Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Has press progress published the whole conversations or just a part of it? Everything I’ve read indicates it’s just a part of it.
As for your last point: there lots to focus on the NDP about being anti oil and gas. But if I only reference those things it doesn’t tell the whole story (maybe bad example). But anything that doesn’t publish full unedited conversations needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
|
Yeah, that’s a pretty bad example. What I’m saying is that they do tell the full story, or at least they have a reputation of doing that, and they’re very good at verifying their sources and the information presented.
Again, what you’re suggesting is that the context we’re missing could change the story, and by leaving it out Press Progress is manipulating the story. This goes completely against their reputation for factual reporting, and we have no reason to believe that to be true based on their history of reporting.
The problems with bias are not all created equal. Press Progress carries a bias while remaining factual and doing their proper due diligence. That is not true of all bias outlets, but suggesting that bias = poor standard or untrustworthy information is also not true.
Regarding the information in hand. Have you read the messages? They are what they are. I didn’t see them as “awful” as some people, but I get it. And there’s enough context there to know and understand what she’s talking about. What I’ve also seen is Ford fail to deny writing them (and even accepting their existence as legitimate). So what are we missing?