Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
Cylance Articles & thoughts
Message
<blockquote data-quote="artek" data-source="post: 802926" data-attributes="member: 22897"><p>You have to consider the source with stuff like this. The reputation of the author. The veracity of his scholarly data.</p><p></p><p>"On June 30, 2013, the London <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Observer" target="_blank">Observer</a></em> published a front page story sourced to Madsen. According to Michael Moynihan of the <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Beast" target="_blank">Daily Beast</a></em>, shortly after going to press, <em>The Observer</em> "realized that the story's author, Jamie Doward, failed to conduct even the most perfunctory Google search on Madsen. That would have revealed him to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist in the tradition of Alex Jones, on whose radio show he often appears".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-Daily_Beast:_NSA_Nutjob-9" target="_blank">[9]</a> The article was quickly removed from the parent (<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian" target="_blank">The Guardian</a></em>) newspaper's website pending an investigation, but not before the print edition had gone to press.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-thecommentator1-6" target="_blank">[6]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-Business_Insider-29" target="_blank">[29]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-dailycaller.com-30" target="_blank">[30][30]</a> According to <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes" target="_blank">Forbes</a></em> magazine, <em>The Observer</em> likely took the story down as it was concerned with the reliability of the source rather than the content as no matter how "left field" the source was, the story seems to be largely true and has been a matter of public record for some years.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-joy-31" target="_blank">[31]</a> "</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="artek, post: 802926, member: 22897"] You have to consider the source with stuff like this. The reputation of the author. The veracity of his scholarly data. "On June 30, 2013, the London [I][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Observer']Observer[/URL][/I] published a front page story sourced to Madsen. According to Michael Moynihan of the [I][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Beast']Daily Beast[/URL][/I], shortly after going to press, [I]The Observer[/I] "realized that the story's author, Jamie Doward, failed to conduct even the most perfunctory Google search on Madsen. That would have revealed him to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist in the tradition of Alex Jones, on whose radio show he often appears".[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-Daily_Beast:_NSA_Nutjob-9'][9][/URL] The article was quickly removed from the parent ([I][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian']The Guardian[/URL][/I]) newspaper's website pending an investigation, but not before the print edition had gone to press.[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-thecommentator1-6'][6][/URL][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-Business_Insider-29'][29][/URL][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-dailycaller.com-30'][30][30][/URL] According to [I][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes']Forbes[/URL][/I] magazine, [I]The Observer[/I] likely took the story down as it was concerned with the reliability of the source rather than the content as no matter how "left field" the source was, the story seems to be largely true and has been a matter of public record for some years.[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Madsen#cite_note-joy-31'][31][/URL] " [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top