On 5/7/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm
<macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their
websites) have a
fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter
writes a story, it's
checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a
copy editor, again
by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all
of whom are looking
for obvious legal and factual problems as well as
style issues.
Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might
also be checked by a
fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be
looked at by the
managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher,
the lawyers, and
even the owners.
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which
is why we rely on
sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
Sarah
Sarah, I'm still at a loss to understand your
argument, and I'm not saying that to be difficult, I
honestly don't understand your objections. In this
particular case, we are discussing a Usenet newsgroup.
This newsgroup "awarded" this guy with their "Kook of
the Millenium" award. Would this newsgroup not be the
best source for information on to whom they they gave
the award?
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.