nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: +
Reply to Greenmeanie
::: Again, I'm not that familiar with America, but yes, I could name at least a couple of Australian ones that essentially don't have a conservative journalist/columnist/whatever on them. But perhaps I should modify what I said before a bit, because a single token conservative (for example) among a sea of liberals on staff would hardly make a news organisation unbiased. You'd have to have about 50/50 for there to be no bias. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Again, I'm not that familiar with America, but yes, I could name at least a couple of Australian ones that essentially don't have a conservative journalist/columnist/whatever on them. But perhaps I should modify what I said before a bit, because a single token conservative (for example) among a sea of liberals on staff would hardly make a news organisation unbiased. You'd have to have about 50/50 for there to be no bias. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::i don't think that time magazine has a higher democrat to republican ratio then fox has a republican to democrat ratio, and just wondering, does conservapedia have any liberal/democratic sysops? (can you tell me how many their are of each (liberal/conservative?)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::i don't think that time magazine has a higher democrat to republican ratio then fox has a republican to democrat ratio, and just wondering, does conservapedia have any liberal/democratic sysops? (can you tell me how many their are of each (liberal/conservative?)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I don't take much notice of American politics, and I wouldn't know for sure whether any of the sysops support the Democratic Party (although I suspect not). As for liberals more generally, Conservapedia has had a few, but they've ended up being demoted or banned for things they did (i.e. not simply because they were liberals) or left of their own accord. But if you're trying to make an argument that Conservapedia is not balanced, you're right: we don't claim to be. We claim to be trying to be ''accurate'', not balanced between truth and falsehood. As for ''Time'', one thing that I do know about it is that it has taken a very pro-evolutionary line, which is hardly balanced. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)