If it's allowed I'm going to repost what I wrote in the UK sub because it's equally relevant here (mods, if it isn't just let me know, it's not a problem).

I practically never mention political matters on this sub (and it's a good sub in that manner) but I thought I'd chime in here.

I'll preface this by saying that the hysteria around this story (from the xenophobic types) made me cringe and sigh in equal measure, but I'm equally baffled by this blog post that presents itself as some sort of impartial voice of reason when it's incredibly choice with its points, undoubtedly agenda driven, and practically encourages the harassment of journalists from its readers. I'm not discrediting the whole post but so many people have taken this blog post as "evidence" that the whole original Times story is somehow fabricated.

The post is the polar opposite to the right leaning [and downright despicable] Mail story that was published last week.

As a journalist myself, some of the stuff said from either extreme viewpoints have really ground my gears.

This was my post:

I find it worrying people are complaining in this thread about the story being taken at face value (and I agree it was reported horrendously in some ways, particularly when reported by the Mail et al – and the attempts of the story to whip up outrage) yet they seem to have no issue taking a blog post attacking the story at complete face value without looking into any of it further.

The post is also pretty disingenuous by not separating The Times original report from the more garbled re-reporting of it in tabloid newspapers, and using the mistakes of the tabloids to rubbish the whole story entirely. It makes no distinction.

I see someone else referred to this story as now being 'conclusively debunked' through this blog post.

Confirmation bias is alive and well all round.