NY Times editorial bombshell

[Ziggurat]

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

When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.

 

[varwoche]

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


This too will backfire spectacularly

Category error. If Obama was an imbecilic, ignorant, bigoted, lying, delusional, infantile, wannabe dictator, he wouldn't be Obama. Because he wasn't those things, his team remained generally loyal. As was the case with Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, etc.

 

[kellyb]

When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.

If it was Nikki Haley vs John Joseph Sullivan, would it really alter your opinion on it?

 

[acbytesla]

When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.

Then don't believe it. Take it with a grain of salt. Or take it with the weight of the countless other similar stories such as the books 'Fear', 'Fire and Fury' and 'Unhinged'. Or the countless number of stories and leaks out of the White House.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

So far he's provided one data point to back his contention, with no other data points against his contention from which we can establish how probable his contention is. And he appears ready to cling to that data point as long or longer than the NYT clung to it originally.

 

[varwoche]

When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.

Yes, it's certainly true that readers are better informed when sources aren't anon.

Given the realities of political whistle-blowing -- not to mention the added bizarro reality of having an anti-democratic POTUS -- journalists must frequently rely on anon sources. BFD, let's complain about death and taxes while we're at it.

Fortunately (or not?), in this instance the media outlet is highly reliable.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

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

Of course not, and I've said so above. My point was with regard to a comment about Trump's "lunatic base". BTW, NYT is fake news ( one example -- they had an article about a year ago that waited until paragraph 18, I believe, before stating they were unable to confirm anything in the above 17 paragraphs), so there is strike one. They have a single, unvetted source for the "op-ed", so that is strike two and three. I would think all skeptics would be wary of articles like this one, rather than engaging in immediate and unconditional acceptance. To be honest, this doesn't seem like a skeptics' forum at all. There are only a few people here who seem to be skeptical about anything. The sides are already drawn, just like in the non-skeptic world. I don't think Randi would approve.

 

[gregthehammer]

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


This too will backfire spectacularly

It would have been, but it didn't.

And who exactly is this going to backfire on, the op-ed writer who would be part of the republican administration?

 

[wasapi]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217209746946829&set=a.1191786245895&type=3&theater

I hope this works. It made me laugh.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course not, and I've said so above. My point was with regard to a comment about Trump's "lunatic base". BTW, NYT is fake news ( one example -- they had an article about a year ago that waited until paragraph 18, I believe, before stating they were unable to confirm anything in the above 17 paragraphs), so there is strike one. They have a single, unvetted source for the "op-ed", so that is strike two and three. I would think all skeptics would be wary of articles like this one, rather than engaging in immediate and unconditional acceptance. To be honest, this doesn't seem like a skeptics' forum at all. There are only a few people here who seem to be skeptical about anything. The sides are already drawn, just like in the non-skeptic world. I don't think Randi would approve.

Oh, you found one bad article? What was it on, celebrity Gossip? That you are repeating that the NY Times is 'fake news' shows you have taken a double dose of the Jim Jones Koolaid

 

[Ziggurat]

If it was Nikki Haley vs John Joseph Sullivan, would it really alter your opinion on it?

It very well could, yes.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Claiming that a source is "Fake News" begs the question: compared to what?
Pro-Trump news have proven themselves to be misleading or outright fabricated way more often than Trump-critical news.

 

[dudalb]

Oh, you found one bad article? What was it on, celebrity Gossip? That you are repeating that the NY Times is 'fake news' shows you have taken a double dose of the Jim Jones Koolaid

Given that Brooklyn Baby automatically rejects anything negative about Trump as "Fake News" I don't think anything would convince him that Trump is capable of error or doing something wrong.
He has not taken a double dose of the Kool Aid,he drank the whole damn pitcher.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

I don't think we even have to trust.

This article may be offered as a window into the Trump administration, but I don't need to trust the claims of the article for it to have that effect. The administration response to the article paints a much more clear picture of the Trump administration than the article did. The claims in the article are beside the point, frankly.

Whether any single claim is true or false doesn't matter to me at all. That a person working at the white house would claim to have authored this article is enough. It speaks volumes about the people Trump has hired. Maybe Omarosa wasn't an anomaly, maybe she was the tip of the iceberg.

The best people.


Also, there is plenty of corroboration of some of the claims if you take the time to look for it.

 

[lobosrul5]

Category error. If Obama was an imbecilic, ignorant, bigoted, lying, delusional, infantile, wannabe dictator, he wouldn't be Obama. Because he wasn't those things, his team remained generally loyal. As was the case with Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, etc.

Indeed. And let's not pretend this editorial happened in isolation. If there hadn't been multiple leaks from his own administration already, plus former staffers saying more or less the same thing, I would be skeptical.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't think we even have to trust.

I would add to this that I find it useful to treat anonymous sources and authors a bit like hearsay:

Typically, one can classify a statement as hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence using a three-step analysis. A statement will be considered hearsay if it is:

An assertive statement
Made by an out-of-court declarant
Is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.

In this case I would let the testimony in so long as it is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.

So, as long as you don't really on the article as a source of truth I think you can rely on the article as a catalyst for producing the truth. See: Trump's reaction to the article.

Look at what the defendant president did in response to the article, not what the article says, and you can learn more than what the article even claims to show.

And frankly, I think that was the whole point of the article.

 

[Sherkeu]

I think this author is real, but when they are revealed, we'll all have to go look up who they are.

"Senior official in the Trump administration" is a pretty big category when you consider all the senior positions in all departments of the Executive Branch.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, it's certainly true that readers are better informed when sources aren't anon.

Given the realities of political whistle-blowing -- not to mention the added bizarro reality of having an anti-democratic POTUS -- journalists must frequently rely on anon sources. BFD, let's complain about death and taxes while we're at it.

Fortunately (or not?), in this instance the media outlet is highly reliable.

Remember the source is not anonymous to the newspaper, they know exactly who it is, they just are not saying.

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed. And let's not pretend this editorial happened in isolation. If there hadn't been multiple leaks from his own administration already, plus former staffers saying more or less the same thing, I would be skeptical.

This Op-Ed also confirms what Bob Woodward has said in his new book, and really only confirms what the rest of us (at least those of us with any brains) have known for a long time... and that is Trump is a pathological liar, an angry, immature man-child, and is utterly incapable of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Presidency.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Indeed. And let's not pretend this editorial happened in isolation. If there hadn't been multiple leaks from his own administration already, plus former staffers saying more or less the same thing, I would be skeptical.

An accumulation of evidence from a variety of independent sources that all point in the same direction is generally referred to in skeptic circles as . . . confirmation bias?