Trayvon Martin was also suspended for graffiti, previously found with 12 pieces of women's jewlery

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. Attributing a claim of fact to a source

Is the same as saying you don't know it for a fact. That's basic journalism.

This is even clear in substance: there's no way the journalist could know that the items in the bag were silver and diamond. Any kid on the high school paper could tell you that. The journalist obtains the report. The report describes the items as silver and diamond. The journalist notes that they were described that way. In the report. That's all she knows, so that's all she said.

Basic. Journalism.

You, on the other hand, under the guise of merely discussing the article, keep saying something that the article does not ever say: that it is a fact that these items were silver rings and diamond earrings. You're lying. You can't know that. It is not a fact as far as we know.

And this is also clear from substance, since as I've pointed out time and again, you don't know who described these items (presumably it was the investigator, but the article doesn't say for sure) that way or under what conditions or with what level of precision. Indeed, all the article does is cite the report; it does not even indicate that the investigator was interviewed independently of the report. Here's what it would look like if they knew for a fact what was in that bag:

The Herald has examined the jewelry in question and had it analyzed by and independent jeweler and by the Gemstone and Metals Lab the University of Miami Department of Chemistry. Both these sources confirmed that the wedding bands were made of silver, and the earrings were set with diamonds.

That's what an independently verified fact looks like in a fucking newspaper. Get real.