> The fact that you couldn't find it reported in another "reputed news organization" doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false?
No, that's wrong. The correct way to interpret the data is that this is a suspect piece of writing that someone should try to verify before trusting.
> But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false?
But that's not the standard for good journalism! You appear to be saying we should believe this story in Reason despite the long delay from the events, uncorroborated evidence, and clear bias of the author... because we can't prove it's false?
No, that's wrong. The correct way to interpret the data is that this is a suspect piece of writing that someone should try to verify before trusting.