3 ms·

No, no, no, and not necessarily. Didn't bother, no, no. And why should we assume anything? No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories. We need better reporting

No, no, no, and not necessarily. Didn't bother, no, no. And why should we assume anything? No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories. We need better reporting and part of that is verification.

hypeatei 1y ago
> No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories. What about this story makes it "BS"? Your comment(s) provide no rebuttals or anything to discredit this story. It doesn't sound like you're a skeptic, more like you'd made your up mind prior to reading the article. > why should we assume anything Because discarding something as fake news is not good faith. Believe it not, you can simultaneously be skeptical and engage with the content of the article. The question still stands: what do you think about the FBI going to a protestors house to ask him questions about it? > We need better reporting and part of that is verification. He tried reaching out to the FBI but they declined to comment due to the ongoing government shutdown as noted in the article. What level of "verification" would make you happy?
- giardini 1y ago
  Most stories are BS. There is no onus upon me to provide "rebuttals or anything". I am a skeptic. There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith". Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual? If so, based on what exactly? "Good faith"?
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    > Most stories are BS. Maybe in your bubble that's true. > There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith". You're not answering anything with substance. Yes, it's a convienent strategy to assume everything is fake news when it doesn't fit your narrative. But that's not reality and it's pretty obvious that you're deflecting. > Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual? Yes, he's an independent journalist that's reported on some big stories this year already. Given the actions against civil rights we've seen already from this administration, sending FBI agents to ask questions is certainly tame by comparison and very plausible.
  - donkeybeer 1y ago
    Yes most stories spread by magas are bullshit. But this is not maga that reported this.
    - giardini 1y ago
      It's unverified BS. what happened to "The Five W's" in journalism: "Who, what, where, when, and why"?

No, no, no, and not necessarily. Didn't bother, no, no. And why should we assume anything? No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories. We need better reporting and part of that is verification.

hypeatei 1y ago

> No. I'm just tired of BS "news" stories. What about this story makes it "BS"? Your comment(s) provide no rebuttals or anything to discredit this story. It doesn't sound like you're a skeptic, more like you'd made your up mind prior to reading the article. > why should we assume anything Because discarding something as fake news is not good faith. Believe it not, you can simultaneously be skeptical and engage with the content of the article. The question still stands: what do you think about the FBI going to a protestors house to ask him questions about it? > We need better reporting and part of that is verification. He tried reaching out to the FBI but they declined to comment due to the ongoing government shutdown as noted in the article. What level of "verification" would make you happy?

giardini 1y ago
Most stories are BS. There is no onus upon me to provide "rebuttals or anything". I am a skeptic. There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith". Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual? If so, based on what exactly? "Good faith"?
- hypeatei 1y ago
  > Most stories are BS. Maybe in your bubble that's true. > There is no requirement to presume/assume "good faith". You're not answering anything with substance. Yes, it's a convienent strategy to assume everything is fake news when it doesn't fit your narrative. But that's not reality and it's pretty obvious that you're deflecting. > Do you accept part or all of the entire post as factual? Yes, he's an independent journalist that's reported on some big stories this year already. Given the actions against civil rights we've seen already from this administration, sending FBI agents to ask questions is certainly tame by comparison and very plausible.
- donkeybeer 1y ago
  Yes most stories spread by magas are bullshit. But this is not maga that reported this.
  - giardini 1y ago
    It's unverified BS. what happened to "The Five W's" in journalism: "Who, what, where, when, and why"?