Does the edit fix the problem?

I know it's not always clear in moderation comments, but the reason we emphasize this is not so much about right or wrong, as about the effects on discussion of certain kinds of comments compared to others—so it's both more empirical and less divisive than it looks. It's hard for a community this large and uncohesive to agree about large things like right and wrong, but a bit easier to find some shared interest in the kind of site HN should be. That's the hope anyway.

As a foreigner (who once lived in the US for almost a decade) I try to keep up with US news. Quite a while ago I actually added foxnews.com to my reading list - because I heard so many bad things about it (I had never even gone there before, but my list of regularly read websites is very small anyway), and I wanted to know just how bad "bad" was.

I must say it turned out, in my opinion at least, that the articles are not actually all that bad. (I ignore anything anything from Hannity though - and oh boy, don't ever go to the forums.)

Anyway, I find foxnews.com is a great example of finding bias not so much in the articles - but in the topics they select! Which of course is something everybody does. Every newspaper, website, or even private blog has a bias expressed merely in the selection of topics they cover, no matter how "neutral" the articles themselves are. If you just look at the headlines foxnews.com really stands out, but so does washingtonpost.com, which I find almost equally far from the middle of the topic distribution (they are trying way too hard to report every fart of that guy in the White House).

My point is, this made it clear to me that no matter how hard you try, you can't help being opinionated because what you choose to concentrate on already is a huge factor, and that I only noticed that my own views are likely based on a similar selection bias when I looked at a very different selection from the one I had gotten used to.

> In 2014, a group of 15 white schoolgirls blacked up their faces for a game of football. A few months previously, as riots blazed in Ferguson after the police shooting of Michael Brown, a group of Sullivan residents, Wehmeyer’s neighbour among them, staged a KKK march through town.

In as much as his comment makes an observation from his own experience that is congruent with the thrust of the article: the American South continues to be flush with cruel, unabashed racists, I'm not sure why it is being censored. Does it cross the line to say in plain language what the article says circuitously?

Excessive generalization is the problem, by the way. It's important to be careful to criticize a particular behavior without criticizing everyone in the region.

Yes, and it effected the desired result: the speech was altered.