Subscribe by EmailFox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes
August 14, 2007 by BrianBoyko | 136 commentsBy Brian Boyko
Contributor, [GAS]
Call Stephen Colbert, whose “Wikiality” has entered reality.
There are a few news stories breaking about people editing Wikipedia – including the CIA, Diebold, and U.S. Congressional Offices.
O’Reilly Media (the techie O’Reilly) has come out with information detailing that Fox News has been changing entries on Wikipedia as well – including one on Al Franken’s case with Bill O’Reilly (the caustic O’Reilly).
So we went ahead and took a look at other changes to Wikipedia allegedly made by the people from the Fox News offices – the changes originating from IP address “12.167.224.228“. (Here’s the DNS lookup for 12.167.224.228.) We’ve done the legwork of poring through all the edits and published a comprehensive list below, omitting corrections of minor errors and clarifications of fact, i.e., the innocuous. The following below are clearly anything but, however.
Edit: From the comments people are leaving, I felt I needed to clarify something. No, Fox News is not the only one out there editing Wikipedia. There have been edits by the CIA, NSA, Dow Chemical, etc., detailed on other sites. I focused on Fox News because it’s what I saw first, it’s what I had time for, and I thought some of the edits were particularly noisome to myself because I’m a journalist.
Furthermore, many people bring up the BBC and NYT edits to the George Bush page. While the BBC editing “wanker” or the NYT editing “jerk jerk jerk” into George Bush’s profile is unbecoming, it is not a gross violation of journalistic ethics. It may be a violation of professional ethics, but not journalistic ones – the key being that those edits were designed to insult and not designed to smear (to present a skewed negative opinion or falsehood that sounds credible as a matter of fact) or to obscure (to attempt to remove information from the public record). No one believes that George Bush’s middle name is Wanker, and “jerk jerk jerk” isn’t even a complete sentence. On the other hand, the Fox News edits were much subtler and went beyond name calling into misinforming, misleading, or obscuring the facts to make it’s own self look better compared to it’s rivals. That is the exact opposite of what a news organization should do, and that’s why I feel that these edits are particularly odious. Your opinion may vary, especially if you believe that civility is a higher good than veracity in a news organization; still, there is no attempt to “ignore” the other half of the story because the other half of the story has – like this half – been covered endlessly.
And yes, I am working on the BBC edits, but unlike Fox, there are much, much more of them, and most of the edits are minor things, usually adding information and correcting spelling errors. (in other words, Fox had a very high “smear to legitimate use” ratio.) Also, my relative unfamiliarity with the Hutton Inquiry’s conclusions, British newscasters and publications, and the sports of Rugby and Cricket mean that BBC edits require more research. This, on top of a 9-5 job, freelance projects and side-projects, means that it will be delayed – and I probably won’t be the first one. Thankfully, other people on the ‘net have tackled the BBC edits and if you’re in a hurry for information, I invite you to head over to them.
List of Fox News Changes to Wikipedia
Found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=12.167.224.228
(Continued…)
Below, you’ll find changes that were made by IP address 12.167.224.228, which resolves to Fox News. Changes are to the articles “Keith Olbermann”, “Chris Wallace”, “Carl Cameron”, “Brit Hume”, “Shepard Smith”, “Al Franken”, “Brian Wilson”, “CNN”, and “Greta Van Susteren”.
CHANGES TO: “KEITH OLBERMANN”
REMOVED
Ultimately, Olbermann’s dissatisfaction with Bristol contributed to his departure from ESPN in 1997. Even several years after his departure, many people still consider Olbermann to be one of the best anchors that SportsCenter ever had, and his pairing with Dan Patrick the best tandem ever.
In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. This documentation now sits in the Hall of Fame, and is considered the definitive compendium of first and third base coaches in baseball history.
… mocking O’Reilly’s purported fetish for loofah sponges, as alleged in a sexual harrassment suit against O’Reilly.
According to Dash Riprock of americanpolitics.com, Olbermann “tells the truth, and he does it in a sharp, subtlety stated, but unmistakable style. It’s sad to realize that it is truly such an oddity these days to see someone with those qualities on TV.” [http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030401punditpap.html]
CHANGED
From
On Monday, August 8, 2005, the day following [[Peter Jennings]]’s death from lung cancer, Olbermann revealed on-air that he had had a benign, fibrous tumor removed from the roof of his mouth just ten days earlier. In an explicit and controversial monologue, he attributed his tumor (and the resulting fear and pain) directly to his 27-year habit of smoking pipes and cigars. He vigorously urged his viewers not to wait until they see symptoms to quit. “Do whatever you have to do to stop smoking – now. While it’s easier.” According to [[Don Imus]] on the following morning’s [[Imus In The Morning]] broadcast, that statement nearly got Olbermann fired.
To
On Monday, August 8, 2005, the day following [[Peter Jennings]]’s death from lung cancer, Olbermann revealed on-air that he had had a benign, fibrous tumor removed from the roof of his mouth just ten days earlier. In an explicit and controversial monologue, he attributed his tumor (and the resulting fear and pain) directly to his 27-year habit of smoking pipes and cigars. He was taken to task inthe blogosphere for trying to make the story about himself the day after news veteran Peter Jennigs passed away from lung cancer. According to [[Don Imus]] on the following morning’s [[Imus In The Morning]] broadcast, that statement nearly got Olbermann fired.
From
O’Reilly’s show, ”[[The O'Reilly Factor]]”, airs on the Fox News Channel at the same time as Olbermann’s show on MSNBC, garnering ratings six times higher than Olbermann’s.
To
O’Reilly’s show, ”[[The O'Reilly Factor]]”, airs on the Fox News Channel at the same time as Olbermann’s show on MSNBC, garnering ratings ten times higher than Olbermann’s.
(Keep an eye on this change in particular)
From
Some conservatives feel that Olbermann’s reporting carries a liberal bias.
To
Conservatives feel that Olbermann’s reporting carries a liberal bias.
ADDED
This move was widely ciritcized by the the media and the blogosphere and Olbermann was attacked for making the death of news icon Peter Jennings about himself.
CHANGES TO: “CHRIS WALLACE”
REMOVED
[[Media Matters for America]], a progressive web-based organization that reports and criticizes what it describes as “conservative misinformation in the U.S. media”
[http://mediamatters.org/about_us/ Media Matters], disputed Wallace’s statement. [http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002 Media Matters] It reviewed “dozens of interviews … with senior Bush aides” and found only one (a 2004 interview with [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]]) in which Wallace raised the “basic charge that, pre-[[September 11, 2001 attacks|9-11]] … this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda,” adding, “Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.” [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115436,00.html FOX News] The organization found no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, [[Tony Snow]], had asked a Bush administration official about the treatment of Clarke or about the lack of response to the ”Cole” bombing.
On [[October 15]], Wallace interviewed the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Because he had told Clinton that his questions were prompted in part by emailed requests, some [[Modern American liberalism|liberals]] organized campaigns to email Wallace a request that he ask Rice about the Bush administration’s lack of response to the ”Cole” bombing. One organization, the [[Center for American Progress]], said that 20,000 such emails had been sent. [http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/15/wallace-ignores-emailshttp://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/15/wallace-ignores-emails "Think Progress", October 15, 2006] Nevertheless, Wallace did not ask Rice about the ”Cole” bombing.[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220948,00.html "Transcript: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 'FNS'"]
Changes To: “CARL CAMERON”
REMOVED:
Cameron has been criticized as being a partisan Republican in his reporting, often interjecting subjective labels on Democrats in order to attack them. In one segment, for example, Cameron attacked three separate Democrats in a time period of only fifteen seconds, deaming them variously, “fairly typical liberal partisan”, “Angry liberal,” and “extremist”[http://mediamatters.org/items/200501130003].
== Journalistic Fraud ==
Media watchdog groups have documented a number of occassions in which Carl Cameron has fabricated statements by Democratic politicians, seemingly to boost their Republican opponents. Among other quotes, Cameron once claimed that John Kerry labeled [[George W. Bush]] a “warmonger” who intended to create “perpetual war” around the world – no such instance of that criticism ever occurred. In another instance, Cameron fabricated an interview with Kerry in which Kerry referred to Bush as a “Cowboy” and spoke feminently about getting his “nails done”, a more open attempt to humiliate and belittle Kerry, for which Fox News eventually apologized for.[http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040006][http://mediamatters.org/items/200409210009].
CHANGED:
(Ah – Fox didn’t delete the word “some” – they just moved it…)
From
Cameron has been criticized by democrats as being a partisan Republican in his reporting.
To
Cameron has been criticized by some democrats as being a partisan Republican in his reporting.
Changes to “BRIT HUME”
REMOVED:
(CITATIONS)
[http://www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/alfrankenshow/index.php?/franken/hume_context/]”
* [http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/2004/02/001613.html Honoring Brit Hume dishonors journalism (AlterNet)]
[http://www.wage-slave.org/archives/00000233.html]”
[http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/ma_opinion/article/0%2C071%2CNPDN_14922_2662908%2C00.html The Marcophile: Media's Brit blind spot (Naples, {FL} Daily News)]
Brit Hume’s son, Washington journalist [[Sandy Hume]] was a reporter for The Hill. Sandy Hume broke the story of the aborted 1997 coup against House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In February 1998 Sany Hume committed [[suicide]] by a self inflicted gunshot from a hunting rifle. The [[National Press Club]] honors his memory with the annual Sandy Hume Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Journalism.
[[Image:Hume Screenshot.jpg|200x|thumb|A screenshot of the Fox News website that promotes statements of Brit Hume's, some of which opponents charge are factually inaccurate.]]
CHANGED:
From
[[MSNBC]] commentator Keith Olbermann claimed that Hume and FOX News committed “premeditated, historical fraud” in distorting FDR [http://mediamatters.org/items/200502150008]; on Olberman’s show, James Roosevelt, Jr., said that Hume’s “outrageous distortion” of FDR “calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation” [http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003].
To
[[MSNBC]] commentator Keith Olbermann claimed that Hume and FOX News committed “premeditated, historical fraud” in distorting FDR [http://mediamatters.org/items/200502150008] on Olberman’s low-rated cable television program.
(Not only do they plant MMfA with “liberal” but apparently no one taught Fox how to use “a article” properly)
From
…with the criticism led by [[Media Matters for America]], an organization that critiques the press in search of conservative bias and bloopers.
To
…with the criticism led by [[Media Matters for America]], an liberal organization that critiques the press in search of conservative bias and bloopers.
From
Many groups and commentators, including [[Media Matters for America]], and liberal broadcasters [[Al Franken]], and [[Keith Olbermann]], have claimed that Hume distorted Roosevelt’s views.
To
Many groups and commentators, including [[Media Matters for America]], and liberal broadcasters [[Al Franken]], and [[Keith Olbermann]], have claimed that Hume distorted Roosevelt’s views in an attempt to ride Mr. Hume’s coat tails in the ratings race as Mr. Hume hosts the highest rated political program on cable television.
(You could make a case that Sandy Hume, so unlike his father doesn’t deserve to have his sexual orientation “outed” and that’s why Fox removed it. Then again… this is FOX we’re talking about…)
From
On [[February 22]] [[1998]] Brit’s homosexual 28-year-old son [[Sandy Hume (journalist)|Sandy]] was found dead in his [[Arlington, Virginia|Arlington]] apartment. Hume died of a self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head.
To
On [[February 22]] [[1998]] Brit’s 28-year-old son [[Sandy Hume (journalist)|Sandy]] was found dead in his [[Arlington, Virginia|Arlington]] apartment. Hume died of a self-inflicted shotgun wound to the head.
From
On the February 3 edition of FOX News’ ”Special Report with Brit Hume”, Hume claimed that [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], the founder of [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]], would have endorsed privatization:
To
On the February 3 edition of FOX News’ ”Special Report with Brit Hume”, Hume claimed that [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], the founder of [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]], had proposed something similar to the personal accounts offered by President Bush as part of his Social Security reform plan:
(Subtle…)
From
Controversy surrounded Hume when he was awarded the National Press Foundation’s Broadcaster of the Year award in [[2004]]. The head of the [[University of Missouri]]’s Washington journalism program, Geneva Overholser, furiously resigned from the Foundation’s board due to her belief that Hume’s political views are connected to his journalistic work. Past recipients of the award such as National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg have also been criticized for allegedly biased journalism. However, Overholser did not step down over controviersies surrounding liberal award recipients.
To
Controversy surrounded Hume when he was awarded the National Press Foundation’s Broadcaster of the Year award in [[2004]]. The head of the [[University of Missouri]]’s Washington journalism program, Geneva Overholser, foolishly resigned from the Foundation’s board due to her belief that Hume’s political views are connected to his journalistic work. Past recipients of the award such as National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg have also been criticized for allegedly biased journalism. However, Overholser did not step down over controviersies surrounding the liberal award recipients.
From
As a young Washington Post reporter Hume discovered that the [[1972]] [[Republican National Convention]] had been underwritten by [[AT&T]] and that an [[antitrust]] case had been conveniently dropped by the [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] White House shortly thereafter. This greatly embarrassed Richard Nixon who then had Hume and his wife and children observed by two [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] agents for several months. The agents nicknamed Hume “eggnog” for his blondish hair and observed his family going about their daily business. This came to light during the [[Gerald Ford|Ford]] administration during congressional hearings. Part of the reason ABC later hired Hume was his self-assured and impressive demeanor during the televised hearings.
To
As a reporter for Jack Anderson’s column, Hume uncovered an internal corporate memo indicating that the [[1972]] [[Republican National Convention]] had been underwritten by [[ITT]] and that, in exchange, an [[antitrust]] case had been conveniently dropped by the [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] White House shortly thereafter. Later, Anderson published a series classified documents indicating the Nixon administration, contrary to its public pronouncements, had tipped in favor of Pakistan during the 1971 India-Pakistan war. After those revelations, Anderson and his staff, including Hume, his wife and children were placed under surveillance by the Central Intelligence Agency. The agents code-named Hume “eggnog” and observed his family going about their daily business. This came to light during the [[Gerald Ford|Ford]] administration in Congressional hearings, and as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
ADDED:
However, Olbermann has on more than one occasion tried to create controversy in hopes of attaining some of the popularity enjoyed by the targets of his attacks. In this instance, Mr. Hume is the subject of Olbermann’s attack because he anchors the highest rated program in cable news television.
Changes to “SANDY HUME (JOURNALIST)”
CHANGED:
From
In February, 1998, Sandy Hume, the 28-year-old son of [[Fox News]] anchorman [[Brit Hume]], was found dead of a gunshot to the head. At the time, he was covering the U.S. Congress for the magazine [[The Hill]]. Sandy Hume’s official cause of death was suicide, but others question the official story.
To
In February, 1998, Sandy Hume, the 28-year-old son of [[Fox News]] anchorman [[Brit Hume]], was found dead of a gunshot to the head. At the time, he was covering the U.S. Congress for the magazine [[The Hill]]. Sandy Hume’s official cause of death was suicide.
Changes to “SHEPARD SMITH”
REMOVED
==Controversies==
Smith was arrested in Florida in [[November]] [[2000]] for aggravated battery with a motor vehicle. The apparent victim was another reporter. Both Smith and the other reporter were in Florida covering the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000#Florida_election_results|Florida election crisis]] during the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000|2000 United States presidential election]].
In [[2002]], Smith accidentally used the slang sex term [[blow job]] during a broadcast of his nightly [[FOX Report]], causing himself considerable embarrassment. He’d reportedly meant to refer to pop star [[Jennifer Lopez]]’s neighbors as “more likely to give her a [[curbing|curb job]] than a [[block party]],” but misspoke during the last part. Smith immediately apologized to his viewers, and FOX executives indicated their belief that it was an innocent mistake.
(This was a mug shot of Shepard Smith after an assault charge in 2000)
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/dsmithmug1.html 2000 mug shot]
(As if alleged vehicular battery wasn’t enough…)
Shepard Smith appeared as himself in the film “Volcano.”
Changes to “AL FRANKEN”
CHANGED
From
The lawsuit focused a great deal of media attention upon Franken’s book and greatly enhanced its sales. Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the [[National Public Radio]] program ”[[Fresh Air]]” on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox’s case against him was “literally laughed out of court” and that “wholly (holy) without merit” is a good characterization of Fox News itself.
To
The lawsuit focused a great deal of media attention upon Franken’s book and greatly enhanced its sales. Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the liberal [[National Public Radio]] program ”[[Fresh Air]]” on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox’s case against him was the best thing to happen to his book sales.
Changest to “BRIAN WILSON (FOX NEWS CORRESPONDANT)
REMOVED:
On April 21, 2005, Wilson presented [[Tom DeLay]]’s own misleading talking points without rebuttal, specifically that he was being targeted by “a left-wing syndicate” (apparently directly quoted from an email DeLay sent to his supporters in the Houston area entitled ‘What the press isn’t telling you,’). Wilson appears to be a poor fact-checker, given that newspapers that endorsed [[George W. Bush]] and prominent [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] had also criticized DeLay. Wilson also left unrebutted DeLay’s misleading charge that the Texas district attorney investigating contributions to his political action committee is “a liberal, a leftist.”[http://mediamatters.org/items/200504210002]
Changes to “CNN”
From
*On [[November 21]], [[2005]] CNN was airing [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]’s speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington – when a large black ‘X’ flashed twice for 1/15th of a second over the vice president’s face. Along with the text: “Transition begins after 5 frames black” appearing below.
To
*On [[November 21]], [[2005]] CNN was airing [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]]’s speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington – when a large black ‘X’ flashed twice for 1/7th of a second over the vice president’s face. Along with the text: “Transition begins after 5 frames black” appearing below.
Changes to “GRETA VAN SUSTEREN”
REMOVED:
There was speculation that Van Susteren only got the facelift at Fox News’s urging, often with the implication that the cable network that some satirists call “Foxy News” required attractive female anchors. Van Susteren dismissed these criticisms, saying that she did it for her own self-esteem; she was paraphrased as saying that she couldn’t wait to show everyone her new look at her thirtieth high school reunion.
CHANGED:
From
She has also taken some criticism due to her near non-stop coverage of the [[Natalee Holloway]] case which has increased her ratings 60%.
To
She has also taken some criticism due to her coverage of the [[Natalee Holloway]] case which has increased her ratings.
In Conclusion: There is no doubt that Wikipedia will, by design, have credibility problems. In addition to these, we found other (admittedly minor and less numerous) edits by the IP address that traces to Fox News that add more information to a story, clarify or correct, and manage to do what editors to Wikipedia should do. But the above listed edits are clearly designed not to get to the truth. If I was at Fox News, ostensibly a journalist, my first order of business would be finding out who, what, when, where, why, and how these edits were made. Were they made, as the IP suggests, from Fox’s offices? Was it an intern? A janitor? Rupert? Get to the bottom of the story – and if at the end of it, Fox is at fault, they should seriously apologize – not just to their viewers but to the entire Wikipedia community.
- When April Fool’s Jokes Infiltrate Wikipedia
- Fox/Warner Settlement: Watchmen is ON!
- Megan Fox Will Eat You
- Fox renews the Sarah Connor Chronicles
Guys,
I love this blog, but stick to the geeky gear and weird stuff, please. You know, the usual stuff. If I want to read about political crap (despite the “wikiality”) then I’d seek out any number of worthless blogs.
Please, please, please, promise me — no promise all of us — that you’ll simply avoid everything political.
Yours sincerely,
HSO
HSO, get a life.
To paraphrase Orwell, everything is political. The decision not to include politics here is a political decision.
I think the quote you’re paraphrasing is Socrates: “Politics is life.”
Since those quotes are both accurate, I guess Orwell/Blair was paraphrasing Socrates.
Socrates – was he Tory or Labour?
How odd to have the biased editing of a major internet resource to be considered neither ‘geeky’, nor ‘weird’.
This isn’t a story about Fox news politics. This is a story about Fox News vandalizing Wikipedia entries.
Pardon to bring you back to reality, but this is about the basic problem with Wikipedia: ANYONE can edit it!!!
It floors me that people are outraged and screaming that -those people who may have biases are editing Wikipedia-???
Ya think?
Ever since I read my first Wiki entry, I’ve repeated that criticism to others who merely shrugged and insisted that it was still a great source.
Moreover, to attribute these edits to “FoxNews” is just as lax as attributing ANY edit from ANY IP as representative of a whole company.
Is this someone from Fox News editing CNN’s page? Almost certainly. But to suggest that its part of a concerted effort by Fox is just plain wrong.
All it takes is one person in a company of thousands to sit at their computer and change entries. Or have you never done that at your desk?
The real problem here is that Wikipedia is a poor source of information. It assumes that among the millions of people who are adding entries, that the vast bulk of them have no bias.
Which is stupid… as this latest “Scandal” has illustrated.
-John
HSO… quit your whitenerdbitch whining. This was the most interesting entry this blog has ever had.
really, HSO, wikipedia doesn’t have anything to do with technology? the writer brings up some excellent points about the implications of these actions allegedly taken by Fox News employees, having to do with technology, media and politics. a good story makes connections between the primary subject matter and its effects on society as a whole. this article, in my opinion, does just that.
“wikipedia doesn’t have anything to do with technology? the writer brings up some excellent points about the implications of these actions allegedly taken by Fox News employees”
You’re jumping the gun with that “s” that you put on Employee.
-John
This is definitely weird and geeky. Really though, it’s not that spectacular. Some one’s editing wikipedia from work and that work happens to be Fox News, why should Fox News have to appologise? Wikipedia doesn’t suffer from a credability problem and this record is a proof of that. Bad information gets weeded out.
so geeks can never ever be political? I’m such a geek and it’s ridiculous that you should tell geeks not to be political. I think I’m sexy for knowing a lot of information that others don’t know about. Geeks need all the help we can get (sometimes) to show people we have brains that are actually contain useful information to others.
What is wrong with political? It has everything to do with our lives, especially right now with this Bush Administration. Whether we like it or not unfortunately.
ditto – get a life HSO.
Until everyone in this country realizes that politics IS life, and non-action is in itself an act of complicity – we will have problems. Maybe u shouldn’t be sticking your head up your ass in public.
These people are using a geek-oriented tool (Wikipedia) to spread outright lies and disinformation. Efforts to reveal what they’re doing should be encouraged, not avoided because it’s “political”.
If you don’t want to read it, if you feel like burying your head in the sand to this particular problem, no one is forcing you to pay attention.
Personally, I’m grateful to Brian for spending the time and effort to track down these changes and present them.
I try to keep the “political stuff” rare but felt that A) it was Geek related, and B) it was too big a story to ignore. If it becomes a habit (which I don’t think it will) maybe I’ll figure on getting a seperate blog for it. (PolicywonksAreSexy?)
How can people like HSO remain willfully ignorant if the sharp partition between politics and life isn’t respected?
Fox is Evil. I worked there for almost a year. I still feel dirty.
I agree. Fox is evil. But why do you feel dirty? I will never work for Fox, so tell me why it was bad. I’m just wondering what I might find appalling that I don’t already know.
[...] After that, please join the discussion and leave us some comments. Thanks for visiting!Thanks to Geeks are Sexy for doing the [...]
thanks. this is amazing. and don’t listn to te haters above. If organiaztions start doing thee kind of attacks and get outed by the only ones who would ever know (nerds) we would all be less informed.
and cut with theleft right bs. I also wanna know if this is happening at CNN.
Pope, I see your point, and to validate your opinion, I didn’t read more than first few opening paragraphs before realising I didn’t care. As I’m sure you’re aware, I’m entitled to my opinion as well. This blog is one of my favourites because it’s generally light-hearted or tech-informative — this is precisely what makes it stand out (for me at least) from the other pile of bollocks on the web.
Brian, Wikipedia is not technically geek by defintion: Any moron can edit a wiki (and plenty do); geeks may also edit wikis, but that doesn’t make it necessarily geeky, despite that it is web-based. The web is no longer the domain of geeks — again, any moron can access the web (and most of them do). Furthermore, I don’t see the value of commenting on what Fox News does unless you have an axe to grind with them, which is certainly fair enough. I simply think that this blog shines because it typically avoids socio-political commentary.
I do, however, understand the “breaking news” bit, but, well… honestly, who the hell cares what Fox News does on Wikipedia, or what anyone does there for that matter? Are they the only company that edits pages to put themselves in a better light. No, they aren’t (and I suspect strongly that it was interns editing those pages, by the way, on their accord). I’ve personally edited several wikis to de-advertise a company, or to set facts straight, etc. This isn’t a story, it certainly isn’t “news.” Frankly, reporting on what any media outlet does is being just like Fox News. You guys are better than that. Way better.
Anyway, I’m truly sorry, but it’s so hard to escape the sensationalism in the news and on so many blogs, and this blog is just one my escapes. It’s not your fault for meaning to do well and subsequently pissing off just one reader — you couldn’t have guessed. But I appreciate the replies (and also the e-mail, Kiltak).
Thanks for putting on a great site.
HSO,
As somebody who feels that is is an important story, let apologize for the knee-jerk reactions of those who agree with me. You are right that we are constantly bombarded with political scandals/preaching, and that it is nice to find an oasis that will just let you geek out. I love the variety of the internet, and don’t want all my sites to be the dailykos. That said, I think you can cut Brian some slack for reporting on this. Yes, anybody can edit a blog (clever self-reflective statement here), but we haven’t ironed out the significance of things like wikipedia yet. In the end, I take this as a sociological report (look what humans do if given the chance) than a political.
Agreed. The significance of technology is not as much about the “geeky gear and weird stuff” as it is about its potential to better the world.
I think most people would agree with me that this post is a lot more thoughtful and interesting than any fanboy site about latest tech gear. Just because one person cannot see the technological profoundness of this post does not mean that anything remotely political should be kept off this site. (Is there any logic in that?)
Well, this has been one of my favorite posts to date. Thank you.
(PolicywonksAreSexy!)
[...] most shameful Wikipedia spin jobs 14 08 2007 [Geeks are Sexy] reports here on Fox News conducting a smear campaign against its rivals by whitewas…. The practice is hardly new, but it seems to be becoming more widespread. Wired Threat Level [...]
This stuff NEEDS to come out. This is the only “free” medium left. Our “Free” press system has been sold. You can see tons of evidence about that and it does not take many people with an IQ about 50 to find out when a person like Rupert Murdock has purchased so many world and American media outlets why this stuff is not on the evening news.
Blogs need to yell this stuff out as loud as they can! All Blogs need to show people what is really going on.
You are so very correct that the Blogosphere is the last “free” medium!
I desire that everything be reported and that I choose what to read or view, and what NOT to read or view. An open society demands this. I read every word, because proper journalism is necessary for a free press, and for my personal freedom.
This is the kind of proper monitoring of ‘government’ by the public, to restrain it’s fascist powers. We’ve lost Habeas Corpus, and this is the final hill.
The reason that I consider it important that FOX News modified the Wiki is that the government and corporate interests do control the press, whether we acknowledge it or not.
The resignation of the PCWorld editor, in protest to molly coddling advertisers (such as multiple convicted monopolist felon Microsoft Corporation, who want to own your private data, and anything, including copyrights and patents, passing through their servers) is only one of these important landmarks we should also observe.
If you don’t want to see politics, watch MTV. Get off the internet, fucktard.
Spoken like a true open minded liberal!!!
[...] Read: Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes [...]
Count me in as one of your readers who’s glad you posted the story.
This is an interesting article. Unfortunately I expect that Fox News will learn their lesson from this and send their staff home to do this work. Or outsource it to India! It’s good to know they’re playing games.
I’m sure the changes didn’t last long. Try changing anything on Liberalpedia to something balanced, and it’s gone before you can refresh. Then you get the message about being blocked. So, big farking whoop.
Liberalpedia? LOL
Yes, anything not controlled by FoxNews or neocons must OBVIOUSLY have a liberal-bias.
“Try changing anything…to get something balanced.”
Lol. “Balance.” Shame on Wikipedia for not accepting balanced remarks from all conservatives looking to restore balance. I’m sure Fox News is just editing for clarity–and balance.
[...] of fact, i.e., the innocuous. The following below are clearly anything but, however. Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes | [Geeks Are Sexy] Technol… __________________ McBear, Kentucky MB Cylinder Index: 48 – | – HP Index: 1830 – | – Mileage: [...]
Why exactly, by the way, are editors from al-jazeera changing entries about Judaism and Israel ?
Why do muslims add stuff like “the Jews did to muslims what Hitler did to them” from within news organisations ? Muslims actually claim that only Jews are terrorists …
Perhaps it’s racism. Oh excuse me. “Holy” racism. After all, muslims claim that the claim that Jews are apes and pigs, and the “worst of beasts” comes from god.
quran 8:55
YUSUFALI: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
Tom, read that verse again. It doesnt say jews, or christians at all.. It simply implies anyone who rejects gods ultimate dominion in the universe. God isnt racist. God is only just. And yes, what isreal has done in palestine and continues to do is unchecked oppression. Anyone who cant acknowledge or see that is simply missing half of their mental capacity.
The only injustice perpetrated on Palestine has been perpetrated by Palestinians
Fox News is evil! I have them blocked on my set.
===============
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and
Enduring Freedom casualties as confirmed
by U.S. Central Command: 4088
===============
Please DON’T stop the political — and it ain’t political, exactly. It’s the facts that give us the information we need to make informed decisions. Thanks for doing this. You done us all proud.
I’m probably going to start up something like “Geeks Are Political” or “Politics Is Sexy” or something like that this weekend to seperate out the political stories from the technology ones. Associated with, but separate from, GAS.
Email me at brian dot boyko at gmail dot com with a few writing samples if you’d like to join in. Sorry that I don’t have the ability to pay right now, but maybe we’ll get some ad money rolling in.
– Brian.
Um, what’s with all the misspellings in the “corrected” text? Leaving a trail of typos only helps to point out what you’re doing, Fox, and that you’re not careful about it. How does that make someone trust your information or the dissemination thereof?
There’s a reason I don’t consume ‘news’ any longer.
Thanks for this post.
Good research.
Good presentation.
Amazing that anyone would think that this stuff goes unnoticed or is untraceable.
One party (supporter) owns the vote counting technology…who would have thought THAT would happen…
Who cares… It’s Wiki.. Go research how many times the NY Times has done the same thing.
If you take Wiki for its word, you are as dumb as the fools who take merit in this article.
–JN
Maybe if you actually thought about what you say, someone might actually credit you with sense
Stolibro,
Just because the NYT does it too doesn’t make it right. Honestly, if everybody was lynching immigrants would that make it right?
Great post, excellent research and a good heads-up to vulnerabilities of Wikipedia’s credibility.
Mikey,
If an article is written, as you said, to provide a heads-up to Wiki’s vulnerabilities, then perhaps the article should be broader in scope. By using one example/company in the article, the author has diluted his point to the point that 50% of America will come to the conclusion that he is making a political point.
Hence, while I completely concur with your first sentence, I stick by my second.
–JN
exactly right, 2 wrongs dont make a right, but why the focus on only one wrong (where the changes mostly seem fairly minor to me). Now, I’d be interested to see what the NYT has changed. Wanna bet it aint so innocuous?
Thanks!
As a geek with his own computer consulting business, I agree that when politics involves war, torture and our civil rights, EVERYONE not only should be involved but IS involved, either through tacit acceptance or more active participation.
Lazy disengaged solipsists are a big part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re in.
I don’t talk politics among my 340+ clients UNLESS they start it. Then I calmly argue but hold no punches. I’ve dropped clients who said they “love Bush and think everything he’s done is perfect.” They told their friends that I dropped them. Good! Anyone who listens to them I don’t want as a client.
It hasn’t my hurt business, either, as I’ve had to stop taking new clients because I’m so busy. The sane ones greatly outnumber the Narcissistic sycophants.
Of the 6 or 7 clients I dropped after escalating arguments that they started while I worked on their computers, 3 came back in the last 1.5 years as Iraq soured.
of course
Damn. Is there no end to the embarrassment? Thanks for pointing this out. I know a few advertisers who are going to be receiving letters.
If ever there was a lower primate who couldn’t get it through their thick f*#%ing skulls that Fox routinely distorts the news, this might be a news flash: Fox now distorts reality!
how about 5 examples genius. And when I turn around and point out the same 5 form CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC what then. Do they distort the news too? Or is that excused because it complies to your political leanings?
Its not about politics. Its about fascism.
Frank Zappa
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre. (1977)
They are taking down the scenery.
zeitgeistmovie.com
[...] Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes | [Geeks Are Sexy] Technol… Bookmark to: [...]
[...] Comprehensive List of Fox News Wikipedia Changes [...]
Just thought I’d mention that the edits mentioned above were made a year to two years ago, all the edits this year look to be corrections, mostly about the history of TV stations. But don’t take my word for it, there’s a link up there, look for yourself.
oooohhhh. C’mon, you spent all that time for what? Some benign changes? Nice job! Most of the edits we fair corrections, I suppose that does not matter nor is it your point. lofl.
Why don’t you spend your time pointing out a few of the millions more offending edits. Those done by the NYT (many more and more egregious) or Al Jazeers or Reuters.
Way to go!
So you’re bitching because the edits weren’t offending enough for you. Which, to me, sounds like you only care when caring doesn’t require any real effort.
no, he’s bitching because you’re distorting the story and making it seem like fox is so bad and everyone else is so lilly white
Great work!
could you now do me a favor and investigate the wikipedia edits made from the offices of CNN, BBC, and the New York Times?
thanks…
[...] surprisingly, one of the worst offenders is Fox News, whose employees were barred from editing Wikipedia articles after vandalizing dozens of articles in order to smear rivals and whitewash scandals involving Fox [...]
[...] News Shocker! Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes | [Geeks Are Sexy] Technol… As if we needed any more proof of their lack of journalistic integrity. __________________ [...]
here’s another:
Someone wanted to be seen in a better light than someone else wanted them seen in
Ryan: Working on it.
News Shocker! Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals!
DUH! What else did you expect from fox news?
right, after all it isnt CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, NYT etc. where they support all the news that supports their agenda
For the record, it’s childs play to spoof your IP address to edit wikipedia. So you can not prove who was editing what. Also, just because one worker at Fox changed it (If it was from there) doesn’t mean fox news, as a company, did it. It was most likely a worker on break.
And why shouldn’t they be allowed to edit the wiki? They have just as much right as anyone else. Most of these changes were minor, and the parts removed would have needed citations, and if you look at the page history, you will see they did not have citations. So if it really was fox news, they actualy were doing a pretty good job. I can’t see any of the changes here really being a smear. And remember, if wikipedia had wrong information, and fox changed it to correct information, it’s not a smear. Look at the last edit, for example. They removed “non-stop”, and the 60%. Well, where did the orgional 60% come from? Have a citation? And the word non-stop, well, that shouldn’t have been there to begin with. It just sounds like something you read in a high school paper.
I feel this entry is completely appropriate. Regardless of how one feels about the specific politics at play here, this is an outstanding example of the impact of technology on our society and culture. A piece of technology, a wiki, is used to transmit ideas to a broad segment of the population. This demonstrates the elasticity of those ideas, and the ways in which they can be affected by a small number of people to have a potential impact on a large number of people.
All in all, an excellent entry, and food for much thought and debate. Kudos, Mr. Boyko.
Maybe the bigger picture is that a GEEK from CalTech wrote a PROGRAM to track IPs of editors who change, delete, and then lock the information or block it’s replacement.
Ozzy 98—To remove anything critical of themselves, and insert things like “liberal” or “leftist” is a smear.
Well, to be fair, the legwork was done by wikiscanner (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/) wasn’t it?
Also, why did you not perform the same type of search through edits made by liberal organizations such as The New York Times?
Actually, didn’t use Wikiscanner, though it is a great tool for what it is and I will use it in the future.
The only reason I did not perform the same type of search for [NYT/BBC/CNN/Al Jazeera/DNC/RNC/CIA/NSA/Pentagon/Barnum & Bailey Circus] was because I work a full time job and only had time to do Fox yesterday. I’m working on the NYT/BBC/CNN stuff…
[...] Fox News and the New York Times have been caught being naughty with certain entries. The Geeks Are Sexy blog has a long list of Fox News edits. Here’s an example: …you’ll find changes that [...]
Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes…
This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….
[...] News’ Edits to Wikipedia 15 08 2007 From Geeks Are Sexy: So we went ahead and took a look at other changes to Wikipedia allegedly made by the people from [...]
This is all about censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America’s favorite past-time. The US gov’t (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like “America Deceived” from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for Wiki).
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
You are an idiot. Allow me to show you censorship :
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12109
Your vague conspiracy theories are pitiful, but do not constitute censorship at all.
Why don’t you visit a censoring country, and take a look. Go to saudi arabia and scream a certain prophet was a paedophile. Then you will see, and feel, what censorship means.
Now let’s go talk to Iran and ask them pretty please to play nicely with their neighbors
[...] Posted by go_disc_golf Fox has a "news" network? That’s "news" to me! Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes | [Geeks Are Sexy] Technol… Darin Murphy: Why Fox News Fails at Comedy – Entertainment on The Huffington Post [...]
Working on the BBC, but Virgil’s site won’t let me dial down to seperate BBC News from BBC, the network that brings you EastEnders and Doctor Who. I’ll work on it.
What I find really amazing, is that I see the same type of posts on the conservative / libertarian sites I read (gotta read everything to TRY and find non-biased news).
For example, stories about how the Rush Limbaugh entry was edited from the Nation Democratic Party Headquarters IP calling him “idiotic” and “ridiculous,” and said that his listeners were “legally retarded” or how someone using a computer at The New York Times edited the entry for President Bush by adding the word “Jerk.”
The story here should be how we can make Wikipedia safer from these attacks and not just how “EVIL” one side or the other is.
Dave
How can that possibly be? We all know that liberals are nothing if not tollerant and open minded. Right?
opps, did I say liberals? I meant progressives
US Government changes wikis as well.
oh no
[...] archives for interesting findings. The latest company in the spotlight is Fox News, which seems to change Wikipedia entries quite frequently. Articles that have been edited include “Keith Olbermann”, [...]
Your fairly good at reporting tech news but a bottom feeder as a political hack.
Hey MQ, I did not write this. Brian, one of our contributor did. But if this piece was so bad, I wonder why it got over 75000 hits in the last two days :)
I hired Brian Boyko @ [H]ard|OCP a couple of years ago. He’s a fantastic journalist. His pedigree is in blogging, as indeed was his thesis @ the University of Texas. While his politics are admittedly slanted left, he’s one of the few that I absolutely respect despite disagreeing with nearly all of his positions.
Brian has a track record of engaging, thoughtful reporting that gets people talking.
Personally, I think he’s on track to become one of the most important bloggers in the US within the next five years.
Damn, Chris. I’m touched.
” WAR is a racket. It always has been.”
“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ”
General Smedly Butler
google bush crime family
of course. They are all getting rich on the war. Grow up and use your brain. Oh wait, they knocked down the WTC too. Never mind
“If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” George H.W. Bush, son of Prescott Bush a banker who aided Hitler
“If my sons did not want wars, there would be no wars.”
- Madam Rothschild
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed”
– Dwight Eisenhower – Supreme Allied Commander
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only questions is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” – Paul Warburg (architect of the Federal Reserve System), to the US Senate, 1950
“Wars are seldom caused by spontaneous hatreds between people, for peoples in general are too ignorant of one another to have grievances and too indifferent to what goes on beyond their borders to plan conquests. They must be urged to the slaughter by politicians who know how to alarm them.”
H. L.Mencken
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. ” David Rockefeller
People like MQ should learn to think before they write. Instead of addressing, specifically, what it was that bothered him so very much about this mean ol’ article, he purports a blanket accusation of hackery, which, given the utter necessity of this long-overdue presentation, is desperate and inelegant at best. Way to go, Sunshine. And learn how to spell “you’re” already. You’re a big fifth grader now. Wouldn’t want anyone to get the impression you work for Fox News or anything. Putz.
To all the rest of you attemptedly dismissive crybabies, please go choke on something. Your tears should suffice. This is one of the best modern displays of the Internet’s utility, and it should serve as a template for others who wish to expose such blatant displays of bias, disingenuous revisionism, and technological ignorance. And to those of you who suggest that the NYT be profiled, why don’t you get off your fat, lazy, blissfully unaware, unbelievably gullible, barely sentient Republican asses and do it yourself? Your moaning is cacophonous, yet embarrassingly impotent.
[...] only things EA has been “touching up” recently. Just as Fox News has been recently caught doing and as Microsoft has been caught doing in the past, EA has now been caught changing their own [...]
“Cant we all just get along?” -RODNEY KING-
All this smarty pants talk is turning me on!!
[...] You can find a very detailed list over at geekaresexy.net [...]
[...] Fox News editing Wikipedia to have Fox bias. Winston’s job in 1984 was to edit the real news to match the propaganda. I’m glad that could only happen in fiction. Oh, the CIA and Diebold are doing the same. Wikipedia hacked by topic subjects. [...]
Typical of Faux News. Slimeballs…
Grog
In Conclusion: There is no doubt that Wikipedia will, by design, have credibility problems.
Well, ok, but name a source with BETTER credibility.
The Fox news site? hardly.
Al Franken’s website, reflecting exactly what Al says? That’s a good source for what he currently believes, but you would expect it to be biased in favor of Al Franken. Same goes for all the other people listed above.
Perhaps if you had a team of hard-nosed jornalists who incessantly edit and verify their database of news or whatever, that would be more objective. But what sized budget would that require?
At least we have a chance to hear what ‘everybody’ thinks, rather than a single author, as is the case with 98% of all texts, paper and electronic.
[...] Boyko nails down the details on Fox News’ manipulation of wikiality to promote their [...]
I don’t have a big problem with most of these changes. If there were a wiki about me or my organization, I would edit it, especially if I felt it unfairly attacked me or my company or if it was particularly negative or skewed. In fact, it is a little ridiculous to say that Joe liberal can edit fox news’ wiki and fox cannot respond or edit.
If I made a wiki that only included the negative aspects of Bill Clinton and his presidency, leaving out all positive aspects… I would EXPECT him or someone who supports him or works for him to edit it. If they didn’t, it would be irresponsible of them.
I agree that this topic doesn’t really belong here… but if you’re going to report Fox’s changing Wiki (which after all, is the whole point… wikis are edited by anyone), you should show how groups like Moveon.org and the DNC have removed/changed topics as well. They are especially fond of revisionist history.
Don’t pat yourself on the back so fast over those 75,000 hits Kiltak, as many of those hits are most likely due to this post being linked to from other sites. After all that’s how I got here.
As for being political, well anybody reading this story and the comments can clearly see the liberal bias of most of the posters on this site.
[...] Fox News. You will be shocked — shocked! — to learn that they have been spinning items in a conservative direction. [...]
So, wheres the list of changes made from CNN, Msnbc, etc????????
[...] – and then bored Stef to tears by relating them to her, one by one, in chat. Fortunately, somebody else did too, and I don’t need to write them up one by one. I think my favorite one is inflating [...]
As if nobody else makes changes to wikipedia?!?! This is just another reason to NOT trust wikipedia without double checking the information. Why? Because ANY idiot can change Wikipedia entries, and trust me, from what I’m reading here, there are plenty of those to go around.
As for citations, if the source is a news organization, I have serious doubt that the source information is completely accurate and therefore of limited worth as a citation.
Personally, most of these changes represent a change of perspective and very little else while a notable BBC edit changed “George Walker Bush” to “George Wanker Bush”. Seems at least the Fox editor didn’t stoop to schoolyard name plays.
You whiners should check to see what your beloved institutions are doing, or are they “trusted” while Fox is not? Can we call that biased as well?
Just my perspective; the whole “Wikipedia Compromised” flap falls in the categories of “Old News” and “Who Gives a Shit?”. Look those up and you might be surprised at whose editing those articles as well.
Charlie Ehler
[...] Some lefty attacks Fox over it’s edits — for some reason correcting incorrect info about Fox is considered evil by this idiot. He did not chk out CNN or MSNBC or NYT … [...]
OSCAR: Brian is supposed to write additional pieces focusing on other organisations..
These foxnews edits aren’t really that bad. It’s lame, but they seem to steer an editorial opinion rather than outright lie.
On the other hand, there have been outright lies on wiki uncovered recently. In fact, I guarantee that this author knew of it, and decided to leave that information out.
This is lame, but relatively benign when compared to what the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN have done. Why did you leave that out of your background? Is this post supposed to be a “conservatives do it too!” defense? Yeah, they do. This is proof. Too bad you’re hiding half the story, though.
The revelations about news organizations manipulating Wikipedia have been ongoing for weeks now, but it’s only news when Fox News does it? Oh yeah, I forgot, these are different. Somehow.
How ridiculous.
Great article! The reason this is more than just a random crank editing Wikipedia is that Fox News in a major player in the ongoing fascist overthrow of American democracy. This is part of a well funded conspiracy.
[...] been able to do some pretty cool stuff as well, including writing a story about someone from Fox News’s IP editing stories about their rivals on Wikipedia. That got the #1 spot on Reddit for about a day, so I’m pretty proud of [...]
[...] In this case, there are a number of different organizations that are editing Wikipedia to make themselves look better, accuracy be damned. What I did was catalogue all the edits made by an IP address that resolves to Fox News, and it turns out there were some doozies in there. [...]
[...] access to a computer on Fox News edited Wikipedia entries concerning Keith Olbermann, Al Franken. Here is a comprehensive list of changes. Wikipedia is routinely criticized as untrustworthy. Although, I [...]
The Neo-Nazi Cons crack me up. The Bush administration and its FOX propaganda mill, will have them goose stepping to the cadence of Patriotism in no time. Oh… thats already happening. Freedom of speech lives on, despite all they do to kill it.
It is funny to me that all the defenders of FAUX news can say is its only news, when… Um, genius, look up at the top of the page. He states and I quote; “There are a few news stories breaking about people editing Wikipedia – including the CIA, Diebold, and U.S. Congressional Offices.” Prior to the Edit he did.
[...] a quick rundown of everything editrf by Fox News, click here for a painstakenly composed complete [...]
[...] (haircut) : no list on a matter of such grave importance would be complete without an entry from always trustworthy [...]
If you don’t think that the fact that the BBC AND Reuters have changed wiki pages wording from things like “terrorists” to “freedom fighters” and appending the adjectives “mass murderer” is an affront to journalistic integrity, then your view is clearly skewed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070818/tc_afp/technologyusinternetspyreligioncompanywikipedia
[...] http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007/08/14/fox-news-changes-wikipedia-to-smear-rivals-olbermann-and-fran... [...]
I’ve got an Amazon gift certificate burning holes in my pocket,
and I want to get the most bang for my buck.
Enter the Secret Amazon Web Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/38sojf
This is where you’re going to find the “latest sales, rebates, and limited-time offers” from
Amazon, and you can score some pretty deep discounts if you’re a savvy shopper.
Next, there’s the special Sale link. This is open every Friday, and ONLY on Fridays.
You can find the same good discounts here as you would in hidden Deals, although some
Fridays you can really get lucky and make off like an Amazon bandit – I’ve seen discounts
there as low as 75% off sticker price.
[...] News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals with the comprehensive list of changes article from Geeks are [...]
[...] lot of people are saying that Wikipedia is loaded with errors, and with good reasons. If Wikipedia contributors were forced to verify their sources before posting any junk, it would [...]
[...] So Fox and Bilal were caught in the act of producing , or at least recording, a future history. I would say that this is unexpected, but it isn’t. In fact anyone who would look to a single source to find history, sort of deserves to be duped by their own naivety. Foucault talks a lot about this in his later work and he describes this process as a type of violence. Something that Derrida would chime in to saying that it is the Freudian Mal D’Archive. By this he means a psychological imperative to write our memory down, so that we will not be altogether gone after death. But beyond social responsibility, beyond even common decency, isn’t it a little frightening that the history of the future is being produced in such high resolution that it might be mistaken the future of fact? It used to be that the winners wrote the histories, but now they can be written before the battle has even started. [...]
Who is the most ruthless ganster? Bush or Karl Rove
Neither, look to the only country in the
mid east WITH nookleer weapaons.
[...] Fox News Caught Sabotaging Wikipedia Entries Fox News Caught Sabotaging Wikipedia Entries Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes More evidence of their.. lack of credibility in reporting ‘fair and balanced’ news. The Young [...]
Blair was Tory but he never showed it.