File talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia 1 by David Shankbone.jpg

Very Politically Biased
I don't think it reflects well upon WikiNews that such an obviously Jewish / Israeli / Zionist biased picture becomes "Picture of the Year" for WikiNews. Tolerance is, indeed, a virtue. However, tolerance of some over others is not tolerance at all. That is called bias; that is called racism. To scapegoat Iranians, including their president, is a clear act of racial discrimination and religious intolerance. WikiNews should not be used as a propaganda outlet for a minority -- in this case, the Israeli / Jewish / Zionist lobby. Let's think again next time, and try not to allow such blatantly biased opinions to make the cover of WikiNews. Thanks. Serouj 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Wikinews covers the news and this image is a high resolution image of an important news event. I wouldn't treat this as an endorsement of any opinion --Anony mous 101  18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is an endorsement of a particular group. There are many opinions regarding Iranians, Ahmedinejad, and the Israeli lobby.  This picture is very blatantly biased toward the Israeli lobby and very clearly targets one man and his politics.  Similarly, a picture of a protester with Abraham Foxman's picture in a "no-smoking"-like vignette would be unacceptable as well, since it is a clear bias towards one view point.  And both would be considered just as racially and religiously intolerant.  Serouj 19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not bias...The community voted for the image. I think others would say the same had it been the Israeli flag that got the picture of the year. Regardless, they are both excellent pictures and the community thought so. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the "community" voted for this picture or not does not clear the fact that the picture is biased towards the Jewish / Israeli / Zionist lobby. (It's not that difficult to arrange for a large group of your friends to vote for a picture.)  The picture was clearly taken from the side of the Jewish / Israeli / Zionist protest.  So how can you think that that is not biased?  That defies logic.  To maintain it credibility, WikiNews should try to maintain its neutrality and impartiality as a news outlet, lest it become controlled by special interest groups such as the Israeli lobby.  For some background into this particular interest group, I recommend a read of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.  Cheers. Serouj 19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a picture of a political demonstration. Consequently and unavoidable, it relays the political opinion of the participants of said demonstration. --+Deprifry+ 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly see how Serouj's comments are relevant. It's a photo of people protesting Ahmadinejad. Many of the people appear to be Jewish. So what? If it was Castro/Cubans, Bush/Anti-war protesters or Giorgio Armani/Anti-fur protesters, it doesn't make much of a difference as to whether there is a "bias" in the photo. It was one of a montage in the article that showed quite a few pro- and anti- speech protesters. It is what it is, but I don't see how anyone could derive a "bias" aside from looking at it and saying the obvious, which is, "Some Jews apparently do not like the President of Iran." Go figure. --David Shankbone 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not play dumb. The photo sends a clear, unambiguous message to anyone casually browsing the frontpage of WikiNews...  Serouj 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This photo is fine. I think Deprifry sums up the situation perfectly. Adambro 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of any news-worthy photo is going to be biased, and indeed the people pictured are biased against Ahmedinejad. This does not make the photo biased. If the photo had been staged and there really was no protest, then you could charge bias. But this photo was not chosen for the political statement that the subject was trying to convey, but rather for the quality and composition of the photo itself and the news-worthiness of the event it covered. It could have been a photo of a public demonstration in Iran with the participants calling for "death to America" if Wikinews was lucky enough to have a photo-journalist there and the photo was superb. Would you, Serouj, have charged bias then? --SVTCobra 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As I wrote above, Similarly, a picture of a protester with Abraham Foxman's picture in a "no-smoking"-like vignette would be unacceptable as well, since it is a clear bias towards one view point. And both would be considered just as racially and religiously intolerant.  The point is that in order to have / maintain its credibility, WikiNews should at least try not to be overtly biased in what it places on its cover.  Good journalism requires some degree of impartiality, some degree of objectivity.  Serouj 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are alone in thinking that this photo threatens Wikinews' impartiality. You are welcome to your opinion, though.  --David Shankbone 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a grand claim to make, given only a population sample of only 6 people who gave their opinion, don't you think? It probably wouldn't be wise to dismiss Galileo's view that the Earth revolves around the Sun just because he was "alone" among a handful of his peers.  In any case, I don't like religious and ethnic bias.  It is racism and religious intolerance.  It should have no place in WikiNews, and WikiNews should be cautious of broadcasting the opinions of special interest groups such as the Israeli Lobby. (I would hold a similar opinion if another special interest group -- such as a tobacco company -- were to come along and try to promote its views.)  Serouj 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno - I don't think you are making much sense; you certainly haven't given a reason as to why it is biased, you simply state that it is, yet five other people say it is not. So, you win.  --David Shankbone 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel you are playing dumb again, David. But I'll eat your bait and try to answer: The obvious bias lies in placing the democratically elected president of another country inside a no-smoking sign vignette.  Such an image sends a message denouncing this person and/or his ideas and/or country (as he is the head of state).  It would be wiser for WikiNews to hold a journalistic standpoint of neutrality / impartiality.  It serves it no good to itself (as a news source) to support one side over another.  Serouj 05:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the photo itself taking a political position? In my opinion, no - it is showing people who hold a position, but I don't see the photo either endorsing or condemning that position. I would say that the context in which the photo is used would have more potential to be biased than the photo itself. (Oh, and while I don't think that you in particular are a crankpot, the argument "X was ridiculed for his ideas, but he was right" is a common sign of one, and probably best avoided.) Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly it. The reader is confused as to what bias is, in my opinion.  Bias is not taking a photograph of real events, but skewing the events in one's favor.  Since I am neither Jewish, Israeli or work for the Jewish faith or the Israeli lobby, it's easy to see that Serouj is jumping to conclusions about things he does not know about.  For instance, if there were people there supporting Ahmadinejad, saying he is a great guy, and I ignored them and only took anti-Ahmadinejad photos, then I could see the charge of bias more clearly.  The fact is, there was nobody there supporting the Iranian President (although there were some people supporting his right to speak, but not supporting him).  If one can scan the Internet and find the Pro-Iran people at this event, please, post the links here.  Were the people protesting Ahmadinejad biased?  Yes, of course.  Is a photo of them biased?  Not unless reality itself is biased...  One may not like reality (and here the reality is that nobody was there holding signs pro-Iran) but that doesn't make reality biased.  This is a good example that people believe what they want to believe and I and Wikinews will do good to remember the words of Bill Cosby:  "I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone."  As Serouj makes clear: we can't please everyone.  --David Shankbone 16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with David. He was photographing an event. He didn't (to my knowledge) make an unfair portrayal of an event. He is not saying he supports either side of the debate, he is just showing what happened in that protest. --Anony  mous 101  18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)