06-16-2017, 05:58 PM
(06-16-2017, 05:45 PM)Dill Wrote: First, the point of the editorial was that "more guns" was not the solution to shootings, as some had been advocating.
It's not clear that they "knew" the information about loughner was unsubstantiated, though the editors might be sloppy for not reviewing the case. And failure to establish a connection is not "disproving" a link. Loughner was clearly a consumer of right wing conspiracy theories, especially from Alex Jones, one of Trump's sources. The editors went to Palin because of a pamphlet that clearly referenced "targeting" (and I add that I did not have a problem with Palin's pamphlet).
Sorry, no. The NYT's itself acknowledged the information was false, so this isn't in dispute. As to the author, if they didn't know whether the information was true or false they should engage in something called fact checking. After all, that is their job. So your defense of them is that the were either willfully malicious or monstrously incompetent. Neither speaks well for the author or the NYT's for failing to catch the error.
Quote:So it is not "absolutely incorrect" to analogize the editor's thinking to Vlads, and add that they corrected theirs. How do you know that Vlad doesn't know his claims are false?
Well, in one corner we have evidence, in your corner we have conjecture. It doesn't take much detective work to spot the difference.
