The New York Times put a curious spin on what looks like a positive story
Colonel Thomas Spoehr is the director of materiel for the Army staff, and he has quite a different take from New York Times reporter Michael Moss on procuring new body armor for the troops in Iraq.
Jack Kelly reports in Jewish World Review.
Given the differences, how does a reasonably informed reader decide which version is more accurate? On any issue, not just this one.
Jack Kelly reports in Jewish World Review.
Given the differences, how does a reasonably informed reader decide which version is more accurate? On any issue, not just this one.
2 Comments:
Tom...
"Given the differences, how does a reasonably informed reader decide which version is more accurate?"
You do your own research, compare multiple sources, and draw your own conclusion. How else?
For example, Kelly says:
"The plates are made of boronic carbide, the second hardest substance known to man (only diamonds are harder) but fairly light weight."
A few clicks on Google, and I found that the correct term is "boron carbide", and it's the FOURTH hardest substance known to man. Note that this is a matter of fact, not opinion, and one can reasonably expect a definite answer.
Apparently Moss, Spoehr, Kelly and Bosworth were ALL too busy spinning their own versions of the story to bother with even the most rudimentary fact-checking.
-- Dan
>>Apparently Moss, Spoehr, Kelly and Bosworth were ALL too busy spinning their own versions of the story to bother with even the most rudimentary fact-checking.<<
Quite likely so, but one can hardly take the time to do that with every important issue, and even if one did, you'd end up with piles of opinions, spins, and fabrications.
I'll stick with my question, which wasn't impacted by whether boron carbide is 2nd or fourth hardest substance around. The rudimentary fact checking would have been - or should have been- on the procurement angle, which was what the story was about.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home