--- slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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
Sarah, I'm still at a loss to understand your argument, and I'm not saying that to be difficult, I honestly don't understand your objections. In this particular case, we are discussing a Usenet newsgroup. This newsgroup "awarded" this guy with their "Kook of the Millenium" award. Would this newsgroup not be the best source for information on to whom they they gave the award?
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250