Talk:Tablet (magazine)

Neutrality

A lot of the language in this article is overly laudatory, e.g. "...entries are richly written and sharply argued...deeply rooted in tradition [sic] ideas while also bucking convention and predictability," which reads more like a praising book review than a wiki article. Same with the overview text, which also defines the subject's notability as its citation by other publications (an assertion that itself lacks citations) and provides very little information about the founding and development of the publication, its staff, its editorial viewpoint, etc – all things that are important for a wiki. Overall, this gives the impression that the article was written by someone who is either affiliated with or a fan of the publication. This is an article that would benefit from expansion, as well as a tonal shift to neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helsabott (talk • contribs) 00:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving list of writers from lead

The giant paragraph of writers and staff seems to clutter the lead of the article unnecessarily. I've moved it to its own section, and left the sentence with that includes the notable alumni. Feel free to revert if you disagree with the change. --LatakiaHill (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine is a Jewish neo-conservative, and pro-Zionist publication.

I was confused by why so many far-right ideas and so much support was could be found nestled in Tablet's articles, so I delved a bit into their funding and support networks, primarily investigating their primary source of funding - The late Zalman Bernstein (RIP) and his wife Elaine Mem Bernstein. Zalman was an investment manager who became a billionaire and a philanthropist, his cohort (that is to say the people who he partnered with and surrounded himself with) were in the large majority neoconservatives, interested in free market economics, and Jewish culture.

Here is info on the parent company of Tablet Magazine:

Tikvah’s board overlaps with those of other foundations funded by [Zalman] Bernstein’s estate–the Avi Chai Foundation, Keren Keshet (Rainbow Fund) and Nextbook, which promotes Jewish literature and culture through Tablet, its online magazine. Besides serving on Tikvah’s board, Bernstein’s widow, Elaine “Mem” Bernstein, his third wife, is Chair of the Avi Chai Foundation. whose net assets in 2014 totaled over half a billion dollars. She is also a trustee of Keren Keshet (Rainbow Foundation), with net assets of $235 million. Board member, Arthur Fried, who retired from Lehman Bros. to became the CEO of the Rothschild Foundation in 1981, became chairman and CEO of Avi Chai in 1999. Fried became Keren Keshet’s president in 2012. Keren Keshet’s signature project is Nextbook, the ostensible purpose of which is to promote Jewish literature and culture through Tablet, its online magazine. About half of Nextbook’s nearly $5 million annual budget funds Tablet.

Sourced from this article: https://lobelog.com/the-hub-of-the-jewish-neoconservative-echo-chamber/

That funding breakdown is also reflected in the funding numbers seen here: https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/keren-keshet-the-rainbow-foundation,134069592/

They are accordingly in alignment with various conservative think tanks (many of whom have been involved in America's recent culture wars):

Tikvah’s Faculty includes Hertog, Tikvah Fund board members Elliott Abrams, Jay Lefkowitz and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who co-edited The Future is Now: American Confronts the New Genetics with Tikvah’s executive director, Eric Cohen in 2002. Almost all maintain multiple affiliations with think tanks such as the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), the Project for the New American Century, the Gatestone Institute, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and most were neoconservative policy advisers during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

To clarify the parent companies politics we have this from the about page of the Tikvah Fund: https://tikvahfund.org/about/

Tikvah is politically Zionist, economically free-market oriented, culturally traditional, and theologically open-minded. Yet in all issues and subjects, we welcome vigorous debate and big arguments. Our institutes, programs, and publications all reflect this spirit of bringing forward the serious alternatives for what the Jewish future should look like, and bringing Jewish thinking and leaders into conversation with Western political, moral, and economic thought.

There's also a somewhat critical article here, which confirms the links to Tablet Magazine: https://forward.com/opinion/383106/a-major-jewish-philanthropist-just-published-a-plan-to-ethnically-cleanse-p/

The daughter of the family (Rochel) seems less inclined to neoconservatism, and does philanthropy which is more open to diversity, equality and inclusion. So there you have it, Zalman was probably the furthest right, Elaine "Mem" Bernstein was probably less right wing (both were New York Jewish residents of the 1960s, and so are fairly culturally liberal as far as conservatives go), and the current generation seems to be the most liberal aligned. But all in all, that's why Tablet Magazine occasionally strays into far-right ideas that can be read as anti-semitic (such as their article backing the concept of "Cultural Marxism" [1]), because that thread exists in Tablet's conservative think tank associated funding streams, and in Zalman and Elaine Bernstein's neoconservative politics. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This can easily lead into original research. Take care to avoid that and to use reliable sources for contentious claims. The sources mentioned here would at least be insufficient for mention in the lead and would need to be attributed. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the article would benefit from a section or a mention of Tikvah as the funding source for Tablet. I say this as someone who wants Wikipedia to have a reputation for neutrality. I think it's confusing to readers as to why Tablet magazine keeps publishing conservative hot takes (although perhaps that's also the nature of being a religious magazine). Anyways, just some ideas. 194.223.51.184 (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert explanation

I reverted this change. It had the edit summary "Removed any promotional language, removed unnecessary reference to editor's personal life, added sourcing for notable stories", but it fails to achieve this and adds significant problems:

• This edit added language like "Tablet’s news coverage is frequently ahead of the curve on developing stories", sourced to Tablet itself. This is addition of promotional language
• This edit removed details about editors, but this information was all sourced. It replaces these sourced statements with unsourced statements
• This edit removes details on notable stories from independent RS. It adds information about seemingly random other stories, sourced primarily to Tablet itself
• This edit adds original research in the comments about the women's march. These details are not found in the source

Freelance-frank (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

@Ezlev: I noticed that in this edit you also undid the merge between the history and reporting sections. Was there a particular reason for this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, why was the reference to Fast Company removed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't think that editor's note (i.e. an opinion piece) is the sort of thing we want to be giving prominent weight to. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk, undoing the section merge was unintentional, as was the removal of the Fast Company reference. Sorry about that – there were some edit conflict issues. I'm happy with the current weight given to JC, and thanks for working with me to improve this article! — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

An IP editor keeps removing the fact that Tablet Magazine is specifically a conservative publication.

If you notice that the article no longer starts:

Tablet is a conservative online magazine focused on Jewish news and culture.

Can you please add it back in. This is important, because the magazine spends a lot of time peddling conservative psuedo conspiracy theories, such as trying to legitimize the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, [2] or claiming that Obama was gay. [3] Thank you. RecardedByzantian (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe they used to sell some MAGA styled baseball caps on their site's now defunct and empty storefront [4]. It's definitely a conservative magazine. Interestingly enough, the IP address who removed "conservative" as a descriptor "24.193.233.253" can be geo-located to the company Charter Communications Inc. out of NYC (where tablet is based) their Wikipedia page states that Charter Communications is owned by; Liberty Media (23.3%), and Advance Publications (13%)... Advance Publications its self being owned by the New House family - which owns and runs Tablet Magazine.

I must therefore conclude that this page is being watched and manipulated as a promotional tool, in violation of Wikipeidia's Conflict of Interest WP:COI policies. 121.45.248.163 (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Just an archive version of the Haaretz source saying they're right-leaning: [5].

Combined with the ejewishphilanthropy source, and the Columbia Journalism Review source saying they're funded by the Republican right: [6], and [7]...

...and the three media bias websites, saying they're right-wing: [8], [9], [10]. As well as other indicators, such as what was said about their parent company and primary funding source, Tikvah earlier [11], and the overwhelming swing of their staff and articles, I don't think there's a reasonable claim that they're not right-wing conservatives.

The onus of evidence is on anyone claiming otherwise. Any objectors should provide sources of their own. 118.208.125.115 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the label for now, for several reasons. We report what independent, secondary RS say, not our interpretation of political leanings based on content.

• First, the eJewishPhilanthrophy article does not say that Tablet is conservative anywhere, so it would be inaccurate to say this in Wikivoice. All it says is that Nextbook, Tablet's publisher, is funded by a member of Tikvah Fund's board of directors. Not Tikvah institutionally.
• Second, the Jewish Currents article, while nominally RS, is a left-wing outlet and not a good, independent source for the political leanings of an outlet on the other side of the spectrum. Would we unquestionably say that MSNBC is far-left because Fox News says so? I think not. In addition, it only quotes a disgruntled former writer unhappy about what they saw as the shifting ideologies of the paper. There is nothing that says institutionally Tablet is "conservative" in this source.

If we're going to speak in Wikivoice, it needs to be clearly reported in a variety of RS, not extrapolated or from partisan sources. If Tablet truly is conservative, then I'm sure we will easily find secondary sources that make this assertion. Until now, no. Longhornsg (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, rather than making an edit you could have just looked it up and confirmed it yourself. Mediabiasfactcheck.com rates them as right leaning, [12], so does all sides media, [13], so does ground news, [14], like it's not a contentious claim. Tablet themselves has used the tag "conservative" themselves [15], as well as "conservative-movement" [16] for articles, because that's part of what they push (they know this), accordingly they don't have similar "liberal" or "progressive" sections/tags for articles. This is not a contentious claim, it's just the basic facts of where they stand as an outlet. Columbia Journalism review describes it as being a rival to The Forward, a traditionally socialist magazine [17]... because one is left, the other is right wing. Tablet has articles like "AMERICAN JEWS MUST STOP OBSESSING OVER THE HOLOCAUST" written from alums of Dartmouth College (a conservative university) - because it's a conservative magazine. Uncontentiously so, especially if you look at their articles, and writers. So I really think the case is settled on this one, and at this point it's silly to remove the statement. 194.223.36.129 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. The links you provided are article tags for articles that the website has written about conservative politics and Conservative Judaism. Writing articles about conservatives or conservative topics or publishing op-eds from conservative authors does not make the magazine conservative. The New York Times published an op-ed from Vladimir Putin -- does that make it as "pro-Russia publication"? We do not put in Wikivoice the result of your WP:OR or what you perceive it's editorial leaning is based on one or two articles you've found on their website. Like I said before, if reliable sources refer to the magazine as "conservative", I am open to discussing with attribution. In addition, you are persistent in adding the material, so the WP:ONUS is on you to prove, with RS, not do your own research and WP:SYNTH. Longhornsg (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Writing articles about conservatives or conservative topics or publishing op-eds from conservative authors does not make the magazine conservative. No of course not, but it does make them a conservative magazine if they ONLY include articles on conservative matters and movements, and do so in a positive light WHILST ALSO not doing the same for liberal and progressive articles. So yes, the New York Times has published op-eds from Vladimir Putin, BUT ALSO from Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelensky. That was my point... and I think it's completely bad faith of you to overlook the fact I've used both primary and secondary sources, including a verified RS (the Colombia Journalism review), and 3 media bias/fact checking monitors of good repute. As I've said this is not a contentious claim, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone saying it's not a conservative or right leaning outlet. 194.223.36.129 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As you rejected Jewish Currents, here's Haaretz, a CENTRIST and reliable source saying Tablet Magazine is right leaning; [18]. There's so many sources of this because it's not a contentious claim, it's literally widely recognized, so if you want to start an edit war here you should at least cite some sources rather than your word being your only backing. 194.223.36.129 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Newblogs and opinion pieces have been suggesting it started swinging right since way back in 2014. [19] it's neoconservative. 14.201.57.93 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Relevant for the article?

[20] WP:SBM, a reliable source, accusing Tablet of spreading medical misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)