The Post’s and the Times‘ pieces on Tim Walz service record are...
  • @[email protected]English
    2•3 months ago

    A false claim. You don’t wash your hands of responsibility by just noting who said it. And few subscribers actually read every article the NYT puts out. I’m sure you don’t. What goes in the title matters.

    And holy crap you’re still acting like whether it was false is an opinion. Courts didn’t rule for any of those things you claim justify journalistic description of falsehood! There are cases for some, but no rulings. And those court cases are based on “first hand accounts from seemingly trustworthy individuals”, the same evidence you claim cannot be used to come to a conclusion in a news story. Nevermind that in this instance there’s also actual documentation that shows the claim is bullshit. This idea that because Vance is speculating on his mental state that it’s just impossible to call it false is just an insane way to approach the world.

    • krellor
      -1•3 months ago

      You don’t wash your hands of responsibility by just noting who said it.

      And the NYT didn’t just stop by saying who said it; they did into the background and reported on the details and the context.

      Nevermind that in this instance there’s also actual documentation that shows the claim is bullshit.

      What records? Maybe I missed it, but the TPM, NYT and other sources have only reported statements made by people from his unit saying he shared with them his intent prior to receiving deployment orders. That is not an objective, factual, contemporaneous record to unequivocally establish the truth of the claim around intent. It’s credible, and compelling. But not the same as having releases a date stamped form to start out processing, etc, that would be unequivocal.

      This idea that because Vance is speculating on his mental state that it’s just impossible to call it false is just an insane way to approach the world.

      I have no objection to calling it a false claim. I think it is a false claim. I don’t need my news source to make that decision for me, unless they have unequivocal records or proof.

      And no, I don’t read every article, but I also don’t parrot the headlines without reading the content and I don’t miscomprehend the titles. I don’t read the NYT headline as giving any credence to the claim from Vance. I read it as a factual statement, and being interested in the topic, I read the article. That might not be the norm on social media, but I suspect people who pay for objective news sources are similar in that regard.

      And I already said that the title could be debated. Here’s an alternative that I don’t think is editorializing inappropriately:

      Vance Attacks Walz’s Military Record, contrary to claims from commanding officer

      But critically, it avoids making a direct determination by the reporter on the absence of objective records.