<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/untruths-wholly-untrue-and-nothing-but-untruths/>
This on the heels of the Time's public ombudsman's rather peculiar questions yesterday where he waxes philosophical about the obligation of a journalist to point out when quoted persons are lying outright: <http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/should-the-times-be-a-truth-vigilante/> <http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/update-to-my-previous-post-on-truth-vigilantes/> Resulted in this choice quote from the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF of the paper... "Of course, some facts are legitimately in dispute, and many assertions, especially in the political arena, are open to debate. We have to be careful that fact-checking is fair and impartial, and doesn’t veer into tendentiousness. Some voices crying out for “facts” really only want to hear their own version of the facts. Could we do more? Yes, always. And we will. Sincerely, Jill Abramson" "Facts" are facts, not subject to dispute, and for the editor of an allegedly leading newspaper to fail at understanding the English language like that My own "version" of a fact is properly called an "opinion". Facts are subject to verification and determination as true or false, there's no gray quantum half true/half untrue state for a fact. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
