Anonymous sourcing except for retired individuals, lots of claims only mirrored by dubious sources, giant 'OPINION' at the top of the article, on a topic that has been bouncing around as another political football. All this really screams rigorous investigation dedicated to truth to me. /s
Really? Because it seems to me it doesn't take much of an attention span to understand. You could get it in less time than it takes to make slapped-together ad hominem attacks like that.
Actually that wasn't an adhominem attack it was directly against the paucity of their sourcing, the self-stipulated tag as opinion, as well as a dearth of corroboration by anything resembling a respected news source.
I forgot we are only allowed to criticize journalistic standard when it agrees with personal bias. Truth is in the eye of the beholder as long as it's you.
No, you presented a false dichotomy. You can both pull reasons from a hat for disbelieving an article, and they can be ad hominem attacks on the source because you can't refute what it says, as is the case here. Now you've made a straw man argument, in which you pretend you've been told some nonsense you've cut from whole cloth, whilst projecting your blinkered party-line subjectivity-of-truth crap. That a bit overly dramatic, isn't it?
Someone downvoted this article as 'factually inaccurate.' I wonder whether that person can back that up and point us to any factual inaccuracies. Or whether someone's been voting their gut, facts be damned.
Anonymous sourcing except for retired individuals, lots of claims only mirrored by dubious sources, giant 'OPINION' at the top of the article, on a topic that has been bouncing around as another political football. All this really screams rigorous investigation dedicated to truth to me. /s
Really? Because it seems to me it doesn't take much of an attention span to understand. You could get it in less time than it takes to make slapped-together ad hominem attacks like that.
Actually that wasn't an adhominem attack it was directly against the paucity of their sourcing, the self-stipulated tag as opinion, as well as a dearth of corroboration by anything resembling a respected news source.
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
I forgot we are only allowed to criticize journalistic standard when it agrees with personal bias. Truth is in the eye of the beholder as long as it's you.
No, you presented a false dichotomy. You can both pull reasons from a hat for disbelieving an article, and they can be ad hominem attacks on the source because you can't refute what it says, as is the case here. Now you've made a straw man argument, in which you pretend you've been told some nonsense you've cut from whole cloth, whilst projecting your blinkered party-line subjectivity-of-truth crap. That a bit overly dramatic, isn't it?
Someone downvoted this article as 'factually inaccurate.' I wonder whether that person can back that up and point us to any factual inaccuracies. Or whether someone's been voting their gut, facts be damned.