News

Hey guess what, I was wrong! / ps/pps

//iranian.com/main/news/2009/07/03/6-people-executed-qom-29-people-due-be-executed-tehran

It has been confirmed by Fars News and they oughtta know. It is also faaaaaaaaar worse than just six.  And like Q said, it wasn't Mashad.

It was Qom.

Allahu Akbar.

_____________________________

But I was also right.

Q had every reason to question the source, and I did say if you want to search further do so over the next few days to see if it really happened.

The fish is still is a jerk. While I am only half a jerk.

_______________________

PS Pls read my comment on the Kadivar thread above. I wish more people would grasp this concept of "Horrorwood". Something like Mel Brooks.' 'Springtime for Hitler'.

PPS Okay, I think I cracked the nut. Here's more: they are all purported to be "drug traffickers" and apparently last July IRI also executed 29 in a mass hanging. What is the deal with this 29 thing?

//iranian.com/main/news/2009/07/02/six-convicted-drug-traffickers-hanged-iran 

//www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html

It is only jpost which says they were Moussavi supporters. In point of fact I now only found the item covered as Kadivar's feed notes, in fars news and the iranian human rights organization and, as drug traffickers. . So the most reliable press sources have not picked it6 up as a major item.

I have researched it because it is very, very important.

I think I am through for time being. lol

Q is absolutely right to question this source.../Zzzzzzzed...

and this is not a criticism of you, my dear Ayhab, but of this snot-nosed insulting fish. Unfortunately (s)he will probably never return here but let me explain myself anyway.

To begin with as we know, jpost is a "rag", full of "yellow press, jingoism, etc.' This doesn't necessarily mean they "planted" this item, what it means is that they will jump on things in their 'excitement' that other sources would scrutinize.

Who are these anonymous sources? Well, anonymous sources are perfectly acceptable in r"esponsible journalism' (however to use that term for jpost is...sometimes questionable). However, they were very responsible in emphasizing the report was unconfirmed.

How can this be? How can several apparerently reliable be wrong? Because news spreads like wildfire, whether it is true news or not. Runors, misinterpretations, even bald-faced lies. 

So once you have a situation where a "rag" is using unconfirmed anonymous sources, it is questionable. But it is easy to check. Over the next few days you do a google search. This is the search I typically use:

news, iran, date of reported item and then key words--in this case mashad, six, hang, supporters..there are many other possibilities.

What I got was a couple of pages of sources which picked up the item, however guess what: 1) they all picked it up from jpost! and 2) not one single one of them was a highly reliable source (as in bbc, reuters, washington post, haaretz, xing hua, al jazeera, asia tijmes. the real new, nyt,..oh so many others...).  And you have to understand that this situation we're in is one where many papers left, right and center would love to hear this news..so where are they?

The first reliable source is on page 3, and it is the huffington post. Huffpost happens to be one of THE most respected for the recent events in Iran, as well as most frequently updated. However, the huffpost item was not about this, it just happened to have the key words.

Conclusion-not considered reliable by the most credible sources.

Additionally I recall there was only one seyed a couple of weeks ago who spoke out that the 'dissidents' should be subject to capital punishment, his jurisdiction was Isfahan, he was not in Qom or anything like that. I never saw any news item with a more powerful cleric and/or government official echoing him.

Well anyway I didn't go beyond page 3 in google. If anyone wants to or wants to check the Persian souces, you may find that I am wrong. However that in no way negates Q's assertion that the source is questionable and inflated. (Note he did not say FALSE). It was absolutely the correct reaction to have. It was Ostaad who taught me how to identify and check for back-up to questionable sources.

The one who is in sheep's clothing is this Zed character. This is so unbelievably offensive that I hope (s)he will come back here to read this..but alas, this is not the case with so many fishes.

I call them "hit and run fish" and/or piranhas.

hit and run piranha in sheep's clothing..

Take care, Q, AW, CA.

r.

(ps what i do in situations like this when the item is so very important but questionable is I put "unconfirmed but..." in the supertitle.

Isn't it funny, Ayhab, how you are the one who pulled me back into this whole mess when I am supposed to be on permanent vacation from the Portal of Doom? LOL)

Re: PinoQ

It sounds like you are back at it. At least we now know that people were so wrong when they accused you of being a reformist. You are a hard liner in sheep clothing.

If this is true,

it's truly despicable.  I wonder if there is any real litmus test of verifying ANY source or is it subjective as to who and what you want to believe.  :-)

I don't really know about this "source"

sounds like an inflated claim. Mashhad is the most loyal city and nobody wants the attention.