4 ms·

In the discussion of the New Yorker article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2830998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2830998), a few commenters (includi

In the discussion of the New Yorker article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2830998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2830998), a few commenters (including myself) objected to the (original) article on the basis that it heavily relied on one source. All of these comments were downvoted to hell, and a unfriendly argument about conspiracy theories ensued. Why is it instantly deemed a conspiracy theory when people are questioning of matters such as this? Healthy skepticism is good in most discussions, and I would hope that the HN crowd would be open to having a good debate about these topics.

ellyagg 15y ago
The criticisms leveled here against this article are a bit more conservative than the ones you seemed to be hinting at and which were made in comments you supported in the other thread. The author having more details than seems plausible is one thing. The idea that fundamental parts of the story are wrong is quite another and would of course be a charge made against the official story disseminated at every news outlet thus far. Since the "official" (if we are taking this to be the official story now) is already fairly damning if you are an Osama sympathizer (it was a kill only mission, he was shot unarmed, body was dumped in the ocean), I don't see any reason for it to be appreciably false and I certainly wouldn't spend any thought on it unless extraordinary evidence came to light. The simplest explanation is almost always right and conspiracy theories are almost always wrong.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  What I was trying to say in the original discussion (and what I'll try to reiterate here) is that the story is relying on a single source: government press releases. This makes me hesitant to believe that I am being presented with the entire story. Have we learned nothing from the past year? It is clearly not farfetched to believe the military would release false information or propagate misinformation. (See anything WikiLeaks has released re:US Military). As for "The simplest explanation is almost always right", I would tend to agree with you on matters of science. But in the tense and complex political landscape of US foreign policy in the Middle East, the true story is almost certainly going to be far more complex then what will be presented in the news. If your final judge of accuracy is simplicity, then I can fool you easily by telling you a simpler lie then the one you are currently believing.
  - showerst 15y ago
    I don't think anyone here would disagree with you that we shouldn't solely trust one source, but that's nothing to build an intelligent discussion around. "I don't believe the story this reporter wrote because I don't trust the source(s)" is a totally valid opinion, but anything further than that is just a "What-if" fest unless someone wants to put forth a specific alternate hypothesis, or question specific facts from the article. "You shouldn't believe in this story because I don't trust the source(s)" adds a little info (especially with a "here's why"), but in the case of something as complicated as a government is probably just going to cause a flame war, _even if you're right_.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    the story is relying on a single source: government press releases No it isn't.
showerst 15y ago
Warning: HN Meta commentary follows I'm one of the original downvotes, and I also (rather rudely) replied to one of your comments. I think the reason for the squelching of most of the discussion was because the tone of the questioning comments _was_ pretty conspiratorial. Comments like "Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen", comments that treat "the government" like one coherent person, accusing people who believe the story of acting in a way that's "unscientific" and undirected "look deeper" sentiment tend to get shot down pretty quickly. (Note that these weren't all made by the same person, but they all got downvoted in the same thread.) The posts that started with "Why did they report that XYZ?", instead of "Why should we believe that this happened at all" generated pretty good discussion. The distinction is somewhat subtle, but it's important for community management.
- flipbrad 15y ago
  I was the poster of 'pics or it didn't happen'. I am not a conspiracy theorist, raging internet commenter, etc. I was actually fairly upset by the reaction to my post. I found the replies, and the downvoting, for the most part failed to take my point (though it wasn't spelled out) for what it was: 'pics or it didn't happen' is meant to be the reaction of both an assiduous journalist, and an intelligent reader when faced with a story given like this. I am not more informed as to the facts of the story than the author was - I can't offer counterpoints. What I can do, and what I didn't see displayed by a community I broadly have high respect for, is spot telltales of very bad journalism when I see it. Any scientific article posted here that doesn't link to the original paper, that doesn't question or review what it is discussing, generally attracts similar points. Why, on a story about the US seizing and executing Osama (in quite an unexpected manner!), does anybody effectively doing the same get turned upon so severely? You'll notice that the 'bollocks' post starts with an explanation of something in the story gives cause for concern as to consistency which neither author nor readers seem concerned with. Is the distinction even subtler than the one you highlighted, or is it in fact less real, or applicable to this situation, than you think it is?

ellyagg 15y ago

The criticisms leveled here against this article are a bit more conservative than the ones you seemed to be hinting at and which were made in comments you supported in the other thread. The author having more details than seems plausible is one thing. The idea that fundamental parts of the story are wrong is quite another and would of course be a charge made against the official story disseminated at every news outlet thus far. Since the "official" (if we are taking this to be the official story now) is already fairly damning if you are an Osama sympathizer (it was a kill only mission, he was shot unarmed, body was dumped in the ocean), I don't see any reason for it to be appreciably false and I certainly wouldn't spend any thought on it unless extraordinary evidence came to light. The simplest explanation is almost always right and conspiracy theories are almost always wrong.

joejohnson 15y ago
What I was trying to say in the original discussion (and what I'll try to reiterate here) is that the story is relying on a single source: government press releases. This makes me hesitant to believe that I am being presented with the entire story. Have we learned nothing from the past year? It is clearly not farfetched to believe the military would release false information or propagate misinformation. (See anything WikiLeaks has released re:US Military). As for "The simplest explanation is almost always right", I would tend to agree with you on matters of science. But in the tense and complex political landscape of US foreign policy in the Middle East, the true story is almost certainly going to be far more complex then what will be presented in the news. If your final judge of accuracy is simplicity, then I can fool you easily by telling you a simpler lie then the one you are currently believing.
- showerst 15y ago
  I don't think anyone here would disagree with you that we shouldn't solely trust one source, but that's nothing to build an intelligent discussion around. "I don't believe the story this reporter wrote because I don't trust the source(s)" is a totally valid opinion, but anything further than that is just a "What-if" fest unless someone wants to put forth a specific alternate hypothesis, or question specific facts from the article. "You shouldn't believe in this story because I don't trust the source(s)" adds a little info (especially with a "here's why"), but in the case of something as complicated as a government is probably just going to cause a flame war, _even if you're right_.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  the story is relying on a single source: government press releases No it isn't.

showerst 15y ago

Warning: HN Meta commentary follows I'm one of the original downvotes, and I also (rather rudely) replied to one of your comments. I think the reason for the squelching of most of the discussion was because the tone of the questioning comments _was_ pretty conspiratorial. Comments like "Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen", comments that treat "the government" like one coherent person, accusing people who believe the story of acting in a way that's "unscientific" and undirected "look deeper" sentiment tend to get shot down pretty quickly. (Note that these weren't all made by the same person, but they all got downvoted in the same thread.) The posts that started with "Why did they report that XYZ?", instead of "Why should we believe that this happened at all" generated pretty good discussion. The distinction is somewhat subtle, but it's important for community management.

flipbrad 15y ago
I was the poster of 'pics or it didn't happen'. I am not a conspiracy theorist, raging internet commenter, etc. I was actually fairly upset by the reaction to my post. I found the replies, and the downvoting, for the most part failed to take my point (though it wasn't spelled out) for what it was: 'pics or it didn't happen' is meant to be the reaction of both an assiduous journalist, and an intelligent reader when faced with a story given like this. I am not more informed as to the facts of the story than the author was - I can't offer counterpoints. What I can do, and what I didn't see displayed by a community I broadly have high respect for, is spot telltales of very bad journalism when I see it. Any scientific article posted here that doesn't link to the original paper, that doesn't question or review what it is discussing, generally attracts similar points. Why, on a story about the US seizing and executing Osama (in quite an unexpected manner!), does anybody effectively doing the same get turned upon so severely? You'll notice that the 'bollocks' post starts with an explanation of something in the story gives cause for concern as to consistency which neither author nor readers seem concerned with. Is the distinction even subtler than the one you highlighted, or is it in fact less real, or applicable to this situation, than you think it is?