big kahuna said:
Glad to hear that. Weird that Krakaeur didn't at least try to get that interview. Doesn't bode well for two sides being told.
"Objective" reporting would mandate at least making the effort.
Of course, notably, that is precisely the problem that sunk the recent
Rolling Stone article on campus rapes. The fake victim had asked the reporter to not contact the fake perpetrator, and, in every violation of journalistic integrity,
the reporter agreed not to attempt to get the other side of the story.
It is difficult to imagine how gullible a reporter would have to be to agree not to seek independent sourcing after being told, "gee, I'd really like it if you didn't try and verify anything I'm telling you." Red flags don't get much bigger, Red lights don't get much brighter, and shrieking sirens don't get much louder.
I too am assuming that Engstrom is telling the truth here, since the alternative would too easily blow up on him. I am giving him a great deal of the benefit of the doubt on that point, however. But,
arguendo, that it is true and Krakauer did not approach UM for comment, when a writer consciously sets out to take the same approach as the
Rolling Stone writer, it is a sure fire guarantee he has a story so good to tell that he did not want anything to interfere with it. Like truth.
I guess we will see April 21.