|
|
|
|
|
|
by jesterman81
1682 days ago
|
|
|
If its unconfirmed/unproven, as a journalist, shouldn't you not publish it. So I disagree that it is not an indictment. If you label yourself as news, then you should be reporting factual information. Right now NYT, WaPo, Fox, all look like propaganda from the left or right arm of the US of A. The talking heads did this for 4 years . How that is not an indictment I fail to understand. Open to having my mind changed. |
|
|
This might be an extremely high standard, depending on what you mean by "if it's unconfirmed/unproven."
All kinds of things are commonly reported in newspapers with the qualifier "sources close to X say..." - should newspapers avoid publishing such things? I am not sure that would be good for us as readers.
These allegations clearly fall close to the boundary on the other side of this field: in retrospect it seems like many of them are fictional. (Though the (literal, criminal) indictment mentioned in this piece is of a guy who was a source for only a few of the many things in the document.) But I think your standard is too high.
Doing your best as a journalist to confirm something to the extent that you can and then calling unconfirmed, but potentially interesting or troubling allegations just that seems like a reasonable compromise.