Comments:Obama, Romney spar in first 2012 U.S. presidential debate

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. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

I'm not one to always look for bias, but this article barely mentions how the overwhelming consensus was that Romney crushed Obama, and barely talks about anything that occurred in the debate but Big Bird and Obama's Twitter response (which really has nothing to do with the debate itself).

"Barely mentions"? This article provides documented data, whereas "overwhelming consensus was that Romney crushed Obama" is unsupported opinion.

One might reasonably claim that the paragraph on the poll results would be better placed above the one on Big Bird.

I've gone ahead and done so, pending a second opinion from another reviewer. For the record, all apparent "bias" is unintentional. The "Big Bird" thing seemed to be getting a lot of press and seemed too significant to omit.

Hm. Almost as soon as I wrote that, I had doubts; I quickly realized there were reasonable arguments to be made both ways, and it becomes a rather abstract question of ordering. I don't think there's really bias in this article; note the other comment made here, where the commenter thanks us for the only unbiased article about the debate on the internet. Afaics, the Big Bird thing has continued to get a good deal of press, and that in itself says something interesting (and open to the reader's interpretation) about the debate.

Only a few facts relating to either candidate. No where near enough content for me to write a report on. No mention of either candidate's strategies. Biased, but no where near biased enough to complain,(thank you) especially not compared to every single article on the internet pertaining to this topic. This article told me what happened during, around, and as a result to this debate, but told me nothing as to what happened during the debate itself, other than the big bird comments which are too silly for my report. Thank you nonetheless, Wikipedia, for the only unbiased article about the debate on the internet, goodbye, I'm gunna go fail now.

We're not Wikipedia, we're Wikinews — but you're welcome. :-)

Wwwwwoooooowwwww