On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:35:01 -0400, Rob gamaliel8@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)