"Steve Haywood" <[email protected]> wrote: >Instead of troubling yourself about who's writing it Adrian, you'd be better >employed asking yourself if it's true. Often the best information is >non-attributable. But you'd know that as a journalist, wouldn't you?
"the best information is non-attributable? No -- I think unattributed information is the worst, the least trustworthy, and the most likely to be (deliberately) distorted. History is full of unsigned letters, unsigned pamplets, unsigned accusations, etc., and full of the record of the damage they do. When I receive a letter, the first thing I do is check for the signature. If there isn't one, I throw the thing away unread. The person Allan appears from reading the home page of the site to be one of three "followers". He is not identified on that page as the operator of the site. OTOH, I (and anyone else) am being asked to participate in the site by subscribing, starting a "blog", and commenting. No, thanks. I don't buy pigs in pokes. If this is indeed Allan's site, I expect to see a statement in clear on its home page saying so, with his details readily available via a "Contact Us" link, and with a similarly-accessible statement of the site's policy. If that isn't there, I'm not going to go looking for it. Provenance is crucial for information. Without provenance, I think stuff on a site like this is not worth reading. So I haven't read it beyond the home page, and only a small part of that. With that provenance (if it is credible), and a constructive declared motivation, I might look further into the site before deciding whether it is worth taking seriously. As a journalist, I put a byline on my stuff. Without one, I assume no-one would give it credibility. With one, the reader may disagree with what's written, but he at least knows the source, and, I hope, the purpose. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
