the burden of proof

Zeke has suggested I start some threads offering solutions for specific problems. I thought I'd take him up on it, even though I already know what the outcome will be.

First topic: A syndicated columnist is suggesting he doesn't need or want proof any more when it comes to steroid use among athletes.

This is simply asinine. Journalism calls for having proof. If you don't have it, STFU.

That is all.

 

So I'm confused. When do you start offering solutions?

 

The solution is to either have proof, or not write a column saying no proof is necessary.

To write a column saying no proof is necessary is sort of like writing a column saying, "I am not really a journalist. Try and stop me."

Hence the "If you don't have it (proof), STFU."

 

I agree with the premise, Dye.

To do so as a syndicated columnist is particularly bad.