Most active commenters
  • nailer(5)
  • clipsy(3)

←back to thread

760 points coloneltcb | 14 comments | | HN request time: 0.914s | source | bottom
Show context
jmclnx ◴[] No.43799332[source]
Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
replies(6): >>43799359 #>>43799397 #>>43799410 #>>43799551 #>>43799584 #>>43799659 #
Alupis[dead post] ◴[] No.43799397[source]
[flagged]
1. techpineapple ◴[] No.43799432[source]
Yes, as described in the blog post, I would imagine the median Fox News viewer to find Wikipedia biased. But the median Fox News viewer is not the median American, much less median world citizen.

But no seriously, having finished reading it, this article is incredibly Christian-centric and Americentric.

replies(2): >>43799457 #>>43799500 #
2. jimt1234 ◴[] No.43799457[source]
There's always Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com
3. nailer ◴[] No.43799500[source]
Regarding the missing topics mentioned in the article (updated to quote them for convenience):

    The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.
For example, the September 11 attacks on the US Embassy in Benghazi objectively happened - few people on the left or right would pretend they did not happen or that were not notable events of Barack Obama’s presidency (as the article discusses).

This is not a matter of whether you watch Fox News or not.

replies(2): >>43799511 #>>43799634 #
4. techpineapple ◴[] No.43799511[source]
Oh look!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

They creatively censored it under the title “2012 Banghazi Attack”

replies(2): >>43799520 #>>43799572 #
5. nailer ◴[] No.43799520{3}[source]
The article above that we are discussing discusses the omission of the Benghazi attack as an aspect of Barack Obama‘s presidency.
replies(1): >>43799884 #
6. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.43799572{3}[source]
The article is nonsense. It links to Obama's Wikipedia page and complains Obama's page doesn't talk about Benghazi. But Obama's Wikipedia page links to a huge article about.... Benghazi. So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page? Weak sauce.
replies(1): >>43801100 #
7. clipsy ◴[] No.43799634[source]
Have you bothered to do any sort of comparison as to how similar attacks are reported? At a quick glance, I see nothing on George W Bush's wiki page[0] about the 2002 consulate attack in Kolkata[1], for example.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_attack_on_American_cultur...

replies(2): >>43799736 #>>43800717 #
8. duskwuff ◴[] No.43799736{3}[source]
Not that it's necessarily wrong for it to not be listed there, though. The article on GWB is about him and what he did as president - it isn't meant to be a complete history of the United States between 2001 and 2009.
replies(1): >>43799964 #
9. ◴[] No.43799884{4}[source]
10. clipsy ◴[] No.43799964{4}[source]
I agree -- which is also why the absence of Benghazi on Obama's wiki page is not, in my view, a sign of bias.
11. nailer ◴[] No.43800717{3}[source]
How is that remotely similar? There was not a scandal implicating George Bush regarding the Kolkhata attack.
replies(1): >>43801163 #
12. nailer ◴[] No.43801100{4}[source]
> So his complaint is what, the article about Benghazi isn't summarized on Obama's Wikipedia page?

No. His complaint is:

> The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi

Visit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Read:

> Libya

> Main articles: 2011 military intervention in Libya and 2012 Benghazi attack

> In February 2011, protests in Libya began against long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Arab Spring. They soon turned violent. In March, as forces loyal to Gaddafi advanced on rebels across Libya, calls for a no-fly zone came from around the world, including Europe, the Arab League, and a resolution[378] passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate.[379] In response to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 on March 17, the Foreign Minister of Libya Moussa Koussa announced a ceasefire. However Gaddafi's forces continued to attack the rebels.[380]

> On March 19, a multinational coalition led by France and the United Kingdom with Italian and U.S. support, approved by Obama, took part in air strikes to destroy the Libyan government's air defense capabilities to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly-zone,[381] including the use of Tomahawk missiles, B-2 Spirits, and fighter jets.[382][383][384] Six days later, on March 25, by unanimous vote of all its 28 members, NATO took over leadership of the effort, dubbed Operation Unified Protector.[385] Some members of Congress[386] questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order military action in addition to questioning its cost, structure and aftermath.[387][388] In 2016 Obama said "Our coalition could have and should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind" and that it was "a mess".[389] He has stated that the lack of preparation surrounding the days following the government's overthrow was the "worst mistake" of his presidency.[390]

The link is there (I don't know how long it's been there but don't care to investigate), but there is no text about the Benghazi attack on the US Embassy - just other topics. Many people can and would criticize Barack Obama and his then-Secretary of State for inaction to protect the embassy from an attack the embassy saw coming.

13. clipsy ◴[] No.43801163{4}[source]
What scandal implicated Obama in the Benghazi attack? Be precise.
replies(1): >>43801177 #
14. nailer ◴[] No.43801177{5}[source]
I have trouble believing anyone with the remotest knowledge of US politics is unaware of the scandal, but https://www.britannica.com/event/2012-Benghazi-attacks . 'Reactions and investigation' has the information you apparently missed all these years.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204712904578090... - "What we now know—and still don't—about President Obama's 9/11." is pretty good too.