re: #6 Lidane

You’re playing semantics. The fact is, they ran an obviously Photoshopped image of Kagan in a turban next to an op-ed that spins a wild conspiracy theory of her supporting Sharia law. How is that in any way acceptable?

I didn’t say it was acceptable. I said that the post here verged on overstating the extent of the Times’ malfeasance. An “illustration” that hints Kagan accepts Shariah is out of place and not warranted by the facts of what she did or didn’t do at Harvard.

What that illustration is not is a “doctored photo” in the sense that Reuter’s fauxtographs were doctored. Because the illustration is not presented as an authentic record of an actual event, but is explicitly labeled an illustration.

We at this blog are playing for fairly high stakes. If our collective accuracy is high enough, we become a credible source. If we skate on thin ice from time to time, claiming more than is quite warranted by the facts, even when our basic point is correct, we can lose credibility points.