Talk:Right Now! (magazine)

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

which Charles Moore one is this refering to, disambig page exists. rhyax 00:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does this article provide a balanced view of Right Now's political stance?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article states that Right Now! "reflects right wing, nationalist views". "Right wing" and "nationalist" in the same sentence usually suggest "far right" - is this a reasonable characterisation of the magazine's viewpoint?

It also says that the magazine "has featured interviews with and articles by... Nick Griffin of the British National Party and Jean-Marie Le Pen of the Front National". I think this needs to be elaborated upon - there's a world of difference, for example, between conducting a one-off interview with Griffin (taking care not to endorse his views), and publishing regular articles by him.

The BBC for instance has broadcast numerous interviews with Griffin, but we're unlikely to see "The Nick Griffin Show" on BBC2 any time soon! 217.155.20.163 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, parts of this don't add up. The article mentions an association with Antony Flew, for example, and Flew can hardly be considered far-right, or likely to have associated himself with a far-right magazine. It appears unquestionably true that Right Now! has been accused of being far-right, though. --Delirium 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

All the names mentioned in the "featured interviews with and articles by . . ." paragraph are of interviewees - they have not contributed articles. This is misleading - maybe unitentionally, but certainly sloppy. --Squirrel Nutkin (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it can be doubted that the magazine was right wing, or was perceived to be. I removed the word nationalist as that might require further qualification which the article doesn't merit. Anthony Flew was certainly connected with it [1]. The articles writers/interviewees can presumably be referenced from the magazine itself if any of them are in doubt?--Utinomen (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic