judged too harsh based on anecdotal experience. All the news Ive seen are always on the “nothing has been said” or “thats reaching” side.
You’re on the nose with that, which is why ground.news is so vital especially now. You can read about the same story from multiple perspectives and often they’ll have a handy synopsis that has key info from all the writings.
Or for that matter, see through the flood and read about things that matter a lot more.
Well what ground news wants to do -critical evaluation and media literacy- is so vital.
But ground news deciding on what exact position on the spectrum a source is, seems to achieve the exact oposite: make people depentend in questioning and finding a variety of sources.
Nowadays everything needs to happen in an instant.
If theres a solution that only takes half a snap, that will be the only relevant choice for the mass. Thats why Im instantly asking, because just today I referred to this source to someone else as a might-be-bad example but instantly realized, I will have to ask this on the next situation (now)
Newsweek is kind of lowbrow today compared where it was maybe twenty years ago, IMHO, but I wouldn’t call it a source of inaccurate information or anything.
is newsweek considered a serious source? even this objectively right seeming headline is kind of a nothingburger, isnt it?
sorry for derailing. if thats not tolerated, i will stop
Are you thinking of NewsMax or whatever? Newsweek AFAIK is a run-of-the-mill average news source - no NYT but certainly not NY Post.
Newsveek is no longer considered a reliable source. It was reliable until 2013.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
That is fair.
Lines up with the "nothingburger’ headline. Probably case-by-case is appropriate. Thanks for showing me that!
Oh wow, theres more to this discussion, nicely useful!
says:
So its kind of in a grey zone, not reliable doesnt mean bad source in that case. Useful link, altough wikipedia is also a grey zone in the sense that its information based on open source (everybody can edit it, and most liked proposals get through as I understand)
maybe as European im not too well versed in US sources and judged too harsh based on anecdotal experience. All the news Ive seen are always on the “nothing has been said” or “thats reaching” side.
my bad then
You’re on the nose with that, which is why ground.news is so vital especially now. You can read about the same story from multiple perspectives and often they’ll have a handy synopsis that has key info from all the writings.
Or for that matter, see through the flood and read about things that matter a lot more.
Well what ground news wants to do -critical evaluation and media literacy- is so vital.
But ground news deciding on what exact position on the spectrum a source is, seems to achieve the exact oposite: make people depentend in questioning and finding a variety of sources.
Nowadays everything needs to happen in an instant.
If theres a solution that only takes half a snap, that will be the only relevant choice for the mass. Thats why Im instantly asking, because just today I referred to this source to someone else as a might-be-bad example but instantly realized, I will have to ask this on the next situation (now)
Anyways thanks for the correction!
For the record I can’t comment on this specific article - it may be a nothingburger. I just think Newsweek itself is not inherently problematic.
Thanks for the confirmation
Newsweek is kind of lowbrow today compared where it was maybe twenty years ago, IMHO, but I wouldn’t call it a source of inaccurate information or anything.