zlacker

Can anything actually back this up please? This twitter account is just posting stuff and then crediting "Sources".

>>LoganD+(OP)
"This twitter account" is Kara Swisher, probably the most well-known tech reporter working right now. She has known essentially everyone in the tech world for decades at this point. Her sources are not only going to be legit, but she probably has more of them than literally anyone else in the tech world, so she can accurately corroborate information or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Swisher

>>LoganD+(OP)
Kara Swisher is reputable… as far as tech journalists go.

>>crazyg+f
Thanks

>>crazyg+f
That does not change the fact there are no sources. Knowing people does not mean you are never wrong, nor does it mean you will never twist a story.

>>charci+B1
It means that over a long reporting career, there’s no reason, whatsoever, to believe she’s either lying or twisting things.

Being a contrarian for kicks or as a personality is boring: if you want to make an accusation, make it.

>>charci+B1
Clearly there are sources. They are anonymous sources. Important news is delivered by anonymous sources every day.

Now, sure, you can't just trust anyone who tells you they heard something anonymously. That's where the the whole idea of journalists with names working for organizations with records of credibility comes from. We trust (or should) trust Swisher because she gets this stuff right, every day. Is she "never" wrong? Of course not. But this is quality news nonetheless.

>>crazyg+f
Kara Swisher gets in big public fights with CEOs and wears dark sunglasses in order to be cool.

In other words, she's definitely not immune to bias and might easily want to shape the story to her own ends or to favor her own friends.

We're not really talking about facts here.. it's really just speculation and hearsay, so who can say if she's just talking?

>>charci+B1
Can we just accept it for what it is, a career journalist using anonymous sources a few hours after a major event? She's staking her reputation on this, and that means something.

It doesn't mean it's absolute truth. It doesn't mean it's a lie. Can we just appreciate her work, accept that maybe it's only 70% vetted right now, more likely true than not, but still subject to additional vetting and reporting later on?

It's still more information than we had earlier today. Sure, take it with a grain of salt and wait for more validation, but it's still work that she's doing. Not that different from a tech postmortem or scientific research or a political investigation... there's always uncertainty, but she's trying to get us closer to the truth, one baby step at a time, on a Friday night. I respect her for that, even as I await more information.

>>crazyg+f
> probably the most well-known tech reporter

I imagine Walt Mossberg saying "hold my beer"

>>jjtheb+d6
I included the phrase "working right now" -- which you left off when quoting me -- very intentionally. :)

>>crazyg+L7
Because it’s a joke. (And upvoted you btw)

>>solard+s4
>Can we just appreciate her work, accept that maybe it's only 70% vetted right now, more likely true than not, but still subject to additional vetting and reporting later on?

I do not respect journalists so no.

>It's still more information than we had earlier today.

It is okay to not have the full information. More information is not neccessarily better.

>but it's still work that she's doing

Even if something took work to do I do not automatically appreciate it.

>but she's trying to get us closer to the truth, one baby step at a time, on a Friday night. I respect her for that, even as I await more information.

Having the truth about this will not make a meaningful difference in your life. No matter what day you learn of it.

>>charci+ge
Oh, that's fine. We just have different world views, and that's okay.

>>throwa+84
She also admits her bias and is staking her reputation as a journalist on that tweet - versus us commenting behind a pseudonym. It’s the closest to a fact we will have at the moment.

>>fsocie+rx
We're commenting, not stating something as fact.

And if that's the closest we'll get to a fact, then what if it's not? .. it's actually worse than no fact at all.