• krellor@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Did you read the NYT article in question?

    The NYT interviewed members from the unit who corroborated Watz’s claim that he decided to run for Congress before deployment orders came through. The leg work I’ve described in this thread was presenting an account of events that contradicted Vance’s claim that he intentionally avoided deployment.

    I’m absolutely baffled by some of the responses I’ve gotten, lol.

    • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Maybe I completely misread your position. My point is that given what they know, having a headline that gives credence to the claim is irresponsible.

      • krellor@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        My very first comment was in reply to someone who called the NYT headline a lie, and I said that just isn’t true. Subsequently, I said that I think reasonable people can disagree about the quality of the headline, but it was factually correct. I e., the headline is that Vance made a claim, which is objectively true. Then, in the body of the article, they share quotes from interviews with Watz’s former unit members that refute Vance’s claim.

        I don’t know know why or how NYT chooses the exact composition of their headlines or what aspects of a story to highlight, but personally as a regular times reader and subscriber, I didn’t read the headline as giving credence to Vance, and found the article very strongly supportive of Watz’s position.

        But barring something like a released federal record showing a request for out processing, it still boils down to statements of individuals, which is probably why the times doesn’t directly refute Vance’s claim as false, and instead leans on interviews from the unit and other circumstantial details to refute the claim, because they haven’t had time to authoritatively establish that. They often circle back to such things once they have had a chance to do so, and include it in summary fact checks throughout the political cycle.