3 ms·
Here's the deal: uncorroborated reports from unnamed persons do not magically become more reliable merely because they passed through the bowels of a semi-relia
by houseabsolute 16y ago
Here's the deal: uncorroborated reports from unnamed persons do not magically become more reliable merely because they passed through the bowels of a semi-reliable media organization.
- CodeMage 16y agoThat's how you define the "reliability" of a "media organization": they take what comes in and make sure it's reliable before publishing it. Incidentally, I have a similar thing to say about your statement: saying something with an attitude doesn't make it true, no matter how superior it makes you feel.
- houseabsolute 16y agoI don't accept that rationale because it basically absolves everyone reading the story, including other news organizations, of any responsibility for thought in the re-reporting or reacting to stories. Especially in the case of a story like this that goes against all historical evidence and from the outset should have seemed highly unlikely to anyone who gave it even a moment's thought. I maintain that if nytimes owes anyone an apology for this story, so does everyone who accepted the nytimes' article. Both crimes were committed on the same amount of evidence. Re stating things emotionally, sorry. I get emotional in the presence of foolishness.