NY Times editorial bombshell

[pgwenthold]

Why?

So the stupid right-wingers will shut up with their whining about "anonymous sources" to distract from the point.

 

[theprestige]

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

Why? We all know what we're talking about. A semantic slapfight isn't necessary.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why? We all know what we're talking about. A semantic slapfight isn't necessary.

Apparently we all DON'T know what we are talking about, which is why there are stupid right-wingers whining about the NYT relying on "anonymous sources."

 

[alfaniner]

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

I for one like it when The PDJT tries to say "anonymous".

 

[Ziggurat]

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

We could, but there's no reason to. "Anonymous" is standard nomenclature for this sort of situation, and the editorial board's statement provides sufficient clarification for anyone who needs it made more explicit.

 

[Cavemonster]

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?

I can think of a few arguments. For instance:

Imagine you're an old school conservative and you hate seeing your party chained to Trump and his ilk (coming down the road with more crazy populists).

Most establishment GOP have been to some extent playing ball and climbing on board the Trump train, for what they might call pragmatic reasons. But in the longer term, they feel a pressing need to break that association. It may be that they see shameful impeachment coming, or just that they want to push the GOP back to a less insane place (or more traditionally crazy, depending on your stance on the GOP).

I think part of that task is establishing a narrative that divorces establishment GOP folks from Trump. and "We were working against him from inside" is one way to do that.

I'm not sure how effective it will be in the long run. But I think one thing that's central to the Trump train is that it's hard for everyday GOP votters to defect. Because right now that means admitting they were catastrophically wrong/tricked AND to that the Dems are right and deserve support. Giving Trump supporters a right wing separate from Trump that they can run back to is really the only plausible out for them.

 

[Cavemonster]

We could, but there's no reason to. "Anonymous" is standard nomenclature for this sort of situation, and the editorial board's statement provides sufficient clarification for anyone who needs it made more explicit.

But we're clearly seeing a lot of equivocation in public discussion of the issue. There's certainly value in depriving those opportunities.

 

[Mike!]

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 don't know, depends on the definition of porn, I'll bet there are Trump hating people having their way with themselves while reading it, even as we speak.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1038034180972654592

Trump on the NYT op-ed: "Number one, The Times should never have done that, because really what they've done, virtually, it's treason."

(Note: It is not treason.)

Video embedded in tweet.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

Let's call it "anomanous".

 

[angrysoba]

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

Nobody laughed at mine....

Arse'ol DT (Donald Trump)

I’m sure it cracked the Lodestar Code!

 

[LSSBB]

So the stupid right-wingers will shut up with their whining about "anonymous sources" to distract from the point.

Like they shut up about illegal immigrants because the politically correct way to refer to them is undocumented?

 

[LSSBB]

Anonymous accusations against Donald Trump?

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

When Bob Woodward's book hits the street, maybe you can get more detailed source information on how your hero has feet of clay.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Are you saying that Woodward interviewed a single person?

 

[xjx388]

So the stupid right-wingers will shut up with their whining about "anonymous sources" to distract from the point.

And you think changing the word "anonymous" to "undisclosed" would silence those criticisms? Not sure how the semantic game would help here . . .

One thing would silence the criticism for sure: Disclose the source. If it is indeed a high level admin official (cabinet) then that would indeed be a bombshell and the contents of that op-ed have to be taken seriously. If it's not a cabinet member then it becomes a much more open question about how seriously to take it. It's entirely possible this person is not all that high-level and doesn't speak for anyone else. There may not even be a group of people actively opposing Trump as described in this op-ed.

An undisclosed source in a paper with a perceived liberal/anti-Trump bias leaves it all completely open as to how seriously the American public should take this.

 

[pgwenthold]

And you think changing the word "anonymous" to "undisclosed" would silence those criticisms? Not sure how the semantic game would help here . . .

Because it's not semantic.

The source is not anonymous.

Don't let stupid right-wingers frame the issue.

 

[kellyb]

Because it's not semantic.

The source is not anonymous.

Don't let stupid right-wingers frame the issue.

Just because one person (or a small handful of people) at the NYT knows who the anonymous author is doesn't make it "not anonymous".

 

[pgwenthold]

Just because one person (or a small handful of people) at the NYT knows who the anonymous author is doesn't make it "not anonymous".

The NYT knows who the author is and refuses to disclose it. It's undisclosed.

That is very different from an "anonymous source"

 

[ahhell]

I can think of a few arguments. For instance:

Imagine you're an old school conservative and you hate seeing your party chained to Trump and his ilk (coming down the road with more crazy populists).

Most establishment GOP have been to some extent playing ball and climbing on board the Trump train, for what they might call pragmatic reasons. But in the longer term, they feel a pressing need to break that association. It may be that they see shameful impeachment coming, or just that they want to push the GOP back to a less insane place (or more traditionally crazy, depending on your stance on the GOP).

I think part of that task is establishing a narrative that divorces establishment GOP folks from Trump. and "We were working against him from inside" is one way to do that.

I'm not sure how effective it will be in the long run. But I think one thing that's central to the Trump train is that it's hard for everyday GOP votters to defect. Because right now that means admitting they were catastrophically wrong/tricked AND to that the Dems are right and deserve support. Giving Trump supporters a right wing separate from Trump that they can run back to is really the only plausible out for them.

Ok, perhaps some good but still much more downside from poking the erratic man-child in the oval office.

As to calling them "anonymous" vs "undisclosed", it would be silly. Pretty much all anonymous sources are really just undisclosed. Most people are aware of that. Reporters for the most part don't run with stories from sources that are truly anonymous, at least not without confirmation. They generally realize how unreliable that would be.

 

[kellyb]

The NYT knows who the author is and refuses to disclose it. It's undisclosed.

That is very different from an "anonymous source"

No, it's not. When journalists use the phrase "anonymous source" in reporting info first hand, the journalists themselves always know who the source is (if we're talking about real journalism).