re: #764 Obdicut

I agree, but I also think it involves saying “so and so says this, which does not match up with the actual facts. Such and such says this, which does match up with the actual facts.”

In other words, what I feel strongly about is that a reporter has the job to fact-check statements made to them, not just by setting up a round-robin of competing experts but using his own judgement, his own opinion on which expert should be deemed credible. So, Sergey credible on Holocaust yes, David Irving credible on Holocaust, no.

“actual facts” as determined how? The reporter’s own superior knowledge? Or actual facts as determined by another expert? No, a reporter should not assume his scientific knowledge is greater than the reader’s and insert his own opinion. If he has other sources, find them and cite them.