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.
--Mgm
On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and therefore trustworthy sources.
/me snorts coffee though his nose.
News agencies are trustworthy sources? Are you on drugs, or someone's payroll?
May I suggest you start with [[Journalism scandals]], and let us know when you've caught up to the present?
-- Sean Barrett | We're going to take things away from sean@epoptic.com | you on behalf of the common good. | --Hillary Clinton, 28 June 2004, | at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l