Trump-Russia Probe: Criminal Investigation...

[Juvenal]

So when you post a story full of "sources say" and "according to those familiar with the situation" attributions, are you implying that you have independently vetted each one to assure that the reporting is solid?

When it's my name in the byline, you may assume that I have vetted each source.

I've recently revised my posting style to make it clear which reporters are responsible for a story, with the date (and time when available) for contemporary context. The gold standard in reporting is always a quote for attribution. No reporter wants to miss that mark, which makes the description around "sources say" and "those familiar" worth careful consideration.

The difference between a "senior official" and a "senior advisor" can be enough to identify the source, if you know what you're looking for, especially if the reasons why the source is being granted anonymity are sufficiently spelled out. "Not authorized to speak" is an expression that's clear to anyone who's negotiated such a description: someone speaking with the boss's approval, and likely enough, at their boss's direction.

The current administration is exceptionally open about its interest in retaliation, making these attributions less clear.

[Juvenal]

So, when challenged to address meat, you continue to kvetch, and respond with a counter-challenge?

Even your perfect hair can't hide that massive fail, Jerk. Thanks for the entertaining read, tho.

Hypothetical meat, I'm sure you meant to say.

And you're welcome.

[Juvenal]

This is an example of bias leading to falsehoods.

If this story had checked out, no bias would have been detectable, but red flags were visible from the moment the story surfaced. Insight, since shut down, was a fringe landing pad for stories too fringy even for the Moonie Times. Everyone knew this.

BEHIND THE 'MADRASSA HOAX'
BY NEWSWEEK STAFF ON 1/26/07 AT 7:00 PM EST

In a news organization with editorial standards, Doocy and Gibson would have been fired.

Hell, even if they worked for CNN, they'd have been shown the door.

[Mountain Man]

When it's my name in the byline, you may assume that I have vetted each source.

I've recently revised my posting style to make it clear which reporters are responsible for a story, with the date (and time when available) for contemporary context. The gold standard in reporting is always a quote for attribution. No reporter wants to miss that mark, which makes the description around "sources say" and "those familiar" worth careful consideration.

The difference between a "senior official" and a "senior advisor" can be enough to identify the source, if you know what you're looking for, especially if the reasons why the source is being granted anonymity are sufficiently spelled out. "Not authorized to speak" is an expression that's clear to anyone who's negotiated such a description: someone speaking with the boss's approval, and likely enough, at their boss's direction.

The current administration is exceptionally open about its interest in retaliation, making these attributions less clear.

Which is to say that, no, you haven't actually verified the stories you post.

Surely you realize that "sources say" is a meaningless attribution because it's impossible to verify even if you think you've correctly guessed the source, mostly because you have no way of knowing if your guess is correct. It is also increasingly used to hide the identities of low-level staffers who have no idea what they're talking about, or in extreme cases to hide the fact that the reporter straight up invented it.

I've taken the stand that unless someone is willing to go on the record then I really don't care what they have to say because it's so much easier to lie the source is anonymous.

[oxmixmudd]

Which is to say that, no, you haven't actually verified the stories you post.

Surely you realize that "sources say" is a meaningless attribution because it's impossible to verify even if you think you've correctly guessed the source, mostly because you have no way of knowing if your guess is correct. It is also increasingly used to hide the identities of low-level staffers who have no idea what they're talking about, or in extreme cases to hide the fact that the reporter straight up invented it.

I've taken the stand that unless someone is willing to go on the record then I really don't care what they have to say because it's so much easier to lie the source is anonymous.

Sometimes the public needs to know, but the fellow with the knowledge would prefer not to lose his job (or worse) AND they'd like to be able to continue to influence the situation in a positive direction.

Your attitude (in many of these discussions) is punitive if not dangerous to the person with a conscience - which I see as rather shocking. You want to punish those that reveal the truth about the bad being done by 'your man' ... as opposed to, say, being on the side of good and wanting to see the bad deeds exposed and those doing them, regardless of who they are.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

You want to punish those that reveal the truth...

It's not those who the tell truth that I have a problem with, it's those who use anonymity to spread malicious lies without consequence, and over the course of the last several years, we have come to have good reason to be suspicious of "anonymous sources". The latest example would be this "whistleblower" who made serious accusations against Trump based on "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" rumors and whose claims were directly refuted by the transcript of Trump's phonecall with President Zelinsky.

So, yes, anytime a variation of the phrase "sources say" appears in a story, it sends up a warning flare.

[Mountain Man]

Knock knock

.
.
.

Who's there?

.
.
.

Justin...

Justin who?

durham-knock-knock-1.jpg

.
.
.

durham-knock-knock-2.jpg

Just in case you thought we'd forgotten about you!

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...investigation/

[Juvenal]

Which is to say that, no, you haven't actually verified the stories you post.

Surely you realize that "sources say" is a meaningless attribution because it's impossible to verify even if you think you've correctly guessed the source, mostly because you have no way of knowing if your guess is correct. It is also increasingly used to hide the identities of low-level staffers who have no idea what they're talking about, or in extreme cases to hide the fact that the reporter straight up invented it.

I've taken the stand that unless someone is willing to go on the record then I really don't care what they have to say because it's so much easier to lie the source is anonymous.

Reporters want every source to speak for attribution, especially if they think the source is lying.

A reporter who fabricates sources is not a reporter for long. As with biased coverage, the malfeasance becomes evident when the reported facts don't check out. At that point, even with a named source, the reporter will have questions to answer. It is, after all, a reporter's job to vet sources for reliability. Without a named source, those questions can become impossible to answer.

Everyone understands that granting anonymity is fraught, but sometimes necessary, if revealing the source could result in retaliation, as in the case of a whistleblower; or could lead to the loss of the source's access to information in an evolving story, as was the case with Mark Felt, aka "deep throat" of the Watergate scandal.

Often enough, the identity of an anonymous source becomes irrelevant as better information, including documents, are revealed. Recent reporting has made it clear that most of the Washington press corps knows the name of the initial whistleblower of the Ukraine call. But with the release of a transcript of the call, his name no longer matters.

Except to those wishing him harm, of course.

[oxmixmudd]

It's not those who the tell truth that I have a problem with, it's those who use anonymity to spread malicious lies without consequence, and over the course of the last several years, we have come to have good reason to be suspicious of "anonymous sources". The latest example would be this "whistleblower" who made serious accusations against Trump based on "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" rumors and whose claims were directly refuted by the transcript of Trump's phonecall with President Zelinsky.

So, yes, anytime a variation of the phrase "sources say" appears in a story, it sends up a warning flare.

A serious accusation that has been shown to be true. But that little part doesn't phase you in the slightest.

Like I said. You want to punish those with a conscience who'd like to avoid a firing squad if they can. Your posture on this is 100% protective of those that are doing evil. You want all the risk to be born by the person observing the policy violation or the criminal activity. And to implement that you are hiding behind 'innocent to proven guilty'. That is, even if 'innocent until proven guilty' is maintained, you still pull it out as an excuse to punish or endanger the whistle-blower.

But the bottom line is you want people that expose how Trump is violating policy and/or the law to go away.

[Mountain Man]

Reporters want every source to speak for attribution, especially if they think the source is lying.

A reporter who fabricates sources is not a reporter for long. As with biased coverage, the malfeasance becomes evident when the reported facts don't check out. At that point, even with a named source, the reporter will have questions to answer. It is, after all, a reporter's job to vet sources for reliability. Without a named source, those questions can become impossible to answer.

Everyone understands that granting anonymity is fraught, but sometimes necessary, if revealing the source could result in retaliation, as in the case of a whistleblower; or could lead to the loss of the source's access to information in an evolving story, as was the case with Mark Felt, aka "deep throat" of the Watergate scandal.

Often enough, the identity of an anonymous source becomes irrelevant as better information, including documents, are revealed. Recent reporting has made it clear that most of the Washington press corps knows the name of the initial whistleblower of the Ukraine call. But with the release of a transcript of the call, his name no longer matters.

Except to those wishing him harm, of course.

You can defend the practice of anonymous sources all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that for the last several years, they have increasingly been used by the mainstream media as a vehicle for spreading unverified rumors and outright lies.

[Mountain Man]

A serious accusation that has been shown to be true.

Not at all. There is no evidence of quid pro quo. There is no evidence that anybody in Ukraine was aware that funding had been withheld. Even Taylor, an ardent critic of Trump, could give no direct evidence of quid pro quo, and his testimony was directly refuted on several key points by those with firsthand knowledge. And President Zelinsky himself has repeatedly said that he was not pressured into taking a closer look at Biden's questionable conduct as Vice President. So, no, none of the "whistleblower's" accusations have been shown to be true, and since he is anonymous, he will likely never face the consequences for his lies.

[rogue06]

You can defend the practice of anonymous sources all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that for the last several years, they have increasingly been used by the mainstream media as a vehicle for spreading unverified rumors and outright lies.

Considering just how wrong these "sources say" have been over the last 3 years one wonders if some reporters have resorted to using wholly fictitious sources and are merely reporting what they want to be true.

[Cow Poke]

Reporters want every source to speak for attribution, especially if they think the source is lying.

A reporter who fabricates sources is not a reporter for long. ...

I believe that was true once upon a time.

[rogue06]

I believe that was true once upon a time.

That was before how, even after the collusion delusion collapsed like a house of cards in a tornado, they were congratulating one another on how well they had covered it.

[Cow Poke]

That was before how, even after the collusion delusion collapsed like a house of cards in a tornado, they were congratulating one another on how well they had covered it.

I think you were the first one I saw post the admission that the liberal media is not even trying to maintain the appearance of objectivity (or something like that).