Talk:Truthdig

message: 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)
thread_title: description

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Follow the Money 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: "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! <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism as a source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation to Webby Awards site 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awards from Los Angeles Press Club 

message: 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! <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scheer makes a new website