→NPOV Message Board: new section |
|||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
</pre> |
</pre> |
||
</blockquote> |
</blockquote> |
||
== NPOV Message Board == |
|||
I posted this at the NPOV Message Board with my concerns and to hopefully get some other perspectives. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=369836430&oldid=369834046 link] [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:59, 24 June 2010
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Non Partisan/POV
At this point anybody stupid enough to buy this claim can be allowed to do so. The statement of the site being founding by an options trader is sufficient. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- While that may be true, nonetheless I've placed the tag. The protestation by a person with a conflict of interest that they don't have such a conflict is bullshit. The very name of the sites conveys a conservative bias, "The Real America", etc. The prior text stating accurately the self-evident fact of the right wing orientation needs to be restored. This is an interesting case as a far as wiki policies are concerned so I will follow up on this while I can. Lycurgus (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
How is the blog still conservative? It is now co-run with Time magazine.
- Perhaps for you conservative means something different. Certainly Time magazine, whose readership at this point is doubtless overwhelmingly over 60 is conservative and always has been since its founding by Luce. Look it up, do some research, open your mind. Large corporate interests are by definition conservative, however they may be able to spin a propaganda model of "conversative" vs. "liberal" into the peculiar understanding of those terms current especially among less well educated Americans. Over and above that however, Time/Life moreso now than in their heyday (when at the height of American culture a "liberal" consensus prevailed) are especially conservative. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also it's an aggregator not a blog. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Both sides of the spectrum" refers to the narrow MSM discourse channels of the United States where everything is confined to the straightjacket of the two big business parties and thier common bourgeois perspective, taken as universal. This doesn't make it any less "conservative". For example one will not see what the editors doubtless consider fringe or far left voices who, ironically, are often the ones giving the most trenchant analysis of events as would be expected. Also this kind of split the difference approach as recently I heard Bill Moyers say seldom reaches the truth but rather seeks mediocrity of opinion. Lycurgus (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Nonpartisan does not mean non-biased, it simply means they are not officially associated with a political party, which they aern't. This format is used in other political blogs as well. Ink Falls 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Very good, and yes that's right. "Non-partisan" in this case is construed to mean not siding with either the Democrats or Republicans, which there's no need to do when they both represent your interests. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it a misnomer to describe a political site as "nonpartisan"? RealClearPolitics has hopes of being nonpartisan, in the same way that the New York Times might call itself nonpartisan. But it's simply not true. Therefore, I would advocate for removing the word "nonpartisan" altogether, and end this discussion. Just call it a "political news and polling aggregator." Farwest1 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
RCP's Conservative Ownership
I've re-inserted the line in the lede about RCP's ownership being self-proclaimed conservatives who are concerned about liberal bias in the media. This is not POV because it is a direct quote from the site founders and because it is counterbalanced within the same sentence by pointing out that there is indeed non-conservative content on the site. This statement is not undue weight because, as part of the reason for the site's existence, this zphilisophical background is quite important; thus, it should be mentioned up front in the lede, then detailed further in the body of the article. Also, we aren't implying bias, we're simply stating acknowledged fact; the readers can decide for themselves whether the site is biassed. Before reverting, please discuss further changes to this line here. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the line about "anti-conservative, anti-christian bias" because the issue of perceived conservative bias is addressed in the intro with the link to the Time story. The quote is therefore excessive in the intro since, again, it's already included in the philosophy section. Also, this is the POV of one of the founders, not the stated goal of the site. If you want to more appropriately address the goals of the site, you could use another quote from the same interview:
"We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions."
As it is, you are offering a misleading depiction of the site. As you said, readers should be allowed to decide for themselves what they think about the site, and therefore, the intro should be as objective as possible and not lead in one direction or the other. Therefore, a suitable compromise is to keep the "while some have suggested the column section is conservative leaning..." line while removing the mention of the "anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias" quote.Kadams810 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The site does indeed post a variety of opinions--in fact, I rely on RCP for the majority my news myself, and I believe they honestly attempt to provide editorial balance in the columns selection. I don't think they succeed, but whether or not their selection is biassed is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide. Our job is to simply present the facts; and the fact is RCP is an acknowledged conservative-founded, conservative-run site. It is a fact that they describe themselves as conservative. And that is an important enough issue to mention in the lede. Thus, I am re-inserting the line. Yes, it is also a fact that they post a variety of opinions--which is why we mention that in the lede as well. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this fact that it is a conservative-run site? The current wording is highly POV in its presentation and very suggestive that the article is biased. Arzel (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- The current wording is sourced to a statement by the site's founders as quoted in a reliable source. That's not pushing a point of view, that's a statement of fact regarding site's founders' own opinions. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps this info would be better suited in Tom Bevan or John McIntyre. This appears to be their personal belief, not necessarily reflecting on how the business is run. Not to mention that the cite is from an article that is over 7 years old. We don't spend half of the lede exploring Nate Silver's personal political beliefs in an article like FiveThirtyEight.com. Adding this old quote of questionable relevance to the lede is definitely undue weight.RWR8189 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- The current wording is sourced to a statement by the site's founders as quoted in a reliable source. That's not pushing a point of view, that's a statement of fact regarding site's founders' own opinions. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this fact that it is a conservative-run site? The current wording is highly POV in its presentation and very suggestive that the article is biased. Arzel (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Page protection
I've protected the page for five days following a request on RfPP. There seems to be a lot of reverting by single-issue and/or infrequently used accounts: most recently Operasinger34 and Kadams810. One recent edit from Ubiq, and back in March/April, Samuelchi and Cnbaldis. On the other side, reverting by 216.73.250.230, 24.199.65.218, and 208.120.198.145.
Could whoever the IPs are, please log in in future? If the other accounts continue to revert, you risk being blocked. Please discuss your differences on the talk page instead. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ooops...sorry, the unsigned IP addresses were my edits. Probably shouldn't edit from work anyway! :P Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The version that's locked is not a consensus version. So to bring the back and forth to an end for now, I propose that after the sentence ending with "spectrum," we add the following:
When discussing the philosophy behind the site, co-founder Tom Bevan said: "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions."
If you insist on including reference to the 2003 quote in the intro, we should at least include the rest of it. This will help to paint a more complete and accurate picture of the goals of the site.Kadams810 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Given the obvious and suspicious nature of all the self-supporting single-purpose accounts that descend upon this article, I think it's fair to state that consensus is (at best) ambiguous. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a compelling argument for why we shouldn't create a more balanced opening section. Also, I'm not sure why people who are new to editing on wikipedia should be punished. As requested, I've been posting on the talk page when I make edits. Still, the admins froze a version of the page with a disputed intro section. All I'm asking is that we provide a bit more context in the opening section for now. I'm not sure why anyone would object to the edit I suggested above.Kadams810 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- That is covered by the second half of the very sentence to which you refer: "while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum." With regards to the The Wrong Version, you're not being "punished". You've shown quite a willingness to edit war, and I find myself unconvinced that everything is on the up-and-up. Your suggestion is unnecessary -- the information is already present. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a stable version of the page that addressed the charge that the site is conservative-leaning without being excessive, but it was changed for obvious political reasons. Can someone please explain the opposition to this version of the intro paragraph?
RealClearPolitics is an American non-partisan[2][3][4] political news and polling data aggregator based in Chicago, Illinois. Some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning,[5] but the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum. The blog aggregates columns and news stories as well as election related transcripts[6] and videos.[7] The site also carries the most recent poll data,[8] and compiles averages of major political polls on various elections throughout the United States to give a national view of the race.
The people editing the page on the other side are attempting to give the impression that it is a conservative site in the intro. No one is suggesting completely removing the reference to the 2003 quote. It's already included lower down in the article. But, there's no need to address conservative bias multiple times in the intro. It's excessive and suggests that the site is biased. Simply mentioning that there are accusations of conservative bias and countering that by pointing out that the site runs articles from both sides of the political spectrum is sufficient. Again, what's wrong with the previous stable version? Kadams810 (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, please speak about content and not try to assume the motives of other editors. Second, whether you believe the previous version was "stable", a glance at the article history shows a pattern of single-purpose accounts unduly influencing the direction of the article, so I don't think that history is any precedent here. Thirdly, the stated purpose for founding the site is significant to its history and existence -- the intro section, per policy, "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" and should include all significant information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Kadams, the previous version suggests that the site is unbiassed. The way I read it, it seems to be saying "some say it's biassed, but that's not true". It is not Wikipedia's job to make such a call. More neutral wording would be to say something to the effect of "The site's founders acknowledge that they themselves are conservative, but insist their column selection reflects a wide spectrum of opinions while the site's critics disagree." The important points that must be included for balance (in no particular order) are the following: 1) Some critics have claimed bias 2) The site's founders are conservative 3) The site's founders say they present a diversity of opinions. However you want to get those three points across is okay with me as long as it's clear and sourced. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nathan: Fair enough. I propose this:
- "The site's founders are self-described conservatives, and some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning. However, the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum, and co-founder John McIntyre says that 'ideological diversity' is a goal of the site."
- I'm fine with that rendering as long as each clause is appropriately sourced, and as long as the full quotations are included in the body. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anytime. :) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverted -- I can't support an edit that removes the basic information about why the organization was founded. Origins & philosophy are clearly significant and appropriate in the introduction, as evidenced by the dozens of established editors' opinions over several years. Please seek (full) consensus before instituting changes. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- How about this: "The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are fed up with what they perceive as anti-christian and anti-conservative media bias. Because of this, some critics have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning. However, the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum, and co-founder John McIntyre says that 'ideological diversity' is a goal of the site." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Blaxthos, you're taking the quote about "anti-christian, anti-conservative" bias out of context. It's one of the founders' opinions, not the reason they founded the site. For that, see the "origin" section. Also, the "ideological diversity" quote has to do with the philosophy behind the site, which you say is important. So, I'm not sure why you're not OK with that being in there. I think the way we had it prior to your last change is balanced and accurate.Kadams810 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Blaxthos is right, the concern over anti-conservative, anti-christian bias is no less important to RCP's founders' philosophy than the concern for idiological diversity--unless I'm missing something, the context doesn't offer any reason we should think one of these concerns is more important than the other. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, there's no evidence that the statement about bias has anything to do with the motivation behind the site. Nowhere do the founders say they founded the site to combat perceived bias in the media. They do, however, say one of their goals with the site is 'ideological diversity.' And, Nathan, you said that including the fact that the founders say they're unbiased is important in the intro. That's why I included it. Again, the concern over bias is an opinion that should be in the article, but has no place in the introduction since we have nothing that tells us that it was the reason or even a reason they started the site. The stated motivation for the founding of the site, as I mentioned, is in the 'origin' section.Kadams810 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're just trying to wordsmith at this point. The source material, in a paragraph in which the founders are discussing the reasons for starting RCP, states:
I don't know how you can possibly argue how this isn't significant, given that McIntyre offered this quote freely when discussing the "philosophy of the site." Regardless, policy is clear about what is appropriate in the intro, and consensus is strongly towards inclusion. If you insist upon adding the "ideological diversity" quote I'm fine with that, but I don't think you have any (non-SPA) support for culling out the sourced, relevant information discussed above, and there certainly is not a consensus to remove it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing." "We post a variety of opinions. We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."
- Let's just put the whole damned paragraph in.
Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)"RealClearPolitics is a news aggregator and blog based on "freedom" and "common-sense values," that advocates "...debate on the issues..." and posts a "...variety of opinions..." and has "...a frustration that all conservatives have...which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."
- Or we can skip all this mealy-mouthed crap and go with a straightforward and honest intro, like we have in the article on FiveThirtyEight.com: "FiveThirtyEight.com is a nonpartisan[1] polling aggregation website with a liberal-leaning[2] blog created by Nate Silver." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let's just put the whole damned paragraph in.
- Sorry, but you're just trying to wordsmith at this point. The source material, in a paragraph in which the founders are discussing the reasons for starting RCP, states:
- Again, there's no evidence that the statement about bias has anything to do with the motivation behind the site. Nowhere do the founders say they founded the site to combat perceived bias in the media. They do, however, say one of their goals with the site is 'ideological diversity.' And, Nathan, you said that including the fact that the founders say they're unbiased is important in the intro. That's why I included it. Again, the concern over bias is an opinion that should be in the article, but has no place in the introduction since we have nothing that tells us that it was the reason or even a reason they started the site. The stated motivation for the founding of the site, as I mentioned, is in the 'origin' section.Kadams810 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with simplicity, but the quote about media bias should not be in the intro. Blaxthos, again, they never explicitly said that media bias was a reason they founded the site. They, did, however, detail many times the real reasons they started the site (1, 2, 3). Also, in the actual story, "We post a variety of opinions" is a different quote from "We have a frustration..." (from a different person as well). Hopefully putting them in the same quote was just a typo on your part.
We could end this by just removing "who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias" from the opening paragraph. If you insist on retaining the above quote, it's only fair if you include the founders' stated reasons for starting the site. I personally don't think all that is necessary in the intro, but I'm just trying to offer options.Kadams810 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- That sentence is undue weight, and a violation of NPOV. No-where in the source do they claim to be "self-described" conservatives, and while they may be conservative, to make such a statement is going to require a strong source quoting them making that statement (WP:SYNTH). It is not the place of wikipedia to try and interpret the intent of living people by imparting their own spin on what they say. Arzel (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, the smell of burning strawmen... Arzel,
the introduction does not say they "claim to be 'self-described' conservatives." Even if we grant your strawman argument, it's blatantly false --the direct quote states "[W]e have a frustration that all conservatives have", which necessarily means that they consider themselves part of the conservative aggregate.Even so, that has no relevance to this discussion, so can we please stop making things up?The source material is an interview in which the founders discuss the motives and philosophy of the site. If they hadn't intended the message to be conveyed they wouldn't have said it. What is relevant is the statement of philosophy, which countless editors have noted is significant and should be included in the introduction. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, the smell of burning strawmen... Arzel,
- Arzel is partly correct. There's no need to emphasize the "self-described" nature of their conservatism; a reliable source quotes them calling themselves conservatives so we should drop the qualification and simply call them "conservatives". As for the synth claim, the exact wording of the policy is: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The lede as it stands does neither of these things. All of the quotes are from the same reliable source, and we do not draw any conclusions the source doesn't state explicitly. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the wording is ambiguous. Either the founders are speaking about how they are conservatives and they are speaking for conservatives, or they are speaking about how they empathize with conservatives. They have the same frustation that conservatives have is open to interpretation. They don't say "We are conservatives" or "We, like other conservatives". In anycase it is undue weight for the lead and a NPOV violation. Arzel (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," is not ambiguous (cf. "We face the fear that all mortals face," or "We have the hair that all mammals have.") This is not an expression of empathy, this is a statement of inclusion. To pretend otherwise is disengenuous. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Kadams, am I right to think that you'd be fine with including the quote about anti-conservative bias as long as we also include the quote about diversity of opinions? I find that to be an agreeable, balanced, and accurate compromise. Blaxthos, do you concur? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do. As I stated earlier, I'm fine with including K's verbiage. My objection is to the removal of sourced, relevant, and significant content -- specifically, I don't see how anyone can argue that a reliable secondary source directly interviewing the founders about the philosophy of the site is anything but relevant. Guys, it's time to call it a compromise and move on. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I have no problem saying they're conservatives ("self-described conservatives" is fine as well). My problem is with the anti-conservative bias quote. I still stand by the argument that this is an opinion of one of the founders, not a driving philosophy behind the site. If we put it in the intro, we're suggesting that they actively seek to combat media bias with the site. And there's no evidence that that's what McIntyre meant with that quote or that that's what they do with the site. I read it to mean that they're just conservatives who have a gripe with the media. That's relevant to the article, but, in the intro, it's misleading (by suggesting that one of the site's main purposes is to combat perceived mainstream media bias) and doesn't help shed light on what the site actually is. I'd like to put this behind us as well. Why don't we just add the "self-described conservatives" thing back in there and call it a day? After all, Blaxthos, isn't that the main point you're trying to make?Kadams810 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- In a word, "no". How "you read it" is irrelevant, as well as what you believe McIntyre meant; you also seem to be ignoring the governing guideline. The information obviously on topic, and was proffered by the founder during a discussion of the site's philosophy, and published in a reliable source. I don't like it is not a valid reason for exclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I have no problem saying they're conservatives ("self-described conservatives" is fine as well). My problem is with the anti-conservative bias quote. I still stand by the argument that this is an opinion of one of the founders, not a driving philosophy behind the site. If we put it in the intro, we're suggesting that they actively seek to combat media bias with the site. And there's no evidence that that's what McIntyre meant with that quote or that that's what they do with the site. I read it to mean that they're just conservatives who have a gripe with the media. That's relevant to the article, but, in the intro, it's misleading (by suggesting that one of the site's main purposes is to combat perceived mainstream media bias) and doesn't help shed light on what the site actually is. I'd like to put this behind us as well. Why don't we just add the "self-described conservatives" thing back in there and call it a day? After all, Blaxthos, isn't that the main point you're trying to make?Kadams810 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Kadams, you say above in reference to the anti-conservative bias quote, "If you insist on retaining the above quote, it's only fair if you include the founders' stated reasons for starting the site." I thought we had an agreeable compromise. What made you change your opinion? Having just read the entirety of Conservative Spotlight: Real clear politics, I think it is clear that D'Agostino (the article's author) did in fact mean that RCP was founded with the specific goal of combatting what they see as bias and political correctness in the mainstream media. Though I think McIntyre and Bevan had the same meaning when they made the quoted statements, it's important to note that Wikipedia's concern is not to decipher the intent of the speakers, but rather to present the information as it was related by the reliable source (in this case, D'Agostino). So, the question is about what D'Agostino meant, not what the founders meant. Read the extended quotation below, and it is quite clear what D'Agostino meant. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- What is important is to not try to turn this into a political dogfight. RCP is wildly used by both the right and the left, and has left and right political commentary and news aggregation. The proposed leads imparts that they are biased towards one side of the political spectrum. As for the intent of D'Agnostino, that is the primary problem with imparting ones own synthesis in an article. Furthermore, by your logic you would be imparting the derived opinion of the author to make a definitative statement about the founders, that is not how this works. Neutral presentation is the trump card for all information on WP, and this attempt to paint RCP as a biased organization is a clear violation of NPOV. As a point of comparison, you don't see the leads of other news organizations littered with POVish statements about the supposed political intent of the founders of the organization. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, synthesis (by definition) involves more than one source. This is not a political dogfight, this is about clearly and accurately presenting the article's subject. D'Agostino, McIntyre, and Bevan state clearly that RCP was founded in part to correct a perceived media bias. Stating this fact is neutral presentation, avoiding it is POV. And yes, other news organizations with a reliably documented point of view are described as such on Wikipedia. (See FiveThirtyEight.com) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- 538 doesn't go into Silver's left leaning history within the lede, so that comparison is without merit. The history of 538 goes into detail regarding Silver's beginnings on Kos, but you don't see that being parroted within the lede in an attempt to paint 538 as a left wing site. If you are going to use 538 as your example, then that sentence does not belong within the lede. Arzel (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy Casualties'-Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'-Thomas Ricks, Washington Post. . . . "Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development-after all, isn't discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?" McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." RealClearPolitics also dissected the media's disingenuous coverage of Asan Akbar's attack on fellow members of the 101st Airborne. "When the story initially broke on Saturday night it was widely reported that the suspect was a 'Muslim-American' soldier," it said March 24. "By Sunday morning that descriptor had been scrubbed from virtually every report. This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page. . . . The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable. . . . The Times serves up this quote from Akbar's stepfather: 'I remember last Christmas he was complaining about the double standards in the military,' Mr. Bilal said. 'Hasan told me it was difficult for a black man to get rank in the military, and he was having a hard time.' Only the New York Times could take the fact that a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Army attacked his own comrades in an unprecedented way and turn it into an indictment of the Army itself for being racist."
NPOV Message Board
I posted this at the NPOV Message Board with my concerns and to hopefully get some other perspectives. link Arzel (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)