4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: − + + +
Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias? (view source)
Revision as of 11:07, March 7, 2007
, 11:07, March 7, 2007→A story about the Christian Science Monitor
:It did ''not'' say she had died. But I never would have even noticed it if I hadn't specifically looked for it."
:It did ''not'' say she had died. But I never would have even noticed it if I hadn't specifically looked for it."
So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)
So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.
Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==See also==
==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]
*[[Rhetorical question]]