4 ms·
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 rele
by 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 agoI 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 agothe story is relying on a single source: government press releases No it isn't.