 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, this article has some of the most slanted statements I've ever seen on Wikipedia.
- "In the UK where there is greater national coverage, watchdog journalism is very effective and consumers' rights are upheld both by radio, television and most national newspapers." VERY pro-UK.
- "In recent history, a notable example of watchdog journalism was the exposure of Dan Rather's investigative segment which cast George W. Bush's military record in an unfavorable light. The segment was based on the Killian documents, which blogger journalists exposed as being insufficiently verifiable as authentic." So blogger journalists "exposed" these documents. That's POV, weasel words, and if we could find a source, would most likely be unreliable, unless the bloggers were affiliated with an actual media source Jedibob5 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
