3 ms·
Reporting is not and should not be "innocent until proven guilty". You don't need evidence of bullshit to mistrust a media article, you need lack of validation.
by craftinator 7y ago
Reporting is not and should not be "innocent until proven guilty". You don't need evidence of bullshit to mistrust a media article, you need lack of validation. If a scientist suddenly discovers a new means of creating fusion, but refuses to release any data about it, no one is going to believe him/her, and no one will fund them either. If they aren't reporting based on facts, they should be reporting at all.
- skybrian 7y agoNope, that's not actually a rule. Sometimes reporters can work that transparently, but they can also report stories based on private information, and your only choice is whether to trust that they're telling the truth. For example, a newspaper will sometimes report things based on anonymous sources. You don't get to know who the sources are. You just have to trust that the newspaper isn't making things up and properly vetted their sources. Of course, that doesn't mean you immediately start trusting any random reporter or newspaper, but trust is based on track record and reputation, not being transparent about sources in every story.
- solidasparagus 7y agoI'm of the opinion that you need evidence of bullshit if you're going to claim that the reporting organization has lost all credibility. Anonymous sources unwilling to go public is the nature of intelligence community reporting. If this story is real and sources are made public, people are almost certainly going to jail - some of those sources (if real) had to have security clearances.
- vkazanov 7y ago...and spreading unverifyible rumours and believable misinformation also is (the nature of intelligence community reporting). Almost by definition. Can't replicate or check info? Then there's no information to speak about in the first place.