• enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Maybe there’d be more objective reporting if the IDF would stop killing journalists. In lieu of that, I’ve got no choice but to take potentially less objective sources at face value.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve got no choice but to take potentially less objective sources at face value.

      That doesn’t logically follow at all.

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Are you not trying to educate yourself as best as possible, given the information available?

        • aleph@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Of course, but questionable or unsubstantiated reports don’t suddenly become 100% credible simply because they are the only information available.

            • aleph@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              4 months ago

              The person I responded to literally said that they would take the report “at face value”, which means you accept it unquestioningly.

              • explodicle@local106.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You accepting it doesn’t imply that the source is credible; you just don’t have any alternative.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        No? I think it’s fair to assume that the flow of information is unilateral for a reason, and it’s also fair to interpret evidence accordingly. One side is trying to completely control the narrative. That party needs to be treated with more scrutiny, and the party who is unable to properly produce evidence because of the other’s actions needs to be afforded more leeway. Why would it not be so?

        Think of it like a court. If one party didn’t respond to any requests for discovery, the other party would be designated as fact in those matters where disclosure wasn’t provided. This is to account for the information asymmetry.

        Also, I was being somewhat terse before, I didn’t mean to imply anyone should be beyond all question.