On Sep 13, 2004, at 5:09 PM, The Fool wrote:
From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sep 11, 2004, at 10:24 PM, The Fool wrote:
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/ap/20040912/ ap_on_re_as/nkorea_explosion>
True story, dishonest subject.
This wasn't the only wire story, all of the early wire stories said 'nuclear', combined with words like probable and possible and likely.
Which you did not. I'd have had nothing to complain about if you had written "Possible Above Ground Nuclear Blast in North Korea" or "Suspected Above Ground...." But you decided to juice it up by making it appear to be a fact. Which is dishonest.
There is no evidence that the explosion was nuclear, only some early speculation.
The article you pointed to (and dozens of others I located via Google) made it clear that there was /concern/ that the explosion was nuclear, but I haven't yet located any that makes the claim -- as did your subject line -- that the explosion was a nuclear explosion, much less above-ground.
Tell the truth. It makes it so much more interesting for your readers.
Dave
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
