22 ms·

> if you can dispute any of the bits they list as facts rather than speculation (which they were surprisingly candid about) then that would change matters. A

by josefx 6y ago

> if you can dispute any of the bits they list as facts rather than speculation (which they were surprisingly candid about) then that would change matters. A problem with that is that some of their facts are based on "documents they reviewed". I do not have these documents and I cannot find any alternative source for the DA0000051 claim. All I have is past occasions of the Spiegel making stories more exciting and interesting for their readers by making up facts.

jacquesm 6y ago
But that doesn't say anything about this particular story, and Der Spiegel has come clean about those instances which is the reason you can make that claim to begin with. Nobody's perfect, but if I get to chose between Der Spiegel and Fox News or Bild I know where I'd put my money. And of course you don't have the documents, it is pretty rare that a news article would be accompanied by all the evidence the publisher has acquired, if only because that could easily put their sources at risk.
- josefx 6y ago
  > and Der Spiegel has come clean about those instances which is the reason you can make that claim to begin with. After ignoring complaints for years and threatening one of their journalists for having the gall to question their golden goose. They only came clean about because there was no denying the evidence said journalist gathered and if they let someone else publish it they couldn't put their spin on it. Their world class fact checking team at least turned out to be a group of glorified spell checkers.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    All of which has zero bearing on this particular article. Really, questioning the source like this is just another ad hominem.
    - josefx 6y ago
      Given that nobody else has seen those documents the reverse is an appeal to authority and I find it relevant that said authority has a history of embellish facts.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  The only remaining difference is presentation, not content/information. Any money there is wasted, except for (bad) entertainment purposes. (sorry, didn't really want to take this further OT, but could not resist)

by josefx 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

But that doesn't say anything about this particular story, and Der Spiegel has come clean about those instances which is the reason you can make that claim to begin with. Nobody's perfect, but if I get to chose between Der Spiegel and Fox News or Bild I know where I'd put my money. And of course you don't have the documents, it is pretty rare that a news article would be accompanied by all the evidence the publisher has acquired, if only because that could easily put their sources at risk.

josefx 6y ago
> and Der Spiegel has come clean about those instances which is the reason you can make that claim to begin with. After ignoring complaints for years and threatening one of their journalists for having the gall to question their golden goose. They only came clean about because there was no denying the evidence said journalist gathered and if they let someone else publish it they couldn't put their spin on it. Their world class fact checking team at least turned out to be a group of glorified spell checkers.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  All of which has zero bearing on this particular article. Really, questioning the source like this is just another ad hominem.
  - josefx 6y ago
    Given that nobody else has seen those documents the reverse is an appeal to authority and I find it relevant that said authority has a history of embellish facts.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
The only remaining difference is presentation, not content/information. Any money there is wasted, except for (bad) entertainment purposes. (sorry, didn't really want to take this further OT, but could not resist)