MSN

SPC Kevin Ford -

https://www.axios.com/local/philadelphia/2022/09/20/philadelphia-homicide-violent-crime

Maj John Bell - This is a specific article within a specific post, I'm doing what you said I should do right now. The source is the Daily Mail. BTW, I also sometimes find good articles though news aggregators like MSN too, but I always try to post the link from the original source. Sometimes it isn't feasible as you say but that is the exception, not the rule.

Here is the original link for the one you posted. It took me less that 10 seconds to find it. No exageration.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12483491/Philadelphia-police-Danielle-Outlaw-resign-port-authority.html

Now you don't have to take the time to find the link. Just put who it is from at the top of your text.

If you say it wasn't done purposely I take you at your word. But just be aware it is misleading, even if accidentally, and requires the reader to click through to realize the source is not MSN. We both know there are a large percentage of readers who will not do that.

No, I'm not going to try verifying all the facts in an article from a source that has this type of history. That's my point. I'm sure there is lots of facts taken out of context or conclusions drawn without proper evidentiary support.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

If someone posts something from the National Enquirer I'm not going to bother with it either, even if occasionally they get some facts right. The Daily Mail is a pretty comprable source to that.

SPC Kevin Ford - "Story by Ruth Bashinsky For Dailymail.Com" Literally the first words under the headline. Even faster than doing a separate search.

Now what is your problem with the article?

If you don't refute them, why should I just surrender my position?

Maj John Bell - For that information one would have to click to see the details, it is obscurted, that's the point.

No I'm not going to bother reading or responding to an article from the Daily Mail.