NY Times editorial bombshell

[pgwenthold]

As to calling them "anonymous" vs "undisclosed", it would be silly. Pretty much all anonymous sources are really just undisclosed. Most people are aware of that.

I don't think they are. I think there are many who believe that "anonymous" just means "someone is making it up." That's what Dear Leader keeps telling them.

That is clearly not the case here.

 

[pgwenthold]

No, it's not. When journalists use the phrase "anonymous source" in reporting info first hand, the journalists themselves always know who the source is (if we're talking about real journalism).

But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."

 

[LSSBB]

But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."

They do know when someone is trying to, as they would perceive it, weasel out of calling something what it is.

 

[xjx388]

Because it's not semantic.

The source is not anonymous.

If the source is not anonymous, then perhaps you can identify them?

If the name is undisclosed, the author is anonymous. It's like, the definition of the word.

But fine, use whatever synonym for anonymous you like -the point remains that the undisclosed nature of the author is at issue. It leaves the question of the veracity of the claims open.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."

And why do they think that?
Because it is SOP for basically all right-wing self-proclaimed news sources, following the proud tradition of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[kellyb]

All of the rightwingers here know that the NYT editor knows who it is.

This is silly. We should let it go.

 

[Segnosaur]

That person isn't angry with the NYT for publishing the op-ed, they're angry with the writer for not doing the right thing.

And rightly so. They're basically using Trump to advance an ultra-conservative agenda while trying to contain his incompetence. What they should be doing is removing him from the office, either by invoking the 25th amendment or publicizing his incompetence enough that he will be impeached.

Exactly.

The author of the letter loves the racism/bigotry, the locking of children in cages, the transfer of wealth to the richest part of society, the ruining of the environment. They just don't want republicans LOOK bad while doing so. They'd rather their racism etc. be packaged better.

If they were really seeking to help, instead of trying to hide and/or control Trump's worst impulses, they'd highlight them, shout them from the rooftops, and make sure everyone knows exactly what Trump is doing. That way, voters in the future elections (those thinking of voting for Trump in 2020, or those voting Republican in the midterms, and thus enabling Trump) know exactly what they are getting.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying that Woodward interviewed a single person?

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.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

or Michael Wolff's,

or Omarosa's (who also could have faked the tapes).

 

[Ziggurat]

or Michael Wolffs

We already know Wolff's book has more holes than Swiss cheese. Don't you remember Wolff blowing up his own credibility by insinuating that Haley was having an affair with Trump on airforce one?

 

[lomiller]

And you think changing the word "anonymous" to "undisclosed" would silence those criticisms? .

Why would anyone consider that to be a valid criticism? Protecting sources is a critical aspect of a free press. The real controversy here should be the continued Republican attacks on key institutions require do maintain a free an democratic society.

One thing would silence the criticism for sure: Disclose the source

What you are effectively calling for is the ability for the Present to act as any dictator would and silicone any/all criticism.

An undisclosed source in a paper with a perceived liberal/anti-Trump bias

The author is clearly a Republican, but why does political leaning matter to you so much? It seems like your test for whether you trust someone or not is whether they hold the same political view as you, which a is dangerously stupid way to evaluate information.

 

[xjx388]

But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."

In this case, this isn't "real journalism" as in a story written by an NYT reporter using anonymous sources. This is an op-ed -an opinion piece- written by an outside party that is being published anonymously. There was no corroboration or vetting of the veracity of the claims. The most the NYT did to corroborate it was to identify a real person in the admin who wrote it.

 

[xjx388]

Why would anyone consider that to be a valid criticism? Protecting sources is a critical aspect of a free press. The real controversy here should be the continued Republican attacks on key institutions require do maintain a free an democratic society.

What you are effectively calling for is the ability for the Present to act as any dictator would and silicone any/all criticism.

Uh . . . no. Take a step back . . .

The author is clearly a Republican, but why does political leaning matter to you so much? It seems like your test for whether you trust someone or not is whether they hold the same political view as you, which a is dangerously stupid way to evaluate information.

Again, no. Don't project your biases on to me. Read what I wrote and try responding to the actual words.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We already know Wolff's book has more holes than Swiss cheese. Don't you remember Wolff blowing up his own credibility by insinuating that Haley was having an affair with Trump on airforce one?

Credibility compared to what? News outlets starting from Fox and going further to the Right?

Compared to most of these sources, Wolff has done a sterling job of professional reporting.

 

[pgwenthold]

In this case, this isn't "real journalism" as in a story written by an NYT reporter using anonymous sources. This is an op-ed -an opinion piece- written by an outside party that is being published anonymously. There was no corroboration or vetting of the veracity of the claims. The most the NYT did to corroborate it was to identify a real person in the admin who wrote it.

Yes.

Why should they do any more?

It's a guest editorial by an undisclosed someone in the President's administration. Published on the editorial page. What should they corroborate other than the author?

 

[lomiller]

But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."

See my final comment in my previous post. Republicans have adopted the stance that they only trust information that comes from Republicans which the exact same political outlook as themselves. They view any outer source as implicitly untrustworthy. This is why they despise Science, Journalism, Academia, etc so much. The only way they will accept something as a fact is if it matches their preconceived belief regardless of how flimsy the basis for that belief is.

 

[kellyb]

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.

It's really more of a very weird preface/introduction to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Credibility compared to what? News outlets starting from Fox and going further to the Right?

This is an irrelevant tu quoque. Credibility isn't just a relative measure. Do better.

 

[xjx388]

Yes.

Why should they do any more?

It's a guest editorial by an undisclosed someone in the President's administration. Published on the editorial page. What should they corroborate other than the author?

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.

 

[lomiller]

Again, no. Don't project your biases on to me. Read what I wrote and try responding to the actual words.

I did. Your actual words represent a sheep like mentality that is consistent with a disintegrating democracy. Every dictator and would be dictator ever faced with a free press protecting it's sources has made similar complaints and demands.