EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7593
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:18 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/brookefoxnews/status/865692220594290690 So with their track record the past 2 weeks does that mean its confirmed? I mean either way its a nothing story but they should just admitted it then no one would believe it at this point. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:19 Adreme wrote: So with their track record the past 2 weeks does that mean its confirmed? I mean either way its a nothing story but they should just admitted it then no one would believe it at this point. Expect Trump to say in an interview soon that they are looking into it, but that is normal and every president does it. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
Is there something news organizations can do to avoid this? I mean if they have enough real informers in the administration, they might have enough eyes and ears to know the story isn't true. But on any given story if you've got a couple different people that told you x y z happened, and no other sources to say otherwise, how would you know it was false? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:52 ChristianS wrote: Here's a question I have, but I know too little about journalistic practice to know the answer. If the administration really wanted to discredit the media, wouldn't it seem like an obvious strategy to "leak" them bullshit info, then publicly debunk the story? I know journalists generally try to confirm a story with two independent sources to prevent hoaxes, but that wouldn't stop Trump from finding two loyal staffers, telling them to call WaPo and tell such and such lie, then when the story comes out the White House offers proof the story is false and rails against the lying media. Is there something news organizations can do to avoid this? I mean if they have enough real informers in the administration, they might have enough eyes and ears to know the story isn't true. But on any given story if you've got a couple different people that told you x y z happened, and no other sources to say otherwise, how would you know it was false? No reason to keep your source secret if he feeds you bullshit So you can just call out the bullshitter | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:10 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: they should just turn the plane around and cancel the trip. I don't see this going well the man is not comming back. He's going to live the Assange life somewhere abroad + Show Spoiler + one can hope, right? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: No reason to keep your source secret if he feeds you bullshit So you can just call out the bullshitter Hmm. Then the bullshitter probably denies it, the reporter publishes whatever communications he received (assuming he kept some recordings or something) and the administration's strategy is outed? Still seems like with some tweaking you could make it work - maybe you don't tell them out and out lies, but send them in some misleading directions. At worst you waste the reporter's time chasing fake leads, at best the paper finds something else that supports the wrong conclusion and together with your fake leads, thinks they have enough to run it. Then even if they out their sources the leak they got won't be enough to support the story they ran, and they still get in trouble. Or you could make sure the reporter doesn't have any recordings or evidence that you leaked to them, then if they try to out you you deny it and it's a he said she said where everyone loses credibility. But the administration doesn't have much more credibility to lose so they might still win out on that one. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:52 ChristianS wrote: Here's a question I have, but I know too little about journalistic practice to know the answer. If the administration really wanted to discredit the media, wouldn't it seem like an obvious strategy to "leak" them bullshit info, then publicly debunk the story? I know journalists generally try to confirm a story with two independent sources to prevent hoaxes, but that wouldn't stop Trump from finding two loyal staffers, telling them to call WaPo and tell such and such lie, then when the story comes out the White House offers proof the story is false and rails against the lying media. Is there something news organizations can do to avoid this? I mean if they have enough real informers in the administration, they might have enough eyes and ears to know the story isn't true. But on any given story if you've got a couple different people that told you x y z happened, and no other sources to say otherwise, how would you know it was false? no system is perfect, so I'm sure fooling the press like that could happen now and then; but sources can be cultivated over a long period of time; and in some sense washington is a small place and a lot of people know each other. i'm sure it's feasible to find things suspicious if the sources are saying things too similar or some such; you'd also have to question why the source is willing to give up the info. die-hard loyal trump staffers are likelier to be known to be die-hards, so you'd question why they're leaking. and if one of htem leaks that they were told to arrange a leak, then everything gets a lot worse for trump. mostly though, debunking one story doesn't do that much; it means one set of anonymous sources was unreliable. so maybe one reporter gets fired for it (if that), but that doesn't discredit the media as a whole; and you can't pull the same trick much without people getting wise, and maybe finding proof, and if they find proof you were using that trick then you're really in for it. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
SMH. What a perfect end to the week. You couldn't write this shit. Unreal. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On May 20 2017 09:06 ChristianS wrote: Or you could make sure the reporter doesn't have any recordings or evidence that you leaked to them, then if they try to out you you deny it and it's a he said she said where everyone loses credibility. But the administration doesn't have much more credibility to lose so they might still win out on that one. But most reporters will know each other. When they just communicate to other news agencies that source is completely unreliable then at most there will be maybe one falsely sourced article, that will get rectified, and after that the people that misled you will get the Kellyanne Conway treatment of nobody-believes-a-word-you-say | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On May 20 2017 09:07 zlefin wrote: no system is perfect, so I'm sure fooling the press like that could happen now and then; but sources can be cultivated over a long period of time; and in some sense washington is a small place and a lot of people know each other. i'm sure it's feasible to find things suspicious if the sources are saying things too similar or some such; you'd also have to question why the source is willing to give up the info. die-hard loyal trump staffers are likelier to be known to be die-hards, so you'd question why they're leaking. and if one of htem leaks that they were told to arrange a leak, then everything gets a lot worse for trump. mostly though, debunking one story doesn't do that much; it means one set of anonymous sources was unreliable. so maybe one reporter gets fired for it (if that), but that doesn't discredit the media as a whole; and you can't pull the same trick much without people getting wise, and maybe finding proof, and if they find proof you were using that trick then you're really in for it. Oh, that's something. You cultivate sources over a long period of time, so if two sources show up at the same time and start spinning tales none of your other sources can confirm you might suspect a plant. At that point it gets all meta in a very counterintelligence way - what if the WH plants sources that give bits here and there to reporters, but then go back and tell the WH what questions the reporters were asking to figure out what the reporter knows, who his other sources are, etc.? But at this point we're probably out of the realm of politics and into the realm of political thriller novels, so I guess I don't have to keep digging into hypotheticals. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On May 20 2017 09:17 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: But most reporters will know each other. When they just communicate to other news agencies that source is completely unreliable then at most there will be maybe one falsely sourced article, that will get rectified, and after that the people that misled you will get the Kellyanne Conway treatment of nobody-believes-a-word-you-say Yeah, you'd have to either do this a lot (edit: that is, from a ton if different sources, some of which tell the truth some before lying), so the reporters don't know which sources are real, or do it once but make it a really big one. Get a paper to accuse you of something really, really vile, let the story spread and spread until absolutely everyone has heard about it, then turn it around and try to make it remembered as the lie of the century. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Cooper is still ok. | ||
|
riotjune
United States3393 Posts
| ||
| ||
