3 ms·
They would look at the newspaper's track record and research its reputation more generally. The same way you would establish trustworthiness of any entity you d
by zmmmmm 6y ago
They would look at the newspaper's track record and research its reputation more generally. The same way you would establish trustworthiness of any entity you don't know more generally.
This is just a more general case of having a trusted broker. How do you trust your bank? How do you trust airlines to be safe? How do you know your doctor is competent? You don't demand first hand evidence for all of these. You trust a regulator to oversee them and the regulator may absolutely rely on evidence that is not made publicly available. A lot of society ceases to operate if you throw out reputational trust.
- matthewrobertso 6y agoIf my bank steals my money, I have my own documentation about my account and can take them to court. Airline crashes are regularly in the news when they occur and are easily verifiable. My doctor has a licensing board and such to report to. What recourse do I have if the new york times posts something not truthful that can't be verified? How would I even know? I am not the only person to not trust the new york times, they do not have near the level of public support as the Medical/Airline industries. Given the fundamental lack of accountability inherent to anonymously sourced articles, why wouldn't they be abused?