this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
216 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
73792 readers
3756 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is nothing magic about it. The organization that's cited isn't the problem. The problem is the BBC cites that org as proof that this person's claims are true. But neither that org nor the BBC have said, "we have corroborated Jin-su's story." On the contrary, the BBC just admits they didn't or couldn't corroborate the story themselves. So in my mind I may as well have read this article on any rando's blog post, or in the NYT in 2001 under a Judith Miller byline. It lacks credence.
I wouldn't have had anything to say if BBC said that they reviewed some documents that showed Jin-su's claim. Maybe a few of the "hundreds" of fake IDs that he used, for example. But instead they just read another testimony from PSCORE. Was that other testimony verified? They don't bother explaining. So they just use an unverified testimony from PSCORE and pass that off to make the reader believe that that's good enough in place of actually verifying Jin-su's testimony!