NY Times editorial bombshell

[jimbob]

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.


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.

Except that there is corroboration of the central idea

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

Unless you think that taking letters from Trump's desk to prevent him signing them is working with him.

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have worked with the previous four presidents

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Not so.


Many words have more than one meaning. You guys are making up false interpretations of a commonly used news phrasing.

"A source who wishes to be kept anonymous gave us the story."

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

Does the author sound like someone who would have been in the Obama administration?

 

[applecorped]

 

[applecorped]

Does the author sound like someone who would have been in the Obama administration?

What would that "sound" like?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Unless you think that taking letters from Trump's desk to prevent him signing them is working with him.

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have worked with the previous four presidents

The other Presidents had an unfair advantage: Object Permanence.

 

[jimbob]

The other Presidents had an unfair advantage: Object Permanence.

Ouch

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Oh what it must be to live in your mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoops, duplicate after the fact.

 

[Dr. Keith]

What would that "sound" like?

I wouldn't expect that the Obama administration included people willing to sell their soul for the chance to get a conservative judge on the Supreme Court, for instance. But I could be wrong.

 

[Belz...]

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

On what grounds?

Oh, forget it. It's Donald Trump.

 

[Belz...]

I also reject any claim that it didn't happen.

"I neither agree nor disagree, sir. Quite the opposite."

 

[Slings and Arrows]

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.

"Senior administration official" most likely means anyone of the nearly 100 interns who periodically work at the White House over the course of the year.

One of them no doubt felt slighted or snubbed (How come the president got two scoops of ice cream and I only got one?), and penned the anonymous op-ed.

 

[Belz...]

Given that this thread is about the NYT editorial and not about Woodward's book, isn't that a significant conclusion?

It's rather trivial, in that case.

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.

That's true of every anonymous source. "Someone familiar with the meeting said", for example. You're arguing against one of the fundamental tools of investigative reporting.

The reasons are well understood.

You can't have your cake and eat it, prestige. Either they understand it, and know why a source's identity is protected, or they want to know the identity of the source, and don't understand.

 

[Belz...]

Not so.


Many words have more than one meaning. You guys are making up false interpretations of a commonly used news phrasing.

"A source who wishes to be kept anonymous gave us the story."

The point isn't that WE don't understand it, but that the use of the phrase might be confusing to low-information voters.

The other Presidents had an unfair advantage: Object Permanence.

That's hilarious.

 

[theprestige]

That's true of every anonymous source. "Someone familiar with the meeting said", for example. You're arguing against one of the fundamental tools of investigative reporting.

I don't agree that it's a fundamental tool as it's being used here. For one thing, this isn't reporting, it's publishing. A source who wishes to remain anonymous sent a document to the NYT, and they published it. That's not investigative reporting at all.

The way I see it, off the record sources are a valuable tool when they point the investigative reporter in the right direction to find sources that are willing to go on the record, or to find evidence that independently corroborates the the anonymous claim.

And I always discount stories that use anonymous reports as a proxy for properly investigated and supported journalism. I think that's the only sensible approach, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

"Someone familiar with the meeting said," to me, means -
- You couldn't find anyone willing to put their name behind the claim
- You couldn't find any independent corroborating evidence of the claim
- You couldn't find a way to convince me that your anonymous source is trustworthy in this matter

You can't have your cake and eat it, prestige. Either they understand it, and know why a source's identity is protected, or they want to know the identity of the source, and don't understand.

On the contrary: I'm quite content to accept the trade-off. It's perfectly reasonable to protect the identity of the piece's author. They'd probably lose their job and be subject to all kinds of harassment and threats if their name were known. I get that, and I accept that. I also accept that this means the piece lacks the essential authority it would have if its author were known to us.

You seem to be the one who wants me to both agree that the author should remain anonymous, and also that the piece should be substantially authoritative. All I'm saying is, you can't have both at the same time.

So you tell me: Should I eat the cake? Or have it? I can't do both. The author remains anonymous. Do you think the piece should be authoritative anyway?

 

[Dr. Keith]

"Senior administration official" most likely means anyone of the nearly 100 interns who periodically work at the White House over the course of the year.

One of them no doubt felt slighted or snubbed (How come the president got two scoops of ice cream and I only got one?), and penned the anonymous op-ed.

Keep repeating it and you'll believe it by dinner time.

 

[Bob001]

"Senior administration official" most likely means anyone of the nearly 100 interns who periodically work at the White House over the course of the year.

One of them no doubt felt slighted or snubbed (How come the president got two scoops of ice cream and I only got one?), and penned the anonymous op-ed.

"Most likely?" Interns? Really? You think some of experienced public servants who find themselves working for Trump at the highest levels -- including generals Matthis, Kelly and Masterson -- and even John Bolton are thoroughly happy campers delighted to do this lunatic's bidding? We know how Trump speaks and thinks in public in front of cameras. Imagine how he must behave in private.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I also accept that this means the piece lacks the essential authority it would have if its author were known to us.

It did lack authority until the Administration basically admitted that it is mostly true by losing their complete ****. Amateurs are typically not this entertaining.

 

[theprestige]

It did lack authority until the Administration basically admitted that it is mostly true by losing their complete ****. Amateurs are typically not this entertaining.

"Trump, known for his measured and proportional responses to things, proved the truth of the claim by the enormity of his reaction."

Said no one ever.

I mean, seriously, is that your argument? That it must be a Cabinet official because otherwise Trump wouldn't have freaked out so hard?