Talk:CNN hires three conservative commentators

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

January 2006[edit]

Note from the author: This is my first real article on Wikinews, so please be patient with me and explain exactly what your problems are. Thanks. AaronSw 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the article, AaronSw, I enjoyed reading it and found it to be useful news.

This article does NOT cite sources properly....who are the critics? Also, the title is totally POV. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with its source citing? The instructions say to put links at the bottom of the page using the source template; I provide links for every assertion in the article. What's POV about the title? I considered "Critics charge ..." but that seemed like an inappropriate dodge; it's not the real topic. AaronSw 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong[edit]

  • 1. The title is POV. I really do not have to explain it other than it sould say: "So-and-so accuse CNN of being Right-wing" or something like that. This title, the way it is now suggests YOU think that its right-wing.
    • The title ends in a question mark, it discusses a question. I don't see how pointing out the question is POV.
Does not matter. It still looks and sounds like YOU are saying they are right wing.
  • 2. Who are the critics? What are they critics of? You cannot quote critics. There needs to be a name.
    • The only place critics are referred to is in the first (summary) paragraph, from then on specific critics are named, quoted, and cited.
You say Critics all over. Who are they? ex: "Critics are suggesting..." What critic? Who?
That's not all over, that's the first paragraph -- exactly the one I just referred to! AaronSw 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 3. This is not really news in its current form. At least in my opinion. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not? AaronSw 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Because I still think its your opinion. You have very minimal info for the quotes you suggest.
What exactly do you mean? What info should be provided for quotes? AaronSw 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to quote who from fox news....what critics? who? and the title still suggests you are saying CNN is right wing. I am NOT going to keep repeating myself. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not seeing what you think is so obvious, but can you explain at least one specific problem with my CNN story. I know it doesn't have any quotes from right-wing media watch groups but I haven't found any yet. AaronSw 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do not allow editorials, which is sort of plain and simple. We have a NPOV policy that is worth a read, and the article as it stands really does heavily bounce on the border of it. Assertions of Fox News like so: "FOX News Channel claims to be "fair and balanced" by featuring right-wing perspectives they feel are unfairly kept off of other networks." aren't allowed under the policy. This isn't factually correct all the time, so it can be claimed as a POV statement. Also, speculating on a matter of three occurances isn't really "proof" (even if it was, we can't assert anything). I suggest a title change for the article to "Concerns raised against new CNN personalities" (or similar), and a focus of the article to be changed from an editorial to an article about the groups concerned about CNN's hirings, as well as responses from CNN (if avail.) and people from the right. This way, it maintains balance, and an article isn't wasted. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't that statement allowed? It's totally NPOV -- it describes what FOX claims. The only part that seems objectionable is the characterization "right-wing", but these terms are frequently used in political discourse. The article doesn't speculate -- it provides facts and quote charges from two prominent nonprofits. AaronSw 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • FNC claims that it is "Fair and balanced", Ailes was the one who made the statement about the right not being represented enough. Therefore, it cannot be asserted that they attempt to be "fair and balanced" by adding "right-wing"s into their programs. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
WHO from Fox News claims that? WHO are the critics? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Article lead[edit]

Looks to me, after the first paragraph the article is fine. -Edbrown05 03:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The major edit helped a lot. It looks great. It was not just the first paragraph...the whole thing was a mess. Good wotk Wikinewsies...after recent dispoutes I am happy to see this one resolved VERY QUICK. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. This better be a lead now :P! But before, title suggestions! Please! --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"CNN accused of right-wing agenda" that sounds good..almost spooky DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Spooky indeed, but could be seen in the wrong fashion. How about "CNN hires three prominent conservative commentators"? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Its ok but not "catchy" enough...but why not the 1 I mentioned? The watychdogs DO accuse CNN of it going in that direction... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I see the last quote as ok...but The first one should be backed up by what he said. I have to go to work. ttyl. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:CNN. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:MSNBC also. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)