I still haven't received a reply from Weapons & Tactics editor/publisher James Bartel concerning my post about his newsletter reprinting old internet hoaxes.
Correspondent Keith Dowers has, though, and sent me what they sent him.
As Mr. Dowers notes, there is no apology. The editor, in fact, appears to defend his decision to run with these, using as justification that he got them from a cop--and we here at WarOnGuns know how infallible the only ones can be...
Bartel also questions the methods and credibility of Snopes.com, noting their generalized policy for establishing veracity and making an unmistakable insinuation with the observation "they make money doing it"--as if he's not.
Considering his retired cop source, Bartel says, it's not their policy to verify what they print and charge their customers for.
How about this, Mr. Bartel--ask your insider source to provide some police reports.
You want to compare your credibility to that of the Urban Legends people, fine. You print not one, but two articles that are word-for-word reproductions of material that has appeared on the internet for around six years, but somehow we're to believe that you're the ones to be taken seriously. Is it standard practice at W&T to publish work done by others (hoax or not) without attribution or payment--and then turn around and charge your customers for it?
This is just about the lamest excuse-making I've ever seen. Bartel deserves to have the marketplace respond accordingly.
Correspondent Keith Dowers has, though, and sent me what they sent him.
As Mr. Dowers notes, there is no apology. The editor, in fact, appears to defend his decision to run with these, using as justification that he got them from a cop--and we here at WarOnGuns know how infallible the only ones can be...
Bartel also questions the methods and credibility of Snopes.com, noting their generalized policy for establishing veracity and making an unmistakable insinuation with the observation "they make money doing it"--as if he's not.
Considering his retired cop source, Bartel says, it's not their policy to verify what they print and charge their customers for.
How about this, Mr. Bartel--ask your insider source to provide some police reports.
You want to compare your credibility to that of the Urban Legends people, fine. You print not one, but two articles that are word-for-word reproductions of material that has appeared on the internet for around six years, but somehow we're to believe that you're the ones to be taken seriously. Is it standard practice at W&T to publish work done by others (hoax or not) without attribution or payment--and then turn around and charge your customers for it?
This is just about the lamest excuse-making I've ever seen. Bartel deserves to have the marketplace respond accordingly.