Difference between revisions of "Talk:NewsBusters"
From Conservapedia
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There's more quote than content in this article. Can whoever cites it five times a day on the main page update this article? I don't know much about the site, and honestly it doesn't look that relevant. It's not very productive to get outraged at every minute non-conservative viewpoint expressed in the general media. It's worse than the outrage-itis that has typified liberals and Democrats throught the Bush administration. --[[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:34 15 August 2007 | There's more quote than content in this article. Can whoever cites it five times a day on the main page update this article? I don't know much about the site, and honestly it doesn't look that relevant. It's not very productive to get outraged at every minute non-conservative viewpoint expressed in the general media. It's worse than the outrage-itis that has typified liberals and Democrats throught the Bush administration. --[[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:34 15 August 2007 | ||
:What do you mean "it doesn't look that relevant"? This is a conservative site and NewsBusters is constantly reporting liberal bias, hypocrisy, etc. NewsBusters seems totally relevant to me. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT) | :What do you mean "it doesn't look that relevant"? This is a conservative site and NewsBusters is constantly reporting liberal bias, hypocrisy, etc. NewsBusters seems totally relevant to me. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::It is conservative, which makes it somewhat relevant, but not every conservative site is productive or encyclopedia-worthy. At least half of the articles show liberal bias in editorials and openly liberal blogs which have no obligation to neutrality. Many of the stories don't even relate to politics, but to global warming which some conservatives have claimed as a political issue. I just think its a shame that Conservapedia cites so many bloggers and pundits for its news stories. But that's neither here nor there, I just want someone to fix this article. I would if I knew more about the website or thought it was more useful. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 11:21 17 August 2007 | ||
Revision as of 15:21, August 17, 2007
There's more quote than content in this article. Can whoever cites it five times a day on the main page update this article? I don't know much about the site, and honestly it doesn't look that relevant. It's not very productive to get outraged at every minute non-conservative viewpoint expressed in the general media. It's worse than the outrage-itis that has typified liberals and Democrats throught the Bush administration. --RWest 15:34 15 August 2007
- What do you mean "it doesn't look that relevant"? This is a conservative site and NewsBusters is constantly reporting liberal bias, hypocrisy, etc. NewsBusters seems totally relevant to me. --Crocoite 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
- It is conservative, which makes it somewhat relevant, but not every conservative site is productive or encyclopedia-worthy. At least half of the articles show liberal bias in editorials and openly liberal blogs which have no obligation to neutrality. Many of the stories don't even relate to politics, but to global warming which some conservatives have claimed as a political issue. I just think its a shame that Conservapedia cites so many bloggers and pundits for its news stories. But that's neither here nor there, I just want someone to fix this article. I would if I knew more about the website or thought it was more useful. RWest 11:21 17 August 2007
