[bmelton]

Ignoring the commentary on whether or not this needs to be a true story to be worth discussion, or as something to speculate on likelihood -- I've got the odd feeling that I trust the story more from 4chan than I do many "reputable" media sources today.

It seems the more mainstream media I consume, the more I notice faults in the reporting that, even where unintentional, connote bias. A simple, throwaway example from 2 minutes ago; the Grist reported on a possible fracking-induced earthquake. The earthquake was a relatively harmless 3.something, but the illustration for the photo was a large concrete wall that had been deeply cracked[1], as if to suggest that the earthquake had caused it.

In short, it's rare that I read an article from any news source without being able to point out either an inaccuracy, a vagueness or a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. That isn't to suggest that 4chan is inherently more reliable -- clearly, trolls like this happen all the time, and just for the lulz, but I don't see it as inherently less reliable a source either.

[1] - http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/crack.jpg?w=470&h=2...