Is this Wiki article considered neutral?

[JEDI]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Lion#Bottom_Dollar

"Food Lion was then featured in a segment on the news magazine Primetime Live, in which their unsanitary practices were exposed."

"The ensuing bad publicity led Food Lion to shut down 84 stores over the next two years, throwing thousands of employees out of work."

Sounds like it was Abc's fault that people got laid off?

does this article reak of bias to you (Primetime Live section)?

 

[pulse8]

 

[Nebor]

Yes, Food Lion got owned.

 

[ruffilb]

If they really did have unsanitary practices, it's just fine.

 

[keeleysam]

fixed

 

[mugs]

It's poorly written.

 

[Pepsi90919]

read that whole section. ABC set the whole thing up.

 

[mugs]

Wow... if the stuff at the end of that section is true (wouldn't surprise me considering what the media will do to make a story), it sounds like they would be justified for blaming ABC for all of those jobs.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: mugs
Wow... if the stuff at the end of that section is true (wouldn't surprise me considering what the media will do to make a story), it sounds like they would be justified for blaming ABC for all of those jobs.

ah.. but there;s no source cited for the stuff at the end.

thus it leads me to believe if it wasnt made up. and thus the bias of the article

 

[ForumMaster]

the one things that gets me, is the i seriously doubt that Food Lion is the only company that does such things. and they did lose money to what, assuming the wiki article is true, was a setup by ABC. the verdict awarded them 5.5 million which they should have gotten.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: mugs
Wow... if the stuff at the end of that section is true (wouldn't surprise me considering what the media will do to make a story), it sounds like they would be justified for blaming ABC for all of those jobs.

ah.. but there;s no source cited for the stuff at the end.

thus it leads me to believe if it wasnt made up. and thus the bias of the article

Wikipedia is full of information with no sources to back it up - usually due to laziness, not because the information is not accurate. I wouldn't assume that the the end of the section is made up.

 

[axelfox]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: mugs
Wow... if the stuff at the end of that section is true (wouldn't surprise me considering what the media will do to make a story), it sounds like they would be justified for blaming ABC for all of those jobs.

ah.. but there;s no source cited for the stuff at the end.

thus it leads me to believe if it wasnt made up. and thus the bias of the article

Wikipedia is full of information with no sources to back it up - usually due to laziness, not because the information is not accurate. I wouldn't assume that the the end of the section is made up.

:thumbsup:

 

[AkumaX]

Outtakes of the hidden-camera footage showed that the charges leveled against Food Lion were a manufactured fraud. One showed an ABC producer taking chickens whose ``sell-by dates had expired and putting them up for sale, then telling another producer to videotape them.

Another outtake showed a producer ignoring instructions from legitimate employees on how to handle food. In another, one producer sells a piece of moldy kielbasa to an ABC employee several times for the benefit of the camera.

One piece of videotape that did air showed a dirty meat slicer, even though it was the undercover producer's job to clean it.

wtf.....

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JEDI
ah.. but there;s no source cited for the stuff at the end.

thus it leads me to believe if it wasnt made up. and thus the bias of the article

Wikipedia is full of information with no sources to back it up - usually due to laziness, not because the information is not accurate. I wouldn't assume that the the end of the section is made up.

ah.. but wiki usually marks/tags the articles that dont have the data to back up to whats written.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: JEDI
ah.. but there;s no source cited for the stuff at the end.

thus it leads me to believe if it wasnt made up. and thus the bias of the article

Wikipedia is full of information with no sources to back it up - usually due to laziness, not because the information is not accurate. I wouldn't assume that the the end of the section is made up.

ah.. but wiki usually marks/tags the articles that dont have the data to back up to whats written.

Yeah I know... doesn't mean it's made up is all I'm saying. Usually it's true, but for credibility you need to cite a source. I'd say > half of the information on wikipedia has no cited source. Even when there are sources listed at the bottom, there is usually no indication of what information came from what source. Usually people only add the citations needed tag when they don't believe the information that they're reading.