• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Oh look. Insults.

    oh. and by the way. you might want to go look up at the entire purpose of sources to begin with.

    Because without knowing the source, you can’t properly evaluate the source’s credibility.

    without knowing where a source comes from,, it turns into blind trust. You’re trusting that Jacobin did the due diligence on their soruces… that the are only accepting credible sources, and that those credible sources aren’t acting out of some kind of malice. and that’s how you wind up with this shit show… because the Pubies bought that source’s lies hook line and sinker.

    I don’t care what newspaper is telling me a thing. if that thing is sourced with “officials” or “People familiar with the matter” or any other form… it’s appropriate and necessary to dismiss that article’s assertion until they do reveal their sources. Just because the article is saying something I agree with, doesn’t make the article not a hit-piece. because the article plays on emotion, and says stuff I agree with… that’s why it gets more scrutiny than NY Post… which I’m perfectly content to just dismiss out of hand.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh look, still being wilfully ignorant and not understanding how journalism about powerful and vengeful people works.

      Since there’s obviously no getting simple facts about how journalism works through your thick skull, we’re done here.