3 ms·
> The whole point of being an authoritative source is that you don't report things until you have it on good authority Sometimes you never have it on good auth
by belltaco 3y ago
> The whole point of being an authoritative source is that you don't report things until you have it on good authority
Sometimes you never have it on good authority for years, meanwhile the 'thing' is being spread by other sources, so they have report that in the least. Sometimes 'Israel/Hamas spokesperson claims X' is a newsworthy story by itself.
> This is just from the last 48 hours of a issue that I was fortunate enough to have accumulated trustworthy 'alt sources' to identify the discrepancies.
And what are those sources? Have you looked at their record? Do they provide retractions? Do they cover the "other side's" point of views? Would you call them authoritative?
- hersko 3y ago> Sometimes you never have it on good authority for years Then why are you publishing?
- screye 3y agoYep, I had been building them up during peace-time when I had idle-fascination about the conflict. In this case, most of the reliable sources are operational intelligence pages, and people who have done on-the-ground reporting near the Gaza border before. The minute the news broke out, their reactions were that of confusion. Israeli rockets don't have large fire balls. All major Israeli strikes come with roof-knocking, this one didn't. The Hamas HQ hospital was the other one, so if they were going to lead with genocide, they'd have chosen the other hospital. They asked their audiences to wait and see because the stories weren't lining up. I have a pretty strong set of alt-sources I trust on specific topics who get things right on issues in their field with a high degree of accuracy. Many of these are PhDs and professionals in the field. They are alt-sources in so far as they don't work for media houses. But, they are certified experts in their area of choice.