3 ms·
You must be talking about this one claim? Your comment reads as if you are dismissing the whole article. > That included staff who are stationed at facilities
by alimw 2y ago
You must be talking about this one claim? Your comment reads as if you are dismissing the whole article.
> That included staff who are stationed at facilities where the weapons are built, according to CNN.
- refurb 2y agoNo, that’s the claim of the source on who was fired. Which may be true, but being true doesn’t make the headline true (I.e. the people fired at the facility could be secretaries and other support staff).
- alimw 2y agoWhat?
- refurb 2y ago> That included staff who are stationed at facilities where the weapons are built, according to CNN. This sentence in the article is referring to who was fired, not who the source was.
- alimw 2y agoI am perfectly capable of making sense of the article. It's you that I struggle with. At the time this exchange began, that was the only reference to CNN in the article. As I recall most of the rest was attributed to NBC.
- refurb 2y agoThe actual source was CNN. Which is the focus of this discussion.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- alimw 2y agoThe BBC article has been rewritten since yesterday, but remains clear that it draws on more than one source. That’s already enough to conclude that your attempt to “do your own research” fell at the first hurdle.
- k3vinw 2y agoI didn’t get the impression that they were dismissing the entire article. They were just sharing their frustration with how thin on details the article was given the nature of the news grabbing headline. They might have also brought up the fact that the BBC, a news organization, is connected with USAID funding.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]