I know nothing about British media...

[conuly]

How reliable is this?

If I'm reading it right, it sounds like they maneuvered Sadaam into a spot where war wouldn't appear to be illegal. Which is... well, wrong, to say the least.

Comments

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

I haven't any idea how reliable it is, but I'm reading it same as you.

V. Interesting.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

About the same reliability as the New York Times around here. In other words: very.

[conuly]

Well, the NYTimes *did* have that scandal a summer or two ago.

I'm hoping that this article is somehow wrong. Or... something.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

It's not 100% reliable, of course -- see also CBS News -- but the Times papers have been on their best behavior since the thirties, heh. :)

[leora.livejournal.com]

Scary... the article that is.

I don't expect a news source to be 100% reliable, because people work in them. They can be duped sometimes. As long as they're trying to be 100% reliable and tend to be very reliable, that's about as good an information source as you can get. Multiple information sources are better, of course, but a source like that makes a good one to follow.

[rho]

In general, the Times has pretty decent journalistic standards. It is under the same ownership as Fox et al though, so you have to keep that in mind, but normally the journalists and editors are left to their own devices without too much interference from above. I tend to consider things from the times as "probably true, but requires further research if it's something really important that I want verifying".

It's hardly news though. That Bush uniateraly decided he wanted war, and Blair unilaterally decided to support him, and then tried to find some real reason to do so. It was all grossly illegal, there just isn't a court in the world big enough to convict them.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The Times, as has been noted , is rightwing and very anti blair in it's stance. this does not disqualify anything they say, but if he story is big, it will find it's way into 'The Independent', and if it happens in there, it will gain a bit more cred, as far as I am concerned. for now, I would give it 70, maybe 75% chance of being correct.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

This is the biggest story in every paper in Britain. I'm fairly sure it's legit. mmaestro is hoping this will mean Blair will be impeached.

[scarletdemon.livejournal.com]

I live here and I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, sadly.

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

I haven't any idea how reliable it is, but I'm reading it same as you.

V. Interesting.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

About the same reliability as the New York Times around here. In other words: very.

[conuly]

Well, the NYTimes *did* have that scandal a summer or two ago.

I'm hoping that this article is somehow wrong. Or... something.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

It's not 100% reliable, of course -- see also CBS News -- but the Times papers have been on their best behavior since the thirties, heh. :)

[leora.livejournal.com]

Scary... the article that is.

I don't expect a news source to be 100% reliable, because people work in them. They can be duped sometimes. As long as they're trying to be 100% reliable and tend to be very reliable, that's about as good an information source as you can get. Multiple information sources are better, of course, but a source like that makes a good one to follow.

[rho]

In general, the Times has pretty decent journalistic standards. It is under the same ownership as Fox et al though, so you have to keep that in mind, but normally the journalists and editors are left to their own devices without too much interference from above. I tend to consider things from the times as "probably true, but requires further research if it's something really important that I want verifying".

It's hardly news though. That Bush uniateraly decided he wanted war, and Blair unilaterally decided to support him, and then tried to find some real reason to do so. It was all grossly illegal, there just isn't a court in the world big enough to convict them.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The Times, as has been noted , is rightwing and very anti blair in it's stance. this does not disqualify anything they say, but if he story is big, it will find it's way into 'The Independent', and if it happens in there, it will gain a bit more cred, as far as I am concerned. for now, I would give it 70, maybe 75% chance of being correct.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

This is the biggest story in every paper in Britain. I'm fairly sure it's legit. mmaestro is hoping this will mean Blair will be impeached.

[scarletdemon.livejournal.com]

I live here and I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, sadly.