Interesting comment Jimbo, which leaves open the possibility that we're
all suckers ("dumbasses") for voting for _any_ of these people as it
just encourages them. "Sincere interest in a fair presentation of the
facts" by those addicted to power is an awfully tenuous assumption
(hence you end up with organisations with oxymoronic descriptions such
as "Fox News - fair and balanced").
Christiaan
On 4 Aug 2004, at 5:23 am, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a
Republican might
praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.
It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel
that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual
description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are
not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps
to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better
understand why people oppose Kerry's election.
I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who
like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any
names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it
naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which
Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.
The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?" because that
assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article
is that it is biased.
The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?" This is assuming good
faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically
good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in
a fair presentation of the facts.
--Jimbo