I said it may well be cause to go back, not it /is/ cause to go back.
I've read a couple of articles just today that don't seem to check out in some minor way. I can think of one widely-reported story off the top of my head that appears to be grossly misrepresentative of fact if not false. An investigative journalist probably has dozens. Choices need to be made.
The fact that this wasn't pursued for months strongly suggests that none of this evidence was nearly as compelling as it's now being painted.
> I can think of one widely-reported story off the top of my head that appears to be grossly misrepresentative of fact if not false. An investigative journalist probably has dozens. Choices need to be made.
I'm not sure I understand. "Choices need to be made" about what? About which grossly misrepresentative stories to actually publish? Or about which ones to check out first, as opposed to just publishing?
In short, what you're describing just looks like more symptoms of the same underlying disease.
I've read a couple of articles just today that don't seem to check out in some minor way. I can think of one widely-reported story off the top of my head that appears to be grossly misrepresentative of fact if not false. An investigative journalist probably has dozens. Choices need to be made.
The fact that this wasn't pursued for months strongly suggests that none of this evidence was nearly as compelling as it's now being painted.