Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-16-2024, 10:30 PM)Dill Wrote: 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. 


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.

(06-16-2024, 10:53 PM)Dill Wrote: #41
#44

#56

#74

@rkiv

(06-16-2024, 11:56 PM)Dill Wrote: "No, YOU did", seems not much of a refutation. 

I'd expect you to demonstrate that the article in question WASN'T debunking the Fox interp. of BLM riots.

So I have a further question about this--what is the "DARVO playbook"

and how would it apply to arguments about data sources?

Was there anything in this dumpster fire of a response that could even be responded to that hasn't already been addressed?  Because I'm not reading through all of that crap.