A recent NY Times article which "broke" the story about Missing Explosives in Iraq reads more like an editorial than straight news. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html
* The article conceals the Pentagon statement that "no explosives had been found in QaQaa.
* The article questions whether Bush had been informed, but ignores an Associated Press report quoting White House press secretary Scott McClellan as saying that Rice DID inform Bush. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAQ_TIMELINE?SITE =DCTMS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I think we should downgrade our estimation of the NY Times. They are not an objective news source: they mix straight reporting with editorializing.
Or, if Wikipedia cannot "endorse or condemn" anyone or anything, then at least we should prominently document the fact that the NY Times article omitted these 2 crucial pieces of news information.
We don't want to let Wikipedia be used to manufacture an October surprise, do we?
Ed Poor <- trying hard to be non-partisan when writing articles
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:44:45 -0700, Poor, Edmund W edmund.w.poor@abc.com wrote:
I think we should downgrade our estimation of the NY Times. They are not an objective news source: they mix straight reporting with editorializing.
If you expect to cite only "objective" news sources, it will be an empty page. No credible news organization can ever claim to be objective. One should evaluate it against the spectrum of other sources, and determine whether it is fair and balanced.
In this I mean real fair and balanced, not Fox News's "Fair and Balanced."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)