OK … so how do we think & what do we do when “credible sources”, like the Washington Post, get it wrong?
Email: [email protected]
And you think that this is credible? You believe Sputnik News and the Breitbart
are more credible?The real test is what the Special Prosecutor determines after
thorough examination. And no one knows where that will lead at this
I confess to sending this around partly to see whether you’d shoot the messenger again. You did.
Obviously, I don’t think Sputnik and Breitbart are credible, but I think Glenn Greenwald is. From his reporting on Snowden, he has developed sources that I’m pretty sure the Washington Post doesn’t have. So I think it wise at least to admit he might be on to something important. If the US is indeed manufacturing or even exaggerating Russian political hacking, then Eisenhower’s MI Complex is moving us dangerously and unnecessarily closer to open conflict with Russia.
I also think it’s wise to realize that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy (and news) of the Washington Post, or the Globe and Mail, or the Toronto Star, or the Intercept, or the Guardian …
Skepticism with sources is always good, as long as it also includes sources like the Washington Post whose point of view is surely bent by being so tightly wrapped in the Beltway. Dave moved my skepti-meter a bit closer to ‘trust’ with the Washington Post, but I’d love to know the yard-stick he used to measure the Post’s accuracy.
Regards, as always,
The messenger creates the message.
What one always has to be careful of, is differentiating the reportage from
opinion. And yes, in the Post, the NY Times & similar organs, they are
surely very, very different animals!