Comments:US military to carry out review following Wikileaks release of classified 2007 video
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Comments from feedback form - "great information!"||0||17:26, 2 December 2010|
|Comments from feedback form||5||00:06, 23 October 2010|
|Comments from feedback form||0||17:27, 11 April 2010|
|Comments from feedback form||0||14:05, 11 April 2010|
This article simply discusses peoples perception of the footage but fails to ask about the results of the military investigation. I expected Wikinews to be a little more thorough than the Dollar Grabbing media but perhaps the truth is not what people want to hear? The article was written to conveniently take the focus off the fact that the strike was against insurgents and the crew were all cleared of wrong doing, as per the little link noted as a "2007 airstrike". At least that article is complete.
Thanks for your feed back, sometimes its difficult to avoid tunnel vision and miss points that seem obvious to other readers, the great thing about wikinews is unlike the "dollar media", wikinews is written by people like you and me. This article is still "alive" that is not yet archived and locked from editing, as such and you are more than welcome, in fact positively encouraged to, to edit the article to address any concerns or shortcomings you find. Sign up for an account (its free and easy), have a quick look at the how to write an article page, and Bob's your uncle.KTo288 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason why Wikinews failed to produce results about the military investigation and to be a bit more thorough is because the government itself doesn't tell any truth about it. The people has the right to hear about the truth or else we will be like monkeys that believes in everything the government says. I like what Wikileaks did, showing the people whats really going on.
as a still evolving story, there are many facets that have not been covered, ie: the Media Coverage itself has now become of interest and detailed analysis of the reactions and editorial stances taken have raised accusations of censorship, "spiking" of articles and of it being purposely dismissed, slowed down and buried away from main pages and sections.