Talk:Bloomberg Businessweek/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Editorial slant of BW
One item that many readers of Wikipedia seek is an honest assessment of the particular econo/political slant of a publication or publisher. There is no hint here of Business Week's 'view' of the world. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, is known for taking an aggressive pro-free-market editorial position, particularly with the recent purchase of the magazine by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp.
If anyone knows the position of Business Week, it wouldn't hurt to put a short summary in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.201.62 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Ikip 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Rename article?
The magazine's name is Bloomberg BusinessWeek as of December 2009. I've made appropriate edits to the first sentence and to a few other places, but have not yet moved the article as I'm quite sure most people still call it BusinessWeek. YLee (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
iPad version section
{{Request edit}}
I've copied the article to my sandbox and made some updates to the iPad version section to indicate newer published facts and also the 2012 Webby award. Due to WP:COI if someone could review User:Andrewmp/sandbox/Bloomberg_Businessweek Mobile version section and merge if appropriate, I'd appreciate it. - Andrewmp (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I added it, but I removed the pricing. I feel it is unnecessary and makes the thing seem promotional. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Competitors and slant
In tone and content, it is not that different from The Economist: moderate, pragmatic. Especially compared to Forbes and the WSJ. But not as international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.71.111 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)