|
|
|
|
|
|
by jjulius
1734 days ago
|
|
|
>Please share a link to one you trust. You're shifting goalposts now. All my comment was for was to correct your statement that "no other journalistic outlet" reported on this. True or not (and, again, I make no assertion either way in regards to those articles), it has been reported on in other outlets. >That’s obviously false. We have examples of people being untrustworthy at every level of expertise in every domain. And that's a fair point! That said, in regards to how quickly you're writing off those journalists, if that's your logic then everyone offering any kind of advice/input, giving a speech, training, whathaveyou, etc. related to the area in which they work should be ignored and/or assumed to be giving incorrect information to you if they're not doing so with the full endorsement of their employer or some higher authority. But you and I both know that that's a rather poor way of looking at things, which is why I clearly stated, "that doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off." |
|
|
Fair enough, however let’s note that you haven’t pointed to any journalism that you trust on this matter, so it doesn’t change the credibility implications.
> if that's your logic then everyone offering any kind of advice/input, giving a speech, training, whathaveyou, etc. related to the area in which they work should be ignored and/or assumed to be giving incorrect information to you if they're not doing so with the full endorsement of their employer or some higher authority.
No, this is also obviously not true.
There are plenty of other ways credibility is established in different fields which are independent of a particular authority.
Even without that, most of what people giving trainings or speeches on can be verified by the receiver independently.
We have none of that in this case.