Comments:McCain, Obama win Wisconsin primary
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
wow - that's a blatantly pro McCain attempt at news. This is "wiki news" not "wiki opinion". Those quotes don't even pertain to the event - they are just furthuring the candidate's negative campaign agenda. If you are going to feature a quote that bashes the other party then the least you could do is use a quote that might represent a counter opinion. I've followed these three remaining candidates like a hawk for the last few months and I promise you the "empty rhetoric" phrase is an attempt to ensnare the majority of voters who don't take time to listen to debates, read candidate's websites and research candidate's past accomplishments. Senator Obama has carefully outlined his plans in writing and when questioned during interviews and debates. It is not realistic to expect such detail in the soundbites of TV news which most Americans rely on. The only time most people see any of these candidates is when they are speaking for five or ten seconds at a rally -- and a rally is not a feasible context for going into detail on anything. You are empowering a desperate strategy to throw mud on Senator Obama's ability to actually utilize the English language - a recent rarity in U.S. politics. You, the "writer" of this article are furthuring an unfair, dishonest technique.
- So update the news article with a quote from Obama's victory speech if you like. I found the quote unnecessary (I would think it would be obvious to anyone who had been following the race as a simple "OBAMA BAD, ME GOOD"), but I don't see its inclusion as making the article "blatantly pro McCain".
- If you want to see examples of articles that are TRULY biased, check out all the recent articles about "Anonymous" and Scientology. -188.8.131.52 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well to be honest, Scientology didn't want to put up a media fight on this, they know if they did it would just get bigger, since it's a double-edged sword, controversy creates numbers, these numbers could flock to Scientology or they could flock to Anonymous. And Wikinews tried our best, but to be honest, every other media outlet that covered it more or less recieved a statement, which incorporated into my section. But seriously folks, edit it if you find the article incorrect, we're not going to do everything with you. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)