Some people, caught with their pants down, admit the truth. Others avoid the damning evidence, talk about other things, or assert the proof is not sufficiently credible.
In his continuing defense of racist/bigot Touretzky, DeSio either (1) didn’t bother to ask his fellow traveler Touretzky if the chat-room quotes of Touretzky’s disgusting and racist comments are accurate, or (2) asked and got an answer DeSio could not defend.
DeSio reveals that his definition of “credible” is whatever supports his pre-fabricated story. His sources overtly have conflicts of interest and could be expected to say what they said – that is of course, why DeSio quotes them. Its like going to Hamas and asking, “What do you think of Jews?” and then reporting that his intrepid investigation reveals “everyone” dislikes them. Then , when shown that his sources are biased, DeSio whines that the evidence of their bias is not (to him) credible.
And, contrary to DeSio’s protest, we didn’t say he committed crimes against journalism.
We’re saying his “story” got it wrong, it is based upon biased sources, and he demonstrably lacks the courage to admit it. We understand the modus operandi DeSio – his friend Touretzky is the same way. So was Machiavelli’s heroic Prince. Actually, DeSio’s methods closely follow a time-honored practice known as “yellow journalism.” DeSio has a manufactured message to convey and simply won’t let the truth get in the way of that message. We recognize that some journalists eschew information that contradicts their assertions. That’s the way yellow journalism works. But let’s not forget
what it is, and pretend it offers truth. DeSio had a job to do and he did it.
We understand biased people – that was why Religious Freedom Watch was created and that’s why Touretzky is featured. DeSio should carefully read it.