Changes

==Suggestions for linkable examples==

==Suggestions for linkable examples==

The easiest example to use would eb the online version of the New York Times, since it contains distinct Editorial, Columnist, Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections that show the differences between each.  That source is looked down upon here, and the Wall Street Journal is a paid site, so I'm open to suggestions that would be acceptable while showing the different editorial forms above.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:35, 12 December 2008 (EST)

The easiest example to use would be the online version of the New York Times, since it contains distinct Editorial, Columnist, Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed sections that show the differences between each.  That source is looked down upon here, and the Wall Street Journal is a paid site, so I'm open to suggestions that would be acceptable while showing the different editorial forms above.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:35, 12 December 2008 (EST)

:The Times is a prime example of mixing news and commentary. They do more [[advocacy journalism]] than any other newspaper than, say, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe.

:The Times is a prime example of mixing news and commentary. They do more [[advocacy journalism]] than any other newspaper than, say, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe.

* But I digress. The real Journalistic scandal is one-sided reporting: giving all the evidence on one side of an issue - which supports the paper's editorial or ideological stance. By suppressing facts which disprove your point, the paper gives the impression that no such evidence exists.

* But I digress. The real Journalistic scandal is one-sided reporting: giving all the evidence on one side of an issue - which supports the paper's editorial or ideological stance. By suppressing facts which disprove your point, the paper gives the impression that no such evidence exists.

* This is the strategy of the [[global warming]] people. They mercilessly persecute [[The Deniers]], so that no one but a handful of retirees or brave mavericks dares speak up. Then they say that "no one disagrees with us so we must be right". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 12:09, 12 December 2008 (EST)

* This is the strategy of the [[global warming]] people. They mercilessly persecute [[The Deniers]], so that no one but a handful of retirees or brave mavericks dares speak up. Then they say that "no one disagrees with us so we must be right". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 12:09, 12 December 2008 (EST)