No, bad sources do this all the time. Actual journalists from good sources do things like:
Interview people!
Check sources and their reputability!
Discover facts!
Has any of that been done here? Why do you suppose not?
Obviously the Telegraph chose to publish this story because it appeals to the political leanings of their readership, but virtually all newspapers do that to a certain degree.
Because some sources are biased, we must accept a source as massively and obviously biased as the Daily Telegraph? Take your flimsy equivocation fallacies elsewhere. We can draw a line, and that line should certainly exclude places as bad as the Daily Telegraph.
It seems you have fallen into the trap of automatically dismissing the source/article as “propaganda” because its political viewpoint differs from your own.
No… I’m dismissing it because the Daily Telegraph is a bad source and it only publishes articles to serve its own purposes, which have nothing to do with truth or facts. Its political leanings are obviously horrible and idiotic but have nothing to do with the simple fact that they are a bad source.
If you think journalists routinely delve into extensive, detailed investigations based off a simple press release then I would say you’ve been watching too many movies.
I somehow doubt that you hold media sources that align with your own political persuasions to such exacting scrutiny.
Did I say anything about an extensive, detailed investigation? Does it appear they did literally any work, even up to and including picking up the nearest telephone and calling… well, basically anyone?
(Here’s a secret, me to you; I bet they did do that and they didn’t like what they uncovered. It’s okay though, they decided not to publish it.)
Not sure what sources I consume have anything to do with the quality of the Daily Telegraph. If I got my daily news from Sesame Street, would that suddenly make the Daily Telegraph an acceptable source?
No, bad sources do this all the time. Actual journalists from good sources do things like:
Has any of that been done here? Why do you suppose not?
Because some sources are biased, we must accept a source as massively and obviously biased as the Daily Telegraph? Take your flimsy equivocation fallacies elsewhere. We can draw a line, and that line should certainly exclude places as bad as the Daily Telegraph.
No… I’m dismissing it because the Daily Telegraph is a bad source and it only publishes articles to serve its own purposes, which have nothing to do with truth or facts. Its political leanings are obviously horrible and idiotic but have nothing to do with the simple fact that they are a bad source.
If you think journalists routinely delve into extensive, detailed investigations based off a simple press release then I would say you’ve been watching too many movies.
I somehow doubt that you hold media sources that align with your own political persuasions to such exacting scrutiny.
Did I say anything about an extensive, detailed investigation? Does it appear they did literally any work, even up to and including picking up the nearest telephone and calling… well, basically anyone?
(Here’s a secret, me to you; I bet they did do that and they didn’t like what they uncovered. It’s okay though, they decided not to publish it.)
Not sure what sources I consume have anything to do with the quality of the Daily Telegraph. If I got my daily news from Sesame Street, would that suddenly make the Daily Telegraph an acceptable source?