At least newspaper editors can be tracked and held accountable for
what they wrote. As for the trustworthiness. They're at least as
trustworthy as the attached newspaper (as far as they are), not being
published in the original sense has nothing to do with it. That last
line was my point with regard to being used a source.
--Mgm
On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
Websites of established newspapers may not be
published in the
original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and
therefore trustworthy sources.
/me snorts coffee though his nose.
News agencies are trustworthy sources? Are you on drugs, or someone's
payroll?
May I suggest you start with [[Journalism scandals]], and let us know
when you've caught up to the present?
--
Sean Barrett | We're going to take things away from
sean(a)epoptic.com | you on behalf of the common good.
| --Hillary Clinton, 28 June 2004,
| at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l