On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:35:01 -0400, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
* A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites
whose domains
he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
not be identified as a prostitute.
Seemingly absurd, but actually fixable as long as reliable secondary
sources call him that.
* The Financial Times cannot be used as a source in an
article about a
journalist because they "report on finances issues" and thus are
"unreliable" when it comes to other matters.
Complete bollocks. The FT carries general news as well, and has
particularly high journalistic standards. Name the article.
* The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source.
A blog run by
the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
Journalism Review is not.
Seems fair.
* The New Republic, among other reputable,
long-standing publications,
cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".
Reliable in respect of one party's view of something and if balanced
from the other perspective, I'd say.
* Partisan organizations and publications, even
long-standing and
reputable ones, cannot be used in an article at all, even to
substantiate the fact that there is partisan criticism of the subject
of the article. I'm not taking about someone objecting to "John Doe
did this bad thing", I'm talking about people objecting to the article
saying "X, Y, and Z criticize John Doe, saying this thing he did may
have been bad."
Please give details.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG