The principle behind the Betteridge's law of headlines is sound. It's definitely reasonable to exercise skepticism when a journalist is unable to support a claim with evidence. However, it's absurd to suggest that a failure to find evidence means that any assertion made by the piece is bogus.
If a journalist publishes a story titled "Do police investigate crime?", the answer is obviously wouldn't be "no."
I don't think mentioning the law itself adds much to the conversation—certainly not the "can be answered by the word no" part.
2 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 16.6 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
If a journalist publishes a story titled "Do police investigate crime?", the answer is obviously wouldn't be "no."
I don't think mentioning the law itself adds much to the conversation—certainly not the "can be answered by the word no" part.