• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

NY Times editorial bombshell

The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...

I also reject any claim that it didn't happen.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see any evidence against it, at this point. As in, when has this dude ever shown business savvy, or been able to talk off the cuff without rambling, or behaved in a dignified manner without extensive coaching and possibly a media team behind him? when has he actually been entirely honest, apart from his clear bigotry, narcissism, and desperate need for attention and adulation?
 
Drewbot said:
This isn't a free press equivalent.

This is the NYT running an opinion piece from someone who either can't or won't stand up to cross-examination. They should have said they want the other side to respond to this before running it.
Click to expand...

Because the response could be anything, no way to predict, meaningful?

Come on, the response was completely predictable, so why bother?
 
Anonymous: the person wishes to remain anonymous and tells the reporter so even though the reporter knows the person. Typical in news reporting.

Anonymous: such as a caller disguising their voice. This is typical of someone calling the tip line of either the news media or the police.

The pedantry in this thread is a ludicrous distraction from the actual story.
 
ahhell said:
Pretty much all anonymous sources are really just undisclosed. Most people are aware of that.
Click to expand...

Are they, though?

I think most people understand "anonymous" to mean something like, some bloke called from a payphone, spilled some info, and hung up before the call could be traced, like in the movies.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

That only works if there aren't more sources to Woodward's book, though. If there are more, they complement each other anyway, and the worst you could say is that the op-ed doesn't add new information.
 
Belz... said:
Ziggurat said:
You say that like they're all independent sources. But we don't know that. It's common to leak things through multiple channels, making it look like there's more sources than there actually are.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Woodward interviewed a single person?
Click to expand...

And of course there is the draft letter that Garfy Cohen took from his desk - which provides corroboration

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/trump-woodward-book-trade/index.html
 
Belz... said:
That only works if there aren't more sources to Woodward's book, though. If there are more, they complement each other anyway, and the worst you could say is that the op-ed doesn't add new information.
Click to expand...

Given that this thread is about the NYT editorial and not about Woodward's book, isn't that a significant conclusion?
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

Open and independent manner? Huh?

He's a reporter. He talks to people, he takes notes and then he reports It. This isn't a scientific claim.
 
theprestige said:
I think you're probably the only person who doesn't understand what "anonymous" means in this context. And since the lack of disclosure *is* the complaint, changing the wording doesn't actually nullify the complaint itself.
Click to expand...

If they know what it means, why are they complaining about anonymous sources? You'd think they'd understand the reasons why journalists keep some sources anonymous.
 
Ziggurat said:
Given that this thread is about the NYT editorial and not about Woodward's book, isn't that a significant conclusion?
Click to expand...

Not to be persnickety, but I note again that an "editorial" is the voice and position of the newspaper itself. This was an "op-ed column," expressing the writer's personal opinion.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That doesn't get him out of the process of convincing people of his conclusions.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't. And whether you agree with his conclusions is a separate matter. IMV, Woodward has a 40 year track record of reliable and honest reporting. It doesn't conclusively prove that he's telling the truth now. But in a world where absolute certainties don't exist, it still seems reasonable that Woodward is being truthful.
 
acbytesla said:
Of course it doesn't. And whether you agree with his conclusions is a separate matter. IMV, Woodward has a 40 year track record of reliable and honest reporting. It doesn't conclusively prove that he's telling the truth now. But in a world where absolute certainties don't exist, it still seems reasonable that Woodward is being truthful.
Click to expand...

I don't go around forming hypotheses on stuff like this. So I have no position on the likelihood of his truthfulness. All I can do is peer review his claim. And he doesn't meet the standard for peer review.
 
Belz... said:
If they know what it means, why are they complaining about anonymous sources?
Click to expand...
Because we don't understand what "senior administration official" means. The significance of the document depends on the authority of the author. The NYT has implied that the author is substantially authoritative. It would be nice to evaluate that for ourselves.

You'd think they'd understand the reasons why journalists keep some sources anonymous.
Click to expand...
The reasons are well understood. What is also understood is that there is a trade-off here. Keeping the source of the piece anonymous provides both advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantage is that it weakens the authority of the piece. If you want me to seriously consider that someone in the Cabinet is actively obstructing their president, then you have to show me the actual Cabinet member that's doing so. An anonymous editorial by a "senior official" isn't enough.

Again, this isn't really a big deal. Unless it's a big deal to you that I believe the author is a Cabinet official. If it's a big deal to you, then by all means, let's discuss it. If it's not a big deal to you, then you probably don't need to waste any more of your time on this sidebar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom