Are You Kidding Me?

This is not a noteworthy, headline news story. And with his surviving two plane crashes, making a shot in some game is probably the last thing on his mind. Let's celebrate the fact that he actually survived the crash.

The criterion of interest here is not "noteworthiness" (a Wikipedian concept) but newsworthiness. Criticism of the significance of the story should be in that context.

I guess I must remember that, coming straight from Wikipedia. However, any news organization should be able to tell between a news story and a non-story.

As the reviewer on this, I hesitated over the newsworthiness review criterion. I could see going either way on this; but the story was found interesting enough to cover by Associated Press, The Washington Post, and a long-time Wikinewsie reporter. Cf. WN:Relevance.

Well, keep two things in mind: 1)The Washington Post likely has their own interests 2)my post was meant to be pure commentary and not demeaning or offensive in any way.

We should continually self-assess; questioning review decisions after the fact is healthy, needed for vigorous standards. News production isn't perfect — it can't be, given the time constraints — but that doesn't mean glitches in the process should be ignored; for extreme cases there are {{correction}}s, and for most any case there can be discussion of lessons for the future. (Of course, that sort of discussion is more often on the collaboration page rather than the opinions page; in theory, the collaboration page is for discussion of the production of the article, opinions for discussion of the content; but this is, fair enough, a point where they sort-of overlap.)