A sign of respect, but the NYpost was never given that option and immediately went into suppression, and it did not turn out to be false information.
Meanwhile, CNN and NYTIMES post content and retract it in higher amounts, and they never were surpressed, locked out of their account or even had twitter force to fix "itself" by now agreeing that they'd "wouldn't" remove content but now just "flag it."
A story that contains the claim “someone who didn’t leave their name dropped a random laptop off at a store and we’re going to pretend it was Hunter Biden without evidence” can’t ‘turn out to be false’ because there’s no assertion there to begin with. It’s like claiming that an unsigned int set to zero hasn’t gotten any smaller.
What exactly is the information that was reported? Is there an actual claim in here, or is it just an information dump, so that someone can point to it and say, "just look at all the corruption" without actually making any disprovable claims?
I'm sorry, but you must not be familiar with the Post. It's a sensationalist tabloid. The reason they don't publish retractions is NOT because of the airtight integrity of their reporting.
It's not anyone's job to inform you of easily available history. Pointing out that someone is a known liar goes to credibility, and is not as hominem. Calling them "Republican" or would be an ad hominem argument against credibility..
This is a very roundabout way of expressing inability to accept that such a paper may still be more accurate in its reporting than other papers that you prefer.
> The NYPost has issued much fewer retractions than NYT and CNN, yet, Twitter does not attack those institutions.
Yes, I claim the reason is a lack of accountability. You claim the reason is impeccability of reporting. I think the reputation and style of reporting is relevant to deciding which of those factors is more relevant. You're free to disagree with that.
But please don't call it a clever shift. I'm having your conversation here.
I'm the absence of a specific story, we are estimating based on our assumptions about how many retractions your "average" paper would make. Knowing what I do about incentives, any paper without rigorous principles of going to tend to issue fewer retractions. It's time consuming, doesn't drive revenue, personally embarrassing for people. It actually takes a lot of journalistic integrity to issue any retractions at all (how many have you personally published to a large audience?).
It's fairly clear to me that the burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claim that the NY Post is even close to the level of journalistic rigor as the NY Times, let alone so far surpasses it that they issue fewer retractions because of the accuracy of their reporting.
You're asking me to prove water is wet. You're showing me a dog in a trench coat and telling me it's an accomplished neurosurgeon. Have you ever even read the Post or the Times? Have you lived in NY, and are familiar with either publication? I'm pretty sure I'm done arguing because you've presented nothing of substance on your side, besides the claim that I have not provided logical evidence, which is correct, but I reject that burden. Feel free to offer any information of value you might have.
I think you're the pot calling the kettle black, I'm sorry. We are not estimating anything about average retractions about papers. We're talking about a specific story.
As it stands, there is no evidence that the specific story requires retractions.
You ask for evidence. The evidence is the laptop, and the text messages, and the emails. If you disagree that these things are evidence, the burden of disproof is now on you. That's how it works.
And so far, there have not even been as much as basic denials by the Bidens.
Yes, I have lived in NYC for several years, and I still read the Times more than the Post. But this is, once again, meaningless criteria.
You keep trying to make it about the paper, when the discussion is about this specific story.
If you're going to obstinately insist that the NY Post is serious journalism, just because they happen to publish an unfounded accusation that you happen to like, maybe you should investigate the history of the publication.
Wikipedia [1] for example cites several sources critical of the paper's veracity. Here [2]'s an article citing employees of the NY Post complaining about the flimsiness of the reporting.
