[extropy-chat] Moveon.org

[Zero Powers]

Hindsight is always 20/20 (no pun intended).  It could take years to
follow up every possible scoop to the Nth detail.  If you did that the
story would be old news before you ever ran it.  Every journalistic
decision involves a balancing act of doing enough verification to
satisfy due diligence while at the same time beating the competition
to press.  Like it or not, that's the nature of the business.

Sure Rather & co. should have spent more than 60 minutes (OK slight
pun intended) checking out the authenticity of the memos.  But no
matter how much time they spent checking it out, if they later turned
out to be bogus people would criticize them for not being thorough
enough.

Just my $.02.

Zero

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:33:18 -0700 (PDT), Adrian Tymes
<wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > OK my friends, I partially disqualify my own
> > conclusions
> > because I have been deeply suspicious of Dan Rather
> > and
> > 60 Minutes for a long time.  For those of you who
> > consider
> > yourselves neutral or nearly so, what is your take?
> > Forget
> > for the moment that one candidate or another may or
> > may
> > not have been helped or harmed; that is almost
> > beside the
> > point.  This question is about mainstream news
> > media.