Where did I say I didn't read the article? I have read it, but questioned the motives. Look at the Whitehouse briefing; Officer Tatum was just allowed to ask questions at the last briefing. What's going on that all of a sudden there's this "hit" piece? Very suspicious. Choose to watch or not.
A Chorus lawyer literally reached out to Wired with clarifications that were added. That means that the Chorus lawyer reviewed the entire article. So even Chorus is saying it isn't bogus.
You are giving Lorenz SO much room to work within when you make it seem like either true or "bogus." If someone says a video captured a man leaving a bank with bags of money, and someone clarifies that it was a driver transporting the money, well I guess that initial claim "wasn't bogus."
Pretend this isn't Lorenz. What factual claims from the article do you take issue with?
What terms would you prefer I use?
What? I'm saying the issue isn't a true/false binary, and any statement can do some significant framing of truth before it might be better to call it false/a lie (and in this case, before an "update to the article" or clarification from a lawyer becomes a "correction"). Use whatever words you want.
The issue is in fact a true/false binary. Either the factual claims in the article are true or they are false. I've seen nothing that refutes the claims in the article. I've seen false claims made against the author and other non relevant speculation about her raised to discredit the article.
But ad hominems don't discredit the factual claims in the article.
My issue comes down to unethical tactics and bad strategy. If the factual claims in the article are true then the Democrats are being unethical and, in my assessment, engaging in bad strategy.
Most of the claims in the article don't come from Lorenz either. They're taken directly from contracts obtained, group chats she saw, creators she spoke with, or the experts she talked to.
Like a good piece of investigative journalism. She can have her own opinions about the evidence she gathered. I know I do. But that doesn't discredit the article itself.
Okay. I saw parts of the contract, and they line up with what the article claims quite directly. I currently have no reason to believe the main points of the article are false. The creator responses I've seen re-enforce my perspective.
okie dokie
The problem being that the implication is there in the original statement. If an original disingenuous claim is amplified enough, and relies on non-falsifiable or carefully phrased non-lies, clarification won't be able to stop that, especially when people like you say "look, they didn't deny it!"
What was disingenuous from the article?
I was just weighing in on what seemed like a naive understanding of how misinformation (and disinformation) tend to operate, and why I think a lawyer not disputing or "correcting" an article often doesn't mean much as to the actual veracity of the statements.
You seemed to have missed the parts where all the factual claims in the article have been independently verified, albeit sometimes accidentally.
On its own, no. In combination with other information and claims, it can definitely carry some weight. I think it does here. Specifically, as a point to people who base their entire perspective of the content of the article solely on what they think of its author.