So From Now On, No More Anonymous Sources Right?

[MarcATL]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

You know, I think given all the rancor they make about anonymous sources, Republicans think that "anonymous" is synonymous with "nonexistent," which, of course, it is not.

Moreover, the leader of the Republican party is easily the greatest user of anonymous sources. How often have we heard Trump say things like "people are saying," "people have told me," and so on. Does he even, as journalists do by using languages such as, for example, "a source at 'such and such' organization," broadly identify what people (to say nothing of credible people) said the things he claims they did? Not once that I'm aware of has he so done.

Hell, even when he attests to the assertions of specific individuals and organizations, he does so only with regard to organizations and speakers whom he knows will neither confirm nor refute his attestations, thereby allowing Trump to get away with not producing anything that expressly corroborates his claim. For example, Trump has claimed the IRS has commenced an audit of his tax returns (though he's not been specific about what recent tax years' returns are under audit), yet he's not even shared the IRS letter indicating that is indeed so. The IRS isn't going to comment on the veracity of that claim because legally they cannot. His attorneys/tax accountants won't because his discussions with them are privileged. Thus there is nobody who, and no entity that, can or will contemporaneously confirm or deny the verity of Trump's claim about his recent (2013 - 2016) tax return(s) being audited by the IRS.

 

[Theowl32]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

Now that the wigger has been arrested? I am sure there are other wiggers out there.

 

[TNHarley]

Anonymous sources sometimes start truth. However, when 90% of what you see is anonymous sources, no proof, and all the bullshit never seems to end up being true, you question it. If it is true, we don't know it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

No More Trusting Anything Orange Pinocchio says...He is all Fake all Grift all Bull Shit All the Time ...Don The Con Trump
Trump's Saudi Arms Deal Is Actually Fake

Remember President Trump’s big, triumphant arms deal in Saudi Arabia? It turns out it didn’t really happen. It was Trump’s own fake news, a feat of supply chain vertical integration and more importantly for the MAGA agenda repatriating jobs from Russia. In all seriousness, at the end of the day it didn’t happen. There are no contracts or sales. At all.

Read More →

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

LOL...if you remove the anonymous sources, Marc...how are the Democrats going to attack Trump? It's tough to get people to lie when their name goes public with the lie because as the lie is exposed...their reputation goes in the dumpster! Ask Susan Rice about that!

No, going forward the left will continue to attempt to smear Trump with the same barrage of anonymous attacks. It's all they have.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

LOL...if you remove the anonymous sources, Marc...how are the Democrats going to attack Trump? .

 

[Theowl32]

Anything that the wigger leaked prove collusion?

No, poor little black op. Just need to believe another lie that the party of slavery tells him.

I think that is funny. What a typical (you know what.)

 

[tyroneweaver]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

Then why are you posting?

 

[blackhawk]

Anonymous sources are a double edged sword sometimes there are legitimate reasons for a source to be anonymous other times the source is partisan hack the reporter is using just so they can push the narrative they want. There are good reasons to use an anonymous source but there are also good reasons to question them as well.

 

[bodecea]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

Now that the wigger has been arrested? I am sure there are other wiggers out there.

Yes ...considering what she revealed....I can see the #RussianW being upset at her.

 

[MarcATL]

Anonymous sources sometimes start truth. However, when 90% of what you see is anonymous sources, no proof, and all the bullshit never seems to end up being true, you question it. If it is true, we don't know it.

So what's the rule to it? Because you people like to make it up as you go along.

When are anonymous sources acceptable?

Spit it out.

 

[MarcATL]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

LOL...if you remove the anonymous sources, Marc...how are the Democrats going to attack Trump? It's tough to get people to lie when their name goes public with the lie because as the lie is exposed...their reputation goes in the dumpster! Ask Susan Rice about that!

No, going forward the left will continue to attempt to smear Trump with the same barrage of anonymous attacks. It's all they have.

So what's your answer to the OP?

 

[TNHarley]

Anonymous sources sometimes start truth. However, when 90% of what you see is anonymous sources, no proof, and all the bullshit never seems to end up being true, you question it. If it is true, we don't know it.

So what's the rule to it? Because you people like to make it up as you go along.

When are anonymous sources acceptable?

Spit it out.

I was implying people shouldn't knee jerk about shit that isn't proven. Do you understand now?

 

[miketx]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

LOL! You clones keep going from one extreme to the next, with your pretend nonsense. Anonymous sources are good. Non stop never ending perpetual anonymous sources that you swear by is bad.

 

[Darkwind]

Anonymous sources sometimes start truth. However, when 90% of what you see is anonymous sources, no proof, and all the bullshit never seems to end up being true, you question it. If it is true, we don't know it.

So what's the rule to it? Because you people like to make it up as you go along.

When are anonymous sources acceptable?

Spit it out.

You realize that it isn't the sources, right?

A person who believes that what the government is doing is wrong has outlets and avenues to expose those incidents of wrong-doing. Its called a 'whistleblower program'. The program protects the whistleblower, up to and including keeping their name hidden.

So, if the media were to report that an anonymous source had reported to X agency that the government is doing this or that, they can then investigate and ask officials on the merit of the exposure, the truthfulness of the exposure, and who is involved in investigating it. This is a legitimate anonymous source. However, we don't have this level of professionalism in the media any longer. The problem is not with anonymous sources, but with the people in the media.

Journalists no longer look to report the truth. Journalists no longer wish to keep a check on the power of government; unless it is when a Republican is in power.

Today's media and alleged journalists now report ONLY on matters THEY think will harm a Republican. They give a 100% pass to anyone not associated with the Republicans. They are as active and rabid about taking down the Republicans as many partisan organizations and the DNC itself. In other words, they have proven (and they don't even bother to hide it any longer) that they are in opposition to anyone who is not a Democrat or following the progressive ideology.

Can you honestly believe that people who are rabidly opposed to a President, a political party, can be trusted, to be honest about their activities? It is far too convenient to create stories in opposition to a particular person or party by using sources of information that cannot be verified. Given the hatred of the media against Trump, they simply cannot be trusted a micrometer, or even be given the benefit of doubt.

It is not the sources, it is the watchdog.

 

[MarcATL]

I was implying people shouldn't knee jerk about shit that isn't proven. Do you understand now?

Actually, no. Because it doesn't have anything to do with my OP questions.

Please try again.

 

[MarcATL]

LOL! You clones keep going from one extreme to the next, with your pretend nonsense. Anonymous sources are good. Non stop never ending perpetual anonymous sources that you swear by is bad.

Oh, so it's the number and/or amount of them now is it?

OK, define "Non stop never evending perpetual anonymous"

What number is too little, what number is too much, and what number is just right in your estimation?

 

[TNHarley]

I was implying people shouldn't knee jerk about shit that isn't proven. Do you understand now?

Actually, no. Because it doesn't have anything to do with my OP questions.

Please try again.

Lol you big dummy

 

[iceberg]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

you'll never get CNN In a ja-billion years to give that holy grail up.