5 ms·

The new bit was the video itself. Saying "X happened", and offering "Here is video that demonstrates X happened" are very different things. A video of an event

by manarth 10y ago

The new bit was the video itself. Saying "X happened", and offering "Here is video that demonstrates X happened" are very different things. A video of an event can be of such overwhelming significance that its importance is impossible to calculate.

pvg 10y ago
Not the case for this incident. You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. For instance, a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. 'Collateral murder' is much more notable for the Wikileaks editorializing than for its actual news value.
- manarth 10y ago
  You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link? a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.
  - pvg 10y ago
    Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.
    - manarth 10y ago
      As to the page, the page about the incident. For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?
      - pvg 10y ago
        You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.
        manarth 10y ago
        I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to. You've posted: The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself. You've then stated: you can just read the wikipedia page You've gone on to say: As to the page, the page about the incident. You've then stated: You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources. It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.
        pvg 10y ago
        You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.
        10y ago
- brainfire 10y ago
  It's interesting that your example is someone working for the Washington Post- that's enough for certain people to dismiss it out of hand as "fake news."

by manarth 10y ago

pvg 10y ago

Not the case for this incident. You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. For instance, a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. 'Collateral murder' is much more notable for the Wikileaks editorializing than for its actual news value.

manarth 10y ago
You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link? a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.
- pvg 10y ago
  Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.
  - manarth 10y ago
    As to the page, the page about the incident. For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?
    - pvg 10y ago
      You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.
      - manarth 10y ago
        I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to. You've posted: The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself. You've then stated: you can just read the wikipedia page You've gone on to say: As to the page, the page about the incident. You've then stated: You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources. It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.
        pvg 10y ago
        You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.
        10y ago
brainfire 10y ago
It's interesting that your example is someone working for the Washington Post- that's enough for certain people to dismiss it out of hand as "fake news."