http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...t-to-the-chinese/story-e6frg90o-1225813468186
Do you believe that Hugo Chavez was correctly attributed in the above article, or not?
Why, or why not?
Obviously I am not expressing myself clearly. That happens a lot; I tend to write at a bit too much length, and points which seem clear to me get buried or confused. Let me try again.
There isn't time in life to investigate every question which comes up. Therefore we all are going to pick and choose which things to research and which to set aside.
If you'll notice, I did not choose to research the Chavez claim which was made in the OP. I found it intriguing, but not intriguing enough to work on when I'm already way behind on a lot of other things I should be doing. That's why I was glad that Lucky and Kuko 4000 did take the time to look into this.
I am not a Chavez supporter. I know too little about him to be either a supporter or an opponent...
When I read over this thread, I had no idea whether Chavez had made such a statement, very little idea as to whether it was likely or unlikely he had made such a statement, and no great interest or desire either to prove he had or that he hadn't. That is still the case.
What struck me as interesting about the thread, and worthy of comment, was that a number of people were posting
as if Chavez had said something about earthquake machines but nothing had been provided in which he
actually said anything on that subject.
Skepticism should not need to be hostile. It should not fall solely to supporters of Chavez to question claims which put him in a bad light
I hesitated to post in this thread about what appears to me to be an obvious breach of skeptical principles, because I thought it was quite possible that Chavez actually had said the comments attributed to him and people simply hadn't posted a good source for the comments yet. And that should not matter -- but at present, because skepticism is so poorly practiced in the Politics area of the forum, it does.
It is a violation of good skeptical principles to attribute statements to one person based solely on third-party statements of other people. It doesn't matter if the claim ultimately turns out to be true; it's bad practice whether the claim is true or false.
It should be a basic skeptical reflex reaction that when a skeptic hears an interesting statement attributed to Person A but the only person quoted is Person B, the skeptic immediately asks, Can you show me where Person A actually said this?
I am trying at the moment to refrain from posting in the serious sections of the forum. I'm too prone to careless errors at present and I'm having too much trouble writing simply and concisely. But when I read this thread, saw someone whom I very much respect (hs4) posting something which appeared to attribute words to Hugo Chavez which the cited sources did not justify, and saw numerous others in the thread making what appeared to be the same error, I felt obliged to point it out.
That's all I'm trying to do in this thread. I am not a Chavez supporter, have very little knowledge of him, and little interest at present in researching him, either to attack him or defend him.
The subject of interest to me is quite simple. A number of people in this thread have been posting comments about Hugo Chavez as if he had actually made statements about an earthquake weapon.
Is there anything posted in the OP, or on the first page of the thread, which contains any such statements or reliable reports of such statements?
I hope you will think about that question.
Now, back to
your question.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...t-to-the-chinese/story-e6frg90o-1225813468186
Do you believe that Hugo Chavez was correctly attributed in the above article, or not?
Why, or why not?
I hope what I wrote above clarifies why I'm not really interested in (or qualified for) taking active part in a discussion about Hugo Chavez at present. But if you are simply interested in what my standards are for determining whether to accept a quote as legitimate, with Dan Molinski's piece "
President Hugo Chavez may seize Toyota factory and give it to the Chinese" item as an example, that I can answer.
I'm not familiar with
The Australian, but it's been cited here often and my impression is that it's a legitimate Australian newspaper. I'm also not clear whether this appeared on a news page or an editorial page, but this appears to be a news story rather than op-ed piece. Based on these two assumptions, I would accept this as being a reliable report of something Chavez said. I would have no problem using it myself in a post and I would have no problem accepting it as accurate if someone else used it.
Let me elaborate on news page versus editorial page. There are several direct quotations from Chavez in Molinski's story; if this is a legitimate news story in a legitimate newspaper, then my assumption until reason is given to believe otherwise is that the reporter has a copy of the full speech available, is quoting correctly, and is excerpting fairly.
But if this appeared on an op-ed page, I would not accept this as adequate. (It might well turn out to be correct; but before I'd accept it as reliable, I'd need either to look up the material the columnist was writing about for myself or see some additional assurances from the columnist.)
Columnists often do not have the original text they are referring to at hand when they write their piece. Many base their pieces on what other opinion pieces they've read have said. Therefore they don't get the same benefit of the doubt I give to a news reporter (who are supposed to be either reporting on something they personally heard or drawing on a transcript from someone who was there).
Columnists also are trying to make a point (rather than to report the news), so they may very well be excerpting out only passages which support the point they are trying to make, rather than to give an accurate sense of what the remarks as a whole contained. For example: as I recall, George Will recently quoted material in a column which on examination turned out to say something quite different from what he had represented it as saying.
My bottom-line difference for accepting a quote as genuine is that I need to have someone who is willing say:
I have read (or heard) this speech for myself, in its entirety (or in complete enough form that I feel reasonably confident I am familiar enough with it to be able to summarize it fairly). I am quoting accurately, and I am excerpting fairly; if you look up the entire speech for yourself, you will find what I have summarized in greater detail, but what you read will not be significantly different from what I have represented here.
The English language items cited for the earthquake weapons story (Ronald Bailey and Jack Blood) clearly on the inadequate side. No one in either piece gives me any good reason to believe they have actually heard or read the speech they are writing about. In contrast, the Dan Molinski piece for Toyota seizure story appears to me (in my ignorance of both Molinski and
The Australian) to be on the adequate side.
I hope that's an adequate answer to your question. (And my apologies for the length of this answer.)
I hope that the length of your response does not act as an obstacle to many of our readers here divining why such distinctions as you make are well worth making. 
