This is just from the last 48 hours and I was fortunate enough to have accumulated trustworthy 'alt sources' to identify the discrepancies on this issue. Have NYT/BBC/AJ reflected any of these changes in their front page headlines ? NO. The facts on the ground now strongly indicate a misfire from Gaza, that the hospital wasn't directly hit and expects the death toll to be closer to 10-100, rather than the 500 that has been parroted as truth. The photos and front page still hints towards Israel being the cause of the blast without saying it. It started with outright accusing Israel strongly, and then steady reduced the degree of accusation indicated in headline over the next 48 hours. I have looked at every front page of NYT over the last 48 hours. Is your claim is that : "All media is inherently untrustworthy, but some media is worse than other media"? Because that sounds like a vote in favor of rejecting the premise of authoritative sources. Your role as the intermediary, is to vet the sources. If you can't be held accountable to your claims, then that's the failure of your profession. The whole point of being an authoritative source is that you don't report things until you have it on good authority. You still hold them accountable for their claims, because THEY are the professionals. Say you doctor says "The Lab technician read your report and says you have cancer" or a scientist says "Our experiments say that global warming is real". Can you imagine applying this standard to other professions ?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |