4 ms·

The fact that you couldn't find it reported in another "reputed news organization" doesn't mean it didn't happen. News organizations only have limited bandwidth

The fact that you couldn't find it reported in another "reputed news organization" doesn't mean it didn't happen. News organizations only have limited bandwidth and the extreme power that police and CPS has in these kinds of situations isn't exactly a secret nationally. Maybe the reputed news organizations simply don't consider it news? Or maybe the organizations aren't as reputed as you believe? There are many explanations for the lack of corroborating reporting here that don't imply the original story isn't true.

noisy_boy 4y ago
Maybe - however, we are expected to do our own due diligence for trustworthiness of news and considering that we have limited time and resources at our disposal, one has to set some sort of an approach to do so - in my case, reputed news organisation it is (and people are free to disagree with that approach). Using this approach doesn't mean that whatever doesn't get printed in NYT or WaPo or doesn't get covered on CNN didn't happen but considering police overreach is a hot topic in recent times with prevalent extensive coverage, it is possible but not probable that something like this (involving kids, which makes it a more "newsworthy" story) hasn't been reported, in any of the major news outlets, just because of undue influence of Police/CPS.
ajross 4y ago
> The fact that you couldn't find it reported in another "reputed news organization" doesn't mean it didn't happen. But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false? No, that's wrong. The correct way to interpret the data is that this is a suspect piece of writing that someone should try to verify before trusting.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false? I never said that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

noisy_boy 4y ago

Maybe - however, we are expected to do our own due diligence for trustworthiness of news and considering that we have limited time and resources at our disposal, one has to set some sort of an approach to do so - in my case, reputed news organisation it is (and people are free to disagree with that approach). Using this approach doesn't mean that whatever doesn't get printed in NYT or WaPo or doesn't get covered on CNN didn't happen but considering police overreach is a hot topic in recent times with prevalent extensive coverage, it is possible but not probable that something like this (involving kids, which makes it a more "newsworthy" story) hasn't been reported, in any of the major news outlets, just because of undue influence of Police/CPS.

ajross 4y ago

> The fact that you couldn't find it reported in another "reputed news organization" doesn't mean it didn't happen. But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false? No, that's wrong. The correct way to interpret the data is that this is a suspect piece of writing that someone should try to verify before trusting.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
> But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false? I never said that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]