> Dino wrote: > For those who say that investigative reporting takes a lot of time and money, > just look what amateurs in the blogosphere can find if they just look.
I'd point out that we have no idea what the photo shows - it's certainly no proof of staging. The guy could've been screwing around, tired, etc. For me this is simply a second case of photos being released without proper scrutiny, i.e. is it faked and/or what does it show? As to the cost of investigative journalism, it is expensive. The time the bloggers took to find this wasn't free (to them maybe). If I was a managing editor of anything I certainly wouldn't ask for a $100,000 to research this. If there were, say, 10 examples then yeah, but not with 2. I guess my point is that you need to be careful of who you're condemning and what you think you're proving. It's this same kind of find-facts-to-fit-a-theory thinking that invaded Iraq. That having been said I'm not saying you're wrong - it could've have purposedly staged in the photo and knowingly release by the NYT. But even if that's the case, which I think is far from being proven, it's DEFINITELY no indictment of "the media" whatever that term means. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:212839 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
