Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: .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.

Dude, just stop.  The hole can't get much deeper.

Sure, I said "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection," as in to their readers. That doesn't absolve them from vetting sources. And I frame it as "not necessarily" because even then it's not true that such explanation for readers is NEVER needed. It's just not a requirement for all, even most brief news reports, which are usually heavily edited to leave nothing but crucial information. 

But you replaced the bolded with the vague "to address sources" to get an altogether different sentence with a different meaning: 

"As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources. . . I'd say that's a horrible standard . . .."  
To which you later add the "job" is to "not ask any questions on either of your sources."  

These alterations redefine "job" to mean it's not a reporters' job to vet sources; then you call that misrepresentation an "amazing double standard."
And claim the alteration is "directly quoting" me because you prefaced it with "not necessarily their job." 

When you do this sort of thing I'm left with two choices: 1) count on people to recognize the misrepresentation, let it stand, and move on, or 2) bog the thread down showing what I actually said and then what you said I said. 

But that's a losing proposition when you can generate misrepresentations must faster than I can expose them. It's worse when you just keep repeating them. The compromise is perhaps post here and there. like this one, briefly demonstrating the misreading.