On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:07:37 -0700, ScottL <scott(a)mu.org> wrote:
I think the original point of this example (and tell
me if I am
wrong) is not the specific case but cases like it. Where you risk being
POV with perfectly verifiable stuff. Violating NPOV can be done by
selection of what to include as easy as it can with how you include it.
This is the claim that is frequently made against the media, that
their bias is not in untrue reporting but in what they chose to report.
Yes. And in the specific case of Armstrong, he recently won a case
against the Sunday Times which strayed over that line. Socafan seems
to me to be intent on having the Foundation follow the same path...
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG