rideside.net

home | archive | comics | about

i ride sideways

archive / 2004 / 10 / 03

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-03 03:55:12 +0000

What's Your Source (Redux)

Here's a baseless redux from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/october.surprise.ap/index.html


My favorite part:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Some conspiracy buffs suggest bin Laden already has been captured or perhaps has been trapped by Pakistan in a cave, and will be produced just before the November 2 election.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What conspiracy buff? What are the "buff's" credentials? What is the source of the "buff's"
information? Shouldn't CNN, a major source of American news for the masses be a little more specific about stuff like this if they are going to bother printing it at all? It seems as long as CNN plants the seed or the idea that politicians hold trump cards they wait to play for personal gain, they dont actually have to substantiate the claim. Jeezus!



At least a few political science professors, such as the prof from Princeton at the end of the article aren't so partisan as to speculate that an X-Files style conspiracy will keep their candidate from winning...
Posted by on 2004-10-04 15:46:30 +0000
The article is rife with comments about how this is just a rumor. When do people who read "conspiracy" in an article take the assertion as fact? Not naming names, if it's OK with Rory Stark.

More to the point, many Americans are trafficking this rumor. Isn't that the news story? This story is actually good news for the Bush campaign. Can you imagine if they actually did come up with Bin Laden's body (dead or alive) on Oct. 26th? Do they make it public and risk being accused of trying to infleunce the election? With the notion of the October Surprise known to the public, BC04 can claim they'd be crazy to try and time the capture of Bin Laden, that everyone would accuse them of withholding the news for just the right effect.

<i>"The notion is that the October surprise is a Halloween trick for politicians. But the strongest possibility this time is something happening that nobody controls," said Princeton political science professor Fred Greenstein.</i>

He's stating, clearly, that it's most likely that something non-conspiritorial will happen.
Posted by on 2004-10-04 16:21:13 +0000
RE the conspiracy: the word 'suggest' isn't a concrete fact, by any means, just a rumbling. As such, I don't think there needs to be a source. Hell, Watergate came down with a source named after a porn film, you know?

And we all know who the theorists are, anyway.
Posted by on 2004-10-04 17:23:00 +0000
I'm with rladew on this one. If anyone has seen "Out Foxed," one of the biggest beefs the movie asserts is that they do exactly this. FoxNews will start an interview with, "Some people say" or "It's been said" without any source. This is exactly what news sources are not supposed to do, and in fact the interviewee should simply say, "Who said this?" but that's beside the point.

The whole point of worthy news sources is that they give credit to another source or person they are quoting. Even if it was the DNC who said this conspiracy theory off the record, they should atribute the statements to someone. If it is a conspiracy theory developed at CNN itself, have someone research the theory before throwing it into the news stream...
Posted by on 2004-10-04 18:20:34 +0000
I can see how this is a whisper campaign.
Posted by on 2004-10-04 19:00:36 +0000
I'm not sure there should be a named source for conspiracy- how much more credible is the article going to be if some crazy web page is name checked? If it was like "Oswalt666 of Everythingiswrong.com" that was quoted, I think it would be even LESS credible. It's all about rumor, after all.
Posted by on 2004-10-04 20:46:59 +0000
It's my argument that without backup, these stories dont belong in the news. Maybe around the campfire as ghos stories or around the watercooler... but in the news? If someone accuses me of rape, it doesn't matter if its substantiated or not, its out there and then I have to deal with it.

I feel strongly that this stuff undermines journalism the "I'm just reporting what other people said" line doesn't hold a lot of water with me. Sorry.
Posted by on 2004-10-04 20:57:09 +0000
So you're for a little News Analysis in this situation? *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*
Posted by on 2004-10-05 03:28:50 +0000
No: Again: How About a little David Byrne: "When I Have Nothing To Say, My Lips Are Sealed...."


Sorry, I have been hooked on the Talking Heads as of late....
Posted by on 2004-10-05 07:03:30 +0000
The thing is, the article is based on speculation: that's all it is, and it says so. The rape scenario is way different (and let's face it- the whole Kobe trial, and most trials, are based on speculation, too, and those are considered news.)
Find me on github.