The fact that the report is out there, and could potentially be released by someone else, provides an incentive for Cran not to misreport it. As for Galloway, it is not clear if he is allowed to release it. Partial leaks are normal in many other contexts . . .
-
-
. . . seems a bit quick to turn around now and say partial leak is uniquely problematic here.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amlamey
Cran's article is being celebrated as definitive objective account rather than (as it is) an able polemic by partisan who seems to have partial access (likely given by one party) to a report that still not accessible to public.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
True but secondary. People of many political stripes overreact to narratives that confirm their priors. The quotes from the Boyd report are the important stuff. Fact that the writer may have had partial access does not seem grounds to dismiss them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amlamey
Um, when there are two parties in dispute I'm usually wary of reporting that relies heavily on one party (typically stories that rely on police & prosecutors in crime cases).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @amlamey
The best me too reporting has usually had multiple sources and also has tried to speak to all parties.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Some important
#metoo
pieces (about Aziz Ansari, Wieseltier, others) have been first-person narratives by survivors. Does not seem right to dismiss them for relying only on one source (namely, their own personal experience).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Off to bed. Last word goes to you if you want it!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Okay! I still have another article to write before going to bed.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.