- Feb 3, 2019
- 3,128
- 5,613
- 250
It's not necessarily a matter of the claims being correct or incorrect; but rather presented without evidence of why the claim should be believed. Thanks @Zachary for pointing this out. To be honest I wasn't thinking about the factual supportability of the article when I first read it. This is the danger of this style of reporting.
For instance:
'
The show introduces Rose literally as “the leading scientist of orcas,” but this is very misleading. Rose works for multiple organizations that directly oppose zoological facilities. She has written multiple papers against keeping animals in captivity, and has no background when it comes to the physical health of animals in zoological settings
'
A statement like this needs a source. How does the author know Rose works for these "multiple organizations" and what proof can be had for her having "no background". Does the author know Rose's full CV or is he just assuming?
The statement may be true; but without evidence to prove it; the statement does little to refute the original claims.
For instance:
'
The show introduces Rose literally as “the leading scientist of orcas,” but this is very misleading. Rose works for multiple organizations that directly oppose zoological facilities. She has written multiple papers against keeping animals in captivity, and has no background when it comes to the physical health of animals in zoological settings
'
A statement like this needs a source. How does the author know Rose works for these "multiple organizations" and what proof can be had for her having "no background". Does the author know Rose's full CV or is he just assuming?
The statement may be true; but without evidence to prove it; the statement does little to refute the original claims.
Last edited: