Talk:Truthdig

description

Seriously? "Progressive"? This page drastically mischaracterizes the website, its radical, it has a reputation for borderline extremism. I know political Wikipedia articles are babied by their biased protectors, but this is just plain misleading.

True- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B15F:9C14:19AC:8C0E:D2B9:760 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This commenter is confused about the term progressive. I offer a possible explanation and an example. The term progressive is used and misused to the extent its meaning is as vague as fascism.

The commenter appears to have a problem with the description of the website in terms of whether (in his mind) the website is accurately described as radical or extremist. That said, I tend to agree with the poster that this page drastically mischaraterizes the website. Far from being radical or extremist, Truthdig is better described as a propaganda system that is concerned with typical details like audience size but also actively suppresses critical thinking. Contributions are typically from authors who are known to have worked with or for intelligence services with specific training in communication and propaganda. Note that this doesn't immediately imply some kind of nefarious purpose, but at least suggests an aggressive effort to influence and suppress or destroy dissent.

I offer this set of basically unestablished opinion with the hope that discriminating readers take with a grain of salt. I recommend the same course of action when reading Truthdig or (of course) visiting Wikipedia to get an idea of what the website is "all about." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.77.150 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

blog

It's not really a blog -- it's an online magazine. It has an editor, regular and freelance contributors, and publishes much of its content in article form. It does have several blogs within it, but I think it's miscategorized. Nep 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nep. Truthdig is not a blog.--AdeleivdVelden (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above - it is not a blog. Meh33 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)meh33

Follow the Money

interesting article and also as far as I have read some articles a interesting news-site but... no word where the money came from. Who pays the site, the costs, the bilts etc. Is this a free hobby from journalists just for fun or do they earn money with it? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 02:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This might answer your question. Truthdig has been identified by the PropOrNot propaganda identification service as repeating, echoing, or referring their audience to Russian propaganda. Woood (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism as a source

I've removed a reference to the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism (DeMos 2011-05-06) as a source. It did not support the claim for which it was cited; I've marked that claim as {{cn}} pending discovery of better sources. But, more fundamentally, the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism has too close a connection with Truthdig, through both founders, to be acceptable as a source for this Wikipedia article. Kaufman did her master's there; Scheer is a professor. Publications from Annenberg about Truthdig must be treated essentially as PR. It's not a matter of source reliability—Annenberg is highly respected—but of source independence.

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Source independence?" Assuming you are not incorrect in implying that that is a Wikipedia guideline, are we to mechanically try to follow imagined rules, —or; are we to seek a representative description of reality? I believe the answer is; Wiki has guidelines, NOT rules. Guess why? (That's intentional, and this is a perfect example of why.) Since Annenberg is indeed highly respected school of journalism, that seems to hugely devalue your suggestion of reported bias. There may be a case there, but you have not made it. Please explain your reasoning, if any. Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Citation to Webby Awards site

I've introduced a number of citations directly to the Webby Awards site, to document and clarify the claim that Truthdig has won six Webbys. The use of an awards site to document the awards it has given is of course WP:PRIMARY sourcing, and may thus seem counterproductive in the effort to reduce use of primary sources, but it's exclusively for the awards given, and for that purpose there is no more reliable or definitive source. Incidentally, mere arithmetic to count the number of awards (and of each type of award) does not count as original research (see WP:CALC within WP:NOR).

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Awards from Los Angeles Press Club

I'm finding it difficult to source the precise claim that Truthdig has won 22 awards from the Los Angeles Press Club, so I've replaced it with the claim that it has won "numerous" awards, including 11 awards in 2017 alone, sourced directly to the Los Angeles Press Club (similar considerations apply as for direct citations to the Webby Awards site, discussed above). This is without prejudice to restoration of the 22-award claim if it can be sourced.

—Syrenka V (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

some problems

Much of the section on origin is puffery, particularly the 2nd paragraph The list of non notable contributors is inappropriate content, resembling a news release (that's the nearest availble tag). The overal tone is praise of the publication. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe any of these tags were justified, and for the reasons stated below, I have removed all of them.

The majority of the contributors listed are notable. Accordingly, I have linked their names to their Wikipedia articles, and removed the "news release" tag, which was based on a false assumption. Also: notable or not, a list of frequent contributors is encyclopedic information about any publication.

Supporting a charge of NPOV requires more than just exhibiting a positive end result. Neutrality under WP:NPOV is fundamentally a question of whether the article reflects the balance of information in the sources. Please do not retag this article with {{NPOV}} unless you have evidence that well-sourced negative information has been systematically omitted—not just that positive information has been included. If you do have such evidence, please at least give some indication of what it is.

While some of the language used may sound laudatory, it would be difficult to tone down the positive language without distorting the factual account. For example: asserting "high journalistic standards" is a factual claim, not empty praise, and is supported by the sources; removing it, or even toning it down, would be a distortion of the facts. Similarly for the assertion that Kaufman took a strategic chance on longreads. I have accordingly also removed the "peacock terms" tag.

—Syrenka V (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding back the tag. Truthdig is a known Russian propaganda site that is linked to at a very high rate by, for example, Trollbot twitter accounts. The Wikipedia page currently reads like a puff piece for this site. Woood (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Contributors

The last two paragraphs of that section don't seem to fit the section title, nor the tenor of the overall article. Perhaps they would better fit in a new section called: Heart Tug Articles. Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Who is Zuade Kaufman?

There's no Wikipedia page on this individual and little is known about her. Incidentally, many people know Chris Hedges because of his articles on Truthdig and many other outlets, but we really don't know too much about his background either other than basic facts about education, credentials and some family details. If we knew more about Zuade Kaufman perhaps we'd know more about Truthdig and Chris Hedges. Hedge's affiliation with the CIA is at best a guess. Which reminds me, clearly Truthdig has changed over time (every second in some sense) so how can the wikipedia page be accurate?

Some kind of dispute allegedly between Kaufman and Scheer and the "staff"

The headline summarizes what this contributor knows from open letters from the website itself. Some of the "staff" (Chris Hedges, Kasia Anderson, Jacob Sugarman, Natasha Hakimi Zapata, Eunice Wong, Ilana Novick, Mr. Fish, Paul Street and Lee Camp) apparently decided to stop work because of work related grievances. Their letter was published then removed from the Truthdig website. Curiously the letter explains that their intent is not to harm "Truthdig" and asks among other things for "annual performance reviews" a corporate tool known for abusing workers. Note that this request is coming from authors who have vaguely intimated that "the people should rise up" or "don't wait until it's too late" or more accurately "resist something!" In Kaufman's 3/17 letter she writes she is "breaking her silence" and implies that Sheer (co-owner/probably former CIA) might have done something along the lines of the #MeToo. This isn't specifically stated. However, much of the media has been heavily distributing propaganda based on ideas of state authoritarianism to counter human sexuality by avoiding the real issues of human sexuality.

None of the recent drama (3/2020) on Truthdig has any verifiability. The website claims to cover topics that are outside the coverage provided by mainstream media and with a "progressive point of view". The numbers of readers would otherwise make Truthdig a part of the ambigious description: main stream media. Propaganda that supports miliaritism hardly qualifies as progresssive. Finally, their is little to no information on Truthdig that will empower anyone for purposes past the readers' own perspectives on reality. The website's primary purpose is distribution of propaganda with surveillance, censorship and last but not least for profit or income.

Scheer makes a new website

All the CIA regulars are back on Scheer's new website. Empty op-eds that question militarism are written by members (retired) of the military who supported or fought in every recent US war. The propaganda model is the same payload of potentially emotional effects in simplified, easy to understand prose. This same formula that obscures complexity to prevent tiring readers and inhibits any "dangerous" new knowledge or understanding. Readers who are fooled are more susceptible to emotional responses that inhibit cognitive resistance to the daily lessons of acceptable views and permitted ideas delivered by the content.

So this means the end of TruthDig as it was - assuming "irreconcilable" is an accurate description of the previous exit of the usual suspects. We need the article to link to a new article dedicated to Scheer's new website Sheerpost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.126.252 (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)