[WikiEN-l] The terrorists have won

[Ken Arromdee]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote:
> > It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
> > to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them.  We
> > *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest.  The fact that we
> > did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to
> > have a conflict of interest.
> Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling -
> no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in
> that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept.

The claim that we shouldn't have trusted wasn't "this helps save a human
life", but "the tradeoff is good".  The case for *that* was much less
compelling, and much more likely to be affected by a conflict of interest.