"A warning", upcoming book by anonymous White House official

[shemp]

I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!

I find it easy to disregard everything Bob says.

 

[Trebuchet]

I find it easy to disregard everything Bob says.

I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!

Signed, Bob.

(There are a lot of us Bobs.)

 

[shemp]

I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!

Signed, Bob.

(There are a lot of us Bobs.)

But we're organized!

 

[CapelDodger]

Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

Anonymous carries a lot less incredulity than Qanon.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why would you accept the claims of someone who refuses to provide all the evidence to evaluate? Would you accept a claim in a physics journal that said it omitted information to prevent you from verifying it?

 

[Stacyhs]

Why would you accept the claims of someone who refuses to provide all the evidence to evaluate? Would you accept a claim in a physics journal that said it omitted information to prevent you from verifying it?

This isn't a science journal with peer reviews, Bob. It's the experiences of a senior WH official as verified by the NYT.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This isn't a science journal with peer reviews, Bob. It's the experiences of a senior WH official as verified by the NYT.

I wouldn't accept a physics claim with hidden evidence. I'm not going to relax that standard for an editorial claim (by an editorial board. Not even by reporters)


Probably the biggest reason to not use a relaxed standard is the incredibly low stakes of these claims. Your acceptance of these claims likely has very little impact on your future actions.

 

[Craig4]

Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?

They deny knowledge of it

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/09/media/new-york-times-op-ed-dean-baquet/index.html

Even the paper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, doesn't know. That is how closely guarded the Times is being about protecting the writer's anonymity.

"That is the strength of the firewall" between the paper's news and editorial departments, Patrick Healy, the paper's politics editor, told CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday.

Which, if you are right, it means that the NYT politics editor is willing to go on the record and mislead about politics.

 

[Stacyhs]

I wouldn't accept a physics claim with hidden evidence. I'm not going to relax that standard for an editorial claim (by an editorial board. Not even by reporters)


Probably the biggest reason to not use a relaxed standard is the incredibly low stakes of these claims. Your acceptance of these claims likely has very little impact on your future actions.

So don't accept it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over what you accept or not.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Generally, it is. Unlike, say, Fox.

Fox and the NYT don't disagree with each other on the basic facts of the stories that they both report. It;s their interpretation those facts that is different.

 

[Bob001]

Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?

"The reporters and editors" would include over 1,000 people. It's a safe bet that most of them do NOT know who it is. But it's a certainty that the editor who decided to print it and whoever brought it to him DO know. Beyond that, they would do whatever they could to protect their source.

The Times itself says:

The Op-Ed article was submitted to Times opinion editors last week through an intermediary, Mr. Dao said. “It was clear early on that the writer wanted anonymity, but we didn’t grant anything until we read it and we were confident that they were who they said they were,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/reader-center/anonymous-op-ed-trump.html

 

[Craig4]

"The reporters and editors" would include over 1,000 people. It's a safe bet that most of them do NOT know who it is. But it's a certainty that the editor who decided to print it and whoever brought it to him DO know. Beyond that, they would do whatever they could to protect their source.

The Times itself says:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/reader-center/anonymous-op-ed-trump.html

No, but at the same time, I doubt only one reporter and/or editor made the decision.

 

[varwoche]

It's a bob sled ride! The season nears for such festivities.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, but at the same time, I doubt only one reporter and/or editor made the decision.

It appears zero reporters or news editors were involved.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!

Signed, Bob.

(There are a lot of us Bobs.)

It seems every Tom, Dick, and Harry are named Bob.

 

[alfaniner]

It seems every Tom, Dick, and Harry are named Bob.

And your uncle.

 

[Belz...]

Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

Too obvious. I give this one a 3 out of 10.

This is why I rarely make claims of fact.

No, that's not why.

 

[This is The End]

oops sorry, mistake bump

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just skimmed (lightly) through the book. I could have written it (if I was a better writer). There just isn't much in there we didn't already know or could not have guessed. It ends with a campaign paragraph urging us not to reelect Trump.

I got a lot more out of "Plaintiff in Chief". That one had some detailed history.