> But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false?
Now you've also fabricated something about the journalist, their motive and character. Do you have any factual basis for that? What do you know about the journalist?
> You do understand the logical error you just made, right?
No. Help me out.
You said "There does not appear to be a single non-ultra-biased source reporting this story. Which means, as far as we know, it could be entirely nonsense."
Which means that since there are no sources you like, you choose to disbelieve it entirely. Therefore, I pointed out that many stories are not covered in major media outlets but are nonetheless true. So where's the logical error?
> It was just made up BS. An ex-MI6 guy was paid through Fusion GPS to make it, nothing in it was verified, and the news ran with it like crazy anyways.
This is false. It wasn't just made up BS. Many elements have been verified, and the news didn't just run with it. In fact, all the news outlets that had it save one didn't run with it because they hadn't verified it enough, and it was until one news outlet ran it that the cat was out of the bag. And even when they ran it, they made it very clear the status of verification.
You are either ignorant and need to go do any level of research or a liar, in which case you should be ignored.
> I'm not claiming this means the story here is false, but frankly I'm surprised posts from this source are even allowed on HN.
And? Is what they have posted about this story false then? So their sources are wrong and are spreading conspiracy theories about this story then?
Rather than bringing up the past behaviours of newspapers and creating associations can you just comment on whether if the article is true or not.
If this particular story that is posted is proven to be false THEN you would have a point. In this case it is true and it is widely reported and also has credible sources for this article. You are welcome to prove otherwise.
> Even after it was proven that the story was true
Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV.
Do you have evidence of that? He claims they were reporting the location.
reply