credibility of Jules' reports (WAS MDMD(3)---Our Lurkers, Wicks & Pynchon)

Doug Millison millison at online-journalist.com
Thu Jul 17 11:11:49 CDT 1997


At 9:21 AM 7/17/97, Jules Siegel wrote:
>I didn't say this. Chrissie did. Stop making these false attributions. It's
>not only bad reporting but also denigrates Chrissie's intelligence and
>independence. And don't start telling me about filtering and so on. She said
>this stuff. I didn't make it up. She knew him and loved him and liked him
>and that's how she saw him.
>
....and that's what you told us she said. Can't get around that. Doesn't
mean she didn't say it, has nothing to do with her "intelligence and
independence", but we know it only through you, and it's yet to be
corroborated by another credible source. Here's how reporting works, Jules:
somebody tells you something. Unless you are also an eyewitness, you try
to corroborate the information via another reliable source. If you can't
corroborate it with another reliable source, you can report it but only
with the qulification that it's uncorroborated by other sources; you often
see such statements by reputable journalistic enterprises such as the New
York Times, for example. This statement about Pynchon, and  others which
you attribute to Chrissie or for which you are the sole source, acquire
credibility only when they are corroborated by another credible source.
This is especially true when dealing with negative, defamatory reports.

Yr paranoid prosecutor,



D O U G  M I L L I S O N ||||||||||| millison at online-journalist.com
   





More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list