Talk:USA Today

{{archive top|Pinned as a link to the USA TODAY digital archives for Wikipedia research purposes. Please update as necessary. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)}}

USA TODAY digital archives are available via ProQuest. The newspaper is included in (at least) their products:

• [https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/globalnewsstream/ Global Newsstream]
• [https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/nationalsnews_shtml/ U.S. Newsstream]

ProQuest is available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library in addition to other university and community libraries:

• [https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://www.proquest.com/ip Access ProQuest at The Wikipedia Library]
• [https://www.proquest.com/publicationbrowse/3B54DB4FB9064939PQ/1 Direct link to search for "USA Today" publications at ProQuest] (must be logged in via ProQuest)

:* [https://www.proquest.com/publication/45107/citation/3B54DB4FB9064939PQ/4 USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext)] (April 1, 1987 - February 14, 1997)

:* [https://www.proquest.com/publication/15008/citation/3B54DB4FB9064939PQ/2 USA TODAY] (February 17, 1997 - present)

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2030385089}}

{{archive bottom}}

[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/business/media/usa-today-fabricated-sources.html Per NYT]. Should this be mentioned somewhere? Endwise (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

:I just added that info to the bottom under a "controversies" section. 2600:1702:2550:3F8F:AED2:4CD3:A390:5140 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

NewsGuard gave the Fake News a 100 percent credibility rating and still gives the same rating to USA Today today. That might also be worth mentioning. --Con^spiration 21:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

:I doubt they'll ever update that. News Guard and other fact checkers seem to be more to preserve the status quo than to actually rate journalism; I emailed MBFC and they refuse to ding USA Today's rating as apparently 23 fake articles doesn't mean an intent to deceive. They ding other sources for even a single failed fact check, even if it's only a partial fail (as in "half true"). 2600:1702:2550:3F8F:AED2:4CD3:A390:5140 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add coverage of this topic. I just saw the list mentioned in the past tense and came here to find out about it.

https://twitter.com/mostlybree/status/1602352001324650519?t=qZz1tac3_qI8Jyjsfu4cuw&s=19 Pifvyubjwm (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

:A temporary hiatus isn't really worth mentioning. They've said they'll have updates on the best seller list feature in 2023, I suggest we wait and see what the long-range plan turns out to be. If they discontinue it permanently, there'll be plenty of coverage on it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the "political" line from the infobox to comply with the definition at Template:Infobox newspaper:

• political – political leanings of the newspaper, e.g. Centre-right, cited to a reliable source. For use only when a newspaper has formally aligned its news coverage with a political party or movement. Do not use the infobox for allegations of bias or descriptions of the opinion page.

This infobox entry is not appropriate for USA Today or for most American general-interest newspapers, whose newsrooms (say that they) are not affiliated formally with any political party or tendency.

The "political = middle" statement was cited to a Boston University Library document, which appears to be based on the paper's (non-)endorsement for president in 2012, and not at all on its news coverage. I turned it into a prose statement (apparently BU thinks USA Today is the only "moderate" editorial page among major US daily newspapers) and attached it to the "Opinion Section" section. In the main text of the article, discussions of the editorial page's partisan allegiance and of accusations of bias in news reporting remain appropriate and welcome. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 20:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)