3 ms·

Your comment contains no information about the veracity of the content in question. It's a straight-up ad hominem.

by beaner 6y ago

srtjstjsj 6y ago
It's not anyone's job to inform you of easily available history. Pointing out that someone is a known liar goes to credibility, and is not as hominem. Calling them "Republican" or would be an ad hominem argument against credibility..
- beaner 6y ago
  This is a very roundabout way of expressing inability to accept that such a paper may still be more accurate in its reporting than other papers that you prefer.
darkerside 6y ago
Correct, it is ad hominem, which is appropriate in a discussion about the respectability of a journalist institution, which this is.
- beaner 6y ago
  This is a clever shift from discussing the respectability of the reporting at hand, to discussing the respectability of the reporting institution. Your claim that a failure to issue retractions is an admission of failure in accountability is true - when the reporting needs retractions. So far, there's no evidence that the reporting does.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    > The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those institutions. Yes, I claim the reason is a lack of accountability. You claim the reason is impeccability of reporting. I think the reputation and style of reporting is relevant to deciding which of those factors is more relevant. You're free to disagree with that. But please don't call it a clever shift. I'm having your conversation here.
    - beaner 6y ago
      You're really not. How can you call the lack of a retraction a lack of accountability, when there is no evidence that a retraction is necessary?
      - darkerside 6y ago
        I'm the absence of a specific story, we are estimating based on our assumptions about how many retractions your "average" paper would make. Knowing what I do about incentives, any paper without rigorous principles of going to tend to issue fewer retractions. It's time consuming, doesn't drive revenue, personally embarrassing for people. It actually takes a lot of journalistic integrity to issue any retractions at all (how many have you personally published to a large audience?). It's fairly clear to me that the burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim that the NY Post is even close to the level of journalistic rigor as the NY Times, let alone so far surpasses it that they issue fewer retractions because of the accuracy of their reporting. You're asking me to prove water is wet. You're showing me a dog in a trench coat and telling me it's an accomplished neurosurgeon. Have you ever even read the Post or the Times? Have you lived in NY, and are familiar with either publication? I'm pretty sure I'm done arguing because you've presented nothing of substance on your side, besides the claim that I have not provided logical evidence, which is correct, but I reject that burden. Feel free to offer any information of value you might have.
        beaner 6y ago
        I think you're the pot calling the kettle black, I'm sorry. We are not estimating anything about average retractions about papers. We're talking about a specific story. As it stands, there is no evidence that the specific story requires retractions. You ask for evidence. The evidence is the laptop, and the text messages, and the emails. If you disagree that these things are evidence, the burden of disproof is now on you. That's how it works. And so far, there have not even been as much as basic denials by the Bidens. Yes, I have lived in NYC for several years, and I still read the Times more than the Post. But this is, once again, meaningless criteria. You keep trying to make it about the paper, when the discussion is about this specific story. And you're wrong.
hackyhacky 6y ago
If you're going to obstinately insist that the NY Post is serious journalism, just because they happen to publish an unfounded accusation that you happen to like, maybe you should investigate the history of the publication. Wikipedia [1] for example cites several sources critical of the paper's veracity. Here [2]'s an article citing employees of the NY Post complaining about the flimsiness of the reporting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post [2] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-insiders-slag-flimsy-hunter-biden-stories.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-inside...

Your comment contains no information about the veracity of the content in question. It's a straight-up ad hominem.

by beaner 6y ago

Your comment contains no information about the veracity of the content in question. It's a straight-up ad hominem.

It's not anyone's job to inform you of easily available history. Pointing out that someone is a known liar goes to credibility, and is not as hominem. Calling them "Republican" or would be an ad hominem argument against credibility..

beaner 6y ago
This is a very roundabout way of expressing inability to accept that such a paper may still be more accurate in its reporting than other papers that you prefer.

darkerside 6y ago

Correct, it is ad hominem, which is appropriate in a discussion about the respectability of a journalist institution, which this is.

beaner 6y ago
This is a clever shift from discussing the respectability of the reporting at hand, to discussing the respectability of the reporting institution. Your claim that a failure to issue retractions is an admission of failure in accountability is true - when the reporting needs retractions. So far, there's no evidence that the reporting does.
- darkerside 6y ago
  > The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those institutions. Yes, I claim the reason is a lack of accountability. You claim the reason is impeccability of reporting. I think the reputation and style of reporting is relevant to deciding which of those factors is more relevant. You're free to disagree with that. But please don't call it a clever shift. I'm having your conversation here.
  - beaner 6y ago
    You're really not. How can you call the lack of a retraction a lack of accountability, when there is no evidence that a retraction is necessary?
    - darkerside 6y ago
      I'm the absence of a specific story, we are estimating based on our assumptions about how many retractions your "average" paper would make. Knowing what I do about incentives, any paper without rigorous principles of going to tend to issue fewer retractions. It's time consuming, doesn't drive revenue, personally embarrassing for people. It actually takes a lot of journalistic integrity to issue any retractions at all (how many have you personally published to a large audience?). It's fairly clear to me that the burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim that the NY Post is even close to the level of journalistic rigor as the NY Times, let alone so far surpasses it that they issue fewer retractions because of the accuracy of their reporting. You're asking me to prove water is wet. You're showing me a dog in a trench coat and telling me it's an accomplished neurosurgeon. Have you ever even read the Post or the Times? Have you lived in NY, and are familiar with either publication? I'm pretty sure I'm done arguing because you've presented nothing of substance on your side, besides the claim that I have not provided logical evidence, which is correct, but I reject that burden. Feel free to offer any information of value you might have.
      - beaner 6y ago
        I think you're the pot calling the kettle black, I'm sorry. We are not estimating anything about average retractions about papers. We're talking about a specific story. As it stands, there is no evidence that the specific story requires retractions. You ask for evidence. The evidence is the laptop, and the text messages, and the emails. If you disagree that these things are evidence, the burden of disproof is now on you. That's how it works. And so far, there have not even been as much as basic denials by the Bidens. Yes, I have lived in NYC for several years, and I still read the Times more than the Post. But this is, once again, meaningless criteria. You keep trying to make it about the paper, when the discussion is about this specific story. And you're wrong.

hackyhacky 6y ago

If you're going to obstinately insist that the NY Post is serious journalism, just because they happen to publish an unfounded accusation that you happen to like, maybe you should investigate the history of the publication. Wikipedia [1] for example cites several sources critical of the paper's veracity. Here [2]'s an article citing employees of the NY Post complaining about the flimsiness of the reporting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post [2] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-insiders-slag-flimsy-hunter-biden-stories.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/new-york-post-inside...