zlacker

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+(OP)
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+(OP)
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.

>>charci+(OP)
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.

>>solard+R2
>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+Fc
Oh, that's fine. We just have different world views, and that's okay.