Talk:NowThis News/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy

Now this has edited several videos in order to incriminate subjects. Drvontacos (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Left-Leaning?

Shouldn't this be replaced with "politically left" or "left-wing" ? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There really alt-left if you ask me, as, they have edited video to suit there agenda. Drvontacos (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nicnote and Drvontacos: I'm still not sure if this description is accurate. Why does this article describe it as "a Left-Leaning digital news company" instead of "centrist" or "non-partisan"? Jarble (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jarble:lol - Have you watched a video from their channels? If Fox News is right-wing then NT is definitely left-wing. I mean, they have one channel completely dedicated to weed and another to thrashing Donald Trump. On the spectrum it's nowhere near non-partisan or centrist. It's like if called Fox News centrist. I personally don't support either organisation, but they both fit somewhere on the political spectrum. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

THEY HAVE EDITED VIDEO TO SUIT THEIR AGENDA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvontacos (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Real Talk

ok so I made a shitpost controversy entry but I feel like it's valid to create a legitimate controversy page. if you visit the YouTube pages for both of the channels it's littered with negative comments and angry fans. The original channel hasn't posted a video in a month. it'd be basically impossible to cite, except for the fact that you can see the controversy unfolding before you.

i can't write in the style of wikipedia so if anyone can do it for me it'll help the fans out because controversy while it gives attention to the channels brings a huge negative energy to the workers and staff and they deserve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.140.22 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Awards

I have removed the list of award, because none of them seemed independently noteworthy, nor where they contextualized by reliable, independent sources. This is the norm for awards sections on corporate article on Wikipedia. I invite discussion here. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Connection to AJ /Al Jazeera

Now This has a very similar format as the information posts of AJ or Al Jazeera on both Twitter and Facebook. AJ despite being a Qatar-based news service focuses mostly Information Posts critical of US political and social events rather than criticizing its own home nation, Qatar. NowThis is running almost the exact same layout in its presentations and it too focuses on what some would say are America's social and political weak points. Is there any connection between these two Facebook and Twitter "Info" spammers? 203.131.210.82 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section

I agree that a controversy section should be included, but it needs to be rewritten. It's coming off as very biased against NowThis News. I'm rewriting the article on my Sandbox to be more expanded on less biased. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't just remove that, you also removed the well-cited bit of it being a progressive outlet. Toa Nidhiki05 00:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, from looking at the article history I can only see that I removed one section. I don't think I removed anything else regarding it being, or not being, a progressive outlet. Could you point to the specific part I removed? Thanks! ChipotleHater (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I see what you mean. I removed that because, generally, the bias of the news media isn't put in the first sentence. (I used the article CNN and Fox News as an example). If that is to be added, it should be a separate paragraph or even a separate section. Perhaps it could be included into the Controversy section. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the current section is very biased against NowThis News and is currently giving undue weight against it. This is probably due to the relatively small size of the article as if the article was as expansive as those of CNN or Fox News, it probably would have passed. However as it currently stands, the article due to that undue weight is not adhering to a neutral point of view, which is why I initially removed the additions one particular IP account made. I would be interested to see how the rewrite would proceed and until then would support removing that section until the article is expanded. --DTM9025 (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, seeing how this will probably take some time, it is probably for the best we currently revert the section until the article is either expanded or rewritten. Anyone is free to discuss it here. --DTM9025 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of the term "progressive"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I continue to change the term "progressive" to the more appropriate term "far-left" considering this is what many sources are claiming about NowThis News (apart from the obvious for anyone that views anything from them). This revision continues to be changed back to "progressive" including 2 sources that don't explain in anyway how NowThis is a progressive news source. I understand if mediabiasfactcheck.com isn't a reliable source, but the more important source to the claim the NowThis is a "far-left" news source is a source that was already used elsewhere in the article for other claims (Wired). The Wired source article cannot be used to make one claim successfully, but not reliable enough to back other claims. If we are agreeing that the Wired article is a reliable source, then my claim that NowThis News is "far-left" is substantiated by this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iseeyourbias (talk • contribs) 04:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Both sources use the term "progressive". Sources are not required to explain each and every one of their conclusion, because this is a tedious and unworkable standard few sources would meet. The Wired source says "left-leaning". The Wired source (from three years ago) does not say that it is "far-left". It doesn't appear to "explain in any way" how it's far-left, either. Left-leaning is broadly compatible with "progressive", so there is no contradiction here. If you know of reliable sources which define this site as far-left, propose them here, please. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It's quite clear NowThis has had a long history of egregious far-left bias, bordering on literal propaganda. Simply because two news articles that VERY briefly reference the site call them "progressive" does not make it solely progressive, and other, more detailed analyses on the organization (which I've cited) very clearly show that the site is far-left. Oebelysk (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You cited an amateur fact-checking website which fails WP:RS and an opinion piece by a "commentary writer" from the conservative Washington Examiner, about which the community consensus is that "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." Doug Weller talk 15:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Amateur fact-checking website? They've included multiple citations and reasons behind why the website is far-left and have included multiple instances where NowThis has genuinely lied. Opinion articles are still able to be used, and the article itself, while biased, includes factual information that explains why the site is biased. Literally anyone who goes to NowThis can clearly see that the site is heavily biased. This is simply just common sense. Oebelysk (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. Common sense has a number of meanings, but that is irrelevant as we aren't interested in what editors think so much as what the sources say, see no original research. I looked at the website's comments which say "In review, NowThis News reports political news with a strong liberal/progressive leaning bias, heavily relying on meme culture and soundbites, often omitting certain key facts spoken in video clips. There is the use of loaded emotional headlines that favor the left, such as this: Bill Nye the Science Guy on Trump’s Climate Change Denial. NowThis News favors more progressive Democrats with flattering headlines such as this: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gives Inspiring Speech at Bernie Sanders Town Hall. In general, they support progressive candidates over establishment Democrats and routinely denigrate the right." That of course is nonsense, how can "a strong liberal/progressive leaning bias" make them far-left? They are outright saying that Not This News is progressive. I also saw that CNN had notes about 2 more fact problems than NTN but got a decent rating for news reports. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, touche. I assume that "far-left" isn't the correct term, but "progressive" certainly isn't either. It's easy to see that they have a very strong left-leaning bias and "progressive" sells it very short. Oebelysk (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.