stevertigo wrote: > What is interesting though - in Western newspaper terminology, when a > newspaper first breaks a story it is called a "scoop." They sometimes hand > out prizes for "scoops." The kind of which Rohde himself won. Maybe if > Pajhwok Afghan News got a Pulitzer out of this ordeal, for doing actual > journalism, then our hundred year old concept of journalistic integrity > might be validated. > Trouble is, not even a scoop or Pulitzer can make a source "reliable", which is a concept more to do with minimum rather than maximum standards. "Verifiability from reliable sources" is a good policy, but the good part is the verifiability. What we have had to say about "reliable sources" has never been that impressive. I hear all the time on the radio that "unconfirmed reports" say something has happened; obviously that means the source concerned is not, stand-alone, 100% reliable as far as the BBC is concerned. And that's how it is: rumour and correct facts get mixed into primary news reporting. The fact that a rumour may check out afterwards is hardly the issue.
Anyway, if there had been several independent sources for the Rohde business, the dam would have broken. As it is, I think the systemic bias around WP in favour of including high amounts of detail about living English-speaking journalists is very noticeable. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l