NY Times editorial bombshell

[jimbob]

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



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?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

1. Multiple sources add up.


When an outlet says “six White House officials” or “seven Department of Justice officials,” it’s providing a level of precision that makes me more likely to trust the story. This does not necessarily mean that the story is correct. But it does suggest it was thoroughly reported.

Tick

2. Unverifiable predictions are suspicious

I don't think this is relevant

3. Specifics matter.

Lots of specific details with claims of evidence to back it up and some evidence produced from other sources

4. Consider the outlet and the reporters.

Pulitzer prize winning author.

5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate.


Another thing to make you trust a story: When an official spokesperson offers a “denial” that really isn’t a denial. Remember when the Post published a story in May, vaguely attributed to “current and former U.S. officials,” suggesting that Trump had disclosed “highly classified information” in a meeting with Russian officials? Responding to the story, national security adviser H.R. McMaster told the paper, “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.” But the story had not actually claimed that the president had disclosed sources, methods or operations — only information, which McMaster did not deny. (Trump essentially confirmed that he had disclosed the information soon after the story ran.)

Tick.

 

[Babbylonian]

"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.

If you're going to claim fraud (which would be the case if an intern was described as a senior official), why not just claim it was written by a New York Times editor?

 

[theprestige]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

LOL

Tick

A dozen anonymous sources are no more convincing to me than a single anonymous source.

I don't think this is relevant

Unverifiable sources aren't relevant? That's exactly the problem we're discussing.

Lots of specific details with claims of evidence to back it up and some evidence produced from other sources

Lots of unverified details. Lots of claims of evidence that isn't actually presented. Evidence from other sources? Then write an investigative piece about that.

Pulitzer prize winning author.

Walter Duranty. Alex Haley. Janet Cooke. The Pulitzer's name should no more be a proxy for your own due diligence and critical thinking than should the New York Times' name. They're certainly no proxy for mine. You may choose to believe in them, but please search your head and your heart for some other argument, if you wish to try to convince me.

Tick.

They're pretty much just spoon-feeding your confirmation bias, like it's a child in a high chair being fussy about pureed carrots. "Open the hangar so the airplane can land!"

 

[Dr. Keith]

"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?

I've stated my position repeatedly that I do not care about the truth of the matters asserted in the NYT op-ed. Much as I haven't cared about the truth of most op-eds published by the NYT in the last year or so.

That being said, the reaction of the Trump Administration, not just Trump himself, does give credence to the truth of the matters asserted, if you really had any doubts. But, did you really have any doubts? Do you really have any doubts? How much would you gamble on the gist of the article being false?

Rex Tillerson was the last person in the Administration who knew how to deal with crap like this. The rest are flailing.

 

[theprestige]

That being said, the reaction of the Trump Administration, not just Trump himself, does give credence to the truth of the matters asserted, if you really had any doubts. But, did you really have any doubts? Do you really have any doubts? How much would you gamble on the gist of the article being false?

I'm not claiming the article is false. I think it's actually pretty good evidence for the existence of a Deep State conspiracy to obstruct the President. Unless it actually was written by someone in the Cabinet or the West Wing. In that case, it would be good evidence of a different, but no less serious problem.

So that's the question I'm looking at: Who actually wrote it, and what actual problem are they exposing?

Rex Tillerson was the last person in the Administration who knew how to deal with crap like this. The rest are flailing.

This seems like another cake dilemma. The president's staff doesn't know how to deal with this, and they're flailing incompetently; but somehow their response gives us accurate telemetry about the issue?

 

[lomiller]

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.

His claim (and that of any reporter) is “reliable sources said X”. There isn’t much to question other than his honesty or judgement about the reliability of the source.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not claiming the article is false. I think it's actually pretty good evidence for the existence of a Deep State conspiracy to obstruct the President. Unless it actually was written by someone in the Cabinet or the West Wing. In that case, it would be good evidence of a different, but no less serious problem.

I see nothing in the article that would indicate a deep state conspiracy. If it is made up, it is made up. If you believe any of it, then it is a lifelong GOP person writing it. There really is no in-between. Neither indicate a deep state.

So that's the question I'm looking at: Who actually wrote it, and what actual problem are they exposing?

How about the way the Trump Administration reacted to it? Was that not a big enough problem?

This seems like another cake dilemma. The president's staff doesn't know how to deal with this, and they're flailing incompetently; but somehow their response gives us accurate telemetry about the issue?

Not accurate telemetry, no. An accurate indication of how they handle problems, yes.

 

[jimbob]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

LOL

And?

Tick

A dozen anonymous sources are no more convincing to me than a single anonymous source.

We have the sources for some of the coroborrations. We have the somewhat dubious Omarosa book.

We have Woodward's book

I don't think this is relevant

Unverifiable sources aren't relevant? That's exactly the problem we're discussing.

The link said unverifiable *predictions*

Lots of specific details with claims of evidence to back it up and some evidence produced from other sources

Lots of unverified details. Lots of claims of evidence that isn't actually presented. Evidence from other sources? Then write an investigative piece about that.

Woodward's book supports a lot of these claims and Woodward says he has evidence - but is reasonably not making them public in order to protect his sources.

We have the letter that was taken from Trump's desk supposedly to prevent him taking a highly damaging course of action.

Pulitzer prize winning author.

Walter Duranty. Alex Haley. Janet Cooke. The Pulitzer's name should no more be a proxy for your own due diligence and critical thinking than should the New York Times' name. They're certainly no proxy for mine. You may choose to believe in them, but please search your head and your heart for some other argument, if you wish to try to convince me.

That was shorthand for Woodward's credentials. His reputation is pretty solid. He also has released tapes of Trump lying to him.

Tick.

They're pretty much just spoon-feeding your confirmation bias, like it's a child in a high chair being fussy about pureed carrots. "Open the hangar so the airplane can land!"

Not really. You seem to be dismissing the story when it's credible just because you don't like what it says.

I don't like what it says either

 

[Ziggurat]

If you believe any of it, then it is a lifelong GOP person writing it.

The author never says that they are a "lifelong GOP person". They never actually say that they are GOP at all, or even a conservative. They imply it by talking positively about some conservative principles, but that's the full extent of it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

His claim (and that of any reporter) is “reliable sources said X”. There isn’t much to question other than his honesty or judgement about the reliability of the source.

You can review their data (recordings, notes, etc).

 

[Norman Alexander]

The author never says that they are a "lifelong GOP person". They never actually say that they are GOP at all, or even a conservative. They imply it by talking positively about some conservative principles, but that's the full extent of it.

I would suggest that doesn't matter. Nor, frankly, does most of the details of the op-ed piece.

If it was as untrue and inconsequential as claimed, any previous president would simply dismiss it and move on with leading the country, and deal with domestic insurrections quietly in-home. Rise above it.

So what is most revealing are the responses from the White House: A mad scramble of subordinates to line up and say "Not me, SIR!" accompanied by frenzied bellows from the TV Pulpit of Fear for Justice Department action at the highest levels to deal with "TREASONNNN!!1!!"

So we can't help but wonder what nerve has been struck and why so hard. Looks pretty painful!

 

[Cain]

A dozen anonymous sources are no more convincing to me than a single anonymous source.

Well, that's retarded. First of all, most editors will not generally allow someone to rely upon a single unnamed source. They need a second person to corroborate their claims. Deep Throat famously gave Woodward and Bernstein information to follow up on. If a dozen people confirm it, then something is more likely to be true than if you just have one person saying such-and-such occurred. Could there be a conspiracy involving a dozen people? Sure, but it's less likely than one person who has an axe to grind and fabricates something about a rival.

Woodward has said Trump called Sessions a "mentally retarded" southerner. Trump has publicly denied it. Who do you think is telling the truth?

 

[Dr. Keith]

The author never says that they are a "lifelong GOP person". They never actually say that they are GOP at all, or even a conservative. They imply it by talking positively about some conservative principles, but that's the full extent of it.

So either Obama hired someone who is willing to lie to the president in the name of conservative principles, or the person was hired by Trump's team, or the whole thing is a lie.

Are you guys forgetting what the Deep State is?

Kind of like how the GOP has forgotten who Putin is? Remember, North Korea is the dictatorship, South Korea is our ally. May want to write that last one down on a postcard for the President.

 

[theprestige]

I see nothing in the article that would indicate a deep state conspiracy. If it is made up, it is made up. If you believe any of it, then it is a lifelong GOP person writing it. There really is no in-between. Neither indicate a deep state.

Fair enough. It would be nice to actually examine the author, though.

How about the way the Trump Administration reacted to it? Was that not a big enough problem?

"I meant to do that"?

Not accurate telemetry, no. An accurate indication of how they handle problems, yes.

THEN WHY DOES IT KEEP GETTING BROUGHT UP AS EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE PIECE?

Jesus Christ, dude, make up your mind.

 

[theprestige]

The author never says that they are a "lifelong GOP person". They never actually say that they are GOP at all, or even a conservative. They imply it by talking positively about some conservative principles, but that's the full extent of it.

Actually, they do strongly imply that they're a Trump appointee... but that passage is hyperlinked to another NYT story about problems in the administration, so it may be a misleading paraphrase of the original text at that point.

 

[Belz...]

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.

That's irrelevant: keeping a source anonymous is a vital part of a news media's tools, and you're arguing against it.

And I always discount stories that use anonymous reports as a proxy for properly investigated and supported journalism.

Which, again, supports the idea that you don't understand how they work.

"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

Ditto above.

 

[jimbob]

That's irrelevant: keeping a source anonymous is a vital part of a news media's tools, and you're arguing against it.



Which, again, supports the idea that you don't understand how they work.



Ditto above.

The obvious example that supports your argument is Deep Throat.

 

[Belz...]

LOL

What?

 

[jimbob]

What?

I believe that is called "poisoning the well"

 

[Dr. Keith]

THEN WHY DOES IT KEEP GETTING BROUGHT UP AS EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE PIECE?

Jesus Christ, dude, make up your mind.

Sorry, I cut my response short there.

It is most important to me as evidence of their incompetence, but yes, I would say it is also evidence that the gist of the article is true. Not any one thing or even the particulars, but the overarching theme obviously hit a nerve. That doesn't mean it must be true, but it is evidence that it is true.

Not proof. Evidence.