Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

epolanski 4 hours ago

I don't understand what your point is.

What is the reader assumed to do about an article that does not bring any proof?

The video of the missile exploding is also easy to fake, but it's an important element behind the reporting.

▲

pjc50 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm assuming you've never read a news article before, because news articles routinely contain reported speech without having to provide extra evidence of that speech having taken place.

▲

epolanski 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You're being dismissive and aggressive while dodging the questions.

I routinely read the news, and I've been taught in school that critical reading involves doubting and focusing on facts, sources and proofs. No sources and verifiable proofs? No facts.

Which is why the journalist put emphasis on his sources behind the missile attack: he knows how much sources and proofs are important.

If you can fake screenshots, why not fake them, which is something that can be at least analyzed for tampering?

Even more: the author mentions X public replies, where are the links?

	▲	zbentley 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Narrowly (skipping the question of whether this journalist should have included copies of evidence), GP is right: most journalists with verified source material quote it/assert what it contains, rather than linking or copying it verbatim. That’s how serious journalism has always worked. The reputation of a newsroom is understood to back up a reporter’s assertion about their source. Whether or not it should work that way is a separate question. But claiming that raw sources not being included is cause for suspicion is incorrect.