4 ms·

Here is an example of a factual statement that is also intellectually dishonest in a similar vein: "There were unsourced rumours from earlier that cycrutchfield

Here is an example of a factual statement that is also intellectually dishonest in a similar vein: "There were unsourced rumours from earlier that cycrutchfield assaults women. However, even arguing with them is rare nowadays for him." The only assumptions I had made is that you rarely argue with women and that you don't assault them (or people in general, which let's pretend is true for the sake of the argument), everything is factual. See why this kind of framing is dishonest?

cycrutchfield 9y ago
If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ credibility is taken into account. Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.
- filoleg 9y ago
  Might have something to do with the fact that in the past few years, more than a few "journalists" from respected major publications got caught red-handed with citing sources that were later proven to be less than credible. Here is an example of that reported by Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/the-cnn-retraction-and-the-danger-of-relying-on-one-anonymous-source/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...) >Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. I tend to be suspicious of anonymous sources a lot of times even when they say what I like. That statement was just a baseless assumption about me on your part.
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    what percentage of journalists do you suppose make this mistake? Is your assumption that it is a widespread practice to invent sources to push some sort of agenda?

4 ms·

Here is an example of a factual statement that is also intellectually dishonest in a similar vein: "There were unsourced rumours from earlier that cycrutchfield

by filoleg 9y ago

cycrutchfield 9y ago
If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ credibility is taken into account. Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.
- filoleg 9y ago
  Might have something to do with the fact that in the past few years, more than a few "journalists" from respected major publications got caught red-handed with citing sources that were later proven to be less than credible. Here is an example of that reported by Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/the-cnn-retraction-and-the-danger-of-relying-on-one-anonymous-source/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...) >Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. I tend to be suspicious of anonymous sources a lot of times even when they say what I like. That statement was just a baseless assumption about me on your part.
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    what percentage of journalists do you suppose make this mistake? Is your assumption that it is a widespread practice to invent sources to push some sort of agenda?