Comment by techpineapple

19 hours ago

Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen.

But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.

13 comments

techpineapple

jimt1234 19 hours ago

There's always Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com

nailer 18 hours ago

Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience):

    The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.

For example, the September 11 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi objectively happened - few people on the left or right would pretend they did not happen or that were not notable events of Barack Obama’s presidency (as the article discusses).

This is not a matter of whether you watch Fox News or not.

clipsy 18 hours ago
Have you bothered to do any sort of comparison as to how similar attacks are reported? At a quick glance, I see nothing on George W Bush's wiki page[0] about the 2002 consulate attack in Kolkata[1], for example.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_attack_on_American_cultur...
- duskwuff 18 hours ago
  
  Not that it's necessarily wrong for it to not be listed there, though. The article on GWB is about him and what he did as president - it isn't meant to be a complete history of the United States between 2001 and 2009.
  
  1 reply →
- nailer 14 hours ago
  
  How is that remotely similar? There was not a scandal implicating George Bush regarding the Kolkhata attack.
  
  2 replies →
techpineapple 18 hours ago
Oh look!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
They creatively censored it under the title “2012 Banghazi Attack”
- _DeadFred_ 18 hours ago
  
  The article is nonsense. It links to Obama's Wikipedia page and complains Obama's page doesn't talk about Benghazi. But Obama's Wikipedia page links to a huge article about.... Benghazi. So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page? Weak sauce.
  
  1 reply →
- nailer 18 hours ago
  
  The article above that we are discussing discusses the omission of the Benghazi attack as an aspect of Barack Obama‘s presidency.
  
  1 reply →