Talk:US lawsuit challenges church as polling place
I attended the press conference in Washington DC.
- And can we have a bit more than that in terms of OR notes? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
At the press conference, each attendee was given a press packet with transcript of each speaker's presentation. I'm sure the American Humanist Association would make the whole packet available to WIKI, but I used the packet as I listened to the speeches. There were very few changes in the actual presentations. The packets also include photographs of the anti-abortion sign in front of the election site as well as photos of the cross above the election judges and the religious banners above the voting booths. Please let me know if you would like me to mail hard copies somewhere, but I presume, the American Humanist Association could probably send the photos via e-mail. Thanks, Lori Brown Lori Brown 17:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- one concern with this article is that it draws its material from only "one side" of a controversy/dispute, raising concerns over its neutrality. this can be addressed by giving some space to the other side, eg. election officials to have their say, either sourcing their earlier statements on the matter, or better still, to get some more original reporting in, calling them for a comment. — Doldrums(talk) 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The full materials refered to by Lori Brown, above, are available online at http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/AHLCmaterials.php.
As for the article drawing its material from only one side, this isn't at all illigitimate in general news reporting following a news event. Fox News reported this story that way. See their coverage at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233461,00.html. So did CNS News, Religion News Service, and others. What you're calling for is something more investigative. But that would be a different article. Fredwords 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikinews works towards Neutrality, and so do most news sources - they try to give an opportunity for the various parties in a news article to respond. one way to provide some balance. Brit Hume, of course, was somewhere else the day they taught journalism 101... — Doldrums(talk) 18:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct--but not completely so. Reporting often starts with the wire services. Their reporters may attend a press conference and then quickly get the story right out on the wire. These reporters, while they handle the one-sided information objectively, don't seek out dissenting views. There's often no time for that at first, since the goal is just to get the story reported (as was done in this case). But then, once the story is out on the wire, other parties with a stake in the matter often issue press releases commenting on the wire story, giving their opinions. And it is the combination of the original wire story, together with these press releases and solicited comments, that may be published in print the next day as the sort of story you seem to be seeking. --Fredwords 18:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
News reporting is a bit more than just merging together competing press releases. I wonder how the proponents of these lawsuits believe they will win at shifting polling places away from communities when they cannot succeed at removing the words, "under God" from the pledge that children say every day.
Sources to use
editI would sugges that independent sources be used in addition to the OR and the press release. Three obvious ones are [1],[2] and [3] JoshuaZ 06:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- little too late to fix this article. btw, there's a discussion about using both primary sources and other news sources underway in the WC/policy. — Doldrums(talk) 06:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)