NY Times editorial bombshell

[Ziggurat]

Except the confirmation is in three other books written about the Trump White House. They all tell the same story.

You say that like they're all independent sources. But we don't know that. It's common to leak things through multiple channels, making it look like there's more sources than there actually are.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's also not an anonymous source as far as the NYT is concerned. They know who it is but chose to publish as "Anonymous".

When a reporter uses an anonymous source, that doesn't mean that the reporter doesn't know who the source is. They're still anonymous.

You do not require corroboration if you know the only salient fact - that the author is able to be verified by your editors. Because? It's an opinion piece.

That excuse doesn't fly. If it's mere opinion, then none of it matters, it's just an employee who doesn't like their boss. The reason anyone thinks this is relevant is because it's claiming a factual basis for those opinions. And that basis does deserve corroboration.

 

[kellyb]

That excuse doesn't fly. If it's mere opinion, then none of it matters, it's just an employee who doesn't like their boss. The reason anyone thinks this is relevant is because it's claiming a factual basis for those opinions. And that basis does deserve corroboration.

Why does the NYT need an excuse for publishing it?

Isn't "we knew it would sell" or "because I wanted to" or "we knew our readership would appreciate it" good enough on its own?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why does the NYT need an excuse for publishing it?

Isn't "we knew it would sell" or "because I wanted to" or "we knew our readership would appreciate it" good enough on its own?

Because that isn't how standards worked. If they wanted to sell a lot, they would include pornography. But they elect not to for reasons.

 

[kellyb]

Because that isn't how standards worked. If they wanted to sell a lot, they would include pornography. But they elect not to for reasons.

Yeah, but, an anonymous op ed isn't porn.

And if the NYT wanted to include porn, they could. Free market. They actually sell more by not including porn. I think the readership would prefer to keep booties and boobies in a separate mental box from Krugman, Friedman, and war corespondents.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yeah, but, an anonymous op ed isn't porn.

And if the NYT wanted to include porn, they could. Free market. They actually sell more by not including porn. I think the readership would prefer to keep booties and boobies in a separate mental box from Krugman, Friedman, and war corespondents.

I think with porn would sell better.

 

[Foolmewunz]

When a reporter uses an anonymous source, that doesn't mean that the reporter doesn't know who the source is. They're still anonymous.



That excuse doesn't fly. If it's mere opinion, then none of it matters, it's just an employee who doesn't like their boss. The reason anyone thinks this is relevant is because it's claiming a factual basis for those opinions. And that basis does deserve corroboration.

It is not claiming a factual basis for the opinions. It's claiming that the person making the statements is in situ in the rotting administration. The opinions, as several rather dim members have pointed out, are nothing new. You can't corroborate an opinion.

All you can do is out the source or vet the source. The NYT has chosen to vet the source and confirm it but they won't share it with you. Gee, that's sad.

 

[kellyb]

I think with porn would sell better.

Well, I guess the NYT's editor just disagrees.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, I guess the NYT's editor just disagrees.

I don't think they do. I think they consider other things besides maximizing sales. That is my point.

 

[kellyb]

I don't think they do. I think they consider other things besides maximizing sales. That is my point.

I think you're wrong. I think the shareholders would agree with me.

 

[FenerFan]

Shall we start the betting?

I'm going out on a short limb and saying it's Huckers. She is right up close to the action, is on board with the administration's goals, works close enough to the Marmalade Shartcannon to swipe his stationery, and has expressed some sort of desire to be out of the place by December, i.e. after the mid-terms which are expected to be a disaster.

I'm going to go out today and find some guys to start a punk band. The sole reason is so that I can name our first album "Marmalade Shartcannon."

 

[Ziggurat]

Why does the NYT need an excuse for publishing it?

Isn't "we knew it would sell" or "because I wanted to" or "we knew our readership would appreciate it" good enough on its own?

That depends. What kind of business does the NYT want to be? If they're just putting out whatever sells, then nothing distinguishes them from TMZ. But the NYT motto "All the news that's fit to print" suggests that they aspire to be something a little different. And living up to that motto requires a different justification than merely what sells in the moment.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think with porn would sell better.

Like, say, The Enquirer? This isn't theoretical philosophical navel gazing. There are facts available. The NYT has three times the readership of the Enquirer. Ten times the readership of Playboy.

Really, Bob! Time to retire this foolish argument.

 

[bruto]

I know I promised to stop, but "DT a loser."

 

[kellyb]

That depends. What kind of business does the NYT want to be? If they're just putting out whatever sells, then nothing distinguishes them from TMZ. But the NYT motto "All the news that's fit to print" suggests that they aspire to be something a little different. And living up to that motto requires a different justification than merely what sells in the moment.

I actually think you're making a good point in a way. Their niche is in sprinkling TMZ-esque stuff in with high quality journalism, as well as driving whatever the "mainstream narrative" happens to be. It's how they've rolled for a long time.

They're not "the best of the best of the best", and they never have been, in my life, at least.

 

[Drewbot]

Anonymous accusations against Donald Trump?

At least Omarossa had the guts to come forward and face cross-examination.

 

[ahhell]

I may be rehashing some stuff but....
A. Not a bombshell, it just confirms stuff we all suspect anyway.
B. Even if it is an administration insider, such anonymous sources from this administration aren't much more reliable than Trump.
C. If its an honest editorial by an insider, WTF?
C1. You can make argument for doing what he claims to do. Try to curb the worst impulses of the mad president. If you can't get enough cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment. Even if you can, it would really stir up a hornets nest among the Trumpists.
C2. You can make an argument for resigning and saying this all out loud.
C3. You can make an argument for the 25th amendment removal.

C4. I don't see a valid argument for doing what the editorial claims to be doing and then announcing it anonymously in the paper. That has no real upside and could just make Trump worse. WTF?

 

[pgwenthold]

Can we not call it an "anonymous" source, and call it an "undisclosed source"?

 

[Cavemonster]

I don't think they do. I think they consider other things besides maximizing sales. That is my point.

Maximizing profits in the long run is best accomplished with a consistent reputation.

TMZ gets the most sales by being the best TMZ it can be. They have a reputation for salacious gossip. If things might be somehow objectively popular, but not on brand for TMZ then they may not want to print it.

The same is true for the NYT. Their profitability is reliant on remaining on-brand. If they (as you suggested) switched to porn, many of their long time customers would drop their subscriptions and they wouldn't pick up many new ones because porn is free on the internet.

Their profitability is rooted in delivering a certain kind of news experience.

 

[LSSBB]

Can we not call it an "anonymous" source, and call it an "undisclosed source"?

Why?