NY Times editorial bombshell

[pgwenthold]

See my final comment in my previous post. Republicans have adopted the stance that they only trust information that comes from Republicans which the exact same political outlook as themselves. .

Of course, the dumb thing is that, by all indications, this IS someone who has the "exact same political outlook as themselves." Total right-winger, with the only concern is that they need to control the President to get the Republican agenda advanced.

So if the Republicans have a problem with this, then it is because they are Trumpians, and they only trust information that comes from Trumpians like themselves.

 

[kellyb]

Of course, the dumb thing is that, by all indications, this IS someone who has the "exact same political outlook as themselves." Total right-winger, with the only concern is that they need to control the President to get the Republican agenda advanced.

So if the Republicans have a problem with this, then it is because they are Trumpians, and they only trust information that comes from Trumpians like themselves.

Nope. Not if you're talking about Trump's base. They hated McCain and literally worship Trump, N Korea style.

Trumpism is much closer to a religious movement than a political affiliation now.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This is an irrelevant tu quoque. Credibility isn't just a relative measure. Do better.

Yes, of course it is.
We will never have perfect knowledge, and good journalists will never reveal all their sources.
What it comes down to is who got more credibility, not who's credibility is spotless.

 

[kellyb]

Credibility isn't just a relative measure.

Yes, it is. It absolutely is.

Why won't you just answer the question?

 

[Minoosh]

There was no corroboration or vetting of the veracity of the claims. The most the NYT did to corroborate it was to identify a real person in the admin who wrote it.

How do you know?

 

[Mikemcc]

This White House is in a constant state of stir, and every stir is described as a tempest by the media. This is a little bit bigger stir than most.


If they find out who wrote it, they'll be fired and Trump will write a couple of tweets in all caps.


The fact that there's someone in the White House who would do such a thing is undoubtedly causing Trump to a slightly higher level of agitation, but the point of the editorial is that Trump goes into tirades on a regular basis, and the point of my post is that we already knew that he goes into tirades on a regular basis.

I don't know. You never know what might actually cause him to lose it to the point that his public behavior is considered so far off the deep end that people who voted for him might actually come to regret it. So far, though, it's really kind of business as usual.

Could that be the intention? Provoking Trump into a serious meltdown in a domestic situation would be less risky than letting him meltdown on the international stage. It may be a bit more Machiavellian in it's intent.

Not that I necessarily believe that myself, I tend towards a close-to-home effort in trying to shake him up and educate him. The author did say that they shared the same views on many of the policies.

 

[Lurch]

All this hand-wringing over "anonymous" vs "undisclosed"! I see anonymous as being relevant when the author is unknown to *all*. If known to the publisher or reporter, then "undisclosed" is the more meaningful term. Unambiguous.

 

[Drewbot]

I did. Your actual words represent a sheep like mentality that is consistent with a disintegrating democracy. Every dictator and would be dictator ever faced with a free press protecting it's sources has made similar complaints and demands.

This isn't a free press equivalent.

This is the NYT running an opinion piece from someone who either can't or won't stand up to cross-examination. They should have said they want the other side to respond to this before running it.

 

[Mikemcc]

So, someone who agrees with every single policy decision the Trump White House has come up with, but doesn't like the president personally (because he's an unstable idiot) says "Don't worry, we're doing the responsible thing by undermining the president so we can keep implementing the GOP agenda. Because if we try to get rid of him it'll hurt our party, and we'd like to continue to profit from our position of power.", and liberals cheer because it's anti-Trump?

Pretty much, but that is an indication of just how useless he is. A lame duck even within his own close community.

 

[theprestige]

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."

I think you're probably the only person who doesn't understand what "anonymous" means in this context. And since the lack of disclosure *is* the complaint, changing the wording doesn't actually nullify the complaint itself.

 

[theprestige]

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).

If you're an old school conservative, you've probably been disillusioned with the GOP for years, and don't actually think Trump is the problem. Certainly you don't think that removing or obstructing Trump will unchain the party from its apostasy.

 

[theprestige]

But we're clearly seeing a lot of equivocation in public discussion of the issue.

We're not, though. We're seeing some people in this thread trying to force an equivocation where none exists, but that's about it.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think you're probably the only person who doesn't understand what "anonymous" means in this context. And since the lack of disclosure *is* the complaint, changing the wording doesn't actually nullify the complaint itself.

Actually, the complaint I have seen most (including from you) is that _something_ hasn't been corroborated. Although I am still trying to figure out what corroboration is supposed to be expected for a guest editorial, so I am not clear what the complaint actually is.

 

[Segnosaur]

So, someone who agrees with every single policy decision the Trump White House has come up with, but doesn't like the president personally (because he's an unstable idiot) says "Don't worry, we're doing the responsible thing by undermining the president so we can keep implementing the GOP agenda. Because if we try to get rid of him it'll hurt our party, and we'd like to continue to profit from our position of power.", and liberals cheer because it's anti-Trump?

Not all liberals are cheering.

If you look, you will find many liberals/trump critics (some on this forum, some in the news media in general) who have rightly criticized the writer of the letter for enabling Trump. You will also find many who have pointed out the general problems of an unelected individual taking actions against an elected president.

 

[Mikemcc]

But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."

I realise what the NYT are describing it as, but on a personal level:

Anonymous = the reporter doesn't know the name of the source (but that doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate)

Undisclosed = the reporter knows the source

I believe in this case that the editorial board know who the source is and have risked the reputation of the paper on a quite sensational byline. They won't have taken that decision lightly or on a vendetta. The risk to their reutations is too high.

 

[lomiller]

Of course, the dumb thing is that, by all indications, this IS someone who has the "exact same political outlook as themselves." Total right-winger, with the only concern is that they need to control the President to get the Republican agenda advanced.

So if the Republicans have a problem with this, then it is because they are Trumpians, and they only trust information that comes from Trumpians like themselves.

It’s machinery Republicans have spent 30 years building. This may be the most extreme case where it’s been used to push things not everyone in the party supported, but I don’t think it’s the first. They are accustomed to thinking “lets just get though this then things will be back to normal” but more often the old guard and their idea of normal have simply been pushed out by the new normal. The new normal becomes the old guard and gets pushed out in turn as the cycle repeats.

 

[lomiller]

This isn't a free press equivalent.

This is the NYT running an opinion piece from someone who either can't or won't stand up to cross-examination. They should have said they want the other side to respond to this before running it.

You don’t need to know who wrote it to cross examine it. Address the argument not the person.

 

[Sherkeu]

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.

This would be a good theory if we were in the process of impeachment or in the midst of a rising Republican primary opponent. Having the narrative go public now has meant that the GOP establishment has to back Trump even more than they did. They must strongly disavow it.
Loyalty oaths are coming from all directions on this. It's just too early for this to have been an effective strategy for Trump defections.

 

[lomiller]

If you're an old school conservative, you've probably been disillusioned with the GOP for years, and don't actually think Trump is the problem.

If you are an old school conservative you have likely voted Democrat for 10 - 20 years.

 

[dann]

It's just too early for this to have been an effective strategy for Trump defections.

When would be the right time? 2024?