Since the other CEOs (those whose companies wilfully broke the law), weren't investigated, it's a little difficult to be sure so long after the facts. As far as I know, none of them have been indited for helping the US government break the law - arguably a more serious crime than insider trading.

The argument is that it's an instance of: "You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime."[1]

Now, it could be that in the telecom industry at the time, in the US, there was little or no corruption and insider trading, and Nacchio was an exception. I certainly don't think he was framed. But there are at least some indications that it could have been a "tit for tat" that landed him in prison.

[1] (reportedly stated by Stalin's chief of secret police, Lavrentiy Beria -- but I've been able to find a source).

> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

A similar quote with disputed origins

So, to say a story is bunk because it appears in RT as a source demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible naiveté.

I trust/distrust all media sources in equal measure, but the fun thing is that by reading a lot of them at the same time across the globe, you can more easily see the biases, and get to the root of the stories.

    > to say a story is bunk because it appears in RT as a
    > source demonstrates a wilful ignorance, or incredible
    > naiveté

    > All news sites carry a bias

    All news sites carry a bias - all of them.

- When pointed to government corruption they would reply "all the other governments have corruption too", implying there's no difference.

- When asked about low level of life, they would reply something like "15% of your own people are living below the poverty line", implying nothing out of normal is going on.

It's like, one guy has his boot covered in shit and the second is covered in it fully, the first says "you have problem of being in shit" and the second responds "you have that problem too (pointing to his boot) so it's ok".

This argument basically implies something like "we must not discriminate on the grounds of this problem because it is normal for everyone to have it", avoiding the possibly disadvantageous discussion of what is level of the problem and whether this level is normal.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

For something to an example of the ad-hominem fallacy, it has to be discarded purely on the basis of the claimant. If something is being rejected on the basis that the claimant is unreliable and contradicts generally reliable sources, that is something quite different.

Should I start discounting RTs weather report for NYC based on their political reporting feel free to call me out on fallacious thinking.

And this is an appeal to numbers (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularit...)...

You may be right, but your logic is fallacious. If there's only one news source and that news source is biased, then it doesn't follow that anything they say is untrue.

You are calling something false based on the source. This is simply illogical: a broken clock is right twice a day. Following your reasoning it would be wrong even when right.

Either the news is true or it isn't. Judge it based on its own merits, not from its source.