Talk:Newsmax/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
This archive is the content of Talk:Newsmax Media at the point at which it was merged into this article.

NewsMax Media

No Controversy or Disputes section? For an article on what some consider a vehicle for scam advertising? Isn't Wikipedia's credibility at stake? 24.215.153.140 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrowen (talk • contribs)

One of the real problems with NewsMax is that it blends advertisements with news and does not distinguish between the two. Here is just one example, of a link on its primary news page with the delightful title "5 reasons you will get Cancer" and then the "groundbreaking" video that Newsmax promotes: http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/MKTNews/Brownstein-cancer-video-documentary/2013/02/11/id/489887?promo_code=12729-1

I believe that these activities make it extremely dubious at best as a news source, and should be referenced in this article

Hasn't been fixed from being an advertisment, and probably never will. Best to nuke it and start anew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.20.97 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-26 02:49:31

We should not Nuke it... we should telel the truth about NewsMax: shady business. Most edits are done by NewsMax: http://whois.domaintools.com/204.99.250.45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.70.236 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I had clicked a link to one of their sites from a news article. The article they had on their site sounded extremist and so I searched for more information about the company. I read the Wiki article about the company and it sounds like an advertisement for them. I would support a close scrutiny of this Wikipedia entry and revision.--LetsReason (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed -- the article is unbalanced, but it will be difficult to prevent advertising without a flag. Bggardener (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


I just looked this up after reading a rather extremist shady article online by one of their websites, and this wiki reads like an advertisement. That is why I checked out the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.169.241 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree. A lot of this does read like an ad for NewsMax and I also came to the page to see about their sketchy advertising with moneynews.com links, etc. Cowicide (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing seems to have changed much because the article is still seeming to push the subject as something it actually isn't. Can anything be done to correct whatever biased blather has been edited into it already. I looked at some of the previous edits and there is one that stands out as probably biased. Newsie Yorkie seems to have done nothing except edit this page a huge number of times and a few times edit some directly related ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE25:B3A9:EC8B:A590:77FE:76EE (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012

Hello Wikipedians, This article seems to be factual, but does not tell the whole story. Please add information explaining that Newsmax is not so much a news organization as a publicity outlet for the Republican party. Dstarnik (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done:. Please be specific about what you want changed, including providing reliable sources to back it up. RudolfRed (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that point. If Newsmax's primary business were to publicize the GOP, they wouldn't engage is such blatant advertising scams as the phony "news" site at http://www.moneynews.com/ which surely alienates more people than it converts.

Newsmax is evolving more and more into a vehicle for scam advertising, much of it fear-based [economic collapse, survivalism, Obama's gonna getcha]. Through its association ith the Disqus commenting system and other ad syndicators, its ad links are appearing all over the web, usually posing as "links of interest".

If there's a reliable source that has observed this, it should be incorporated into the article. Bustter (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

John L Perry Column

In 2009 Newsmax ran a column by frequent Newsmax contributor John L. Perry advocating a military coup to "solve the Obama problem". It was taken down a few days later. This column generated substantial controversy. Is there any good reason it it is not mentioned in the controversies section? Wefa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If Media Matters is considered a reliable source, the documentation, including a copy of the withdrawn matter, is here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/09/30/newsmax-removes-runs-away-from-coup-advocating/155194 Bustter (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

On a related matter -- scandal wise -- wasn't their a Newsmax columnist (who asked President Bush loaded-easy questions at press conferences) only to be outed as being on a gay webpage or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.245.20 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Newsmax uses dynamic bylines

Newsmax uses dynamic bylines so that they can publish and article once with wording that does not use any dates to describe events. Every day the byline updates. The deception can be found in the url which contains the original publication date. See this article from November 6, 2012 and look at the webpage with yesterday's date. I have seen this article as suggested reading from the Washington Post every day for over a year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

From: Anthony Rizzo, Information Specialist NEWSMAX Media. to: Wikipedia. >At this time, we respectfully request the following changes be made to our NEWSMAX Wikipedia Page:

>Under the SECTION Entitled:

CONTRIBUTORS

The PORTION which currently reads: " Additional newsletter publications of Newsmax include The High Income Factor, Goldstock Adviser and Financial Intelligence Report,[28] as well as Dr. Brownstein's Natural Way to Health,[29] and the The Mind Health Report.[30]"

>WE WOULD LIKE THIS TO NOW READ:

“Additional newsletter publications of Newsmax include The High Income Factor, The Resolute Wealth Letter, Financial intelligence Report, Retirement Profits, and Insider Hotline. Also published are Dr. Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health[37]; Dr. Chauncey Crandall’s Heart and Health Letter; and the Mind Health Report edited by UCLA professor Dr. Gary Small.[38]”

Thank you,

PorterNewman (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Anthony Rizzo 

   Information Specialist 
   NEWSMAX Media

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

Please change the 2nd sentence to use the word "fledgling" instead of "fledging", because it is the correct adjective to use to describe a young, inexperienced entity. Articode (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsmax Health section needs to warn that the opinions of the doctors, specialists, and experts are not scientifically verifiable, and are connected to the sale of products.

The warning that the Newsmax article appears to be written like and advertisement extends to the articles in the health section. The articles frequently conclude with links to buy a product. The opinions frequently are against "medical establishment" guidelines and practices. In truth some of the recommendations and warnings could be hazardous to peoples health and to public health, so this goes beyond simple advertisement disguised as advice. The recommendations by Dr Blaylock, supposedly a top neurosurgeon, about Alzheimer's disease are simply lies of omission. He asserts that the medical establishment views Alzheimer's as just a result of aging is false. The Alzheimer's Association site make this clear. The current state is that a definitive cause has not been established. Aging is a factor, not the cause of Alzheimer's. The several practices he recommends have been found to be beneficial to some people. None of them have been found to prevent Alzheimer's, as is implied. The Alzheimer's Association site is www.alz.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.105.246 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

Please Change From: In 2008, a profile in The Palm Beach Post on Newsmax and founder Ruddy indicated the company generated revenues of approximately $25 million per year, and, according to the company, has been profitable for the past five years. In a 2009 Forbes.com interview, Internet expert Nathan Richardson was asked to identify the "smartest thing on the web" today. Richardson identified Newsmax, among several websites, citing its success "monetizing the web."[6]

To: In March 2014, Newsmax was profiled in Bloomberg Businessweek by correspondent Karo Taro Greenfeld. The Bloomberg Businessweek story detailed Newsmax's successful business model of targeting higher-incomed Baby boomers. the average age of a Newsmax online reader is 54.7 years of age. The profile detailed Newsmax's plans to launch a linear and Over-the-top (OTT) conent cable channel, and suggested their revenue model which sells "a smorgasbord of political, health, and financial information, self-help books, and even vitamin supplements" could make the company uniquely competitive in this arena.[21]

Please delete the following altogether: The paper said Newsmax had witnessed 40 percent growth rates per annum over the past decade and closed 2009 with $35 million revenues, up from $24 million the year before.

Please delete the following altogether: An April 2010 cover story for Talkers Magazine featured Newsmax as a model of future media companies called "Media Stations" that offer their audience audio, video, digital, and even print content

Please delete the following altogether: A 2010 New York Post story reported that the paper's long-time former editor, Kenneth Chandler, was tapped as Newsmax Magazine's editor-in-chief. CEO Ruddy also told the Post the company expected annual 2010 revenues to exceed $50 million.

Please change from: Starting in April 2013, Newsmax.com and its affiliated sites drew 14.4 million unique visitors, leading comScore's News/Politics category over such sites as The Huffington Post Politics, Fox News Politics, CNN Politics, NBCNews.com Politics, and Politico.com in monthly viewership for two consecutive months.

To: Starting in April 2013, Newsmax.com and its affiliated sites drew 14.4 million unique visitors, leading comScore's News/Politics category over such sites as the Huffington Post Politics, Fox News Politics, CNN Politics, NBC News.com Politics, and Politico.com in monthly viewership for two consecutive months.[13]

Please add the following paragraphs below immediately following the paragraph above:

Newsmax has a sizeaable stable news correspondents and editorialists, including George Will, John Gizzi Kathleen Parker, Lanny Davis, and Alan Dershowitz. Newsmax regulars include Christopher W. Ruddy, David Limbaugh, Ben Stein, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, and Michael Reagan.[23]

Newsmax.com affiliate websites include Newsmax Health,[24] Newsmax World, [25] and Newsmax Finance, [26]

Besides political commentaries, Newsmax publishes The Blaylock Wellness Report[27] in which Dr. Russell Blaylock provides information regarding choices in food, drugs, nutritional supplements and other health remedies. [28] Additional newsletter publications of Newsmax include the The High Income Factor, Goldstock Adviser, andFinancial Intelligence Report,[29] as well as Dr. David Brownstein's Natural Way to Health, [30] Dr. Chauncey Crandall's Heart Health Report, Health Radar,and Dr. Gary Small's Mind Health Report.[31]

In 2014 Newsmax Media announced they would be starting a new television news network. It was marketed to compete with Fox News Channel. [34] Named Newsmax TV, the channel broadcasts 24/7 as a news and information channel focused on the Baby Boomer audience. The channel currently reaches over 35 million U.S. cable homes on Directtv, Fios, and U-verse, among two dozen cable operators which carry it, Newsmax TV is also the only cable news channel available for free on OTT devices like Roku or available without charge on any smartphone through its popular app.

MetOp1 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Tony Rizzo (561) 686-1165, Ext. 7790 MetOp1 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Request shows a conflict of interest and appears to be promotional in nature. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newsmax Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Newsmax

This article is largely repetitive of content already on Newsmax and there is very little here about the Newsmax Media entity that isn't already in the Newsmax article. Laval (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Quick and easy merge. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary to list the channel numbers?

I came here while researching the outlet on my cable provider, WOW! (WideOpenWest), and decided to scroll down the area speaking about the TV channel... I understand they don't want the section to appear scant of detail, but this doesn't seem like the sort of information needed in a Wikipedia article. Surely with the channel being here for as long as it has been (if I read correctly, four years?), there should be more relevant information available by now? It shouldn't be Wikipedia's place to be a TV guide.

RabblerouserGT (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There are way too many Newsmax sub-articles

All the content should be in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Quoting itself?

The (currently) second end-note, the one cited where the claim is made that Newsmax is influential among conservatives, links back to Newsmax itself. So, basically, the source saying that Newsmax is influential is ... Newsmax. That doesn't seem to pass the journalistic smell test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.120.189 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters"

As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

this edit should be restored

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newsmax&diff=982567017&oldid=981840801

soibangla (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason for removal was not that biased or opinionated sources can never be used, but that there is no WP:RS coverage of this or anything to establish encyclopedic notability. It would be unencyclopedic to add everything that Media Matters ever writes about a topic to the Wikipedia article, there needs to be other coverage as well. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I question that reasoning simply because organizations commonly get scoops. In an increasingly fragmented media environment, organizations often need to pursue niche stories that distinguish themselves. Others don't cover it not because it's illegitimate, but because someone else grabbed that niche and there's no compelling reason to follow, they need to pursue other niches. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we need this article AND Newsmax Media?

I think the latter should be deleted. soibangla (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, articles should be merged. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Newsmax TV could probably be merged as well. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Justification

I have an issue with the statement "Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy justified its pro-Trump coverage, saying 'we have an editorial policy of being supportive of the President and his policies.'".

First, the "." being included in the quote is inaccurate, the actual quote has a comma there and reads "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of the President and his policies, but I think if you looked at our digital coverage, for instance, it's always been very balanced and fair."
More importantly, this is not a "justification" of its pro-Trump coverage, it is if anything a denial that they are overly pro-Trump (spoiler, RS have said that they absolutely are overly pro-Trump).
It is also an answer to a question about other media organizations', specifically Fox News, consistency: "You have said that you think Fox News was inconsistent in its support of Trump during the past four years. How so? And do you think that being unwavering in support of either Donald Trump or the Republican Party is important to conservative media?"
He is not asked to, nor is attempting to, "Justify" the network's support of Trump.
On the other hand, the other quote, which was removed first by Marquis de Faux, and again by IHateAccounts, was in fact stated as a justification for why Newsmax has become a explicitly pro-Trump outlet, despite its founder being "not the sort of true-believing ideologue his viewers may imagine in the foxhole alongside them".
The context is this: "All successful TV programmers have some mercenary in them, of course, but even by those standards, Mr. Ruddy is extreme. He has turned Newsmax into a pure vehicle for Trumpism, attacking Fox News from the right for including occasional dissenting voices. And when Trumpism turned this month from an electoral strategy into a hallucinatory attempt to overturn the election, Mr. Ruddy saw opportunity: Newsmax, available on cable in most American households and streaming online, became the home of alternate reality. 'In this day and age, people want something that tends to affirm their views and opinions,' Mr. Ruddy told me in an interview."
He is "justifying" why Newsmax is "a pure vehicle for Trumpism" despite his personal views not fully embodying that. It is emphasizing "He is, rather, perhaps the purest embodiment of another classic television type, the revenue-minded cynic for whom the substance of programming is just a path to money and power."
The first quote is not a justification. It just says "He justifies them being pro-Trump by saying they are pro-Trump".
The second quote is a justification. It says "He justifies them being pro-Trump by saying their audience is pro-Trump and people want to watch things that affirm that view".

Does that make sense? The problem arises out of the fact that the "justified" language is a summation of the sentiment presented in the NY times article with the second quote. The first quote comes from a source that does not support using the word "justified" because that is not the context in which it was stated. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please break this into readable paragraphs? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@NonReproBlue: Thank you for breaking it out into paragraphs. The quotation about the editorial policy is a response to the question "And do you think that being unwavering in support of either Donald Trump or the Republican Party is important to conservative media?" from the New Yorker, so I think it's pretty clear. However, the NY Times article doesn't contain the same language, so I've made a trial edit at including both quotes. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I would be happy to include the quote in the body paragraph. The lead, however, is supposed to be a general overview, and cover things such as editorial policy of an organization. That's why the initial quote was fairly appropriate. This seems like getting into the weeds of media strategy, and in the paragraph where he gives this quote, he doesn't use it as a way to "justify" the editorial stance either, it's just as a statement of commentary on the state of media. There's absolutely no context in which the quote is given, nor a response to a question, or anything, nor does the article say that. We don't know what Ruddy was responding to, so you can't say that the quote is a "justification" for it's election coverage, because the source doesn't show that. There is no evidence that the quote was uttered with the intention of "justifying" the coverage.
This would be like, on the Fox News page, having a Roger Ailes quote at the top talking about how being conservative increases ad revenue. It could be true, and should be mentioned in the body, but wouldn't be appropriate for a lead summary. Rather, the lead would just cover how Fox News is editorially conservative. If the concern is the word "justification," we can just take that out and leave the quote about being editorially in support of Trump.
Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge (Newsmax Media to Newsmax)

Consensus is to merge Newsmax Media to Newsmax. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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.


The Newsmax Media article is largely repetitive of content already here and there is very little there about the Newsmax Media entity that isn't already in this article. Laval (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Support proposed merge. Given the high levels of redundancy, the "Newsmax Media" article is counterproductive. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support proposed merge. Quick and easy merge. Should just delete the other redundant article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support proposed merge. Reason: As Laval stated above. Tshuva (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Tshuva:, per RFC policy concerning !votes, can you provide a reasoning? IHateAccounts (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Added Tshuva (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per previous thread. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge. As the articles stand there is a huge amount of duplicative content; no size issues necessitating separate articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:04, 28 December 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.

Proposed merge (Newsmax TV to Newsmax)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. The account that initiated the thread, IHateAccounts (talk • contribs), has been blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk. • contribs). After striking the editor's comments, it is unclear if there is community consensus to merge the page, especially in light of an AfD that resulted in keep being closed less than 45 minutes before this merge discussion was initiated. (non-admin closure)

Similar to the discussion of merging Newsmax Media above, I think it's basically merged already. The talk page has had the "Under Construction" section, placed by AKA Casey Rollins, begging "Please do not delete this page! I am still working on it" since 20 October 2014 with little to no improvement. Further, upon reviewing the sources on the page (even after Aquillion's recent attempt to add two sources), it's basically a poorly written copy of material already here:

  1. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. (Roose, "Newsmax courts fox news viewers...")
  2. This article isn't cited at Newsmax but it really doesn't matter, Business Insider is at "No Consensus" level at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. (Lahut, "Newsmax CEO says...")
  3. This article isn't cited at Newsmax but multiple other articles about ratings are. (Tampa Bay Times, "Trump-friendly Newsmax a sudden competitor to Fox...")
  4. This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but an equivalent article from Politico on the DirecTV launch of Newsmax's channel is.
  5. Does not seem to be a WP:RS, and it's a dead link that reverts to the multichannel.com homepage.
  6. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("South Florida's Newsmax rides wave of interest...")
  7. This Sara Polsky article from "Curbed NY" does not mention Newsmax in any way. I have no idea why anyone put it into the page.
  8. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
  9. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("The Next Ailes: Newsmax's Chris Ruddy ...")
  10. This article is already reflected at Newsmax. (""Newsmax has emerged as a landing spot for cable news personalities...")
  11. This is self-sourced to Newsmax.com and is not WP:RS. ("Dennis Michael Lynch Hosts New Show"...)
  12. This is to Mediaite, a "marginally reliable" source. ("Newsmax Host Taken Off the Air...")
  13. This is a good WP:RS, and the content is not yet reflected at Newsmax. It is already reflected at Dennis Michael Lynch. ("Newsmax Host Dennis Michael Lynch Is Pulled Off the Air...")
  14. This is sourced direct back to Newsmax's website, promotional content only. (Howie Carr)
  15. Notations on Spicer joining Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
  16. Notations on Greg Kelly at Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
  17. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Trump voters are flocking...")
  18. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (""Donald Trump attacks Fox News: 'They forgot the golden goose'")
  19. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 8). ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
  20. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Newsmax could end up being the Fox News of the post-Trump era")
  21. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 17). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
  22. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("My two days watching Newsmax...")
  23. This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("The misinformation media machine...")
  24. This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is again a duplicate of number 17). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
  25. This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but equivalent coverage of ratings by AdWeek is.
  26. This is sourced to hermancain.com and is laughably not WP:RS. (Calabrese)
  27. Once again, just promotional material. I don't see the point of citing to the Newsmax's website, it's not WP:RS. (Newsmax website)

The merging has basically already been done. There's literally only one decent WP:RS source whose content isn't already reflected at the main Newsmax page, and that ONE is only about a specific host leaving the network over editorial-control disputes. I think it's time to finish the merge process and redirect Newsmax TV to Newsmax. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) has been blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Support proposed merge for given reasons in the thread. Yes, one focuses on the website, but Fox News also has a website and we don't need 2 articles for that. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Marquis de Faux: not to be a nuisance about it but... can you provide your reason? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Yep, sorry Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per previous thread. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Most of the text is redundant, and the text that isn't redundant (the personalities and affiliates lists) are both largely unsourced and mostly lists of trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as this discussion is now moot since there was a much broader discussion at AfD which resulted in a decision of keep, rather than merge. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the already mentioned reasons as well as just for the record (Newsmax didn't start out as a TV network. It's A-historic for Wikipedia to all of a sudden falsify the record. The website has history. So it can stand on its own even if the entire organization shuts down. But if it merges into a TV page the non-tv media history that predates the TV will eventually be slashed and virtually edited out of existence as the TV side of the business becomes more notable and leads to expansion of the page. Then we'll be back to square one: someone will suggest a page split and non tv stuff to be put in another page. --Loginnigol (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like you are confused, it would be the TV page merged to here by this proposal, as the TV page is so sparse on information and does not do a good job establishing notability separate from the Newsmax media company. Most of the sources used in the TV page treat the two interchangeably. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge. As the articles stand there is a huge amount of duplicative content and it appears the boundaries between mediums are somewhat blurred/confused; no size issues necessitating separate articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge. These are redundant articles mostly recycling the same sources to say the same things. Few of these sources specifically address Newsmax TV as a thing unto itself, so it probably is not stand-alone notable. Even if it could squeak by, it is more helpful to consolidate the material for readers, the way we do with news websites and news publishers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge. Just because they have different histories doesn't mean they need separate pages, when they're all under the same umbrella. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:OVERLAP. It is a burden to keep all of these articles in sync, when so much content is duplicated among them. — Newslinger talk 00:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose While there is overlap, the TV article is different and has different content, one focusing on the website, the other on TV. Any TV related content from this article can be very easily moved to the TV article. The ratings for the TV are also rising and starting to challenge Fox News [1], which would make the TV station increasingly significant. Given the nature of the difference, it is unreasonable to merge the two. It is also strange to argue about sources and content that aren't specifically about Newsmax TV, when there are actually many as indicated by a simple Google search - just a few here - [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and there are many more. The subject is clearly independently notable therefore should have its own article per WP:N. Hzh (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (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.

IP removing conservative label

An IP has been repeatedly removing the label conservative from the subject, saying it is irrelevant. There are no less than eight references that support the notion that this is a conservative network and this is what this network is known for. I submit that removing the label is disingenuous, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of other editors for potential discussion. Ifnord (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The conservative descriptor is well-supported by reliable sources, and it is rather mild. — Newslinger talk 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Chris Ruddy and Newsmax went all-in on Trump. Now they might pay a price for it."

[11] Doug Weller talk 18:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Newsmax and CNN (includes Newsmax TV)

Hi,

I was the one that was editing a couple months ago. Sorry, but I don’t understand. Wikipedia claims to be neutral. But I think this is obviously biased.

See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CNN#CNN%2C_Newsmax%2C_and_all_that_Apply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anston06 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

truth/objectivity/reliability rating

This from Wikpedia reliability A to Z :Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. Should this be mentioned in the article ?— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)§

No, internal Wikipedia policies and decisions are rarely newsworthy outside of the project. ValarianB (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Newsmax Star Claims Vaccines Contain ‘Bioluminescent’ Tracker Linked to Devil

. John Cummings (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Is newsmax a far-right or conservative news outlet?

Hi everyone, hope to have a meaningful conversation on this topic, even if it is highly opinionated, I have noticed a shift in perception of the conservative word on WP.

I did a very unscientific google search of 'Newsmax "far-right"' https://www.google.com/search?q=Newsmax+%22far-right%22 Returned 201 000 thousand hits

and a very unscientific google search of 'Newsmax "conservative"' https://www.google.com/search?q=Newsmax+%22conservative%22 Returned 584 000 thousand hits

It seems that recent developments on article page have shifted. Why is that? Can someone explain why WP is needed to corner another organization compared to CNN? Where is the triggering border? Edotor (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Google hits is not a usable metric here. ValarianB (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but it's worth investigating which label is more frequently used by sources. For now, doesn't seem to be "far-right," even based only on the ones in the article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
It should be left as "conservative." First, journalists use "far-right" quite loosely in a way that does not correspond to the political science definition. You could find enough articles calling Fox News far right and stick that to the Wiki page. To be actually far-right, you would have to be outside the mainstream of American conservatism, which there is no indication Newsmax is. Going through the history, it was founded by pretty mainstream conservative figures and is full of mainstream conservative contributors. Newsmax has also interviewed Bill Clinton several times and donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation. There are also frequent sources that put Newsmax within the mainstream of American conservatism. The Vox source cited says " "Newsmax doesn't go full arch-conservative" and "doesn't give airtime to QAnon paranoiacs." A Columbia Journalism Review article says "There are currently about 15 to 20 conservative websites which attract at least one million unique visitors per month. Some are venerable right-wing reliables like National Review, The Washington Times, or Newsmax. Others, like Infowars, The Gateway Pundit, Big League Politics, and Breitbart, mine the far fringes of the right." This seems to explicitly put Newsmax within the mainstream of conservative publications. This, the choice is between "conservative," which is uncontroversial and supported by all sources, even the articles which use the term "far-right," and the label "far-right" which lacks consensus and has sources which disagree with it. So the description should be left as "conservative." The election controversies themselves are well documented in the article already. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The variant of far-right politics that is most prominent in the US, the radical right, is a subset of American conservatism. As evidenced by the popularity of far-right media outlets such as Breitbart and Newsmax, far-right politics is entering the American mainstream, pressuring mainstream American politics to expand rightward while also broadening the scope of the far-right. Being far-right and being mainstream are not mutually exclusive. Newsmax positions itself as farther to the right than the mainstream conservative Fox News, even though it does not emphasize far-right conspiracy theories as prominently as One America News Network does.
There is a critical mass of reliable sources (including but not limited to high-quality academic sources) that places Newsmax squarely within the far-right, some of which are cited in the article. Here are a few of them:
  • In a more recent Columbia Journalism Review article, editor Michael Massing states, "Far-right Web sites like World Net Daily and Newsmax.com floated all kinds of specious stories about Obama that quickly careened around the blogosphere and onto talk radio. One particular favorite was the claim that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams From My Father."
  • In an academic source published by Oxford University Press, political scientist Samuel L. Popkin writes, "[Trump] bonded with Chris Ruddy, a Palm Beach resident and Mar-A-Lago member who founded Newsmax, a prominent far-right media corporation credited with spawning 'a cottage industry of conspiracy buffs' with its lurid claims that the death of President Clinton's aide Vince Foster wasn't a suicide, but instead a murder that had been covered up."
  • In the 6th edition of Media Law & Ethics, published by Routledge, academics Roy L. Moore, Michael D. Murray, and Kyu Ho Youm state, "Also, a government cybersecurity official in charge of safeguarding the integrity of the presidential election sued the Trump Campaign, one of its lawyers and far-right media outlet Newsmax for libel, claiming they conspired to falsely assert widespread election fraud. [...] One Trump campaign lawyer said on far-right cable channel Newsmax: 'He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out and shot.'"
  • In The Diversity of Darkness and Shameful Behaviors, published by Routledge, professor Tim Delaney writes, "It needs to be noted that on April 30, 2021, Newsmax (the far right wing news alternative to FOX News) apologized for airing false allegations that Dominion Voting Systems manipulated machines or tallies on Election Day to the detriment of Donald Trump."
In recent years, Newsmax has capitalized on the mainstreaming of far-right politics in the US to reposition itself as a far-right media outlet. Older sources portray Newsmax as more moderate than the outlet currently is. In contrast, there are few (if any) reliable sources that describe Fox News as far-right. The far-right descriptor is accurate for Newsmax, is amply supported by reliable sources, and should remain. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Edotor: There's something that seems totally bonkers with the hit counts reported by Google ... which I think has been this way for at least a few years... Google reports many thousands of hits when you do the search, but when you actually look at the hits, there's a vastly smaller number.

So when I want to check Google hit counts, Here's the procedure, with results for ("Newsmax" "conservative") as of today: 1. Do the search, preferably in quotes. (about 500,000) 2. Go to last page of results. (for some reason, only 116) 3. Click on "repeat the search". (about 498,000) 4. Go to last page of results. (498)

Fabrickator (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC) this article is quite biased, claiming that newsmax is "far right" but nobody can define what far right means anymore. it appears to be anyone that is critical of cnn these days. should be "conservative" instead.

Proposal of updated introduction to better reflect the allegedly state of many of newsmax views and claims

---Currently:---

Newsmax (or Newsmax.com, previously styled NewsMax) is an American right-wing to far-right news and opinion website founded by Christopher Ruddy on September 16, 1998, and operated by Newsmax Media. The website is divided into four main sections: Newsmax, Newsmax Health, Newsmax Finance, and Newsmax World, each of which is divided into various subsections. Newsmax Media also operates a print magazine called Newsmax as well as the cable news channel Newsmax TV.

Newsmax launched a cable TV channel on June 16, 2014 to 35 million satellite subscribers through DirecTV and Dish Network. As of May 2019, the network reaches about 75 million cable homes and has wide digital media player/mobile device availability. The channel primarily broadcasts from Newsmax's New York studio on Manhattan's East Side, with two headquarters in Boca Raton, Florida and Washington, DC.[better source needed]

The website has been described by The New York Times as a "potent force" in U.S. politics. CEO Christopher Ruddy has attempted to position the network as a competitor to Fox News, including by hiring former Fox News hosts Rob Schmitt, Greg Kelly, Bob Sellers and Heather Childers. The Washington Post described Newsmax as "a landing spot for cable news personalities in need of a new home," citing the network's airing of Mark Halperin and Bill O'Reilly following their resignations from other networks due to sexual harassment allegations.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, Newsmax published numerous conspiracy theories made by President Donald Trump and the Trump campaign about voter fraud in the 2020 election, though the network never confirmed the veracity of the statements and accepted the election of Joe Biden as duly elected President. Newsmax later issued an apology and publicly retracted any voter fraud conspiracy allegations. When asked about Newsmax's support of former President Trump, Ruddy stated, "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of the president and his policies".

---New version:---

Newsmax (or Newsmax.com, previously styled NewsMax) is an American now mainstream far-right news and opinion website founded by Christopher Ruddy on September 16, 1998, and operated by Newsmax Media. The website is divided into four main sections: Newsmax, Newsmax Health, Newsmax Finance, and Newsmax World, each of which is divided into various subsections. Newsmax Media also operates a print magazine called Newsmax as well as the cable news channel Newsmax TV.

Newsmax launched a cable TV channel on June 16, 2014 to 35 million satellite subscribers through DirecTV and Dish Network. As of May 2019, the network reaches about 75 million cable homes and has wide digital media player/mobile device availability. The channel primarily broadcasts from Newsmax's New York studio on Manhattan's East Side, with two headquarters in Boca Raton, Florida and Washington, DC.[better source needed]

The website has been described by The New York Times as a "potent force" in U.S. politics. CEO Christopher Ruddy has attempted to position the network as a competitor to Fox News, including by hiring former Fox News hosts Rob Schmitt, Greg Kelly, Bob Sellers and Heather Childers. The Washington Post described Newsmax as "a landing spot for cable news personalities in need of a new home," citing the network's airing of Mark Halperin and Bill O'Reilly following their resignations from other networks due to sexual harassment allegations.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, Newsmax published numerous alleged conspiracy theories made by President Donald Trump and the Trump campaign about voter fraud in the 2020 election, though the network never confirmed the veracity of the statements and accepted the election of Joe Biden as duly elected President. Newsmax later issued an apology and publicly retracted any voter fraud conspiracy allegations. When asked about Newsmax's support of former President Trump, Ruddy stated, "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of the president and his policies". However, since the election, numerous heavily criticized sources, have documented extensive data points that points to would be evidence of wide-spread voter fraud: forensic data displayed at Patriot-News Outlet-Mike Lindell's Cyber Symposium-Day 1-8/10/2021, from 03:31:00, the movie 2000-mules and many voter fraud lawsuits have been ruled by US courts. Even social media giant facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted and here censorship of the very high profile story of Hunter Biden laptop, at a generic FBI request (!), that allegedly would have influenced the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Edotor (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The NPR article does not mention Newsmax, so we cannot use that to label Newsmax as mainstream. Many of the reliable sources cited in the article portray Newsmax as an upstart that is challenging the mainstream Fox News.
The other new links in the suggested version do not mention Newsmax, and the suggested additions lack the context presented in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and 2020 United States presidential election § False claims of fraud. — Newslinger talk 22:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

NYTimes quote (reversion of edit)

I have attempted to ask Dronebogus (on his talk page) why he reverted my change of "The website has been described by The New York Times a "potent force" in U.S. politics."" to "The website has been described by The New York Times as a "potent force in conservative politics."" -- which is the quote as it is printed in the NYTimes.

I don't see the argument for a paraphrase here. The paraphrase is also not quite faithful to the meaning of the original. "U.S. politics" does not equal "conservative politics." Dronebogus has not responded to my query, and it has been over a week. Would anyone else care to step in? Moran Wright (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

Newsmax is not a far right company, this is someone's opinion, not fact Okiestater58 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newsmax/Archive_3&oldid=1180533031"