Quote
dzrams
Quote
stlramz
In fact, "consider the source" is an argument that is well accepted in the Courts where the whole point is to try and eliminate bias.
The fact that someone has been shown to have given materially false testimony in the past, has committed a crime of moral turpitude, has been convicted of a felony, are all relevant to what the "source" is saying now i.e., that it should be viewed with distrust or skeptically.
I am sure when you review posts here at the herd, you "consider the source".
In fact, there are certain posters that I absolutely read religiously because they are a "source" that has been shown to be reliable and worthy of reading while others . . . not so much.
I agree with this in general. However, a "consider the source" argument requires some evidence to back it up. In court, you bring out evidence why they’re biased.
Here, there’s an unsubstantiated assertion that the source is given to sensationalism and “fake news” and is the “MSNBC of sports.” On what basis?
Yes, it’s a valid argument; but it’s an extremely weak one.
Plus eye of the beholder. Someone else might disparge a venue they don't like by calling it the "Fox News of sports."
The better bet is to always ask, does the argument hold up.
In this case the argument depends on ignoring a long list of reported insider statements and instead just dismissing the venue.
But, that's not a good argument.
....