Talk:Michelle Kosinski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Bias 2 Point of View 3 "Ironically, Katie Couric was promoting a segment about President Bush's apparently staged interview with soldiers in Iraq, later on in the program." 4 Unreliable source

[edit] Bias

Seems biased:

In the photographs, the two men are obviously dressed for very deep water; their clothing indicates what they think of the flood.

&, this article does not have any actual biography.

With this effort to attack her, one might think that she were Jarosław Kaczyński, Lech Aleksander Kaczyński, or Theodore Kaczynski Kaczyński.

"exposetheleft" is an assumption that rightwing General Electric has no influence on National Broadcasting Company.

So much of wiki is weaklypedia.

Hopiakuta 05:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Hopiakuta ~~

Biased, yes, but fundamentally accurate. I've cleaned up the article, and removed the bias, citing real news sources rather than political blogs. However, Hopiakuta, you're really failing to be clear in what you were trying to critisize. "exposetheleft is an assumption that rightwing General Electric has no influence on National Broadcasting Company." isn't at at clear. Still, I've cleaned up the article, and enough said. -Harmil 12:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet no [actual] biography!!!! No mention of how the men are dressed!!!! Nominal improvement.

Hopiakuta 05:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

{{pov}}

____

[edit] Point of View

{{pov}}

hopiakuta 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelle_Kosinski&diff=63463871&oldid=59196649 >.

hopiakuta 02:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is bias evident here. The only outlets that accused kosinski of doing anything underhanded were CONSERVATIVE BLOGS. They created the "controversy," which in intelligent eyes was simply doing a story from a place where people put their boats INTO the water, as opposed to the deep, swift, and dangerous portion.

Why such attacks? Could it be, perhaps, jealous or ultra-conservative hatred that won't let this sit at what it truly is?

Ha! Me ultra conservative??? You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no need to be paranoid about some sort of conspiracy... This is a notable incident that someone is trying to cover up. Here is a direct qoute from the newspaper that list more than just bloggers making not of the incident.

By then, the clip had made the rounds in e-mail forwards and on cable news shows. That afternoon, Don Imus went wild over the gaffe. Tucker Carlson picked it up later, and on Saturday the hosts of Fox and Friends discussed what they were calling the “Flood Faux Pas.”“If Michelle Kosinski’s canoe had sprung a leak on NBC’s ‘Today’ show Friday,” the Associated Press guffawed, “she didn’t have much to worry about.” On Monday, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart had his go...

The ref is from a news outlet and is very clear that it was more than bloggers who mentioned the incident. Maybe conservative media took advantage of the situation but it became a notable incident because of it nonetheless. I have no credible refs that cite the incident was a fabrication created by a political media bias or I would add the info into the article as well. Also, if the incident was only notable for making its rounds on blogs and the internet, unfortunately it would still be notable to the point of adding the info to the article. --I already forgot 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

wrong. those outlets ACCUSED kosinski of nothing. someone is obviously obsessed...eerie. i think she has more to worry about than the lies perpetrated online about this incident! like, negativity-obsessed stalkers, who MUST live in something that happened TWO YEARS ago! I find this endlessly fascinating.

Don't flatter yourself. It's called a watch list. A watch list is made up of articles that are on a user watch list to scan for vandalism and other edits. I picked up this article after cleaning up a few POV tags. Since then, someone has continuously deleted the notable incident without a clear explanation of why (other than some sort of conspiracy) so I continue to watch it. Please drop the "endless fascination" and move on or at least provide a valid argument on why the incident is not notable and is presented in a slanderous way. --I already forgot 15:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An article by Conservative blog WorldNetDaily does NOT constitute a headline; the blog in itself holds bias, given the near-simultaneous report on bush staging. This undue weight, politicized, wil not be tolerated here. You have been warned, you have reverted this weight back far more than three times.

[edit] "Ironically, Katie Couric was promoting a segment about President Bush's apparently staged interview with soldiers in Iraq, later on in the program."

I did not scribe this sentence; however, I am reviving it. It's a good one.

"Ironically, Katie Couric was promoting a segment about President Bush's apparently staged interview with soldiers in Iraq, later on in the program."

hopiakuta 21:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable source

Based on various comments made in editing histories and here, it appears that some editors are concerned that WorldNetDaily is an unreliable source. Shsilver 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)