Jump to content

User talk:Ianonne89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ianonne89 (talk | contribs) at 13:37, 29 November 2011 (→‎Fox News and MSNBC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Ianonne89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News and MSNBC

Any particular reason why you removed this from Fox News Channel controversies but added this to MSNBC? Your source says that Fox News viewers are least informed with MSNBC's being a distant second, so why is it appropriate to say it about MSNBC and not Fox News? Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? How about NPOV? Mind you, the FDU poll can be cited in Fox News entries, but can not be cited in MSNBC? Is that what this is about?--Ianonne89 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim that you are trying a achieve NPOV when you are removing it from the least informed, but adding it to the distant second least informed. How is that NPOV? Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to achieve NPOV. The conclusion of the poll is indefensible and deeply misleading. I would have done the same with respect to MSNBC. Look, all news outlets are biased. Over here, we have the BBC, which compared to US standards is incredibly objective. That does not mean that the BBC is unbiased, or completely objective. WP can and should be better. We have here the opportunity of putting to work those ideals / pillars that make this a great place where people from all walks of life can contribute. --Ianonne89 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]