[TomGuy]

Goes to prove a point I've made before on how reporters "authenticate" their reporting:

Reporter for media A writes something conjectural with a lot of "mays, mights, coulds, shoulds, woulds, ifs, etc."
Reporter for media B writes something and references reporter for media A as the source.
Reporter for media C writes something and validates the source as "in published reports."

Bingo! Media has "authenticated" reporting without even getting up from their desks to validate any part of it. Then the nightly TV news picks up the story and runs with it too.

Considering some of the recent "real" headlines, thought, it can be easy to get confused with Onion's satire. Some days truth is stranger than fiction. How many headlines have we read recently and said, "This has to be a joke" or "Surely, this can't be true" only to find out it is no joke and it is true.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Some days truth is stranger than fiction.

Bump!

[dighton]

William Saletan: Death Warmed Over

[toenail]

Reporter for media A writes something conjectural with a lot of "mays, mights, coulds, shoulds, woulds, ifs, etc."
Reporter for media B writes something and references reporter for media A as the source.
Reporter for media C writes something and validates the source as "in published reports."

Except that step 1 should read, "Reporter for media A gets a fax from some lobbying group, containing a lot of 'mays, mights, coulds, shoulds, woulds, ifs, etc.'"