Talk:Us Weekly

message: Does anyone remember when US Weekly was more like a "lite" version of say a Premiere or Empire magazine? Now they seem to be a mainstream tabloid/gossip rag.
Does anyone know why the style change happened and/or when it happened?
:I certainly remember when it was a movie magazine- it had smart, well-written articles about the industry and films, not just the celebrity personal lives. I have been managing magazines at a newsstand for 6 years, and I think it was around 2002 like the article states, that it went weekly and turned into a gossip rag. Marikology 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about US Weekly Style Change 

message: Any support for the assertion that it targets female readers?
:i support the assertion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Targets females? 

message: I have a goal and that goal is to share wiht 100 women about the horrendous, lying, reporting that US magazine did concerning Sarah Palin and Barrack Omaba. The difference in the false reporting is slanderous. Some of the issues they omitted about Obama and added about Palin are as follows: Palin's husband got picked up for oui at the age of 22. Obama was doing cocaine at the age of 22. Palin has goverend a city and a state, Obama has governed his presidential campaign. Obama loves his wife because she went to the same hate mongel church he attended and sat at the same table with a terriorist that he sat with. Panel is strong, honest, open with strong ethics. Obama is vain, naive and the only credential he has is that he can deliver a good speech and can change his mind about all the issues when he gets backed in a corner. So keep it up US and I will continue to report the facts as you are not able to do and I will fight to have consumers stay away from your magazine as long as possible. 
You are not the only dead reporting that is being aimed at. Another woman is going after NBC  and another CBS. Women have had enough! We are insulted about your leftist lying and putting down women in office. Has anyone asked Obama how he is goign  to be a father and be president? NO! The media has shown as much corruption during this campaign as the government has for years. Now we have Two people that want to clean it up and the media is runnig scared.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.171.31 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This will probably get more attention as time goes on, but FYI, wikipedia is not your personal soapbox.
The section concerning US Weekly's "attack" on Gov. Palin should either be reworked or completely deleted. The style is not becoming of a neutral article. 
76.165.247.235 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As this interview demonstrates, US Magazine is extremely sloppy or biased toward one point of view, or both.  It should never be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles.  Freedom Fan (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Magazine getting public attention 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]