"American Morning" co-host Kiran Chetry, an alumna of Fox News Channel’s "Fox & Friends Weekend," gave her former colleagues at Fox a run for the money in highlighting a case of media bias. While "Fox & Friends" on Thursday morning was covering the earthquake in Peru, and featured several segments on the 30th anniversary of the death of Elvis, Chetry interviewed "Wired" magazine senior editor Nick Thompson towards the end of the 7 am EDT hour on a new website that traces who is editing different entries on Wikipedia. Chetry brought up an instance in December 2005 where the words "jerk, jerk, jerk, jerk" appeared on President Bush’s Wikipedia entry, and the new website traced the entry to the IP address of a computer at the New York Times.
The key excerpt from Chetry’s interview of Thompson:
KIRAN CHETRY: Here's George W. Bush, this is our commander in chief. Has a Wikipedia page here. And there were some changes made to it. It -- suddenly the words jerk, jerk, jerk, jerk -- here you go -- ended up. You can tell just by looking, when you look at history, that it was revised on December 28, 2005. But who was behind this one?
NICK THOMPSON: We don't know exactly the individual, but it was somebody using a “New York Times” computer.
CHETRY: And what did “The New York Times” say about it?
THOMPSON: They said, well, we don't know exactly who it is. It could have been anybody in the building. Anybody using any of our computers. We can't find the individual.
CHETRY: All right. Now, we did call “The New York Times” and they said, as you said, there's no way to tell what employee was responsible.
THOMPSON: Right.
Chetry and Thompson also discussed changes Diebold, a company that makes voting machines, made to their own Wikipedia entry.
Wired Magazine’s own article on the Wikipedia-tracking website actually didn’t mention change made by "The New York Times," but instead focused on "obvious targets" like Diebold, Wal-Mart, the CIA, and Halliburton, companies and organizations that are consistently marked for criticism by left-wing groups. So, CNN’s coverage of the story was actually more balanced than that of Wired.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NICK THOMPSON: We don't
August 16, 2007 - 13:55 ET by drillanwrNICK THOMPSON: We don't know exactly the individual, but it was somebody using a “New York Times” computer.
Yeah, must've been that pesky, bike-riding delivery kid from the local deli ... Yeah, that's the ticket!
...or the nightwatchman, or
August 16, 2007 - 15:06 ET by HypocriteHater...or the nightwatchman, or the janitor.
I hate it when the riff raff log into the company computers to spout their ideological agendas. Because we all know the NYT reporting staff checks their leftist opinions at the door. You know why? Because they told us so!
the janitor
August 16, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Matthew BalanMy original draft speculated if it was the janitor who did it. Great minds think alike.
I'll drink to that!
August 16, 2007 - 16:19 ET by HypocriteHaterI'll drink to that!
hmmm ...
August 16, 2007 - 17:38 ET by drillanwrNot into the whole Wiki site ... And wasn't aware until of late that an outsider could manipulate the entries on the site ... Is there a way to see a record of date/time an entry was altered or made? Would that not tell them who might have been in the NYTimes office at the time of the "jerking" off?
Besides, why would a janitor take precious time away from porn sites to dabble in political spitting on a dull online encyclopedia ...
I'm the Night Watchman.
August 16, 2007 - 18:38 ET by Night WatchmanThere you go, blaming me.
Awaiting the new York Times
August 16, 2007 - 13:58 ET by BDAwaiting the new York Times front page article that claims Bush/Cheney are responsible for the entries in their own Wiki entries as well as the entire Peruvian earthquake....
}}---> NYT slimed by CNN
August 16, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Cool ArrowI love it.
Is it possible the MSM is starting to pay heed to the stories the blogs pick apart?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
soooo - apparently (as
August 16, 2007 - 14:34 ET by katleesoooo - apparently (as usual) you're only covering one side of the story - let me list just a few other organizations that have hacked Wiki -- GOP of Minnesota, NRA, Focus on The Family, ExxonMobil, FOX News (alot!), Scientology, FBI/CIA ChevronTexaco -- want to cover some of these...just to be fair!
And what did they post?
August 16, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Dan The Man 2And what did they post? Just to be fair.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
What difference does it make?
August 16, 2007 - 14:59 ET by ding7777A FoxNews IP is hacking wikipedia just like a NYT ip is doing -
As far as I can tell, it's
August 16, 2007 - 15:05 ET by ErgoDyneAs far as I can tell, it's not considered hacking, right? I mean, Wikipedia encourages users to create and edit entries, no?
I see no devious nature other than the words posted.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
}}---> Probably ding
August 16, 2007 - 15:02 ET by Cool ArrowOK, let's see your info and sources.
Can't say it isn't happening, but you claim as a certainty it is. You therefore owe us some proof.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
just check the wikiscanner
August 16, 2007 - 15:32 ET by uncle_buckJust check the wikiscanner site yourself - links to many news organizations editing wiki - and yes fox news is one. The site is still very slow with all of the traffic.
wikiscanner.virgil.gr
Who to the "W" off of ikipedia?
August 16, 2007 - 16:15 ET by TruthMongerI remember when "someone from a Fox News IP address" posted "sexual predator sexual predator sexual predator" on Clinton's wikipage - oh wait no they didn't do that after all:)...
Who the hell took all of the W's off of the White House keyboards again?
Now THAT was definitely "someone from a Fox News IP address, right:)?"
That's probably the work of
August 16, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Jack BauerThat's probably the work of Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Diane Feinstein and Alan Colmes.
Fox contributors all.
So your posting here is
August 16, 2007 - 15:12 ET by Dan The Man 2So your posting here is hacking also? Everytime I see your posts I feel like hacking.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
katlee
August 16, 2007 - 15:39 ET by uncle_buckkatlee,
In defense of newsbusters, it is their mission to expose liberal media bias, so they are not going to report conservative media bias here - there are many other well known sites that do that.
But in all honesty, whoever posts about the BBC editing Bush as a wanker (see previous nb story on that), or some fool at NYT writing in jerk jerk jerk and considers that news worthy of reporting probably got their journalism start on the 2nd grade playground covering little Johnny calling little Sammy bad names.
You're gonna see a lot of this junk in the coming weeks. Now the diebold story is interesting. But what would be really interesting is if after all of this coverage if companies continue to "hack" wiki - said company would at minimum be showing their lack of technology awareness.
"conservative media
August 16, 2007 - 16:08 ET by saw the light"conservative media bias"
Just what the heck is that? Is it like Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
conservative bias defined
August 16, 2007 - 16:16 ET by TruthMongerIt's what libs call "the truth"
they speak a different language
Adding or updating content
August 17, 2007 - 12:50 ET by TheDeuceAdding or updating content on wikipedia isn't hacking. The nature of wikipedia is an open, maleable source of information on a multitude of items, like a living encyclopedia.
But, what the 'jerk, jerk, jerk, jerk' from the New York Times did wasn't necessarilly hacking...it was out-and-out childish, biased garbage.
I'm sure you have documented instances where FOX News has edited wikipedia entries for democrats' entries in the same way. I mean, you wouldn't have made the claim if you couldn't prove it, right?
So, it's time for you to link or slink, princess.
I know exactly who did
August 16, 2007 - 14:34 ET by ErgoDyneI know exactly who did it. Nick Bilton. He also changed Condoleeza's desire of being a "concert pianist" to "concert penis."
100% sure.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Kiran Chetry is Illegal
August 16, 2007 - 14:37 ET by Lame CherryHaving only seen stills of Ms. Chetry bouncing on a pog stick, I have not watched her as when I start thinking about the woman more than the story........well it should be illegal.
....and I believe Newsbusters staff being computer literate does realize the New York Times is lying, because Billy Gates built all of these wonder machines with an individual chip print unique to each computer.
It would take me a simple hour in backtracking recorded entry into the Time building "see everyone has to log in to that building upon entry" matching computer uplinks with what information Wiki has, along with word usage in profiles, stories filed and ........yes children and grandchildren who were in the building that day.....and I could tell you exactly who did it. Probably for all the video that building keeps and files on everyone you could probably watch the person doing it.
My guess and Ms. Chetry can break this story in reading it here is simple:
A certain liberal child of a certain liberal big shot at the New York Times was off school and upon hearing rants over how bad Bush is at home during the 3.2 minutes of quality time dads and mums provide the child comes to slum at the times as there is no babysitter for delinquents who usually are left at home for a few hours. (gives you an age range of 10 to 18) So liberal drags the kid to work to babysit them and the kid is left to play in the office of said big shot.
Voila they want to be a Times reporter too and log onto Wiki and show their private school education by typing in jerk jerk jerk.
Said Times big shot knows who did it. They chuckle over the little scamp and cover it all up.
Now the Times would be calling for the head of any Republican whose kid had malicious intent in attacking someone on the internet.....so they should be held to the same standard.
Ok Kiran and crime solvers, I solved this one for you, a delinquent liberal child on Christmas break stuck at the Times, not supervised and heir to one of the big shots working there.
That is who did it and that is a finite list.
Oh and Kiran just give credit to Newsbusters and a blogger they let ramble on called Lame Cherry.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
MAC address people, every
August 16, 2007 - 14:43 ET by MightyMouthMAC address people, every NIC card in the world has a unique MAC address. Any dope in the IT department should be able to pinpoint the computer.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Ah, see! I knew there was a
August 16, 2007 - 17:43 ET by drillanwrAh, see! I knew there was a way to track it. Hell, Chloe and Jack could figure it out in under 15 minutes ...
Computer professional here
August 16, 2007 - 14:52 ET by smitty031and I have to say that the NYT is lying through their teeth.
Of course they can find out who did it provided they are using a internet blocking software like surf control or websense. All that needs to be done is correspond when the article was updated by the NYT IP address user and then look into the logs of the web contril software to see if there is a match ion times. there is usually a username associated with this type of log entry. Every major company uses one.
FWIW I work one block away from the NYT offices here in NYC.
I work one block away
August 16, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Jack BauerAny chance you could stand right outside their main entrance with a camera, and take pictures of those entering and leaving?
I am curious at how long it would take Slimes' security to manhandle you -- them all being for free speech, public right to know, et al and all.
Im not
August 16, 2007 - 15:13 ET by smitty031looking to get manhandled by anyone except my wife but Ill see what I can do.
They are in the process of moving to a newer building across from where they are now. Security there is not tight at all for people standing around. There are tourists everywhere in NYC these days and EVERYONE of them is dangling a camera...And their all from London.
That sounds like fun, but
August 16, 2007 - 15:14 ET by Dan The Man 2That sounds like fun, but they would nab you on terror charges.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I'm just disappointed in Fox
August 16, 2007 - 14:56 ET by balboaI'm just disappointed in Fox News. Tremendous opportunity for them.
}}---> Day is young Bal
August 16, 2007 - 14:59 ET by Cool ArrowI'll be surprised if Brit Hume doesn't address it.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Faux News all right...
August 16, 2007 - 16:19 ET by TruthMongerI guess their conservative bias got in the way of reporting this pro-conservative item?
Or maybe
August 16, 2007 - 17:24 ET by uncle_buckOr maybe they decided to leave a small potatoes story like this to the hacks at CNN!
Or maybe they are aware of this link :
http://wired.reddit....
And wouldn't want to be called out for their own edits of olbermann, franken, and others.
I'm going with option 1.
It is a wasted opportunity
August 16, 2007 - 15:36 ET by terrigIt is a wasted opportunity for them. I'm beginning to really get annoyed with Fox News. They have those two air head bimbos on in the morning on Fox & Friends and they do too many entertainment stories on stupid people. The hard news seems to be missing since ED Hill left that post and bubble headed, bleach blonde, Miss America got in there, nothing against Miss America but she claims she went to Stanford but I'm amazed at the lack of knowledge someone who is supposed to be smart to get in there doesn't have.
As for Ms. K, I think it's funny how they've made her over to look like the info babe she replaced-Soledad (sp?). It was a bad move for Fox to lose her in place of the "Dirty Laundry" chicks on Fox & Friends.
Agreed
August 16, 2007 - 17:45 ET by drillanwrAgreed
I am more dissapointed in
August 17, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Chidi NwachukhuI am more dissapointed in folks that consider Wikipedia a legit source of information. It is and always has been worthless.
Wired
August 16, 2007 - 15:51 ET by phaedrus4617I've always enjoyed Wired, have had a subscription for years. They're inspirationally optimistic when it comes to technology. But in recent years it seems the liberal bias that overwhelmingly infects the MSM has made inroads to Wired's pages as well. I largely skip it when I see it, but it's getting harder and harder.
If you value Peace above Freedom, neither will you attain.
}}---> I told you so
August 16, 2007 - 18:04 ET by Cool ArrowEarlier in this thread, I said I'd be surprised if Brit Hume didn't address the wiki issue.
OK, Brit is off, but Chris Wallace, filling in for Brit, has just introduced the story in the opening tease.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Props to Chris Wallace
August 16, 2007 - 18:59 ET by Matthew BalanI'm glad Chris Wallace is covering it. Maybe the 'Fox and Friends' hosts and/or producers couldn't be bothered/interrupted with it, since they were so focused on Elvis this morning.
You complained that wiki is
August 17, 2007 - 09:22 ET by LeonYou complained that wiki is liberally biased based on the fact that IP addresses from 'liberal' news sources were caught editing Wiki entries.
Well, now what?
CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
It's not just liberals that edit wiki, unless you consider the CIA & FBI to be liberal.
Looks like Foxnews has been
August 17, 2007 - 10:02 ET by LeonLooks like Foxnews has been getting in on the WIKI fun too!
Link
Hmm. Dispirate groups keeping each other in check during the dispersal of information?
Looks like Wikipedia is working. So why all the complaints?