Palin and book banning again

[Carol]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> >
> Cabal responded:
> >
> > CNN was discussing this morning and said the article was in the NYT.
> 
> Carol again:
> Not surprising. The AP is a news source for many reputable papers,
the NYT among them. But the article didn't originate in the NYT. It
only appeared there.
> 
> Carol, not quite sure what Cabal's point was
> 
>
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> 
> My point was, that online sources could be coming from almost
anywhere, but a source such as the NYT has filters and standards in
place, they don't want to be caught reporting on something completely
erroneous, so they are more reliable / believable than "Yahoo" or some
other online source that picks up stories unfiltered. Quite often the
NYT and other such papers will actually report when the AP or Reuters
miss-reports, unlike Yahoo which simply shows the AP or Reuters story.
> 
> That was Cabal's point.
>
Carol:
Thanks for the clarification. It looks like your point about the Times
was the same as mine about AP, the source of the article. Reputable
either way. That Yahoo picked it up is really not relevant. What
counts is the source of the article and the reputable sources that
print it. I wasn't aware that the New York Times corrected AP
articles, but I'll take you at your word.

Anyway, I wasn't sure why you were mentioning the New York Times when
I'd already mentioned the source of the article, a named AP reporter,
as being reputable. Now I understand the implications of your post.

Carol, noting that facts don't always speak for themselves, so it
never hurts to state the reason for posting them :-)