Newsweek

Used to be good quality journalism. The quality and objectiveness of their content seems to have decreased to the point they let their comments section be infested with political trolls and do nothing about them.

I had intended to subscribe to Newsweek but learned better. Newsweek's online Newsletter is the radical right Internet version of Fox News. Newsweek allows racist diatribes but no rebuttals.

For example, posting a coment that included the phrase "Flush all Jungle Mud down the sewer" alluding to African Americans and posted by "Terry - 24 March 2022" was accepted by Newsweek. Reply that included the phrase "White Trash" rejected by Newsweek on 4/14/2022.

My favorite (?) accepted by Newsweek - a post which advocated the KILLING of CHILDREN was ACCEPTED by Newsweek earlier. "Herbert Hoover" posted on 11 April 2022 "I would whole heartedly support Israel wiping those roaches off the face of the earth. Men, women and CHILDREN." That was okay with Newsweek. I responded on 4/14/2022: "Killing children? Are you Russian or Israeli?" The response was rejected by Newsweek. Newsweek says it is okay to call children "roaches" and to advocate killing children. Newsweek is against anyone criticizing that advocacy.

Attempting to post a comment that contained the phrase "conservative wingnuts" as a broad comment - no one named - on radical conservatives was rejected by Newsweek while simultaneously allowing harsher criticism of liberals. For example - "left-wing public schools" "indoctrination agenda" "the Left's assault on ~"

A 4/24/2022 Newsweek online article discussed the fact that J. D Vanc. E had called Trump an "idiot." My one-sentence comment QUOTING the Newsweek article noted that J. D Vance was correct in calling Trump an idiot was rejected by Newsweek.

If you really need the type of bigotry expoused by Newsweek, I guess you could subscribe to the Ku Klux Klan Gazettte. Otherwise, SKIP Newsweek.

I've looked to Newsweek in both paper and then online editions for many years. Unbiased, reliable reporting, like journalism used to be.

I wrote the following comment on this article.

https://www.newsweek.com/resume-gap-interview-question-grief-glass-ceiling-*******?amp=1

"Of course, we don't know the body language, facial expression, tone of voice, and so on of the interviewers, but using statement analysis this question in itself is neutral.

A fortiori, this was not a trick question but rather a simple binary question. Had you simply answered yes, you would have had stalled for a few seconds to come up with an explanation.

Arguably, the question was direct, but it is a perfectly legitimate one. Had you had one thought about anyone but yourself for a few seconds before writing your article, you would have realized that HR managers must be able to justify their hiring decisions to their superiors and be willing to be accountable for bad decisions...

This is doubly true if he is a member of a professional order.

Moreover, the fact that you were surprised by some of the questions of the interviewers. When hiring, the recruiter doesn't want to hear your canned answers. Rather, they want to hear a genuine answer reflecting your personality, your situation, and your career expectations.

Finally, the interviewers might want to evaluate your social aptitude, your creativity, your ability to cope with stress, or even your humility if you can't answer a technical question.

I am sorry, but from a business school graduate perspective, your article is a concrete piece of evidence that you are not ready to go back on the labor market yet."

What shocks me with so many of these blogs and news outlets is that freedom of speech seems to apply only to themselves and to those actively sharing their ideology...

With those biased media, professionals cannot share an honest opinion in their own field of expertise if it goes against their self-serving propaganda.