4 ms·
I guess you're referring to recent reporting that she might have made up some of her earlier claims, e.g. that she was being asked to "delete" deaths from the s
by stdbrouw 5y ago
I guess you're referring to recent reporting that she might have made up some of her earlier claims, e.g. that she was being asked to "delete" deaths from the system: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/rebekah-jones-the-covid-whistleblower-who-wasnt/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/rebekah-jones-the-cov.... Does look like she might not be the hero some people think she is, but maybe let's wait a bit on other reporting before vilifying her.
- bart_spoon 5y agoWhat other reporting should we wait for? Looks pretty damning to me.
- stdbrouw 5y agoAny other news source than the one that rejects climate change and originated the Obama birther movement? :-)
- jeegsy 5y agoFortunately for me, I dont practice the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" method of news analysis and so therfore, the previous stories from this outlet are irrelevant. What makes the follow-up story important is that it suddenly occurred to me that the original reports about Jones depended primarily on her word as I recall. That recollection is enough for me to dismiss the story as uncorroborated. MY standard, not the source link posted here.
- stdbrouw 5y agoSo many anecdotes in business writing are uncorroborated, that's hardly enough to make it "an unfortunate example in hindsight" is it? Unless you believe that it has now been proven beyond reasonable doubt that she faked the whole thing, but in that case, fortunately for me, I take the reporting of a single questionable source as evidence but not as unassailable truth. But to each his own epistemic preferences.
- smsm42 5y agoGiven there are no major non-partisan news sources anymore (at least in mainstream infotainment press, I'm not speaking of narrow specialized industry publications), and partisan ones are completely OK with suppressing or distorting information that does not fit the current partisan narrative, your request may just be impossible. Any political controversy that site A finds useful would be touted by site A's press, and suppressed or declared insane conspiracy theory by site B's press. And vice versa - if site A's press says something is wrong, and it'd be useful for site B if it were true, then site B would report about it. I wish there were some media outlets that you could use as a measuring stick and say "if they report on X then X must be real, and if they don't, then no way X is real" - but I think if those existed, they died out.