On 29/03/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG
> Maybe. If it's judged significant. Which,
in this case, it clearly
> is not, since nobody else seems to be running with it. Have you read
> their follow-up stories? It looks *awfully* like a vendetta.
This argument is not valid. Significance of a
particular item of
information cannot be judged based upon the number of papers which run
with the story.
Indeed. Anyone with any experience of the media echo chamber would
find this argument ludicrous. The papers reprint and expand each
others' errors *all the time*.