NY Times editorial bombshell

[Trebuchet]

Do you figure Deep Lodestar was also a source for Woodward? Seems kind of inevitable, I think.

 

[theprestige]

All this hand-wringing over "anonymous" vs "undisclosed"! I see anonymous as being relevant when the author is unknown to *all*. If known to the publisher or reporter, then "undisclosed" is the more meaningful term. Unambiguous.

I don't really see a lot of handwringing. It's been noted by some that because the author's identity is undisclosed ("anonymous"), it weakens the "bombshell" implications of the piece. If it's someone in the Cabinet or the West Wing, then yeah, probably a bombshell. But if it's a career bureaucrat in an agency directorship, then perhaps not so much. Unless you consider the revelation that yes, there are career bureaucrats in the Executive branch that are actively trying to obstruct the President, to be a bombshell.

The only real handwringing is from people who for some reason seem to think it's really important that we understand that someone at the NYT knows who their source is for the piece. Which was never actually in question.

 

[Mycroft]

Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.

No, a "senior official" of the Trump administration would be someone Trump brought in, not a "deep state" bureaucrat.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Do you figure Deep Lodestar was also a source for Woodward? Seems kind of inevitable, I think.

Actually, I don't think so.
It seems more like "Lodestar" felt left out by the publicity of "Fear" - hence the timing.
Lodestar is trying to spin the book to make the de-facto usurpers look good instead of just scared witless by the nightmare that is Trump.

 

[theprestige]

If you are an old school conservative you have likely voted Democrat for 10 - 20 years.

It's more complicated than that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why over the top? How do you think major media organizations work? Why would you imagine the NYT doesn't really know who this person is, or doesn't accurately describe him/her as a "senior official?"

Here's what the Times' news side says about the search for the author.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/trump-pence-pompeo-anonymous-op-ed.html

This oft repeated claim is not true and it's less true depending on how much Russian involvement changed the election outcome:

“Like it or not, Trump was fairly elected

 

[theprestige]

No, a "senior official" of the Trump administration would be someone Trump brought in, not a "deep state" bureaucrat.

That's your interpretation. Who knows what the NYT actually means by the term? Is it in their editorial style guide?

The problem I see isn't that the term means X but the Times is using it to indicate Y. It's that the term as used is broad enough to encompass X, Y, and Z. What we get from the editorial depends on which of those it actually is. A lot of people seem to be getting stuff from the editorial that's only actually there if it means "Cabinet official." Others are saying we don't know if it actually means that, and what we get from it might change if we knew who the author actually is.

It's not a major point, but it is a reasonable point. I really don't understand the degree of pushback on this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, a "senior official" of the Trump administration would be someone Trump brought in, not a "deep state" bureaucrat.

No. A "senior official" can include executive branch bureaucrats who are holdovers from prior administrations, as well as positions which aren't even appointed by the president.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No. But the author of this piece could very well also be one of Woodward's sources, which would mean this isn't any sort of confirmation of Woodward's book.

No, but Woodward's multiple sources would support the op-ed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's more complicated than that.

actually, it's simpler than that: people rather change their convictions than their habits.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I never said they should. You keep invoking "real journalism." I'm simply pointing out that this ain't it. It's an unverified opinion piece and the anonymity of the author makes verifying it impossible.

Well, Woodward claims to have sources that say the same thing, and Axios claim to have sources that say the same thing. Much of it also matches numerous articles and leaks that have come out over the past year or more. Many commentators have said that it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, and the administration have reacted as if it were true.

So while you're right that it's "unverified", that doesn't imply that it exists in isolation, or that there's no supporting evidence.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, but Woodward's multiple sources would support the op-ed.

I'm a skeptic. I work with the open presentation of evidence. Woodward is making claims without meeting the standards of open evidence. His claims are rejected.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm a skeptic. I work with the open presentation of evidence. Woodward is making claims without meeting the standards of open evidence. His claims are rejected.

Bayesian Statistics say he's accurate.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bayesian Statistics say he's accurate.

Woodward is the one with a conclusion based on hypothesis, not us. It is his job to reach a conclusion based on the evidence and present it. Journals simply do not present only their conclusions to the reader and ask them to use Bayesian statistics ...they present the data. And if they are credible, they present ALL data.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It is, perhaps, worth pointing out that it's been reported that the administration themselves came up with a list of 12 names of who the author of the op-ed could be. That makes the definition of "senior official" seem more likely to mean someone higher than someone lower down the food chain.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm a skeptic. I work with the open presentation of evidence. Woodward is making claims without meeting the standards of open evidence. His claims are rejected.

Really? You'd reject his claims?

A multiple Pulitzer prize-winning reporter. Also winner of the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism and countless other awards for Journalism excellence.

David Gergen, who had worked in the White House during the Richard Nixon and three subsequent administrations, said in his 2000 memoir, Eyewitness to Power, of Woodward's reporting, "I don't accept everything he writes as gospel—he can get details wrong—but generally, his accounts in both his books and in the Post are remarkably reliable and demand serious attention. I am convinced he writes only what he believes to be true or has been reliably told to be true. And he is certainly a force for keeping the government honest."

Woodward is a serious reporter with an excellent reputation. It's possible that he may get a detail or two wrong, but I don't believe for a second that he would fabricate his story.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Really? You'd reject his claims?



A multiple Pulitzer prize-winning reporter. Also winner of the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism and countless other awards for Journalism excellence.

David Gergen, who had worked in the White House during the Richard Nixon and three subsequent administrations, said in his 2000 memoir, Eyewitness to Power, of Woodward's reporting, "I don't accept everything he writes as gospel—he can get details wrong—but generally, his accounts in both his books and in the Post are remarkably reliable and demand serious attention. I am convinced he writes only what he believes to be true or has been reliably told to be true. And he is certainly a force for keeping the government honest."

Woodward is a serious reporter with an excellent reputation. It's possible that he may get a detail or two wrong, but I don't believe for a second that he would fabricate his story.

He didn't present his evidence in an open manner for independent evaluation. Blanket rejection. You don't get out of the process of advancing knowledge because you have a track record.

 

[Sherkeu]

When would be the right time? 2024?

Actually, I don't think it's ever the right time for an anonymous op-ed. That isn't a sign of strong and cohesive party leadership.

If something needs doing they should stand up, face the public, and do something. Insiders hiding in the opinion section of the NYT is pathetic. (but I don't believe the writer is any real insider or carrying out party orders)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, and Trump has called for the justice department to investigate the op-ed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Woodward is the one with a conclusion based on hypothesis, not us. It is his job to reach a conclusion based on the evidence and present it. Journals simply do not present only their conclusions to the reader and ask them to use Bayesian statistics ...they present the data. And if they are credible, they present ALL data.

I would argue that Trump is the one making the conclusion that all is well in the White House, based on his hypothesis. He should present us the evidence that leads him to that conclusion - especially since his word is utterly worthless, him being the no.1 liar in the US.

Woodward, on the other hand, has a sterling reputation - and he has presented basically irrefutable evidence (such as the letter Cohen stole).