Originally posted by: Uttar
Nope, and what AT did is scandalous. Now, I don't know whether AT actually did it; they could just have received an e-mail from a "source", with that source doing little more than plagiarism; that AT knows about it, we cannot know.
And if you don't think that kind of stuff happens, I'd like to happily point out The Inq, which is the best example ever that random retards can get internet journalists to copy-paste mostly anything they want to.
That AT refuses to acknowledge the severity of this issue is absolutely shameful imo; I don't know whether they're responsible for it, but considering the situation, they least they should have done is try to cooperate with NGO HQ to try to figure out where the actual problem occured. Come on guys, if you got a frivolous source or information network, you try to debunk it, and not ignore all evidence indirectly pointing in that direction.
Furthermore, AT is a professional website where some - or perhaps all, I don't know - reporters are supposedly paid. Considering their position, they have the responsability to handle such thing responsibly, not deny it randomly with a 3 lines e-mail sent 5 minutes after receiving the inquiry.
Now, feel free to say it doesn't matter if AT didn't know about it when they published; but that's BS, because even then it matters to know how in the world they got that information without getting the original source information. Someone who AT trusts is applying plagiarism and tens of thousands of people have read that article by now, if not much more. Legally, I would assume that if AT denies such things, they would be held responsible for it, instead of their source.
The kind of reactions I'm seeing about this are saddening at best. Sounds like 3 years olds pirating the latest version of Putt-Putt while posting a reply, thinking "pff, they pirated it, and so what? I do that too". I know this is a quite overly ridiculous comparaison, but come on...
Uttar