On 5/7/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
At least newspaper editors can be tracked and held
accountable for
what they wrote. As for the trustworthiness. They're at least as
trustworthy as the attached newspaper (as far as they are), not being
published in the original sense has nothing to do with it. That last
line was my point with regard to being used a source.
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a
fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's
checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again
by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking
for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues.
Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a
fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the
managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and
even the owners.
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on
sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
Sarah