Back to article
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
The way your reporter words questions in this "news" story is biased - much less like news and much more like an editorial opinion. The piece starts out balanced enough but by the end, the questions are almost laughably one-sided. The author clearly has a strong opinion, which comes across loud and clear to readers. His persuasive approach is irresponsible and is the antithesis of neutrality, a principle that Wikinews values highly. I've pasted the "Neutral Point of View Policy" below as reference. The bolds are mine.
The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.
Neutral point of view means that an article should fairly represent all sides in a news story, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. (Of course, there are limits to which points of view are worth mentioning, and this can be an area of conflict.)
It is crucial that Wikinewsies work together to make articles unbiased. This comprises one of the great merits of Wikinews....
At Wikinews, we use the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" in a precise way: Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased....
The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikimedia founder.
—Mivilobos (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)