> 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.
Your claim that a failure to issue retractions is an admission of failure in accountability is true - when the reporting needs retractions.
So far, there's no evidence that the reporting does.