I look forward to Chris’s new blog notnearlyenoughlawyers.com, where he can counter Mr.Olson’s deceptive light-hearted end of the year blog posts.

No one here will dispute the fact that there are injustices on the other side of the ledger, but that is not the purpose here, any more than we expect Mother Jones to offer us thoughtful essays on the good things that Ronald Reagan did. Walter offers us links to sources that permit us to judge those sources for ourselves. Vituperation indicates a complete lack of thought and effort — just the thing that Mr. Coyle complains about. Has he done the work to investigate the falsity of the claims made here? I doubt it, else he would have done the work that led to his contrary conclusions and documented how he had done it.

Mr. Coyle is correct that relying on secondary or even tertiary sources is less accurate than doing the primary research. However, for some reason, his “You’re all so d**ned stupid method is unlikely to win friends or conversions.

Bob

That source is affiliated with the blog “facesoflawsuitabuse.org.

Within 10 seconds, one can come up with the original list and sources:

http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2016/12/top-ten-most-ridiculous-lawsuits-of-2016/

It’s not that difficult to find or see what is happening.

Too often we blame our laziness and lack of research on others. The New York post article should have been sufficient to serve as a starting point, not as an ending point or destination.

This site hosts content that would seem to appeal to folks less credulous than typical blog readers. Such readers might wish to know that journalists had taken the time to review primary source material.

My due diligence amounts to discerning whether the journalist has performed their journalistic level of due diligence. One measure of whether the journalist has vetted information for accuracy is to demonstrate that they have reviewed primary sources, which would be revealed to the reader by providing the link to the material.

Mr. Coyle does note correctly that none of three linked articles contain additional primary source data. As such, I have a lower credulity for these articles than had they been more completely sourced.

If Chris has some objection to the reporting of the three linked cases — each was reported on by professionals who named the principals in publications of wide circulation — he or she should put up. Otherwise, I will read his or her charge of “inaccurate, deceptive, exaggerated, or just plain fabricated information” as mere bluster, on behalf of an “agenda” and “incentive to embellish and spin” that might well equal or exceed that of the Chamber, for all we know.