--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Delirium
<delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
Isn't this just a failure to actually think through what
verifying
information with a reliable source means, rather than a
problem with the
principle? It's quite possible for the Guardian to be a
good newspaper
in general, but for a random list in the "Diversions"
section, with no
apparent investigative reporting involved, to *not*
constitute reliable
verification of that point.
I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to think through what
verification means. And it's malice in most cases where editors insist
that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography, based on "verifiability,
not truth." They don't like the subject, and enjoy taking pot shots at them.