NY Times editorial bombshell

[theprestige]

I think theprestige has posited that it is possible that the NYT was duped in some way or another.

I was challenging kellyb's idea that the NYT could not have been duped.

I don't think the NYT was duped, I just think kellyb was wrong to categorically reject the possibility.

 

[theprestige]

And I said we don't need to know. The article is not important for the facts it lays out, it is important for how the Trump administration has reacted. Which, by the way, gives credence to the op-ed being true.

Have you considered the possibility that the op-ed is false, and that the administration is reacting irrationally?

Because Trump's behavior over the past couple years certainly gives a lot of credence to that scenario, too.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I was challenging kellyb's idea that the NYT could not have been duped.

I don't think the NYT was duped, I just think kellyb was wrong to categorically reject the possibility.

I don't think they were duped either but I amended my sentence to account for that possibility.

Do you think it matters how many of the claims made in the op-ed are true?

 

[theprestige]

Would a senior WH official act as a cutout in this way? No.

You're just speculating.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Have you considered the possibility that the op-ed is false, and that the administration is reacting irrationally?

Because Trump's behavior over the past couple years certainly gives a lot of credence to that scenario, too.

Possible. Doesn't that say a lot more about Trump than the article said?

 

[theprestige]

Possible. Doesn't that say a lot more about Trump than the article said?

Well, it says something verifiably true about Trump: He has responded the way he has responded. So there's that.

But this incident doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know or believe, really. Some "bombshell".

 

[William Parcher]

Trump wrote it. He did it because he wants to scare the crap out of any real staffers who might think about doing the same thing.

 

[acbytesla]

Blatantly dishonest.

I'd wager the most dishonest person most of us have ever encountered is someone each of us think is a pretty decent guy.

I don't believe that at all. I certainly wouldn't think that. I value integrity.

One of my brothers was a pathological liar. He wasn't nice. He wasn't trustworthy and almost no one liked him in reality. And yet as much as my brother Mickey lied, he was much more truthful than Trump could hope to be. Now that is scary.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, it says something verifiably true about Trump: He has responded the way he has responded. So there's that.

But this incident doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know or believe, really. Some "bombshell".

If a device has the intended effect the size isn't really an issue.

 

[Distracted1]

I don't believe that at all. I certainly wouldn't think that. I value integrity.

One of my brothers was a pathological liar. He wasn't nice. He wasn't trustworthy and almost no one liked him in reality. And yet as much as my brother Mickey lied, he was much more truthful than Trump could hope to be. Now that is scary.

My point was more along the lines of " a sufficiently intelligent dishonest person will be able to appear honest ".

 

[Belz...]

And I said we don't need to know. The article is not important for the facts it lays out, it is important for how the Trump administration has reacted. Which, by the way, gives credence to the op-ed being true.

Indeed. They always call it "fake news" or some variation of that whenever they can, except when it's undeniably true. Could it be that they expect something to happen if they deny its authenticity? I don't know. It's just weird from Trump and Sanders.

 

[Cain]

When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.

And how are people going to evaluate the credibility of the individual? Trump apologists are going to say that whoever wrote this article is dishonest and gutless because s/he has said and done these things.

When it comes to evaluating the credibility, there's a difference between guy in a bar (or on a messageboard), White House reporter, and person working within the administration. That this comes from someone inside the White House gives it credibility. Also, being anonymous can increase its credibility. When Trump asks everyone in a room to go around telling him how great he is, people often use a technique for social interaction called "lying," and, more specifically, "sucking up." By writing anonymously, we can say how we really feel.

 

[lobosrul5]

Oops Dbl post.

 

[lobosrul5]

An accumulation of evidence from a variety of independent sources that all point in the same direction is generally referred to in skeptic circles as . . . confirmation bias?

The definition I'm getting is "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." So, no?

I mean, testimony from multiple independent sources can and has led to plenty of criminal convictions.

 

[kellyb]

nevermind, I misread.

 

[Meadmaker]

So, what was the bombshell part?


That he's erratic? Amoral? That lots of people, including his staff, don't like him?

I don't see any bombshells there. It's nothing we didn't already know.


If it really did turn out to be Nikki Haley or Mike Pence or someone we've heard of who wrote the letter, that might be sort of a bombshell. (Pence would definitely be a bombshell.) However, as far as the content of the editorial goes, it's pretty old news.


It's kind of sad that it's old news, but it's old news.

 

[kellyb]

The definition I'm getting is "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." So, no?

I mean, testimony from multiple independent sources can and has led to plenty of criminal convictions.

I think Zig is saying is that:
1) since all of the leaks have been anonymous, there might only be one leaker, not several independent ones, and
2) our interpretation of the leaks are prone to "confirmation bias" because we'll ignore people like Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who are also in the WH, who claim that the leaks are lies

 

[William Parcher]

I wonder if American history books in the future will mention "that anonymous op-ed letter".

 

[acbytesla]

My point was more along the lines of " a sufficiently intelligent dishonest person will be able to appear honest ".

I'm not sure what that means. ?????

 

[dudalb]

So, what was the bombshell part?


That he's erratic? Amoral? That lots of people, including his staff, don't like him?

I don't see any bombshells there. It's nothing we didn't already know.


If it really did turn out to be Nikki Haley or Mike Pence or someone we've heard of who wrote the letter, that might be sort of a bombshell. (Pence would definitely be a bombshell.) However, as far as the content of the editorial goes, it's pretty old news.


It's kind of sad that it's old news, but it's old news.

The Bonbshell is that somebody in the Trump White House wrote it.
Anyway, in terms of the impact it is having on Trump, it IS a Bombshell.