Talk:Politico

Politico's "take" on Freedom of Speech

Respect for Politico publishing Shapiro, and standing by its position of doing so; yet Politico retains its "leans left" status, as exemplified by over a hundred of its staff actually putting their disdain for publishing the 'right of center' Shapiro perspective. Journalism used to be about presenting facts as facts, and opinion as opinion. If those hundred politico staff have lost their journalistic objectivity, they should be released. There are plenty of 'left' news organizations to employ them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.41.146 (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not read this entire article ... nor this entire "Talk:" page; but the part I did read, seems interesting.

I came here after reading https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/29/inside-the-online-cesspool-of-anti-semitism-that-housed-robert-bowers-221949 ... an article which could be interpreted as implying that Politico does not like the idea of "freedom of speech" for certain "speakers" ... those individuals or groups whom Politico -- (or some other 'arbiter' of thought or opinion) -- disagrees with.

Am I reading it wrong? Or does Politico seem to be arguing that the part of the U.S. Bill of Rights that mentions -- (right in the First amendment!) -- "Freedom of Speech", should apply only to some speakers, but not to all speakers?  Politico seems to focus [in that article] on one web site -- Gab -- where ... apparently, some of the "Free Speech" that appears on that web site, is of a kind that Politico may dislike and/or disagree with.

Is Politico saying that, in their opinion, any web site should restrict the "Freedom of Speech" of users who hold opinions that are "controversial" or otherwise objectionable in some way -- ? --

This issue has been nipped in the bud by Axel Springer Company (publishing BILD) buying Politico. They are system conform in the way the Murdoch media are. No more controversies in that area. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:894F:A4B4:BEF:26B2 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if Politico is not suggesting, there, that someone from the government should censor all -- (or maybe just a certain kind of) -- "bad" speech^{[or perhaps writing ... in the case of written words on a web site]}, they still seem to be arguing that a web site has -- (or, it "should" have) -- a responsibility to restrict or otherwise 'answer for', content that they allow to be hosted on their platform.

Could this be "related" to some of the recent controversy over section 230 -- ? --

PS: I think I can guess what Deborah Lipstadt would recommend. I think she would be for "freedom of speech".

Thanks for your patience, since (a) this may have become kinda long and rambling, and (b) I have not even checked, yet ... to see whether this article already mentions (or comments about) Politico's "take" on "Freedom of Speech".

Any comments would be appreciated.
Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Politico cookies

It has become commonplace for websites to give readers a choice of which cookies to accept, but this choice is offered on the politico site in a way that I don't understand. For some reason, their buttons are not marked "off" or "on", nor even with a "green button". There's no realistic way of reaching these guys anymore, so can anyone here say what it should be -- with actual reasons, i.e. how you *know* that's right. (Does anyone know why Politico would choose an obscure system when it would be just as easy to use something more obvious?) alacarte (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The Issues with the Collaboration with Welt on COVID-19 global response criticisms section

Why is there this emphasis on this particular article? This article did not have much, if any, newsworthy impact, and it and the writers that contributed to it did not win any awards. The current owner of Politico, Axel Springer, has a history of promoting anti-vax sentiments (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/axel-springer-politico-media-scandal-germany-bild/), and I have not seen evidence from credible sources that the Gates Foundation is responsible for misconduct. Also, this section leaves out the detail that Die Welt is a tabloid also owned by Axel Springer, and there isn't even a link to the the Die Welt page. This section also sticks out from the rest of the article since it lacks links altogether and reeks of astroturfing. 2600:1700:2000:E960:915F:67A5:E782:A411 (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Наверное в стиральной машине можно засолить грибы ..

Это я о современной политике пытаюсь порассуждать .. 176.59.206.201 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of the employee "pledge" to Israel and the transatlantic alliance

I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have been a longtime reader and donor. This is actually the first time I have ever been so stunned by an article that I felt the need to say something. I'm sorry, but I am a journalist by trade, and including this alleged pledge to Israel and its allies is beyond unnecessary for the first section of a page. In terms of politics, at least as the public perceives it, this is likely not relevant. Is this not the kind of content that should be placed in the controversy section? This just seems odd and targeted. 37.170.126.129 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)