Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so you didn't respond to my points about one source because I didn't respond to both of your sources?  That seems like a poor argument.  As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice, and 2. flies directly in the face of your literal next point.

So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?"  What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself.

This much I don't mind addressing today.

1. I dedicated a separate post to your "points about one source." Or else I don't know what source you are referring to here. 

2. I did not "assert" that it's not the newspaper's/reoporter's job to address sources. In most cases it is a reporter's job to assess sources, especially if they are used in investigative reporting. I said it is not NECESSARILY their job to re-present a source's collection methodology. How much a reporter says about that depends on the genre (news, feature, interview?) and intended audience. 

3. You've magically produced a "double standard" accusation based on yet another hasty misreading. 

To repeat--no one has said reporters cannot ask questions of sources or claimed vetting sources was not their job. 

But I'd prefer to collect all the errors and misreadings from your posts together and take time addressing them. That DECREASES the chance
that I'm basing my own response on misreadings and errors. Different strokes, right?  So expect no more on this topic until tomorrow or the day after.