Talk:The Raw Story
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Sources
Highly credible and well-sourced? I'm not trolling, I'd feel better with some evidence to back that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HiS oWn (talk • contribs).
- i agree with you. should that statement be removed? User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 13:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moderate-progressive
"Moderate-progressive?", based on the 'journalists' associated with this group, they're definately not moderate. Progressive is a nice squishy label. Removing "moderate". Kyaa the Catlord 12:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
Someone needs to put some critisims of this site on this page. The site is a partisan hack job. This page needs to reflect that, especially since all of their "investigations" about the "Plame leak" were disproven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.248.9.162 (talk • contribs).
Gee, numbnuts, maybe you should add the sourced criticisms yourself. It's wiki-friggin-pedia. a n y o n e can add. 24.147.229.211 06:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Disproven? Here's a hint, by just saying that, twisting reality, doesn't make it so. Stewiegfan 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Broken stories"
How would we go about verifying this section? Is there any way of knowing retrospectively who first broke a story? Are sources possible? Can we think of a better section title? ("Scoops"?)-Will Beback · † · 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
