Cherry-Picked Sources and Lack of Corroboration

Cherry-Picked Sources

There were debates over whether some articles were cherry picked, especially since many of them repeatedly referenced the same, since-disputed Cambodian press conference.

Jacob questioned what exactly constituted a "consensus of credible reporting" in war markets.

He pointed out that sources like Janes and The Wall Street Journal are generally credible. In this case, however, they did not independently verify the strike claims; they simply repeated them.

VLDNVSTK pushed back, noting that even among regional media, there wasn't a clear consensus.

Tyler also raised concerns about users making claims without doing proper due diligence.

Lack of Corroboration

Spy pointed out that most of the reporting relied on the contested Cambodian press conference, not Thai sources.

This issue came up repeatedly: many articles traced back to the same Cambodian statement. As several users noted, multiple outlets referencing a single, disputed source does not by itself amount to a credible consensus.

Lack of Western Media Corroboration

Tyler emphasized that no Western outlet explicitly confirmed F-16 strikes on July 25.

Greutbegnenxer expanded on this, citing articles from Reuters, AP News, AFP, and BBC.

Pazzy disagreed, arguing that both airstrikes were mentioned in AP News and Reuters.

A look at the AP News article published on July 26 confirms that Thai officials acknowledged using F-16 jets and drones to carry out airstrikes, although it does not specify the date or time of those strikes.

Summary

Much of the disagreement centered on whether the reporting used to justify a "Yes" resolution was credible and independently verified. Several users argued that the majority of sources traced back to a single, disputed Cambodian press conference and lacked confirmation from Thai or Western outlets. Others countered that credible media had reported the strikes, even if based on limited sourcing. The debate revealed a deeper divide over what qualifies as a consensus of credible reporting in war markets.

Coming Up

Next, we take a look at a key issue raised throughout the dispute: the lack of first-hand evidence confirming the strikes.