No, what it means, Karen, is that we have no way to independently confirm anyone's story. Particularly where they conflict dramatically. As is likely in this case. Given Clark's running for the Dem nomination, we are likely to hear the direst stories about him. Particularly since it's apparent that the Bush folk view him as their least favored opponent.
After all, the statement above automatically assumes whoever writes an opinion deliberately lies, or doesn't remember events as they actually happened...or...
Of course, not. Just assumes where versions conflict, again, we don't have independent access to what actually happened.
If, in such a case, it matters a great deal, say, for instance, you will decide to vote for one candidate or another depending on the truth claims, then you have to do a great deal of research and what you come up with is some form of an iterated notion of what actually happened. Unless, that is your decision to vote was not actually made on the basis of that but rather on ideological grounds. |
