Talk:Film about Travis County DA's investigation of Texas election of 2002

NPOV

This article takes deliberate, and misleading, bias to the news event. Further, it has no sources supporting its conjecture. None of the sources describe Mr. Earle as involved in making the film; in fact they each describe him as the subject, approached by the filmmakers, who have been unable to find any funding (from Mr. Earle or anyone else) for their project. In its current form the article has no substance, and would best be described as a political smear essay - not news. - Amgine/^talk 05:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the title. Any help in making the article better would be welcome, and there was no intent to make a smear essay, but to report what I have not seen elsewhere on Wikinews. --JJohnson 06:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Amgine/^talk I changed the title again and I think I've addressed the issues you raised. I'm taking the tags off. Put them back on and let me know if there is a problem. Thanks.--Herda05 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have seriously edited this page to address the issues raised above. I would also suggest that the title be changed. According to the description of the film, and the filmmakers own admissions, the film does not focus on the Delay indictments as much as the election of 2002 in texas as well as the involvment of corporate money. Maybe something more like "Documentary Covers Travis County's Investigation of the Texas Election of 2002" .--Herda05 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice work IMO. And I'm also with you on the title change, for the reasons you stated. I just think it could be a little shorter and catchier, but I'm not sure that will be possible for a rather complicated story like this one. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I was hoping for suggestions cause I didn't like mine ;)--Herda05 18:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I take issue with the need to quantify the National Review Online as "conservative", unless sources such as the New York Times and the LA Times are also qualified as "liberal". This now is POV.

• Its only slightly a measure of degree, it is mostly a measure of readership. We get a big mess if we look at degree: the NRO is more conservative than the LA Times is liberal, but NRO may be less conservative than IMC or Mother Jones are liberal. But LA Times readership presumably dwarfs the those three combined. FOX News is clearly very conservative, but we do not identify them as such due to their huge viewership. - Nyarlathotep 04:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)