NY Times editorial bombshell

[Belz...]

East Lord. It's Vlad himself.

Store Lad? Maybe it's a Walmart employee.

 

[johnny karate]

You don't understand a thing about Trump's base, but you should if you're going to comment on us. Standing in the dark and screaming at the boogie man is fun, but when the lights go on he always disappears.

As if simple, unsophisticated things are difficult to understand...

 

[Giordano]

Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps.

[...]

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty
​

Despite the obvious problems with Duranty's work, the NYT published it anyway, and it took them another fifty years to admit their mistake. Appeals to the editorial integrity of the New York Times, and to the reliability of its due diligence, do not impress.

Simply confirming the identity of a high-level member of the administration who submitted an Op-Ed a few weeks ago is not exactly as difficult as was attempting to ensure the accuracy of a story about life under a highly secret dictatorship in 1932. Further, the legal repercussions of being in error differed enormously.

 

[kellyb]

You seem to be confused about what the problem is with anonymous sources. The problem isn't that the reporter (or in this case, the NYT editor) doesn't know the identity of the source. They typically do. The problem is that readers do not, which means readers cannot assess the credibility of the source. That the source is someone within the administration doesn't automatically grant them credibility.



Not in the least. The question isn't whether the editor is lying, but whether the author is lying. I cannot evaluate the reliability of the author based on the NYT knowing who the author is.

Eh.
I think I personally just don't care.

I'm feeling very like this about it all. (you only need to watch about 45 seconds)

https://youtu.be/i9CjBtv7j78?t=2m55s

I don't think hardly anyone besides conservatives are mad at the NYT for running it. Whose mind has really been changed as a result of them publishing it?

 

[Giordano]

I'm actually soliciting your opinion on this...

...what do you think unable means? Obviously it could mean whatever a person wants it to mean. But what would it mean to you if you were put into that situation?

Sorry Bob- I'm not interested. Have fun with anyone who might want to discuss it at this level.

 

[Ziggurat]

But the person who puts the op-ed out DOES know the source. It's only anonymous to other people.

Yes. And that's the usual setup with anonymous sources, and the usual problem with anonymous sources. The reader doesn't know, so the reader can't evaluate credibility. And it's why having only one anonymous source in a story is considered really weak, and good journalists try to avoid it whenever possible, and frequently avoid publishing if that's all they can get.

It's not like some bloke calling the NYT from a payphone to spout off unverified claims.

It may not be "some bloke", but it's still unverified claims.

 

[johnny karate]

I think it is pretty clear that since we have no idea of the identity of the subversive and no way to cross examine said subversive, there is no reason to believe anything in the fake news op-ed is true. But, it won't hurt to start polygraphing people to see if we smoke out the ones we already know are there. Maybe this will prompt someone to go into Sessions' office, play some loud rap music to wake him up, and scream in his ear that there is a problem that needs attending to.

You mean the problem that your guy has in choosing trustworthy and reliable people for his administration?

Seems like that problem can be solved by simply voting for someone who isn’t a corrupt and incompetent authoritarian. Maybe give it a shot next election cycle.

On a related note, good to see you wear your authoritarian colors proudly. Good luck in smoking out subversives, mein herr.

 

[kellyb]

Yes. And that's the usual setup with anonymous sources, and the usual problem with anonymous sources. The reader doesn't know, so the reader can't evaluate credibility. And it's why having only one anonymous source in a story is considered really weak, and good journalists try to avoid it whenever possible, and frequently avoid publishing if that's all they can get.

Everyone is in agreement that the evidence for the author's claims is weak.
It's simply more interesting than anything else.

 

[kellyb]

You don't understand a thing about Trump's base, but you should if you're going to comment on us. Standing in the dark and screaming at the boogie man is fun, but when the lights go on he always disappears.

So tell me: how is your behavior going to change as a result of the letter?
Has it altered your beliefs in any way?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sorry Bob- I'm not interested. Have fun with anyone who might want to discuss it at this level.

It's cool. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

 

[LSSBB]

Those "Adults in the Room" are as responsible as parents who do their kid's homework, thus making it impossible for the teacher (voter) to find out that the pupil is failing in all subjects.

I'm leaning more and more towards Kelllyanne, because she seems to be the brightest of the bunch and possibly under the greatest stress (also personal) to let off steam.

This happens everyday, everywhere. Do you think that Steve Jobs was brilliant, or did he surround himself with people smarter than him, who made him look good? If not a good example, I am sure you can think of others.

 

[Belz...]

As if simple, unsophisticated things are difficult to understand...

Hillary must feel pretty vindicated by now.

 

[LSSBB]

Here's Kellyanne's reaction to the oped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=N-NEzyVVioc

No way it was her.

I think it was someone who wants to be the next Henry Kissinger, like they were putting in their application with the illuminati with this stunt. lol

Did Kissinger steal your lunch money? I sense a fixation.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. And that's the usual setup with anonymous sources, and the usual problem with anonymous sources. The reader doesn't know, so the reader can't evaluate credibility.

The person's from the Trump admin, Zig. Ok, let's say it's Pence. Now what?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Wrong question.

No, because if they're not, then what the editors of 30 years ago did is irrelevant to a story published yesterday.

Are the editors today better people than the editors of 30 years ago?

I don't know. What evidence do you have pertaining to the editors of today?

 

[pgwenthold]

Did you listen to the NYT podcast with the editor, explaining how he confirmed it came from someone in the admin?

The NYT editor gave confirmation that the letter is some sort of "legit". Someone in the admin was willing to claim authorship.

All you're left with is speculating that the NYT editor lying after that.

Yeah. Someone in the administration (the NYT knows who) CLAIMS they wrote the article.

They could be lying. So, therefore, we can blame the NYT for sloppy journalism.

See, they didn't actually WATCH the person write the letter, so how do they know the person is telling the truth?

It's called, "Seriously grasping at straws."

 

[Giordano]

[snip]


It may not be "some bloke", but it's still unverified claims.

Yes, two different aspects.

The identity of the author of the Op-Ed piece as a high level member of the Trump administration was verified by the NY Times and I am fully convinced that this identification was correct.

But of course and as with any statement by any individual, what that high level member of the administration actually claimed in the Op-Ed, considered alone, must be initially viewed as "unverified." Except in this case what was written in the Op-Ed closely parallels what has been stated by many others in positions to know, including several who have been willing to be identified by name. It is also fully consistent with what has been publicly observed. The claims are therefore supported by independent information; whether this represents "verified" depends on the level of verification on which one insists.

 

[theprestige]

Simply confirming the identity of a high-level member of the administration who submitted an Op-Ed a few weeks ago is not exactly as difficult as was attempting to ensure the accuracy of a story about life under a highly secret dictatorship in 1932. Further, the legal repercussions of being in error differed enormously.

If it's difficult to verify the claims of a highly secretive dictatorship, that is not an excuse to publish the claims at face value. But that's what the NYT chose to do. And the NYT further chose to stand by that publication for fifty years, even though they knew from the beginning that it was a mistake. This does not speak well of their qualifications as a proxy for our own due diligence.

And that's the point Ziggurat is making. Because the source is anonymous to us, and because there is no independent corroboration that is not anonymous, we cannot do our due diligence in evaluating the claims. We must trust that New York Times has done that for us. But trusting the NYT in that way, on the basis of the information so far provided, is just an abdication of our own responsibility in the matter.

"Trust, but verify," perhaps. But we cannot verify.

 

[dudalb]

Time to institute polygraphing and find the subversives.

So opposing Donald Trump is now subversive.
Then I am proud to be called a subversive. and have no hesitation in saying that the author of this wants Trump to be an authoritarian dictator.

 

[johnny karate]

Everyone is in agreement that the evidence for the author's claims is weak.
It's simply more interesting than anything else.

Well, not everyone is in agreement on the weakness of the evidence.

theprestige believes that the op-ed substantiates the "deep state" conspiracy theory:

Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.

In fairness, he might have posted that before he realized he was supposed to be parroting the "fake news" talking point rather than the "deep state" one.