What would you say instead, if you thought something from history was improbable? Would you say it happened, or didn’t happen? Or would you qualify your statement somehow?
> What would you say instead, if you thought something from
> history was improbable? Would you say it happened, or
> didn’t happen? Or would you qualify your statement
> somehow?
OK, you don’t understand what journalism is supposed to be.
Neither does much of anybody else these days.
You see, as a reporter, it’s not supposed matter what *I* think. That’s the place for an editorial.
As a reporter, I would simply report what different factions SAY about an historical event, with as much balance as possible, and leave my bloody opinion out of it.
As a reporter, I could say something such as, “The prevailing opinion among authorities with whom this reporter spoke is that this event took place as described in the original account.”
I could then get into the details of differing points of view, their sources, and their background.
But I must never, as a RESPONSIBLE journalist, impose my own opinion on the report.
Well, for example, you could read in a history context about Japan’s improbable defeat of the Russian Empire at Port Arthur. The adjective in this case referring to the fact that tiny japan was outmanned and outgunned by the giant Russian empire. No one doubts that the event occurred.
The word is used in the same fashion by the autor. However, expressions of non-credulity do come later on in the article, in the last few paragraphs.