Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Jolter 1086 days ago
If he heard it from someone who saw the UFO, doesn’t that mean the account was second-hand for him?

First-hand would be reserved for the person who saw the UFO, wouldn’t it?

(Maybe that’s why they put quotes around that term, or maybe I’m wrong, I’m just not familiar with how he’s using the turn of phrase.

7 comments

My interpretation is that the reports he's heard were first-hand, i.e. the person providing the report to Rubio had the experience being reported.

The quotes are to emphasize the word as a way to distinguish his assertion from deeper hearsay; what Rubio means by first-hand is emphasized with some discussion in the originating interview [0, video].

[0] https://www.newsnationnow.com/banfield/rubio-recent-ufo-whis...

You are changing the reference from the whiteness to Rubio.

Rubio didn’t claim he saw first hand accounts himself; the ones that talked to him did.

I'm not changing anything, I'm quoting the headline: "Rubio Says He’s Heard Shocking ‘Firsthand’ Account..."
Yeah, I hate imprecise wording like this too, but I think the title is technically correct.

The title says that Rubio heard [someone else's] first-hand account of the situation. That would make it a second-hand account for Rubio, yeah. But it is still correct to say that Rubio was told by someone their first-hand account.

It's first hand when Rubio's contact told him, second hand when Rubio told the media. Rubio received a first hand account of what his contact believed they saw, and spread it as a second hand account of what someone told him they saw.
Him telling us about it is second-hand. The original teller of the account was first-hand.

I suspect they were trying to spin it to make him look like a fool, but they should probably stick to things he's actually being a fool about.

The account was firsthand when Rubio heard it. We are hearing it secondhand from Rubio.
When he heard the account, it was first hand. He heard first hand accounts.