4 ms·

> I don't see a huge amount of actual evidence for that in the article, but absent a statement from the State department explaining their thinking, it seems lik

> I don't see a huge amount of actual evidence for that in the article, but absent a statement from the State department explaining their thinking, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. This attitude leads to groupthink and polarization. You read the source from your ideological group, which leaves out inconvenient facts, leading to your "reasonable conclusion." Another person reads different sources from a different ideological group, which mentions women who are incapable of breastfeeding but doesn't mention the health benefits for the general population and that person draws a totally different "reasonable conclusion." We'd all be better off if both of you would admit your news sources are incomplete and find better sources instead of drawing "reasonable conclusions."

marcosdumay 8y ago
We are on a discussion site. If somebody has a source from another point of view that clarifies the drawbacks of this one, this site would be a great place to post a link. What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody. Thus no, there is no such other site, and the GP's position is perfectly reasonable. I would be glad to hear that this is not the case.
- will4274 8y ago
  > What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody The story doesn't include any comment from US government officials. It also doesn't include that they failed to comment (excluding the one ambassador, who is too low level to comment). Lacking a "declined to comment" line, the default assumption is that the newspaper didn't ask for a comment. It's lazy journalism. With good journalism, newspapers figure out who did what and why. Here we are mostly missing who and we have speculation to why but no hard facts. Story needs another week of research before it is published.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    I agree with much of your original comment (and I think it's lame that it's downvoted); uncritical acceptance of information within one's own groupthink is definitely a problem. But I very strongly disagree with your characterization here of their attempt to get the other side of the story. Here's the relevant line from the article: > The United States Embassy in Quito declined to make Mr. Chapman available for an interview. Mr. Chapman is Todd C. Chapman, the Ambassador to Ecuador[0]. He was a primary actor in the actions discussed in the article. Ambassadors absolutely aren't "too low level to comment", and your characterization of an article with a no-comment from a high-ranking primary actor in the events discussed as "the default assumption is that the newspaper didn't ask for a comment" is absurd. I also haven't been able to find any alternative explanation for this on the State Department's press site[1]. It might be there though; I'm not a journalist and I find that site maddening to navigate, so I gave up pretty quickly. But like your parent commenter said, this is a discussion site, if you have a good source for the other side of this story, I and many others here are likely to be all ears. [0]: https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/249299.htm https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/249299.htm [1]: https://www.state.gov/media/ https://www.state.gov/media/

marcosdumay 8y ago

We are on a discussion site. If somebody has a source from another point of view that clarifies the drawbacks of this one, this site would be a great place to post a link. What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody. Thus no, there is no such other site, and the GP's position is perfectly reasonable. I would be glad to hear that this is not the case.

will4274 8y ago
> What I get from the story is that no explanation was given, to anybody The story doesn't include any comment from US government officials. It also doesn't include that they failed to comment (excluding the one ambassador, who is too low level to comment). Lacking a "declined to comment" line, the default assumption is that the newspaper didn't ask for a comment. It's lazy journalism. With good journalism, newspapers figure out who did what and why. Here we are mostly missing who and we have speculation to why but no hard facts. Story needs another week of research before it is published.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  I agree with much of your original comment (and I think it's lame that it's downvoted); uncritical acceptance of information within one's own groupthink is definitely a problem. But I very strongly disagree with your characterization here of their attempt to get the other side of the story. Here's the relevant line from the article: > The United States Embassy in Quito declined to make Mr. Chapman available for an interview. Mr. Chapman is Todd C. Chapman, the Ambassador to Ecuador[0]. He was a primary actor in the actions discussed in the article. Ambassadors absolutely aren't "too low level to comment", and your characterization of an article with a no-comment from a high-ranking primary actor in the events discussed as "the default assumption is that the newspaper didn't ask for a comment" is absurd. I also haven't been able to find any alternative explanation for this on the State Department's press site[1]. It might be there though; I'm not a journalist and I find that site maddening to navigate, so I gave up pretty quickly. But like your parent commenter said, this is a discussion site, if you have a good source for the other side of this story, I and many others here are likely to be all ears. [0]: https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/249299.htm https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/249299.htm [1]: https://www.state.gov/media/ https://www.state.gov/media/