Importance of News ?

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Importance of News ?

Of everything we could read about the crazy Trump announcements about Jerusalem, this "news" is the least important. There is some single drunken politician from some remote country you never read about, he wakes up after sleeping for weeks and in a moment of distraction he decides to copy the sick US president before even understand what he is doing.

WikiNews is everything else than neutral, if this is "head lines". Who ownes this "democratic" medium? Crazy!

ChangeScience (talk)06:15, 27 December 2017

Just like why should Holy See should ever make a headline when nobody gives a flying fuck about what he does…two wrongs doesn’t make a right. But I don’t think there is a point arguing with you why something is or isn’t news. People like you think s only the first world developed nations can make headline. Why do you think your country is perfect and other politicians can’t decide anything?

•–•06:36, 27 December 2017

What kind of retard is writing nonsense like this? "People like you" should hide behind bars. There is no logic in your statement. If the overwhelming majority of the UN assembly votes, you call this "first world developed nations"? Are you fucking drunk or stupid? But I guess, it's not the game. The game is called "I am the guard of the truth - the Administrator." -or however you call your highness' position. You are a troll and an Israeli scum bag or paid by such.

We have "noted your comments".

ChangeScience (talk)12:06, 27 December 2017

At no point in that article did we criticise Guatemala's or the United States' decision in doing so. We even mentioned the United Nations vote that you seem to be so concerned about. This is the first country to copy America's action here, so it does carry some significance. I don't know what your problem is.

-- numbermaniac02:19, 28 December 2017

Can you read the topic? "Importance of News"

Importance means: Does this have something to do with the present or future? Does it reflect any bigger change in front of us? Does it explain something or call for action?

The vast majority of the world votes against the lunatic Trump and you think, you covered the story by showing a foto of a drunken president of Guatemala who is going to follow the US crooks idea of moving to Jerusalem.

You cite an article about some remote tiny nothing country and call it "significant". One single country.. more significant than a UN vote against another violation of international right.

Your reason for not publishing anything about the UN resolution is simple: You are paid trolls who have to defend and feed the Us Israeli propaganda machine.

ChangeScience (talk)16:12, 30 December 2017

A tiny country — that is how you it, don’t you? See this “tiny country” had the balls to go against the UN. Our reason not to publish anything by UN? You were one whole week late to write an article. This is not an encyclopaedia, news had a deadline. Without newer developments, it was relevant story but was no longer news. Everyone is free to write what they want to. If I was paid to write, what I have been doing for two and half years, it was child labour. You can sue the United States using this information. Go ahead.

•–•16:24, 30 December 2017

You have to call this thing for what it is. It's not any "". It's an Israeli News Outlet, made by shills like you. But we are used to lies from this pit of devils who don't take the truth as serious as their believe in supremacy. The nonsense you post and select is unbearable. I guess nobody will read it any way.

ChangeScience (talk)15:09, 1 January 2018

Well, you did. I don't understand why are you whining after losing a news article that you wrote? You write something that was encyclopedic, no longer news (you don't even know what is news) and then spread your bullshit. Know this: number of people ho read the article will be greater than number of people who would read your opinion.

•–•15:17, 1 January 2018

@ChangeScience: The problem is, and has been for most of the projects history, Wikinews is understaffed. Guatemala wasn't "picked" to be more important. The person who wrote this article created much more complete and timely article. If you had put half as much effort into your article on the UN vote, as you are putting into these comments, I am sure you could have gotten it published. There are enormous gaps in Wikinews coverage, but please do not chalk it up to bias without any sort of evidence.

SVTCobra19:45, 2 January 2018