PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Pretty much everyone here knows how I feel about McGuinty. Yet if a newspaper released a story claiming there's video of him humping sheep in some field, I wouldn't be satisfied with the veracity of the story with seeing just a single photo that can easily be photo-shopped as proof, particularly when the video just "disappears".
Whether you want to believe a story or not has absolutely zero impact on whether it's true or not. The reporters saw more than a single photo. They saw the whole video. Independent sources verified the existence of the video and its content. That's the standard that's needed before printing a story. And that standard is what sets real news agencies apart from tabloids. If that standard isn't enough for you, well, then you're holding the press to a higher standard than they've ever been held to. That's fine, but that means you're unwilling to accept anything ever reported in the press.
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
In this day and age with people being a lot more technically savvy than even just 20 years ago, a picture doesn't speak a thousand words so much anymore as it says exactly what the producer of the picture wants it to say.
But real news agencies don't do that. That's why they are credible sources. They adhere to journalistic standards including the need for independent confirmation before releasing a story. The picture isn't photo-shopped. If it had appeared in some tabloid, you'd have a point. Real news agencies don't do that sort of thing. They adhere to a code of ethics and, by doing so over many decades, have EARNED a reputation for honest reporting.
CKA Super Elite 
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
