There are at least three distin ct issues at work in these sorts of erroneous reports. IMO, these 'convenient' errors are just as bad as if there were deliberate lies made, as they preclude there being any intelligent discussion of whatever the issue may be.
The first, as I noted at the start of the thread, is that the headline was contrary to the body of the story. That story could have been dead-on accurate, and it would not have mattered; the headline was determined to say something else. This is but another example of the shoddy reporting we see daily. How on earth we're supposed to make intelligent choices, even vote properly, with the media telling us pure fiction excaped me. Such 'journalism' needs to be recognized as the direct threat to our freedom that it is.
The second is the contempt often shown when someone tosses out a meaningless answer to a question. I will admit to being guilty of this myself - especially when the question was not only inane, but I was clearly the wrong person to answer it.
For example, I was once up a ladder, working on getting power to a sign for a new Chinese restaurant. A passer-by wasn't about to accept my answer that I was just the sign guy, I had no idea when they would open, etc. Their edless questions continued to interfere with my work, when they asked what would be on the menu (!!) Well, in finest form, I replied that they could yee the menu at animal control. They thanked me, started walking away (finally!) ... and stopped. I think they finally got the point.
I've seen / had investigators toss out throw-away non-answers as a matter of routine, sort of a 'don't bother me, you don't need to know' response. Even when presented with a patently legitimate request, they will often reflexively resist sharing any thoughts or information. Sometimes there's a reason; for example, I have often altered setails of events in casual conversation, just to keep it easy to later tell the real witnesses from the story tellers.
In the case of fire investigations, a real investigator is going to be reluctant to 'give lessons' in how to start a fire. Unfortunatley, these 'clever' answers also work to undermine your confidence in the system.
Which brings us to the final category of non-answer: there's an agenda. The classic instance to this is the current 'climategate' scandal. Researchers have been shown to have deliberately mis-represented data so as to further the acceptance of the researchers' pet theory.
This experience seems oddly familiar to me, as the AFCI discussion has been rife with assertions of data that has never been disclosed. I know, because I've asked ... and every request gets answered with the smae assertion that there is data, but never the data itself. Unlike 'climategate,' though, we have not yet had any proof surface of fraud.
I think you can understand why I'm sceptical, though.
