Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skysidhe
I think one source is just as reliable as another.
|
So Rush Limbaugh was as reliable as Peter Jennings? I suspect you were limiting the context to 'responsible sources'. Responsible sources, for example, provide reasons for their conclusions - explain the underlying principles, related theories, numerical facts, citations, and peer review. Same report from Daily News (tabloid) and Philly Inquirer (broadsheet). Simplistic Daily News version without related details and reasons 'why' also provided an erroneous and distorted conclusion. Classic example of lying by telling half truths - or why propaganda works. The Daily News report was too short - an executive summary. Executive summary is for those who only need 'feel' informed.
To actually know something, the entire report or white paper must be read. Executive who make decisions from executive summaries are also called MBAs. Reader who learns without demanding details, underlying principles, related theories, etc are best described as uneducated. Major difference between Peter Jennings and Rush Limbaugh. Rush hypes what his daily White House fax told him to say - without underlying details. Peter Jennings demanded more of his reporters - demanded details and supporting evidence before he would even report it.
Who would you believe? Wikipedia or Rush Limbaugh? That should be obvious. But an answer without including ‘why’ means that answer is in error - has no credibility - is so unreliable as to be ignored. Question atop this paragraph demonstrates the concept – the point. Those underlying principles are, for example, why I so forcefully disputed Saddam's WMDs as advocated in 2002, was confident in what I posted, and why I saw a 1990 invasion of Kuwait as inevitable months before Saddam attacked. You know credibility in details. We knew Saddam and bin Laden did not conspire because we knew the men’s history, objectives, etc. Those who met the definition of ‘uneducated’, instead, believed a lying president who blamed 11 Sept on Saddam. Not all sources are worthy or meet the definition of reliable. Fox News has a credibility problem for obvious reasons as defined above.
Do I trust Wikipedia? Compared to what?