Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + +
Talk:Top Conservative news websites (view source)
Revision as of 12:05, July 2, 2010
, 12:05, July 2, 2010→Factual Accuracy: Thanks for the suggestion. I've added it, though examples of factual errors on the sites nominated seem rare or non-existent
===Factual Accuracy===
===Factual Accuracy===
One important criterion missing from the list is "factual accuracy." Or as stated in the CP [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Citing_Sources_and_Using_Footnotes|Manual of Style]]: "The party affiliation of a news source should be irrelevant. All that matters is whether the source has a record of telling the truth." There are both liberal and conservative sources which pursue a certain agenda so relentlessly that they get their facts wrong quite often or report breathlessly on "new developments" before there's been a chance to vet their accuracy. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:35, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
One important criterion missing from the list is "factual accuracy." Or as stated in the CP [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Citing_Sources_and_Using_Footnotes|Manual of Style]]: "The party affiliation of a news source should be irrelevant. All that matters is whether the source has a record of telling the truth." There are both liberal and conservative sources which pursue a certain agenda so relentlessly that they get their facts wrong quite often or report breathlessly on "new developments" before there's been a chance to vet their accuracy. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:35, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
:Thanks for the suggestion. I've added it, though examples of factual errors on the sites nominated seem rare or non-existent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:05, 2 July 2010 (EDT)