It Is None Of Our Business

[Olde Europe]

Sure. How do you know how sure they are?

Simple. I researched the question. I am very confident that the Washington Post, the NYT and other major media outlets fully corroborate their sources. They don't get phone calls from unknown people and then report what they say. THEY KNOW WHO THE SOURCE IS. They just promise to keep their name out of the story.

Finally, reliable sources print corrections when errors are made. Both the WP and the NYT do this.

How The Times Uses Anonymous Sources

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

How Do We Verify Anonymous Sources? — ProPublica

Did you actually read the links? Because both the links' format and your stance on the matter suggest you didn't.

Really, it pisses me off no end to find these shitty google links all the time. It is, of course, up to you, to tell google what you are reading, which sites you are visiting (even though you probably shouldn't). Why invite others to do the same I patently don't understand. I find that discourteous, to put it mildly.

So, here's the direct link to the NYT (more direct links below). They're basically saying, we're checking, trust us. I find that pretty weak. Pro Publica is somewhat better, but not much.

The highlight actually was a detailed discussion by FirveThirtyEight. Perry Bacon apparently put a lot of thought into this, and details it well. The bottom line is, generally distrust stories with unnamed sources (the exact opposite of what you seem to be advocating), but in certain circumstances it's valid to put a little more trust in these. Had you actually read the article by 538, you'd have realized there's a second part, FirveThirtyEight (II), which lists the different types of unnamed sources, and roughly explains which to trust somewhat more, which less. I found that the most helpful of all, and actually learned something.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sure. How do you know how sure they are?

Simple. I researched the question. I am very confident that the Washington Post, the NYT and other major media outlets fully corroborate their sources. They don't get phone calls from unknown people and then report what they say. THEY KNOW WHO THE SOURCE IS. They just promise to keep their name out of the story.

Finally, reliable sources print corrections when errors are made. Both the WP and the NYT do this.

How The Times Uses Anonymous Sources

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

How Do We Verify Anonymous Sources? — ProPublica

Did you actually read the links? Because both the links' format and your stance on the matter suggest you didn't.

Really, it pisses me off no end to find these shitty google links all the time. It is, of course, up to you, to tell google what you are reading, which sites you are visiting (even though you probably shouldn't). Why invite others to do the same I patently don't understand. I find that discourteous, to put it mildly.

So, here's the direct link to the NYT (more direct links below). They're basically saying, we're checking, trust us. I find that pretty weak. Pro Publica is somewhat better, but not much.

The highlight actually was a detailed discussion by FirveThirtyEight. Perry Bacon apparently put a lot of thought into this, and details it well. The bottom line is, generally distrust stories with unnamed sources (the exact opposite of what you seem to be advocating), but in certain circumstances it's valid to put a little more trust in these. Had you actually read the article by 538, you'd have realized there's a second part, FirveThirtyEight (II), which lists the different types of unnamed sources, and roughly explains which to trust somewhat more, which less. I found that the most helpful of all, and actually learned something.

Yep. I read them all. And the takeaway is that major media outlets don't issue anonymously sourced stories without extreme vetting. It's not done lightly and it is always corroborated.

 

[Staidhup]

Rather humerus considering Obama made a remark proclaiming wait until after the election, no need for an interpreter, caught on a live mic. So what was he referring to? So who gives a rays ass to what was said

 

[FJO]

Listen up! The WAPO (also known as the Washington compost) is reporting that President Trump ordered the interpreter for his private meeting with PUTIN to destroy her notes and to not discuss the meeting with any of his senior advisors.

So what!! The president is entitled to absolute privacy when meeting with foreign leaders. We have no right to know what was discussed and it is perfectly fine that no official records of the meeting have been kept.

Geez!

Nope, we need to question her. No meetings one on one with only interpreters.

Yes! All one on one meetings must be WITHOUT interpreters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Listen up! The WAPO (also known as the Washington compost) is reporting that President Trump ordered the interpreter for his private meeting with Putin to destroy her notes and to not discuss the meeting with any of his senior advisors.

So what!! The president is entitled to absolute privacy when meeting with foreign leaders. We have no right to know what was discussed and it is perfectly fine that no official records of the meeting have been kept.

Geez!

True.

Putin and Trump know what is best for the American people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Rather humerus considering Obama made a remark proclaiming wait until after the election, no need for an interpreter, caught on a live mic. So what was he referring to? So who gives a rays ass to what was said

Another deflection.

Way to stand out in a crowd.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I saw that fly over their heads

No you didn't. We see your lame deflection every time. We choose to ignore it.

Yeah because Obama had the most transparent presidency in history. Opp's another Obama lie.

We're talking about a private meeting between our current President, Trump, and Putin.

Did we know everything that was said between Putin and Obama? I bet you didn't care then. Even when Obama wanted Putin to have patience to wait. So he could really kiss his ass. Also traitor Obama was the one that wanted to transform america, not Trump.

Once again, this thread is not about Obama.

It is about consistency, though. If anyone wants do a gotcha with trump they must be equally demanding of the obama admin.
That’s making the major assumption that the post story is even remotely legit.

 

[sealybobo]

Trump should be allowed to tamper with or even destroy evidence as much as he wants.

Russians love a tough leader regardless of how corrupt he is. Remind you of anyone?

Remember these same republicans told us bush was doing a good job as he put us into the Great Recession then said obama sucked as he got us out

 

[my2¢]

Is the problem that the Washington Post (a) reported it, (b) how they reported it, or (c) how people might interpret it?

I agree with OP it isn't anything out of the ordinary for leaders to have private conversations. Any details of such a meeting I find interesting, so I appreciate the reporting of it. How others may view it isn't my concern. Now if it was an opinion piece either I wouldn't give it the time of day if labelled as such or would stop reading if unlabeled as such.

 

[dudmuck]

Is the problem that the Washington Post (a) reported it, (b) how they reported it, or (c) how people might interpret it?

I agree with OP it isn't anything out of the ordinary for leaders to have private conversations. Any details of such a meeting I find interesting, so I appreciate the reporting of it. How others may view it isn't my concern. Now if it was an opinion piece either I wouldn't give it the time of day if labelled as such or would stop reading if unlabeled as such.

Certainly normal to keep such conversations from the public, but not private from your own administration. Hiding from his own people.

 

[Olde Europe]

And the takeaway is that major media outlets don't issue anonymously sourced stories without extreme vetting. It's not done lightly and it is always corroborated.

By no reasonable standards is that the takeaway. Whatever "extreme vetting" and "not done lightly" mean, it is not "always corroborated". The takeaway for all with their critical faculties intact and with memories long enough to remember Judith Miller is not to trust unnamed sources as a general rule. In order to deviate from that rule, the story and the source need to meet some criteria - absence of an agenda, specifically described source, content verifiable by other journalists etc.

Really, read the two 538 links given above. They're not just detailed and critical of newspaper business, but both even written with the readers' perspective in mind. Once understood, and once you've made a habit of scrutinizing articles accordingly, they'll transform you from a mere consumer of news into a critical reader.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And the takeaway is that major media outlets don't issue anonymously sourced stories without extreme vetting. It's not done lightly and it is always corroborated.

By no reasonable standards is that the takeaway. Whatever "extreme vetting" and "not done lightly" mean, it is not "always corroborated". The takeaway for all with their critical faculties intact and with memories long enough to remember Judith Miller is not to trust unnamed sources as a general rule. In order to deviate from that rule, the story and the source need to meet some criteria - absence of an agenda, specifically described source, content verifiable by other journalists etc.

Really, read the two 538 links given above. They're not just detailed and critical of newspaper business, but both even written with the readers' perspective in mind. Once understood, and once you've made a habit of scrutinizing articles accordingly, they'll transform you from a mere consumer of news into a critical reader.

Your arrogance is off putting. Although it appears to be what you've read, I did not say that major media outlets don't fuck up. I did not say that readers ought to simply consume news. But, there are standards at publications like the NYT which govern the use of anonymous sources. They won't be published if there is no corroboration.

I remember the Miller case. That episode, all said and done, led to the strengthening of standards at the Times. Won't you agree?

 

[my2¢]

Is the problem that the Washington Post (a) reported it, (b) how they reported it, or (c) how people might interpret it?

I agree with OP it isn't anything out of the ordinary for leaders to have private conversations. Any details of such a meeting I find interesting, so I appreciate the reporting of it. How others may view it isn't my concern. Now if it was an opinion piece either I wouldn't give it the time of day if labelled as such or would stop reading if unlabeled as such.

Certainly normal to keep such conversations from the public, but not private from your own administration. Hiding from his own people.

You've change my mind about not being concerned with how others view the article.

What gives you impression that normally other presidents provided transcripts of their private conversations to those in their administration? It seems more natural to me that like all other presidents have done, Trump himself provided any details he wished to share directly to those he thought needed to know. That's the conclusion I jump to.

 

[Olde Europe]

Your arrogance is off putting. Although it appears to be what you've read, I did not say that major media outlets don't fuck up. I did not say that readers ought to simply consume news. But, there are standards at publications like the NYT which govern the use of anonymous sources. They won't be published if there is no corroboration.

I remember the Miller case. That episode, all said and done, led to the strengthening of standards at the Times. Won't you agree?

Yeah, I get that sometimes. You misread my passion.

Here's the link to the NYT's standards regarding unnamed sources again. Point out where they say that they won't use that source in case they cannot corroborate, please. Or spare the effort, they don't even say that.

Yes, the NYT said they strengthened their standards after Miller's useful idiocy could no longer be covered up. What they've actually done, who knows? You don't sit in the newsroom among the journalists hunting the big scoop, trying to beat the competition, reporting on issues they just barely understand (other than the personality angle). Look, the First Draft of History is riddled with errors, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies. That is so since forever, and it won't change, and we don't even talk about outfits ranging from mediocre to abysmal. With the use of anonymous sources, the error rate multiplies. That should be the guiding principle when reading a paper. "Trust" is a wholly misplaced, inappropriate term in this context. Oh, BTW, I usually enjoy reading you. In this instance, you seem to be arguing for far too high a degree of credulity, or so I see it. Hence my objection.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Your arrogance is off putting. Although it appears to be what you've read, I did not say that major media outlets don't fuck up. I did not say that readers ought to simply consume news. But, there are standards at publications like the NYT which govern the use of anonymous sources. They won't be published if there is no corroboration.

I remember the Miller case. That episode, all said and done, led to the strengthening of standards at the Times. Won't you agree?

Yeah, I get that sometimes. You misread my passion.

Here's the link to the NYT's standards regarding unnamed sources again. Point out where they say that they won't use that source in case they cannot corroborate, please. Or spare the effort, they don't even say that.

Yes, the NYT said they strengthened their standards after Miller's useful idiocy could no longer be covered up. What they've actually done, who knows? You don't sit in the newsroom among the journalists hunting the big scoop, trying to beat the competition, reporting on issues they just barely understand (other than the personality angle). Look, the First Draft of History is riddled with errors, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies. That is so since forever, and it won't change, and we don't even talk about outfits ranging from mediocre to abysmal. With the use of anonymous sources, the error rate multiplies. That should be the guiding principle when reading a paper. "Trust" is a wholly misplaced, inappropriate term in this context. Oh, BTW, I usually enjoy reading you. In this instance, you seem to be arguing for far too high a degree of credulity, or so I see it. Hence my objection.

Basically, I'm not prepared to toss our experiment into the dustbin by giving in to the false argument that our upper echelon free press ( NYT, WashPo, NPR ) is purposefully misleading readers and viewers.

They have earned trust. They issue corrections and retractions when needed and are held to account when they get it wrong. That's all we can ask.

 

[eagle1462010]

Need to know. NO

 

[Olde Europe]

Basically, I'm not prepared to toss our experiment into the dustbin by giving in to the false argument that our upper echelon free press ( NYT, WashPo, NPR ) is purposefully misleading readers and viewers.

They have earned trust. They issue corrections and retractions when needed and are held to account when they get it wrong. That's all we can ask.

Nothing in my advocacy is supposed to throw anything into the dustbin. You go to learn about politics / policies with the Fourth Estate you have, and they are supposed to play an essential role in a democracy. This essential role doesn't require "trust", it requires critical readership, because that's the main check on the press. Without it, as you can see with Fox, Breitbart and their mindless sycophants, the press degenerates. "Critical" is not the same as dismissing the press, the high-quality press in particular.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Basically, I'm not prepared to toss our experiment into the dustbin by giving in to the false argument that our upper echelon free press ( NYT, WashPo, NPR ) is purposefully misleading readers and viewers.

They have earned trust. They issue corrections and retractions when needed and are held to account when they get it wrong. That's all we can ask.

Nothing in my advocacy is supposed to throw anything into the dustbin. You go to learn about politics / policies with the Fourth Estate you have, and they are supposed to play an essential role in a democracy. This essential role doesn't require "trust", it requires critical readership, because that's the main check on the press. Without it, as you can see with Fox, Breitbart and their mindless sycophants, the press degenerates. "Critical" is not the same as dismissing the press, the high-quality press in particular.

Well then. We agree.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump should sue these bastards

 

[LoneLaugher]

Trump should sue these bastards

I agree. He should sue the Washington Post. Do it NOW!