Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The topic came up with Bob Woodward's book Fear (about the Trump admin), and recent controversial pieces in the New York Times. In the thread about Fear most on the left expressed unequivocal faith in Woodward, while several on the right dismissed the book. Woodward does have a track record of taking flack from both sides, showing at least that he's not some partisan hack.
The NYT had an anonymously-sourced story reporting that deputy AG Rod Rosenstein discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to oust President Trump. Rosenstein denies it. Who's telling the truth? Who knows.... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/u...amendment.html
And the NYT recently printed an entirely anonymous op-ed purportedly by a Trump admin. member.
I enjoy the political potboilers, like those by Woodward, Allen&Parnes, Ed Klein, and others. All rely on anonymous sources. As Allen&Parnes say in Shattered, their book on Hillary's 2016 campaign:
Quote:
We made one decision early on in our process that proved crucial in allowing us access to key players even at times when most of the media was walled off from Hillary and her senior staff. We agreed to conduct all of our interviews on background, which provided anonymity to our sources.
The problem I see is that reporters have become a kind of priesthood, with assessment of truth/falsity, in effect, a function of faith. And it is selective faith, with those of us on the left rejecting (say) Ed Klein, while accepting a Bob Woodward. And vice-versa for the right. This amounts to a kind of magical thinking.
A big part of the Jayson Blair scandal (disgraced NYT reporter found to be writing fiction) was Blair's use of fake anonymous sources. He got away with this for some time due to the NYT policy. He was finally caught when subjects of some of his stories blew the whistle.
Is it time to rein in the use of anonymous sources?
Considering that the DOJ is acting as a rouge branch of government that wants to operate a secret government and stonewall document release, its no surprise there are so many leaks and anonymous sources. The solution is transparency but it gets delayed or shutdown for one excuse or another.
It creates an environment for the press to tell any lie and claim anonymous sources at will. The best propaganda wins and confirms any bias. Even if the truth was exposed with an anonymous source who would believe it ?
The ones that want to believe it but there remains every reason to question it and not believe it by others. In the end the truth gets butchered. Everyone can claim a piece of it.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
The topic came up with Bob Woodward's book Fear (about the Trump admin), and recent controversial pieces in the New York Times. In the thread about Fear most on the left expressed unequivocal faith in Woodward, while several on the right dismissed the book. Woodward does have a track record of taking flack from both sides, showing at least that he's not some partisan hack.
The NYT had an anonymously-sourced story reporting that deputy AG Rod Rosenstein discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to oust President Trump. Rosenstein denies it. Who's telling the truth? Who knows.... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/u...amendment.html
And the NYT recently printed an entirely anonymous op-ed purportedly by a Trump admin. member.
I enjoy the political potboilers, like those by Woodward, Allen&Parnes, Ed Klein, and others. All rely on anonymous sources. As Allen&Parnes say in Shattered, their book on Hillary's 2016 campaign:
The problem I see is that reporters have become a kind of priesthood, with assessment of truth/falsity, in effect, a function of faith. And it is selective faith, with those of us on the left rejecting (say) Ed Klein, while accepting a Bob Woodward. And vice-versa for the right. This amounts to a kind of magical thinking.
A big part of the Jayson Blair scandal (disgraced NYT reporter found to be writing fiction) was Blair's use of fake anonymous sources. He got away with this for some time due to the NYT policy. He was finally caught when subjects of some of his stories blew the whistle.
Is it time to rein in the use of anonymous sources?
How about we start with Trump who often makes accusations and statements citing NO sources such as claiming Russia lost 50,000,000 in WW II? He just makes stuff up, rarely citing any source and even more rarely credible ones.
Nope. Anonymous sources are an essential way for the public to learn about things it should. Like Watergate. Places like the New York Times and Washington Post may get tripped up occasionally, like any news outlet, but they're very careful overall.
And do you understand that people can deny something is true whether it's anonymous or not?
And Woodward's books aren't potboilers. They're meticulously researched and not sensationalized.
Considering that the DOJ is acting as a rouge branch of government that wants to operate a secret government and stonewall document release, its no surprise there are so many leaks and anonymous sources. The solution is transparency but it gets delayed or shutdown for one excuse or another.
It creates an environment for the press to tell any lie and claim anonymous sources at will. The best propaganda wins. Even if the truth was exposed with an anonymous source who would believe it ?
The ones that want to believe it but there remains every reason to question it and not believe it by others.
Excellent point, as seen by the game-playing with leaks that seems to have been conducted by the FBI.
And of course it was a leak by James Comey that got Robert Mueller appointed as Special Counsel (and that was reportedly exactly Comey's intent). Ironically none other than Robert Woodward said recently that he looked for two years for evidence of Trump/Russia collusion and found none. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...two_years.html
How about we also take a close look at those who "speak on condition of anonymity, due to the fact that they are not authorized to speak on this issue". IMO, they should be fired, their security clearance revoked, and never allowed to serve, on any level, in Government again!
How about we also take a close look at those who "speak on condition of anonymity, due to the fact that they are not authorized to speak on this issue". IMO, they should be fired, their security clearance revoked, and never allowed to serve, on any level, in Government again!
I'd be in favor of that but it has problems too.
The press doesn't have to reveal its sources.
So that takes the solution down a rabbit hole.
What's changed is our perception not the procedures behind the use of anonymous sources.
Woodward is old school.......he's been there done that -- and was proven right -- even on the stuff that folks denied, refused to admit to -- said were lies.
Makes you go hmmmm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
