Talk:The Daily Beast

Left-wing bias
https://libguides.lorainccc.edu/c.php?g=29395&p=183699

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-beast-media-bias

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-beast/

I have identified a number of sources which label the Daily Beast as a left-wing media organization. I have found no sources stating that they are not left-wing or that they are center-left. If anyone else has some sources to add please add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectionBoy (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added them to the article. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a notice within the article that you replaced: do not insert left-wing or other political orientations, these edits have been rejected earlier. Please discuss them at the talk page. This was added some time ago . I don't believe any of the references are reliable. Please respect consensus and policy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your claim to consensus is merely your opinion. See above references. Do not insert hidden text in order to lock down an article. 76.101.222.121 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The daily beast is unanimously regarded as a left-wing publication. It seems weird that every other conservative leaning publication is labeled right-wing, but even the most liberal left-wing publications aren't labeled as such. If we intentionally leave this ambiguous it's just going to be confusing to readers and hurt Wikipedia in the long run as a reliable source of information, which is especially silly considering there's nothing wrong with being a left-wing source. If anything, it's probably good. 2600:1700:12D0:A970:75DC:50B1:D020:26DF (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You've removed references starting they are not reliable. Can you justify your claim that they are unreliable? What criteria are you using to label them unreliable? Are there other sources that contradict the information in these sources, and what makes those sources more reliable? While you may be well-meaning, removing completely the indication that this publication is left-leaning comes across as misrepresentation. If you disagree personally with the information presented, re-word the claim. Fanight (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the removal of my previous statement and backing sources. Noone has provided evidence contrary to the facts added with respect to the bias of this media outlet. If you would like to challenge this, please add sources indicating this media outlet is not left-leaning. All current media ratings clearly show a left-wing bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanight (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I've left a detailed welcome on your talk page that should help.
 * It's helpful to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to determine if a source is reliable. Adfontesmedia.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com are listed as unreliable in WP:RSP, allsides.com has WP:RSN entries concluding it is unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked WP:RSP as suggested and read the discussions (1 2 3 4). I agree with the established consensus that The Daily Beast is generally reliable but biased or opinionated. From reading the discussions, it is clear that the bias is to the left. With the sources given above (taken all together) and the RSP consensus, the application of the label left or liberal should be stated in the first paragraph of the lead. JHelzer💬 19:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources offered appear reliable, and some are clearly not. --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The RSP lists Allsides as a generally accepted reliable source if the article has a high confidence rating. This article has a high confidence rating. Thus you are going against concensus by saying it is an unreliable source. Same thing in reguards to the RSP on the daily beast it says TDB is a biased or opiniated source. Not including that information cannot be seen as viewpoint neutral. 192.171.218.214 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Added sources describing its political leaning: 2601:547:500:E930:25AE:536A:32D0:6E91 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up those references. I've copied them here for discussion: "left-leaning"

Are all these three simply drawing from unreliable sources? --Hipal (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No. 2601:547:500:E930:25AE:536A:32D0:6E91 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do explain. --Hipal (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Explain what? 2601:547:500:E930:25AE:536A:32D0:6E91 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Explain how these aren't simply drawing upon unreliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Explain how they are. 2601:547:500:E930:25AE:536A:32D0:6E91 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If ou hadn't noticed, thy will never concede to labeling these organizations what they are the rampant left wing bias on Wikipedia is too far reaching. It's not worth arguing with them, or providing them with any evidence. They will just find some other excuse. 2601:18C:9002:3EC0:A4C2:5687:1A4:CAD5 (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's because that would require them to address the innumerable instances that they have cited such sources as if they are reliable in reporting the news. It's an existential crisis for WP. They have dipped too far into the "verified" dogma and probably can't come back. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The first two cite allsides.com, correct?
 * The third is interesting. I'm not clear where they're getting the information from. Their own research? Regardless, one source doesn't justify the very highest prominence in the lede, and context should be provided even if used in the article body. --Hipal (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The third is from Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Can someone dig into this 140 page publication to figure out where the actual classification is coming from? --Hipal (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bias in the Article
WP:RSP has consensus that this publication is biased. Why then is it going against concensus to include a reference to that bias in this article? The other topic on this page about bias seems to have some reliable sources that could be used to back up the point. Why weren't they allowed to be used? AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What publication are you referring to? --Hipal (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP states the following regarding Allsides: "the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts." Allsides currently has a Left bias rating for the Daily Beast with high confidence.
 * By this community's own standards, this is defined as a reliable source. 216.189.201.221 (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I am deleting a comment added by 2402:E000:44A:F48:298A:A8E0:3912:216B, which was just a bunch of external links to a news aggregator's main menu of webpages.[] I don't think it was meant to be vandalism, looks like a copy-paste gone wrong, but because it was just those external links it's appropriate to remove under WP:TPO as promotional and/or disruptive to the page.

It should also be noted, for anyone coming upon this page seeing some users claim to be quoting WP:ALLSIDES, that they have edited those quotes in a way which does not accurately reflect the information on the WP:RSP page. The full quote reads (bold is mine), "There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable."

The position of the RSP page is that there is not enough consensus to determine if Allsides is reliable or not. Therefore, it's usage should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and it cannot be treated as a reliable source on its own for deciding the bias of the Daily Beast. The RSP page also lists the Daily Beast as lacking in enough consensus to label it as leaning in any direction. Anyone claiming that there is any information on WP:RSP that firmly establishes The Daily Beast as left-leaning is either misreading the text on that page or deliberately misrepresenting what it says. CleverTitania (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * People here are not misquoting WP:ALLSIDES. The part you bolded refers to ratings that are NOT high-confidence, so it's irrelevant to your point. The Daily Beast's high-confidence POV rating on Allsides is based on review by experts, not solely "blind user surveys."
 * Your comment on WP:DAILYBEAST is simply untrue, the summary says, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source." This begs the question, biased towards what? The linked noticeboards demonstrate an UNAMBIGUOUS consensus on the direction of the bias. The lack of consensus is regarding reliability not bias, a very important distinction.
 * The issue people have is cherry picking WP:RSP to justify an invisible comment that prevents impartial editing, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. No one here is trying to deprecate Daily Beast as a source, or vandalize the page, just be impartial in our editing practices. For some reason, the editors here will not let this go, and are losing credibility in the process. 57.140.108.25 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)