I specifically stated GEOpolitical for a reason. There isn't a reason to worry about nation-state influence here.
Bias can seep into papers for reasons that don't have anything to do with goings on in Moscow.
You have introduced unnecessary skepticism. No one is saying Kim is guilty of whatever is written, we're saying she's ******* weird to be acting the way she is.
"Unnecessary" is doing a lot of work there. Too much.
It is appropriate to be skeptical of an article nobody has seen on a controversial figure that many people already dislike about what could be a very serious set of allegations.
Dismissing it without seeing it would be "unnecessary skepticism." I'll wait until I can read it, consider the evidence they present, and then decide to accept or reject its conclusions.
@KnappShack made the strong point earlier that imputing her motivations ("weird to be acting the way she is") and drawing conclusions from them isn't the strongest ground to be on.
Yep. At the same time, you can't throw out all the good work they do just because you haven't seen this story yet. Let me remind you that WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT had LSU people not started talking about it. What little we know about this story hasn't come from the WP - it has come from LSU and Mulkey. The WP hasn't acted anything but professional so far relating to this.
I never threw out any of their work. How could I? I haven't seen it. None of us have.
I don't have anything to be skeptical of yet. The only thing we can be skeptical of right now is Kim's story. If being skeptical of everything that exists is your stance, why are you not skeptical of her story? Kim Mulkey is being paid to coach basketball. The journalist writing this story is being paid to find an interesting truth. If his story is false, that journalist loses his career. Frankly, it's ******** for Kim to be essentially dragging someone through the mud for actions he has NOT YET TAKEN. If the story is false, refute the allegations in private and no story gets published. By not engaging with the reporter at all, you aren't giving him a shot to verify your story.
The skepticism is a principle, not a specific reaction to this yet unseen story.
Such principles are good to have -- especially nowadays.
I have nothing but respect for investigative journalists. Like I said earlier in the thread and elsewhere, I read John Carreyrou's book about the Theranos scandal late last year. When was the last time you sat down and read 500+ pages of reporting about a scandal put together by an investigative journalist?
I also pay for a
WaPo subscription (even if I no longer live there) to support such research.
So not only do I support it... I pay for it!
Exactly, there is no reason to be skeptical when you don't even know what to be skeptical of. Saying Kim is acting weird isn't blindly believing an allegation that doesn't exist yet. It's an expression of skepticism towards someone who is clearly agitated by something with something to gain by getting ahead of bad news.
You can express skepticism about allegations only after knowing what they are. By expressing skepticism in the allegation before you've seen it, you are really expressing distrust for the journalist who has done nothing to earn that skepticism. The journalist's behavior is, so far, trustworthy (i.e., he appears to be expending lots of time and effort chasing down this story, verifying it, and being fair to Kim/LSU). Your skepticism towards this journalist and his story is a blind one.
Again, a general principle, and one I stand behind.
@Sigmapolis dumbed my post seconds after I posted it. It is clear you don't even care to read what I'm saying at this point. More blind skepticism.
It took like 30 seconds to read. I'm on a computer, not mobile.
It clearly earned the "DUMB" long before that.
