Talk:Babies on U.S. no-fly lists holding up passengers

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this for real? If so, how can anyone in their right mind trust the accuracy of any info coming out of Washington? NPOV 12:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This only has one source

Tone[edit]

The overall tone of this article seems to be attacking the no-fly list (such as the reference to the ACLU's comments). If someone could fix this up and find a few more sources, it would help greatly. --Mrmiscellanious 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • If you do not like the ACLU comments, take them out. Why don't you find the sources? If something looks bad because it is absurd, that doesn't mean the observer is attacking it. Neutralizer 18:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, it only took 10 seconds to find another dozen sources http://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=babies%20no-fly

why didn't the people who wanted more sources put out the effort to look for more sources? Neutralizer 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind most of those are just reprints of the AP story --Cspurrier 18:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that "most" does not mean "all" and http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050816005769&newsLang=en is a very good source. No offense, but is it normal here for a phalanx of administrators to appear to protect the image of the US government from any news stories about events that reflect badly upon that government? Obviously there have been other stories with only one source and AP is a great source; plus additional sources are available. It seems like red herrings are being used to sanitize stories about nonsensical US government activities and ,on the other hand, broad POV leniency is demanded when pushing forward a puff piece [[1]] about celebrating US/UK war activities; complete with pseudo glamour reporting of Dukes,Palaces,Viscounts and Lords. Is this normal here on wikinews? Neutralizer 18:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "Protect the image of the US government"? You must be joking, right? Wikinews takes NO STANCE on the issue; therefore would not need to "protect the image" of the US government, because we do not attack it nor praise it. --Mrmiscellanious 19:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikinews attracts some people with an interest in the classical newsy NPOV writing style, to a lesser extent it attracts those with a liberal bias, but it doesn't attract so many with a conservative bias.. maybe modern conservative biases are much less compatible with the medium, or the classical newsy style, or maybe they are just idiots. Anyway, some newsy-types become editors and some attack the bias they see being inserted into articles.
Anyway, an ACLU statment is clearly POV but they are important, they give good references, and they write clearly, so they are a good informative news source regardless of the bias.. and infinitely more quotable than most companies press releases. :) Nyarlathotep 18:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
touche :) Paulrevere2005 01:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)