Talk:Us Weekly

Question about US Weekly Style Change

Does anyone remember when US Weekly was more like a "lite" version of say a Premiere or Empire magazine? Now they seem to be a mainstream tabloid/gossip rag.

Does anyone know why the style change happened and/or when it happened?

I certainly remember when it was a movie magazine- it had smart, well-written articles about the industry and films, not just the celebrity personal lives. I have been managing magazines at a newsstand for 6 years, and I think it was around 2002 like the article states, that it went weekly and turned into a gossip rag. Marikology 16:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know how it increased readership. In 2002 anybody who bought something at Christmastime in a Best Buy store had "six months of Us magazine for free" pushed on them. Then three years later you're still getting it in the mail and being charged for it since they never send you anything asking if you want to continue the subscription. they get a lot of busy people on the hook that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.28.9 (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Targets females?

Any support for the assertion that it targets female readers?

i support the assertion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

US Magazine getting public attention

I have a goal and that goal is to share wiht 100 women about the horrendous, lying, reporting that US magazine did concerning Sarah Palin and Barrack Omaba. The difference in the false reporting is slanderous. Some of the issues they omitted about Obama and added about Palin are as follows: Palin's husband got picked up for oui at the age of 22. Obama was doing cocaine at the age of 22. Palin has goverend a city and a state, Obama has governed his presidential campaign. Obama loves his wife because she went to the same hate mongel church he attended and sat at the same table with a terriorist that he sat with. Panel is strong, honest, open with strong ethics. Obama is vain, naive and the only credential he has is that he can deliver a good speech and can change his mind about all the issues when he gets backed in a corner. So keep it up US and I will continue to report the facts as you are not able to do and I will fight to have consumers stay away from your magazine as long as possible. You are not the only dead reporting that is being aimed at. Another woman is going after NBC and another CBS. Women have had enough! We are insulted about your leftist lying and putting down women in office. Has anyone asked Obama how he is goign to be a father and be president? NO! The media has shown as much corruption during this campaign as the government has for years. Now we have Two people that want to clean it up and the media is runnig scared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.171.31 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This will probably get more attention as time goes on, but FYI, wikipedia is not your personal soapbox.

The section concerning US Weekly's "attack" on Gov. Palin should either be reworked or completely deleted. The style is not becoming of a neutral article. 76.165.247.235 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Us Weekly's Senior Editor Bradley Jacob made some rather interesting claims that are relevant to the editorial view of the publication. Note the following exchange from FNC and newsbusters.org:

5:52PM SEGMENT:

MEGYN KELLY: Well, Us Weekly, the magazine, is under some serious fire today for its new cover. The headline grabber 'Babies, Lies and Scandal' is what's causing all the stir. The story, not only focusing on Sarah Palin, but also on the governor's 17-year-old pregnant daughter. It got a lot of attention. So did it cross a line? Here with us now, Bradley Jacobs, the Senior editor for Us Weekly. Hi, Bradley.

BRADLEY JACOBS: Afternoon.

KELLY: Alright, so the problem that a lot of folks have about this, and I have to tell you, we've gotten tons of e-mail over this, is that -- that the headline in and of itself, we'll start with this, sounds like an attack: 'Babies, Lies and Scandal.' What are the lies?

JACOBS: Actually it's -- if you read the story, you will see it is actually very measured. It's a very even-keeled-

KELLY: I read the story. What are the lies?

JACOBS: Actually, the lies that we point out are some of the liberal bloggers who were speculating that the daughter was actually -- had given birth, that there was a coverup there. We're one of the few magazines that actually did call to task those liberal bloggers for the news stories over the weekend.

KELLY: Bradley, do you think the cover in any way suggests to the viewer who's looking at your magazine while standing there in the grocery store that the lies are lies about Sarah Palin, by her attackers?

JACOBS: I don't think we can talk about all that here. It is -- we've gotten a lot of press today, but a lot of people haven't read this story. You may disagree but it is a fairly-

KELLY: I've read the story.

JACOBS: It's a very balanced story. We interview strategists on both sides. We interview-

KELLY: Bradley-

JACOBS: -Sarah Palin's deputy-

KELLY: Bradley it's-

JACOBS: Yes.

KELLY: Okay, you say -- first of all, you point out her husband Todd's DUI arrest. Do you point out that it -- that that DUI arrest came 22 years ago, in 1986?

JACOBS: Of course. The DUI arrest was everywhere.

KELLY: No, you don't. No you don't. You don't Bradley, that's not in there. Do you -- you mention an official, you mention so-called trooper-gate, talking about, and I'm quoting from your article, 'an official who refused -- she's under investigation for dismissing an official who refused to fire her sister's state trooper ex-husband.' Do you point out the allegations that that trooper, she allegedly wanted fired, tasered his own stepson, who was only ten and made death threats against Sarah Palin's father. Do you mention that in the article?

JACOBS: We didn't have time to get into everything that you've mentioned. This story was breaking over the weekend. Everyone was talking about it and US magazine has a very distinctive voice and we cover the news.

KELLY: Do you mention the fact -- you've mentioned her, quote, 'involvement with the Alaska Independence Party, a group that wants Alaska to secede from the Union.' Do you mention the fact that the McCain campaign has denied that and even Alaska state officials have denied that and said that's a lie?

JACOBS: Ok, we're missing the point here. This is a big news story that everyone was talking about. It is a very measured story. You are just pointing out the few things in it that you are dissatisfied with. But this was a-

KELLY: Bradley, I -- what I'm satisfied with is fair and balanced reporting where you tell the whole story. You make one accusation, then you tell what the other side is saying. You give context for allegations rather that throwing things out that are incendiary.

JACOBS: It's very balanced. You're not -- you're not mentioning the fact that we talked to friends of the Palin family, we talked to students who go to school with Bristol, we talked with Sarah Palin's deputy mayor. We talked to Republican strategists and Democratic strategists

KELLY: So because one part of the report is fair in your view, the other unfair reports are excused. I've got to leave it at that, because we're out of time and I wish we could've given this more full discussion.

JACOBS: Well, I disagree and I hope your readers will actually read the story for themselves and make up their own mind.

KELLY: I will -- I will leave it at that. Good final word. Bradley, thanks so much.

If this isn't relevant to an article on the publication, then why is there verbiage about the other style changes? Mr. Jacobs talks about what kind of publication Us is, and excuses the delivery of an incomplete and misleading report. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As this interview demonstrates, US Magazine is extremely sloppy or biased toward one point of view, or both. It should never be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)