We are going to simply have them testify for the purpose of authenticating the contents of that article, nothing more, nothing less, because I really believe that to do more than that is to create, I think, a precedent which would have reporters called -- Mr. Benn, I think, fears that even this would do that. I don't share that fear. But to go any further than that would mean that a reporter's veracity could be questioned each and every time something like this comes up. I strain mightily not to have to do that. That's what I'm talking about. Now, I don't know if that clarifies it.
Reporters will be questioned about whether the content of their articles is true
Reporters will only testify that the article's are authentic, not true. I think the system got it wrong because the context is quite confusing.
( z1 question :ARG1 ( z2 truth-value :polarity-of ( z3 true :ARG1 ( z4 content :poss ( z5 article :poss ( z6 person :ARG0-of ( z7 report ) ) ) ) ) ) )