Talk:Newsweek/Archive 1

Wickis
I read Newsweek today and I noticed that thay misspelled "wikis" as "wickis" in an article. I will put up the offending sentence when I get a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T2X (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Glass
Could we add a link to Stephen Glass, or plagiarism? It seems to me that the recent madeup flushing-scandal would go with this. 64.63.221.197 21:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though that in saying newsweek retracted the story under enormous pressure implies that the story was true and only retracted it because of that pressure. In the intrest of a non-biased site I believe that it would be better suited to just present the plain facts that Newsweek retracted the story saying that their source was not credible and that the US government is looking into the alligations and has asked that Newsweek explain to the Muslim world why what they published may not be true. Or it could be true.

How about the month when there were 3 different news covers..
The Japanese edition had "The Day America Died" as the cover, the international version was also perojative towards the United States. Both the Japanese and International edition featured covers from Andrew Moravcsik.

Oddly, neither of these made it to our shores. We get a Newsweek cover "Oscar Confidential". Has Newsweek ever addressed this? Sounds like bias to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.30.90 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

And wasn't it Michael Isikoff that broke the Koran story that had to be withdrawn. He was forced to withdraw his article which would have broke the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. Wasn't that true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.30.90 (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

Need supporting examples
This sentence (under Highlights and controversies) is not well supported as it stands: "The magazine also falls under some disatisfaction as putting too much personal opinion in their reports. However, most readers overlook the opinions and take Newsweek as a news magazine."

Are there some specific examples of this type of reporting that can be cited? Otherwise, I recommend deletion (see Avoid weasel words).


 * I deleted the statement in question. -- Ryanjo 01:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Labels and bias
Why is George Will labeled a "conservative" when none of the other contributors are labeled "liberal"? Oh, I'm sure it must be because the others are all unbiased, neutral, professional journalists. Apparently Mr. Will has so much journalistic ethical controversy surrounding him that it warrants the largest entry in his bio. Bad George! Bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.11.29 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because he calls and aligns himself with conservative causes? He was also paid the most. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Newsweek Really a News Magazine Anymore?
Let's not call Newsweek a news magazine anymore because it no longer is. It has become a collection of writers and editors who know whats best for all of us and are telling us so in every article that they write. And its leadership (Editorial up to the CEO level) are a bunch of arrogant self-servers who could care less about dispassionate journalism. 129.19.1.10 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Highlights/controversies
This section is problematic in my opinion because it only provides three narrow examples of things that have been prominent issues in the past 5 years. It occurs to me that this section has to be expanded - can anyone add a handful of "highlights and controversies" for each decade the magazine has existed? --Dmz5 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ownership history details removed
There was a lot of material about the ownership history that seemed designed to build a case that the US media is controlled by a wealthy elite. People were tagged as "Establishment stockholders" or "a member of the Astor Dynasty". Most of this material would be more appropriate for articles about the individuals involved. If it is to be included in this article, it should be in a section of its own beginning with something along the lines of "Authors such as David Halberstam and [etc] have argued that Newsweek is an exmample of establishment control."

But I think the whole subject is too non-central to the topic of the magazine itself. Mark Foskey (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cover photo
Would it be possible to replace the current photo (January 2007) with one more current? Or at least not so obviously outdated? (Obama/Clinton is over.) Flatterworld (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's done. --Againme (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky
I'm writing a paper about Media Bias for my freshmen seminar, and I'm having trouble finding an explanation for why Newsweek killed the story, other than the conservative explanation of bias towards a Democratic President. Have the editors ever provided an explanation?Joker1189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

Editions in other languages
Should we start a separate article for each edition of Newsweek? I'm asking because the infobox in the heading of the article appears to refer only to the US edition... --Againme (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just created Newsweek Argentina. --Againme (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to have a section titled "International Editions", or something like that. I suppose that there's nothing wrong with separate articles, provided it meets the Notability criteria.  So far, the Newsweek Argentina page doesn't appear to meet that criteria - it only lists the staff.  Recognizing it's new and under development, though, I won't contest its presence at this time. -Sme3 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to develop it, but being one of the editions of the first or second most read magazine in the world, I would not contest its notability. Regards, --Againme (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Top 50 rabbis in America
Newsweek has published a list of the Top 50 rabbis in America. This appears to suggest that Newsweek has at least some informal links with the jewish community. Noting this in the article might be interesting, at least if any more valid sources can be found. ADM (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Characterization as "liberal" in lead sentence
The current lead sentence is as follows:
 * Newsweek is an American liberal weekly newsmagazine published in New York City.

However, Hence, the characterization of Newsweek as "liberal" in the lead sentence does not seem NPOV. -Grick(talk to me!) 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Newsweek is not generally recognized as being liberal (e.g., in the sense that – or at least to the extent that – Fox News is generally recognized as conservative), and
 * 2) neither Newsweek nor its parent company purports to report from a liberal standpoint or report for a liberal audience.
 * I have to apologize - I didn't intend to revert the edit - I think I may have slipped. But while I'm here I'll add my view. While it may be appropriate to mention that Accuracy in Media has described Newsweek as "liberal", that should probably appear later in the article rather than in the lead, and it should be attributed.   Will Beback    talk    03:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fox News employs far more Democrats than the other television stations employ Republicans - indeed in 2008 Fox News staff gave more money to the Obama campaign than to the McCain campaign.

So if it is correct to call Fox News "conservative" it is certainly correct to call the rest of the media "liberal" (in the American sense of this word).91.107.69.48 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that doesn't follow at all. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a "Liberal" magazine
Newsweek is generally regarded as a mainstream news magazine, neither Liberal nor Conservative. Examples of magazines with such biases would be The Nation and The National Review respectively. The source of the citation, Accuracy In Media or AIM, appears to have a perspective that all of the mainstream news media has a Liberal bias. This is clearly not a NPV comment and should either be moved much further down in the article or removed completely. MCSECLP (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Michael Patton


 * OK; based on the above, I'm going to revert the article back to the version of the lead without "liberal." -Grick(talk to me!) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream" in media terms means "liberal" in the American sense of the word "liberal". If you do not want to say that Newsweek (or Time) is a "liberal" magazine then just say "Newsweek shares the attitudes and opinions of the rest of the mainstream media" everyone will know what is meant.91.107.69.48 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a "Liberal" magazine?! Oh, really?!
Is that so (the contention that "Newsweek is not liberal", and that, "certainly not in the sense that Fox News is conservative")?! I have just added the following subhead (A "nasty hatchet job on Sarah Palin") to the Highlights and Controversies section: "In July 2009, a major article on Sarah Palin was criticized by Bill O'Reilly as being 'presented as hard news — not an opinion column —' when in fact it was written not by one of Newsweek's staff of trained journalists but by Rick Perlstein, who, according to O'Reilly, is 'a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called Campaign for America's Future and who lists 'one of his 'interests' as 'conservative failure'.' In O'Reilly's words: 'So Newsweek hired a far-left loon to do a hit piece on Palin, conservatives and Fox News, and did not inform its readers of his dedicated point of view. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham basically tried to disguise an ideological attack as news coverage … Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media are pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry.'" Believe me, if the words fairness and justice mean anything at all, then it means nothing less than the fact that the word "liberal" does, most definitely, belong in the lead sentence! Asteriks (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your recent edit. This is extremely WP:POV.  One guy (Bill O'Reilly) arguing over something in a magazine does not make it a controversy. -Sme3 (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The fact is, Bill O'Reilly is not an impartial source, and his opinions on someone's political position don't carry any weight on their own; he is not the arbiter of who is 'liberal' or not.  Characterizing a publication with a qualifier for its political views in the lead would require extensive, wide-ranging opinions to that effect from a variety of different people and positions, not just a single talking head blowing steam.  Likewise, simply because O'Reilly is upset about something or tries to turn it into a hatchet job does not automatically make it a noteworthy political controversy; unless it has wide-spread coverage, it belongs on his article, not here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "impartial source" (everyone, and every organization, is on one side or the other). But there are such things as facts - for example the last time the New York Times supported the Republican candidate for President of the United States was 1956, and I doubt the situation is wildly different with Newsweek or the rest of the msm.91.107.69.48 (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair - the issue of Newsweek this week was not "liberal" (in the modern American sense of socialist or neosocialist) at all. In fact at least two of the articles were written by conservatives, Niall Ferguson and Daniel Hannan, so it may be that I was out of date, and that the editor of Newsweek is going for a more balanced stance - getting in people from the other side of the street to write. Ouch it hurts to write that I was wrong.91.107.240.49 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Frequency
Is Newsweek still a weekly? I subscribe, and my last two issues have both had two dates on them instead of the usual one. Given the recent format change due to falling revenue, I am not sure if this is a permanent change or just a repsonse to a slow news cycle. I do not recall a similar thing in past summers (although twice a year they have "special" issues intended to stay on the newsstands for two weeks). 165.91.64.225 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)RKH
 * I too, wondered if they were cost-cutting with all of the "double issues" (this after I wondered if the post office lost my copy!), but as far as I know, it's still a weekly. They've never said otherwise.  The subscription page on their web site states "Newsweek publishes weekly, except when combined issues are published that count as two issues, and when an additional issue may be published".  Could they go to 26 "double issues" per year, then?  Perhaps -Sme3 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
A recent edit here cites this page from a 'research group' called Media Research Center to bolster a presumption of liberal bias at Newsweek. Disregarding that issue, for the moment, I find it troubling that these sorts of sources are cited with snippets of an individual's comments from a television show. The quote can easily be taken out of context, and I would prefer to see the original transcript quoted, rather than run through the mill of a Washington-based 'content analysis' organization (whatever that means). When one quotes living folks – and I can assure you that Mr. Thomas is alive and well – then it behooves us to hew as closely as possible to the original remarks. I am suspicious of such blog-like entries as that cited – and I apply this suspicion whether those quoting these sources are from the left, the right or the center. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my edit. Based on your comment, I've gone back and added a link to an actual audio clip of one statement, and a reference by a Los Angeles Times syndicate reporter in a less "blog-like" source for the other.  The history of this was that I stumbled across the reference to the "controversy" and went to see the source of the criticism of the original comment... and was somewhat surprised to find they were liberal watchdog websites.  To see if this was really WP:NPOV, I did some more research and found countering conservative watchdog sights.  I figured it made sense to appropriately characterize the sources as pointed watchdog sites and also balance off the commentary.  Let folks judge for themselves.  When I found the comments by Newsweek management... I figured that was more telling than any pointy watchdog group.  It's hard to know when to dismiss a source based on being "blog-like."  It's increasingly dangerous to try to value sources that aren't far fringe.  Other than a subjective valuation of reputation... a hardcopy printed product with a broad circulation is no longer a valid measure of a source's value.  I must say that I was a little annoyed to see the liberal watchdog sites described simply as "critics," without further identifying who they were.  Again, I tried to present both sides and achieve WP:NPOV.  I hope folks agree.  John2510 (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cover date
I added this section to clarify a point that puzzled me for years. I don't have a citation to prove my statement: those who publish in learned journals would consider it too obvious to mention. (I don't have the faculty status needed to read those journals.)

The same statement obviously applies to other weekly publications. Perhaps it should be cloned... Donfbreed (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is unnecessary. There is already a detailed article at cover date. There is no reason (and indeed, it would be POV to do so, especially without citations) to single out Newsweek for a dating practice that is standard in the publication of weekly magazines. —Lowellian (reply) 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sales and circulation
Left and right are never going to agree on whether Newsweek (and the rest of the msm) are on the left or not. However, we should be able to agree to publish basic facts about the magazine. Such as single copy sales and circulation (two different things of course). I have been unable to find the stats for the second half of 2010 - I suggest someone else has a go. 91.107.69.48 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit
Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramin Setoodeh controversy
His editorial on gay actors caused controversy among people, including of gay community. Why has this not been mentioned in this article? Has it been mentioned before? By the way, Newsweek gay actor controversy will have been deleted for meeting G5. --George Ho (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC) already mentions this topic; why couldn't this be part of Controversy seciton? --George Ho (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you drop the "alleged" inalleged bias. It's a very liberal mag and the editor stated it as so.
Keep it neutral and dont sugarcoat anything is all I ask, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.97.202 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To put it in context, I'm the one who found and added the editor's comments about liberal bias - so I agree with your characterization. However, the mag doesn't self-define that way, and a lot of the articles are neutral (due largely to the subject matter). National Review, by contrast, apparently self-defines as being a conservative magazine, and has that focus. For those reasons, I think the liberal bias section is quite appropriate, but defining it as a liberal magazine is not. John2510 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Examples of liberal bias aren't in evidence. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Hit the Road, Barack"
Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT Newsweek published a cover-story article making many counter-factual and contradicting claims against sitting President Barack Obama. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html

The errors have been picked up and pointed out by columnists in the NYTimes Paul Krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/unethical-commentary-newsweek-edition/ As well as others http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/niall-british-empire-is-over-accept-it.html

Definitely not a liberal bias anymore, not even biased towards facts. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent #MUSLIMRAGE controversey
This seems like it would be a good bet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.203.144 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What would be a good bet? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

History of Newsweek
A history of Newsweek. This could be used to fill out and expand the article considerably.


 * Cite template:
 * Cite template:

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Newsweek → Newsweek Global – As of 1 January 2013 the name switched from Newsweek to Newsweek Global, rolling out in February. Source. Please move over redirect. Jokestress (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:CRYSTAL. It says that it is "under development". It would be a new entity, a web-only news magazine, and not the old Newsweek, so should have a separate article in any case. If we were to have a combined article, then WP:UCN and WP:PRECISE would be "Newsweek" -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL and agree with 70.24.248.246 that the new entity should have a new article. This article is and should be about a news magazine called Newsweek.  —  AjaxSmack   22:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bias?
The allegations of "gender bias" are given way too much weight here, and to a lesser extent so are the allegations of "liberal bias". It should be patently obvious that Newsweek as a magazine, not a newspaper, naturally editorializes to some extent within its articles, as does pretty much every other magazine. The idiots who pretend not to recognize this don't deserve this much space. (In any case, by 2000 Newsweek had shifted to a pointedly "conservative" point of view.) If you want controversy, mention Newsweek's printing of the spurious Hitler diaries, for example. The magazine had a long history, and there's a lot more this article should cover instead. TheScotch (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Newsweek yes once was moderate but is now sadly far left wing (hence much of the reason it lost a lot of subscribers and revenue). Many subscribers were disappointed with how unprofessional it had become. And you name calling of anyone who seeks to call out their bias is dangerously and disgusting close to fascist censorship.

Does anyone else see the irony of using unambiguously left-wing sources like Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress to refute the notion that Newsweek has a liberal bias? 47.150.109.221 (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would certainly seem fair to identify MMfA as a "liberal advocacy group" as per this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/media/60-minutes-airs-apology-on-benghazi.html John2510 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything remotely like that in the cited article. And the reference to fascism is way out of line and the conclusions without merit. Objective3000 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even where the article says, "...some media critics joined the liberal advocacy group Media Matters for America in calling for CBS to initiate an independent investigation..."? I'm not sure what fascism references you're talking about. John2510 (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-newed print edition
The introductory section refers to a March 7, 2014 start date (consistent with today's online NYT statement "IBT Media, a small digital publishing company that bought Newsweek for a pittance last summer, is poised to place the magazine on newsstands again this Friday." But the history section says that in 2013 a January 2014 date was announced. It seems this target was not met.  So, the text should be changed to reflect the revision by the company running the magazine. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Content in the lead
The lead contains some common assumptions that can be made without actually wasting the readers time with having to read it. The statement, "It is also available in Japanese in Japan, in Polish in Poland, in Korean in Korea and in Spanish in all Spanish speaking countries," is a little redundant. Instead should we change the statement to something along the lines of, "It is also available in Japanese, Poland, Korea, etc." I suppose the latter is more detailed-it just doesn't read well. Let me know your thoughts. If other users agree, I will move forward with a change. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Dorian Nakamoto
I find it interesting that the high profile story on Dorian Nakamoto is not mentioned in the Highlights and controversies section. Dlapham (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Newsweek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091120175415/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/thedishrag/2009/11/sarah-palin-hates-her-newsweek-cover-really-1.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/11/sarah-palin-hates-her-newsweek-cover-really-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091120195341/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091117/pl_ynews/ynews_pl984

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Madame President
Does anyone have a copy of the Newsweek cover of Hillary Clinton titled "Madame President"? If so, please scan and add as it's historically significant. It should also be added to the the article United States presidential election, 2016. American In Brazil (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't in the least historically significant. They designed two covers, not one. They say 17 copies were released against their instructions, not 150,000 in the Dewey case. There is no way to know if the copies on eBay are real. [Buyer Beware]Objective3000 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the talk page of the 2016 election talk page. I own a copy and saw them being sold in my local B&N on the day of the election. The damn thing exists!!!!Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OR. You are not a WP:RS. As you know, this has been discussed at great length at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. I am not going to repeat all the discussion here. NBC News reported that Topix stated 17 copies were sold, despite instructions to not sell them. The continuing claims that hundreds were sold because they are on eBay is without foundation. You cannot trust random people on eBay to be selling originals. Your claim in the caption that this issue is "notorious" is WP:POV and simply false. It is common practice to print either both possibilities or the most likely before an event to beat others to the market. This has all been explained. Trying to legitimize this debunked conspiracy theory in an encyclopedia is harmful to the project. Objective3000 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Objective3000. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

by my count, your last 84 consecutive posts have all been on this one bit of triva. Before that, another couple dozen posts on the same subject. You are not gaining consensus for these additions. There is already mention of the non-story in the article. For the life of me, I don't see why you think this is anything other than trivia. Objective3000 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Objective3000. You gave the source in 'U.S. Presidential Election 2016' where you claimed that Newsweek did not put out this edition (``Newsweek``said no such thing," you said). Now you say "there is no evidence of multiple copies" when the headline of the source says (and shows by photo) "Hillary Signing Copies". In addition, the lead sentence says, "Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally autographed copies of Newsweek’s “Madam President” issue following a campaign rally the day before the election." Stop denying facts. WP:OR American In Brazil (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Newsweek did not put this issue out for sale. You have zero evidence that they did. The source you are now using is not an WP:RS. I have denied no facts. Again, it is common practice to produce two versions or the most likely version of souvenirs before an event to beat others to the market. What are you trying to prove? You are obsessing on this issue and have now violated WP:EW. I advise that you self-revert your violation. Objective3000 (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I again agree with Objective3000. I suggest to AIB that he or she will lose this quarrel as of now and it is better to go on to something else; if the alleged facts get more "legs" I'm sure nobody will object to it being in the article. There is plenty of time for this egg to gestate. In friendship, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To claim that Newsweek did not put out this edition is simply wrong. The magazine contracted with TOPIX Media to put out this election edition under its trademarked name which appeared on the cover, the Newsweek editor-in-chief approved both covers and all media reported this story as a Newsweek issue. It went viral online and was seen on CNN, Cox Broadcasting and in print media including US Weekly, and even in the UK in the Daily Mail. Thus, millions of people saw it. Do not confuse "printing" with "publishing". "PUBLISH: to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public." --Dictionary.com
 * The fact that it was the only time in the magazine's 83 year history that it reported the loser of a presidential election to be the winner makes it historically significant, certainly in the magazine's history (this article) and also in U.S. presidential election history (only the second time, the first in 1948 when the Chicago Tribune headlined in its first edition: DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN). American In Brazil (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Newsweek did NOT report that Clinton won. You need to stop spreading this falsehood. Objective3000 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Newsweek editor-in-chief approved both covers. Both covers contained the magazine's trademarked logo. The edition that was first printed with 125,000 copies and distributed nationally by TOPIX Media, the magazine's licensee, showed a picture of Clinton headlined "Madame President" and the subhead "Hillary Clinton's Historic Journey to the White House". You have confused 'printing' with 'publishing'. All this is in the cited sources. You need to read the sources and start telling the truth. American In Brazil (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * YES, BOTH covers were approved. One reported Clinton won and one reported Trump won. The most likely result was printed first, and a small number of copies were sold against instructions. To state that Newsweek reported that Clinton won is absurd. Why do you demand inserting this trivia? I have asked several times, and you have not responded. Objective3000 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have said many, many times that this is not trivia. For this article, in the 83 year history of Newsweek this is the first time the magazine has featured a cover and article declaring the loser of a U.S. presidential election to be the winner. As stated in the sources, although only a few copies were sold (hundreds are currently offered for resale online), millions of people saw the Clinton cover when it went viral online and the story was picked up by CNN (I myself first saw it on CNN International here in Brazil), Cox Broadcasting, US Weekly, and even the Daily Mail in the UK. The Chicago Tribune erroneous headline of 1948 is featured in the WP article on the 1948 election and in the WP article on the Tribune. Why should Newsweek get a special exemption that this story is not a part of its history and also historically important in the coverage of the 2016 U.S. presidential election? American In Brazil (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Newsweek did not declare Hillary the winner. This is a lie. Objective3000 (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Newsweek special election edition COVER: Picture of smiling Hillary Clinton. HEADLINE: "Madame President". SUBHEADLINE: "Hillary Clinton's Historic Journey to the White House". Case closed. American In Brazil (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And there's one of Trump. Both were approved before the election. The Trump cover was the only cover officially released for sale. Case closed. Newsweek did not declare Hillary the winner. This is a lie. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Clinton cover was printed and distributed before the polls even opened. After the result was in, the edition was recalled, and the Trump cover was printed and distributed. This is no different than the Chicago Tribune headline that Dewey defeated Truman in the 1948 election which was printed before polls in the West had closed. The Tribune printed 150,000 copies for its first edition and then corrected it for later editions. Many more people saw the Clinton Newsweek cover via CNN and Cox Broadcasting than ever saw the Tribune headline. If the erroneous Tribune headline is in the WP article about that paper (it is), this cover should be in the WP article about this magazine. And this information should be in the WP article about the 2016 election as well, just as the Tribune story is in the WP article about the 1948 election. American In Brazil (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Tribune officially reported that Dewey was the winner. Newsweek never declared Clinton the winner. This is a lie. Objective3000 (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Madam President" and "Hillary Clinton's Historic Journey to the White House" overlaid on a smiling picture of Hillary Clinton. What would any reasonable person think that means? What did the other media, such as CNN and Cox Broadcasting, think that meant? Better see a lawyer on this one. American In Brazil (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Five editors have told you that this is trivia: me, Neutrality, BeenAroundAWhile, Volunteer Marek and 2005. You do not respond to any arguments. Instead you just repeat the same irrelevant statements. Even after an admin reverted the text, you added it back against consensus. All but one of your last 100 edits have been on this one bit of trivia. This is pointless. Objective3000 (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And ArgleBargle79 and I have said this is not trivia. Therefore, there is no consensus to remove what was already there. I merely restored it. American In Brazil (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. The weight of consensus is to exclude it. The proponents of this material are (1) in the clear minority and (2) have not articulated a policy-based rationale for inclusion, especially in the (misleading) form presented. If you wish to pursue the issue, start a request for comment. Neutralitytalk 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the above editor means the "weight of comment," because consensus means consensus, not a majority vote. You don't have a consensus if one person objects. A good argument in the right is a majority of one. That said, I agree we should exclude it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect to state that "You don't have a consensus if one person objects." Consensus is not WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Neutralitytalk 15:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Some year-end observations: 1) Editor Volunteer Marek is not in this thread. Objective3000 has confused this article with the "U.S. presidential election 2016" article. 2) Objective3000 has been very aggressive in trying to cover up this information both in this article and in the "election" article, even to the point of trying to suppress the voices of other editors in the "election" article, and has made SO many false statements ("Newsweek didn't publish this" [PUBLICATION: the act of publishing a book, periodical, map, piece of music, engraving, or the like.--Dictionary.com] and "Newsweek didn't declare Clinton the winner" [Clinton on the cover with headline "Madam President" and subheadline "Hillary Clinton's Historic Journey to the White House"] that there is a strong possibility this editor is acting on behalf of Newsweek or TOPIX Media. If so, see WP Conflicts of interest WP:CoI. 3) Editor Neutrality, both ArgleBargle79 and I have clearly stated a policy-based rationale: namely, that the fake news headline of the 1948 Chicago Tribune is in the "Chicago Tribune" and the "United States presidential election, 1948" articles because declaring the loser to be the winner is notable and historic. The Tribune corrected its false headline and lead story for its second and later editions. This is the same as the fake news Newsweek cover and story. This cover was seen by millions world-wide via CNN and CNN International, far more people than ever saw the Tribune headline. How do you think I saw it in Brazil? All other news media covering the story, both print and broadcast, stated that Newsweek was responsible for the cover. The fact that the Newsweek licensee recalled the edition the next day and sent out the cover edition declaring Trump to be the winner is not news, any more than the Chicago Tribune later correcting its headline and story to declare Truman the winner of the 1948 election. After all, Truman won in 1948 and Trump won in 2016. The rationale is to treat these articles and the "election" articles the same in reporting the facts. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is all about? 3) Being in the minority does not mean you are wrong, only that you are in the minority. That does not change the facts of history. And history has often proven minority opinions to be right. But this is not a question of "I'm right, you're wrong." It is a matter of correctly summarizing the historical record for the purpose of inclusion in the largest online encylopedia. The fact that this was the only time in the magazine's 83 year record that it declared the loser of a presidential election to be the winner, which was disseminated via CNN, CNN International and Cox Broadcasting to millions, is historic and will be covered in university journalism classes for many decades to come, just as the Tribune headline and story is still taught as an example of what to do (report the facts) and what not to do (don't report as fact what is not yet confirmed). 4) Finally, on this New Year's Eve, as I note the passage of time with family and a million of my closest friends, may I say to you all in my non-native Portuguese - Feliz ano novo. American In Brazil (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you remove your false accusation that an editor is working on behalf of Newsweek or Topix, and your false accusation that there is any "cover up" or any need for one. You have also restated false accusations against Newsweek. WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:DEADHORSE Objective3000 (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." American In Brazil (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newsweek. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025034807/http://bztv.typepad.com/instanthistory/2007/02/newsweek_1_a_lo.html to http://bztv.typepad.com/instanthistory/2007/02/newsweek_1_a_lo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122230358/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm to http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newsweek. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805053711/http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-03/newsweek-losses-revealed to http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-03/newsweek-losses-revealed/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112153155/http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-11/the-daily-beast-and-newsweek-to-wed/ to http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-11/the-daily-beast-and-newsweek-to-wed/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * March 1, 1976 Newsweek story on Bill and Emily Harris.jpg

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Newsweek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141225222838/http://www.newsweek.com/authors/richard-m-smith.html to http://www.newsweek.com/authors/richard-m-smith.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120726211950/http://ca.news.yahoo.com/newsweek-likely-become-digital-magazine-182958150.html to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/newsweek-likely-become-digital-magazine-182958150.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091119051635/http://blog.newsweek.com:80/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/16/payback-time-why-right-wing-men-rush-to-palin-s-defense.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/16/payback-time-why-right-wing-men-rush-to-palin-s-defense.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)