Comments on: Never believe anything you read

By: echeng

echeng — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:08:10 +0000

Sure, Steve. It would have been possible, except that the CID divers weren’t the ones who recovered the bodies.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:54:03 +0000

Is it possible that the C.I.D. diver, when faced with a hungry shark, ‘offered it some food’? Rather it it an already dead guy than eat him, he might have thought…

By: norm

norm — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:39:10 +0000

I use google news also. Multiple sources (even though the bulk get their facts from the same places) at least help us see where there is fuzziness.

As for sharks, maybe we could help them acquire a taste for a few particular humans? Like organize them into posses who go after fisherman that use reef-destructive nets?

By: echeng

echeng — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:24:31 +0000

That's a good question, Norm. Many of us are particularly sensitive to shark articles because it's so easy to sensationalize the facts. In this case (aside from calling the bodies "men" and "women" and omitting the "dead" part), it looks like it was probably mostly unintentional.

I typically read Google News so I get links to as many articles as I can on the same subject. That way, if the facts differ, I know something is up. But mostly, I'm just skeptical. :)

By: norm

norm — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:25:44 +0000

How much of this do you think is intentional? Not that it matters, really, unless you attempt to assign motive (like the vast right wing conspiracy or the liberal media).

The sad part, though, is where should we go to get facts? If you don't have a trustworthy primary source (you're at least half of that! :), how does the average norm find the facts?