NY Times editorial bombshell

[dudalb]

An anonymous source vetted by one of the biggest news organizations in the country isn't the same thing as an anonymous claim.

I can see you just itching to lay down the "One True Skeptic Card" but just put it back in the deck.

He is a die hard Trump True Beleiver. trying to masquerade..unsucessfuly...as a skeptic.

 

[applecorped]

This would have been priceless if Obama was President and this happened.


This too will backfire spectacularly

 

[theprestige]

I don't think hardly anyone besides conservatives are mad at the NYT for running it.

Isn't that a problem? Journalistic integrity and the reliability of the media should be a nonpartisan concern. Conservatives should not object to the publication due to partisan bias. Progressives should not accept the publication unquestioningly due to partisan bias.

 

[applecorped]

Mmmmm.....fiction

 

[theprestige]

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

They publish anonymous claims without corroboration, and without allowing us to evaluate their sources for ourselves.

 

[kellyb]

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.

Well, there was one new claim, that there are a bunch of people close to Trump who are secretly part of "the resistance." (as in, "Hillary Clinton's #resistance")

That's gotta make Trump feel like oldschool cold warriers felt, seeing closet soviets everywhere, in their closet, under their bed.

 

[theprestige]

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?

The usual method is to get independent corroboration.

Another one is to find a second source who's willing to go on the record.

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

Publishing anonymous claims without corroboration is, indeed, grasping at straws. So is taking such publications at face value.

 

[kellyb]

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

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



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.

Yeah, I noticed the old switcharoo there. lol

 

[johnny karate]

Isn't that a problem? Journalistic integrity and the reliability of the media should be a nonpartisan concern. Conservatives should not object to the publication due to partisan bias. Progressives should not accept the publication unquestioningly due to partisan bias.

You did, when it was convenient for your narrative:

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.

Then, about an hour later, you changed tack and decided the best strategy was to cry "Fake news!".

 

[johnny karate]

Publishing anonymous claims without corroboration is, indeed, grasping at straws. So is taking such publications at face value.

Unless you think it confirms your 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.

 

[kellyb]

Isn't that a problem? Journalistic integrity and the reliability of the media should be a nonpartisan concern. Conservatives should not object to the publication due to partisan bias. Progressives should not accept the publication unquestioningly due to partisan bias.

What do you mean by "accept the publication unquestioningly"?

I am not the boss of the NYT.

 

[theprestige]

An anonymous source vetted by one of the biggest news organizations in the country isn't the same thing as an anonymous claim.

What does the size of the organization have to do with anything? Large organizations have more integrity? They're more attentive to due diligence?

Appealing to the size of the New York Times doesn't impress.

 

[theprestige]

What do you mean by "accept the publication unquestioningly"?

The words seem pretty clear to me. What part are you having trouble with?

I am not the boss of the NYT.

True, but how is this banal observation relevant?

 

[johnny karate]

What does the size of the organization have to do with anything? Large organizations have more integrity? They're more attentive to due diligence?

Appealing to the size of the New York Times doesn't impress.

Unless you think the New York Times confirms your 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.

 

[kellyb]

Unless you think the New York Times confirms your conspiracy theory:

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!

 

[Strawberry]

The usual method is to get independent corroboration.

Another one is to find a second source who's willing to go on the record.



Publishing anonymous claims without corroboration is, indeed, grasping at straws. So is taking such publications at face value.

You were quick enough to take it at face value when you thought it confirmed your Deep State conspiracy theory.

 

[kellyb]

The words seem pretty clear to me. What part are you having trouble with?

Should I look at the letter as confirmation that the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats exists, or look at the letter as a probable fake/hoax/fraud?

What do you mean when you say I "should not accept the publication"? Can you rephrase your suggestion?

 

[acbytesla]

What does the size of the organization have to do with anything? Large organizations have more integrity? They're more attentive to due diligence?

Appealing to the size of the New York Times doesn't impress.

Are you suggesting that the Times failed to do their diligence? I'd agree that size in itself doesn't prove that they did. That said, contrary to Trump's absurd claims to the contrary, the Times is a very good news organization. Particularly when it comes to reporting on the White House.

 

[pgwenthold]

The usual method is to get independent corroboration.

Another one is to find a second source who's willing to go on the record.
.

Corroboration of what?

This is presented as an editorial by a contributor.

The only corroboration needed is that the person wrote it. They claim they did. Another person claims they did (the intermediary).

I've seen guest editorials in newspapers all the time. Did they get "corroboration" for it?

 

[dudalb]

And there is no national security issues involved. Nothing secret or classified was leaked. Someone working in the White House said his boss was an idioit, basically.
As much as I hate Donnie, if he fins out who it is he has every right to fire the guy. White House officials serve at the president's pleasure. But haul him into court for criminal porceedings for national security violatations the case will be dismissed out of hand.