An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Fox News Rewrites History About Itself (UPDATED)
It quietly edits unflattering Wikipedia posts. Details HERE.
“Fair and balanced…” RIGHT!
UPDATE: A reader asked for an example of another group editing on Wikipedia so how about this.
Here’s a list of “salacious edits”
And here’s a THE KEY LINK so you can do your own searches on who’s tinkering with Wikipedia, so you can find the group you hate and use it against them. For instance, find a liberal group and then imply that it means Fox News, a news organization, therefore did nothing wrong (RIGHT). Bloggers who have the time will have a lot of FUN with this link.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Fox News Rewrites History About Itself (UPDATED)”
I’d think that a moderate blog would cover other groups that edit Wikipedia. Maybe I should move this blog into my ‘liberal section’?
You can do what you want. I saw a link and linked to it. I did not do an exhaustive roundup. Fox News is a NEWS ORGANIZATION and it turns out its removing (found out despite the quiet editing) criticisms about it from Wikipedia. I LOVE when we do a post and someone says “you didn’t mention the conservatives so this is conservative blog” or “you didn’t mention the liberals.” do what you wish but we run tons of stuff here and tons of links from all over and we’re under no obligation to research and run definitive treatises on each subject. It’s clear to a can of ravioli on the shelf at Publix supermarket that we linked to this because it involves a news organization that calls itself fair and balanced…but apparently is removing stuff that is critical of it…stuff posted by others…from wikipedia…in light of controversies about people editing wikipedia entries. This is my post for the month answering the “how can you call yourself a moderate” cliche. Move the site where you want but we’ll keep calling the shots as we see them — and some of us here have newspaper and magazine backgrounds and understand that news organizations are supposed to live up to higher standards than political advocacy groups.
This is a good reminder that depending on Wikipedia for single-source information is a risky busiiness.
Well, looks like the anti-Fox crew better put in some overtime because this “history” never seems to change………….
Fox News rules ratings, as always, but who’s in second is less certain
Posted: July 31, 2007
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=640910
Query…….How can the supposed 80% solidly against the war make empirical sense when O’Reilly gets 4 times the viewers that Olberman does?
Thank you, the second link is a very good one. I’d recommend anyone who has the time look through it.
Joe – it isn’t that because someone else did it that Fox is excused. It is the joy anyone remotely connected with the media takes in trying to tar Fox, simply because they are about the only non-left leaning major media player around. The nail that sticks up must be hammered down, I guess.
Given this is a breaking story, and there is plenty of blame from all directions to discuss, focussing strictly on Fox to the exclusion of all else is a biased posting and reaction, any way you want to try and justify it. It hardly was a ‘Moderate Voice’, IMHO.
Yes, just look up edits originating from BBC computers (caution: slow download)……George Walker Bush changed to George Wanker Bush, for example.
Now there’s a serious news organization!
QFT
I long ago banned use of Wikipedia as a citation reference in my classes.
The “related links” section can be useful for students, but the information itself must always be considered suspect and agenda-driven.
The news that FoxNews was editing its own Wiki page (no doubt to remove material placed there by the equally agenda-driven anti-Fox activists) is unsurprising. That no one is talking about other self-interested groups editing their own Wiki pages is merely because they aren’t looking for them. FoxNews was singled out for “special investigation” because a lot of people don’t like FoxNews, not because FoxNews is doing anything that a lot of other people aren’t doing also.
I stopped accepting ‘Johnny did it too” as an excuse from my children when they were around 5 years old. Apparently, I was a much stricter judge of wrong-doing than the friends of FOX.
Fox News or Wikipedia- which is more trustworthy? Isn’t this sort of like asking who’s more humane- Osama bin Laden or Jeffrey Dahmer?
domajot – which post or comment here tried to excuse Fox? I don’t see any. I only see comments that there are blinders on who else is being criticized for the same actions.
But by leftist definitions, I guess that counts.
Fox News: We report. We rewrite.