Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Dill]

(06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
Literally no one claimed it is "never" needed.  Not sure why you decided to claim otherwise.
Are you saying that fact checking is not "crucial information?"  I would certainly hope not.

A single news article may draw on many data sources when reporting news. It is not a requirement that a reporter explain the COLLECTION METHODOLGY of every such source TO READERS of his/her article.  We commonly see that they do not. That a reporter does not always have to explain methodology TO READERS does not mean reporters do not have to vet sources. That's quite far from an either/or choice. You are confusing a research requirement with the limits of a news genre.

But you decided this statement about what reporters writing in a certain new genre can be reasonably obligated TO TELL READERS--"It is not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection"--meant reporters do not need to "address" sources, whatever such a vague and expansive term can mean here.

And now you ask if I'm saying "that fact checking is not "crucial information."  Where does that question come from, if not continued misunderstanding
of the original claim that reporters are not always required to explain TO THEIR READERS a source's methods of collection? That is not a claim that reporters don't need to vet all sources. Reporters commonly cross-check sources before reporting claims, as they should, but they don't tell their readers who they called or where they checked. They just report; only exception, is when something about the quote requires explanation of how the reporter verified it, e.g., from a Hamas leader difficult to access. 

(06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
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?
No, I said you had an amazing double standard, because you do.  It's a direct quote because I directly quoted you.

So you are still misreading "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection"
As "not necessarily their job to address sources."  Maybe "vague" is the wrong word. "Alters meaning" is a better description.