06-13-2024, 02:17 AM
(06-12-2024, 08:53 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.
No one said they shouldn't vet sources. In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so.
Quote:And I frame it as "not necessarily" because even then it's not true that such explanation for readers is NEVER needed.
Literally no one claimed it is "never" needed. Not sure why you decided to claim otherwise.
Quote:It's just not a requirement for all, even most brief news reports, which are usually heavily edited to leave nothing but crucial information.
Are you saying that fact checking is not "crucial information?" I would certainly hope not.
Quote:But you replaced the bolded with the vague "to address sources" to get an altogether different sentence with a different meaning:
To address a source's direct claims would be a better wording. I also don't think that's vague in any sense of the word.
Quote:"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."
Actually, you added it's not "necessarily" their job. I'm asserting it is, and absolutely should be. Why be dubious and scrutinize one source and not another?
Quote: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."
No, I said you had an amazing double standard, because you do. It's a direct quote because I directly quoted you.
Quote: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.
I'd present a third option, own your amazingly bad statements and interpretations for once in your posting career here. I don't expect it, and would be amazed to see it. But it's certainly another option.
Quote:But that's a losing proposition when you can generate misrepresentations must faster than I can expose them.
Which is you admitting you're either less intelligent than me, less talented than me, wrong as opposed to my being right, or all of the above. I'm thinking this thread rather proves the fourth option.
Quote:It's worse when you just keep repeating them. The compromise is perhaps post here and there. like this one, briefly demonstrating the misreading.
It's certainly worse for you, no doubt. A better compromise would be for you to admit the complete bankruptcy of your position, but I certainly won't hold my breath.
