Hm. "Debunked" is a bit strong. It implies that the original was "bunk", and possibly deliberate bunk.
There's a bit of "telephone game" going on, it seems. If you look at The original report in New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/news/nographic.jsp?id=ns99996341) has lots of qualifiers on it that the CNN report does not.
So, not so much a case of debunking as it is merely correcting CNN's overstatement.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-09-02 12:32 pm (UTC)There's a bit of "telephone game" going on, it seems. If you look at The original report in New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/news/nographic.jsp?id=ns99996341) has lots of qualifiers on it that the CNN report does not.
So, not so much a case of debunking as it is merely correcting CNN's overstatement.