I'm glad I work up the hornet nest for asking for both side of the reporting and thinking asking for a positive stories for once from this "news" site is a bad thing. You guys can go back to reporting like MSNBC.

KDP3 (talk)21:25, 15 April 2010

KDP3: I don't think our coverage is unbalanced, but if you think that it is there is a simple solution: write some positive coverage about NATO's efforts in Afghanistan. This isn't Fox, MSNBC, or CNN. When they write a "bad" story (bad is a matter of opinion, hence the scare quotes) the only thing any of us can do is rant and complain in the comments section. The great thing about Wikinews is that YOU can help right any perceived wrongs in our coverage:).

So please, take us to task for our poor coverage by writing the type of story that you wish to see on the front page. It usually takes between one and 2 and a half hours to write a short to medium length article, source it, and format it properly for publication. If we've made a mistake, then right our wrongs. Don't take the standard apathetic "meeeeehhh, let someone else do it" approach. That inaction is deadly for any community or society.

Gopher65talk03:22, 17 April 2010

I apologize for acting over the top. And I do agree that we should show the views whats happening in Afghanistan both the good and bad. But it seems there has been a neglect of what the Taliban is doing.

KDP3 (talk)04:39, 17 April 2010

So tell us KDP3 what ARE they doing?, Oh and cite your sources please. Wikinews doesn't aim to show what's "good" or "bad", we report what happens, no more, no less, that's what NPOV means, and that's what proper journalism is. everything else is spin, or editorializing.

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)05:20, 17 April 2010
 
 
 

No thanks, All MSNBC tries to do is outfox Fox, albeit slightly less so than CNN

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)05:19, 17 April 2010