EPTOn May 28 2017 04:34 zlefin wrote:
I can certainly agree that there's some poor journalism out there, and some sloppy reporting. sadly much of it from the right as well.
anonymous sources are still believed to a substantial degree; it's only certain people on the opposite side who refuse to believe them.
most others recognize that the sourcing isn't known, so they may be unreliable, but there's also a decent chance they are reliable. but that's an inevitable result of any system; and it depends on the quality of the vetting the journalists use, which is in fact quite good at the more reputable institutions.
there isn't a partisan leak campaign; at least not much, mostly it's a trump is truly unfit for office and it shows leak campaign.
trump's base wouldn't be troubled by anything he did; and it would be preserved in any event, unless other people were willing to be so quiet that nothing would be heard from them; but it's not in their individual interest to be that quiet.
Show nested quote +
On May 28 2017 02:38 Danglars wrote:
I'm not even alleging it's all sinister from the start. Much is, like I criticized in source conflicts of interests, but the size and scope of poor journalistic standards is absolutely troubling. I think you understand my point of view at some level, even though you differ from the conclusion. The fabrications have been used to say the complete opposite of what sources have said in the past. That lends itself to the conclusion that between the source's selective leaking and interpretations and journalists biased interpretations, it matters little if there's an official source and a quote on the subject, because it will be stretched to mean things completely different than a leak. This is what mainstream news outlets must seek to correct before anonymously sourced articles are believed again.
The good news is the more serious charges are being actively investigated. All the foolish claims that obstruction attempts will succeed (that it was attempted is no longer a foolish claim from Comey) are misplaced. If any FBI findings are concealed from Congress or the public (as appropriate), we'll have the Deep Throat patriotic leaks on the double. Nobody would stand for it. So the impact on the side of citizen distrust will be mostly allayed. I'm not going to invest the time in a mega post of what the partisan leak campaign means for America, and how it compares to what possible damage Trump could cause, until most of this current stuff plays itself out. I do really see much of this helping Trump in the long run to preserve his relationship to his base.
On May 28 2017 02:02 ChristianS wrote:
I read the quoted tweet chains, as well as the big washington examiner list. I agree that most of those should never have been published, although a few of them I might challenge, and several come down to "somebody wrote an article, the WH disagreed," which isn't worth much these days. Some of them the WH wouldn't even be in a position to deny, like "Spies Keep Intelligence from Donald Trump on Leak Concerns." If a story comes down to the media claiming something about the administration and the administration denying it, we can hardly call that "fake news" without some proof the administration is actually right. You can even see at the bottom of their list they were originally calling it fake news when CBS reported that Trump's pick for Navy secretary was on the verge of withdrawing, just because the WH denied the report. A week later, the guy withdrew. There's also several items on this list that are probably showing the Washington Examiner's biases much more than they are actual fake news (e.g. citing a single Washington Times article to support the claim that ~2 million illegal immigrants voted in this election, and labeling all reports that this didn't happen fake).
But yeah, there's a lot of stuff on here that isn't up to journalistic standards. In most cases it looks like just a mistake on the part of the news outlet – CNN probably didn't set out to misinterpret Nancy Sinatra, for instance, they probably just misinterpreted a tweet. Obviously just calling her and asking for comment before publishing would have been a good idea, but it seems unlikely that this was a sinister plan on CNN's part, just not doing their homework on a fluff story. I could speculate on each one and why it happened, but at the end of the day you probably wouldn't take my speculation as worth much anyway. I could also point out that mistakes happen even in times of high journalistic integrity, and ask what baseline we should expect for how often improperly sourced stories should come out, but again I don't think that would much reduce your frustration with the reporters whose incompetence or laziness or partisanship let these stories out the door.
Here's where I'd push back, though. The practice you're criticizing (news outlets using anonymous sources within the administration to publish critical stories) has been essential for us to learn about some of the uglier things happening in this administration, and has already helped keep the administration honest on several of them. The media is why Flynn got fired; the media is why Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel; the media is how we know Trump was freely sharing intelligence that we promised Israel we wouldn't share. Because if we made a similar list of all the times Trump and his team had blatantly lied about something, I bet it'd be at least as long. And in he face of so mendacious an administration, we need to have somebody checking up on them to make sure we're not getting the wool pulled over our eyes.
So you'd probably like if a new journalistic standard were promulgated, under which any information learned from anonymous sources is not used for a story – only if they will go on the record. But realistically that world means that anybody wanting to expose lies or corruption or mere incompetence in the administration would essentially have to ruin their career to do so. Which means either a) people would be too selfish to give up their career, and shady behavior would never come to light, or b) some people would be courageous enough to give up their career to leak about shady dealings, but very quickly those people would be weeded out, leaving only those that lack the conscience or courage to speak out. In other words, an ethic like that is an authoritarian's wet dream, and given Trump's track record I think we need every defense we can get right now.
Which is why I was asking specifically about fabricating sources. If there was good reason to think that practice had become common and widespread, then very quickly we couldn't trust any anonymously sourced article, but I still haven't seen a single instance in which a source appeared to have been fabricated. I wasn't drawing the distinction between that and things like lazy vetting, deceptive headlines, etc. to tell you not to call those things fake news, or to say that those things aren't really breaches of journalistic ethics. But if WaPo wrote some headlines I thought were deceptive and then claims to have an anonymous source within the administration and give some quote, I can still probably assume that there is in fact an administration source that said that quote. If the National Enquirer has an anonymous source that said some quote, I can probably assume they made that shit up.
On May 27 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [long quote] +
I find it clear that journalistic standards are being waved. I won't keep repeating myself about a desire to twist out some form of "There's a kernel of truth at a deep level, which means only deception, which means fake news is an improper term." I've found your explaining to be a bit too far on the side of someone pissing on the boots and calling it rain. Sure, a liquid fell from above, so I'm not fully lying right? Spicer met with his team prior to a press conference, but somebody could allege he was hiding. Congressmen are joking around about everybody being on Putin's payroll, it's a politically explosive assertion in private, sworn to secrecy immediately afterwards. With a base level of understanding that they'll twist words to start stories, it becomes very dubious that Comey really asked for more money and Rosenstein threatened to resign ... he could even have said the Russia media hysteria makes him want to quit and you bet some aide will leak that as a threat to resign. AHCA makes rape a pre-existing condition ...it doesn't, CNN originally publishes that it did + Show Spoiler [Other Problems] + Politico published a story saying Mnunchin's bank foreclosed on a woman over 27 cents, when it was a different bank, never foreclosed, never lost home ... things easily checked before hitting publish. + Show Spoiler [TedFrank] +
"How could anyone hear this story and not have skeptical alarm bells go off?"
This 40-long tweet story is a good example breaking open a case.
also previously + Show Spoiler [missed page?] +
I didn't really mention all the retractions and PolitiFact pinocchios (props to them trying to claw back to relevance) because I had a sneaking suspicion that people would defend them on the merits (Gorsameth denies seeing retractions, for one). As opposed to defending the rush to publish, overlooking false premises, looking up the details, bad argumentation, and false conclusions, and retracting sometimes days later.
So I say all of the above (small snippet, there's been loads ... ex Washington Examiner writeup) really to show the relevant outlets earn the fake news epithet through this pattern of behavior. I see proof that sources mislead to the true nature of the conversation, but reporters frequently take it at face value without corroboration. Leakers are mostly aligned at taking down Trump and have great motive to stretch the truth to its limits. Then, reporters clearly misrepresent transcripts in pursuit of an agenda. Stories get published with little attention to establishing the facts of the case. I gave a hypothetical along the lines of the pre-existing conditions story ... woman doesn't know why she was denied, it's reported she was denied based on domestic abuse ... woman denied for a company's policy on HIV-meds, reported it's because of her rape. It was published, everyone was outraged, none of its basic assertions were true and nobody reads the retractions/corrections/[u]changed headlines and weasel-words corrections (humorous)
I'm only in here slightly interested in how much common sense is taking a vacation in Trump-Russia-Evil central 2017. I wanted to lay out enough of a pattern to see if one or two people could look at the falsehoods, deception, twisting, poor sourcing and admit it gives a reasonable person doubts that they can trust anonymously sourced articles in future. Also, essentially to conclude that journalistic ethics among widely read news sources are at a critically low period. Sometimes, you read things without preconceptions, so I wager there's some value in offering these up in a single post (especially if you've missed some pages haha. They're valuable to read to see goalpost shifting and consider why we have to grasp at straws to find underlying truth if its neck-deep in lies by omission or blatant mischaracterization). Because you'd be right to assume "normal journalistic standards" would prevent nearly all these untruthful stories in the past, and that surely is not the case now. But hey, maybe you won't take other people's words for it and will examine my case a bit more openly than in the past.
On May 27 2017 13:45 ChristianS wrote:
Fast thread moves fast.
Okay so you've apparently mentioned before in the thread how you personally define 'fake news,' and I'm guessing at what 'fake news' means, so your interpretation is that I'm either naive or drinking my own kool-aid. Have you considered that I maybe missed the pages where you clarified that? Because I honestly have no clue what 'fake news' means when you use it. You've used words like "lied" to suggest that you think the stories are literal fabrications, but pressed for examples, you have to cite a) not particularly reputable individuals like Mensch, b) hypotheticals like "if I e-mailed CNN I bet they would publish w/e I e-mailed them" or c) cases where the facts of the story are true, but you think the headline or conclusions are deceptive. Like, Saudi Arabia did, in fact, donate a bunch of money to a charity Ivanka is credited with creating, and Trump did not appear to have a problem with that. But you think calling it the "Ivanka fund" is deceptive because the fund is not managed and run by Ivanka, it was merely a brainchild of hers (if I understand correctly). But the stories you're calling fake are, at worst, insufficiently clear in describing Ivanka's relationship to the fund. The facts are true, you just think the presentation of those facts is deceptive.
My question wasn't about any of that. It was about whether there's any evidence of them actually fabricating stories whole-cloth. Not writing deceptive headlines, not burying ledes, but actually making up sources and publishing pure fiction as fact. You can argue that those other practices are sufficient for us to question their journalistic integrity, and that's fine, it's just not what I was asking. Because you allege that any random person like yourself could e-mail pure fiction to CNN and they'd publish it, but normal journalistic standards are designed to prevent scenarios like that. They're supposed to confirm the source's identity to be certain they're in a position to know about the material, and they're supposed to verify every story with at least two independent sources before publishing; it's possible that they're cheating on those rules, but evidence that they're cheating on those rules is exactly what I asked about and so far I haven't seen any. Maybe I missed that page of the thread too?
Show nested quote +
On May 27 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:
In the sense that Mensch might've had a source for her claim that Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered. Or I could email CNN and claim Duterte offered bribes to Trump, and they could write Explosive Revelations Emerge Phillipine Influence and have a source. Because they do have a source. When your source credibility is in such deep trouble, you up the need for corroboration or you turn into classier Alex Jones with cooler looking TV programs, websites, and reach. I've been over before in this forum about how I use the term, and the "seems to imply" is either naïveté or swallowing too much of your own propaganda.
On May 26 2017 21:48 ChristianS wrote:
I asked this the other day, but have there been any instances of major publications outright fabricating a story (i.e. making up sources entirely)? I understand them reporting a story you don't think is newsworthy, or drawing conclusions from a set of facts that you don't think are warranted, and I'm sure there's been a couple times somebody didn't vet their sources right and had to issue some retractions, but are there any cases of outright making up stories?
This seems to me the critical ambiguity of "fake news." The term seems to imply that the news is made up, but most of the time I hear conservatives using it about stories that appear to be factually correct, and I assume the term is justified by saying the story isn't fake on its own, but it's not real news ("BREAKING: the sky is blue" would be true, but not news, so it's fake news). But then a lot of the mileage is from riding that ambiguity, so people hearing it think "oh that story is just made up" and conservatives don't exactly try very hard to clarify that.
On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:
The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose.
On May 26 2017 17:17 Slaughter wrote:
I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign.
On May 26 2017 15:57 Danglars wrote:
Better some clowns to cause a little havoc than a slick crew that oppose my interests! And hell, you said it buddy, sticking it to the Democrat members with his supreme court pick (RIP Garland). I can't think of a better successor to that suave Obama. Everybody's going so crazy and it's absolutely marvelous. He's doing such ludicrous stuff, but not to be outdone, the media sprinkles in three ridiculous accusations for every one solid. I'm trending below 50% agreement with what Trump does, for sure. But the Dems didn't run a Lieberman type, they gave me an unsatisfactory second choice. I'm having some trouble thinking up a likely Dem candidate I'd actually consider better than Trump for my political views. Political churning, at this point, is vastly preferable to a determined push leftward.
On May 26 2017 15:34 Slaughter wrote:
At least with Hillary she would have you know actually appointed people to work in the government and made a cabinet with competent people. Not to mention sticking it to the GOP members of congress with her supreme court pick and the ability to veto whatever stupid dumpster fire of ideas the GOP congress shits out. Seriously I don't have as big of problem with conservatism as I do with the utter clowns conservatives choose to represent them in congress. But maybe I should thank them because between them and Trump conservatism will probably lose a looot of respect the next few years since Democrats can't do anything to them that they aren't already doing to themselves.
At least with Hillary she would have you know actually appointed people to work in the government and made a cabinet with competent people. Not to mention sticking it to the GOP members of congress with her supreme court pick and the ability to veto whatever stupid dumpster fire of ideas the GOP congress shits out. Seriously I don't have as big of problem with conservatism as I do with the utter clowns conservatives choose to represent them in congress. But maybe I should thank them because between them and Trump conservatism will probably lose a looot of respect the next few years since Democrats can't do anything to them that they aren't already doing to themselves.
Better some clowns to cause a little havoc than a slick crew that oppose my interests! And hell, you said it buddy, sticking it to the Democrat members with his supreme court pick (RIP Garland). I can't think of a better successor to that suave Obama. Everybody's going so crazy and it's absolutely marvelous. He's doing such ludicrous stuff, but not to be outdone, the media sprinkles in three ridiculous accusations for every one solid. I'm trending below 50% agreement with what Trump does, for sure. But the Dems didn't run a Lieberman type, they gave me an unsatisfactory second choice. I'm having some trouble thinking up a likely Dem candidate I'd actually consider better than Trump for my political views. Political churning, at this point, is vastly preferable to a determined push leftward.
I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign.
The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose.
I asked this the other day, but have there been any instances of major publications outright fabricating a story (i.e. making up sources entirely)? I understand them reporting a story you don't think is newsworthy, or drawing conclusions from a set of facts that you don't think are warranted, and I'm sure there's been a couple times somebody didn't vet their sources right and had to issue some retractions, but are there any cases of outright making up stories?
This seems to me the critical ambiguity of "fake news." The term seems to imply that the news is made up, but most of the time I hear conservatives using it about stories that appear to be factually correct, and I assume the term is justified by saying the story isn't fake on its own, but it's not real news ("BREAKING: the sky is blue" would be true, but not news, so it's fake news). But then a lot of the mileage is from riding that ambiguity, so people hearing it think "oh that story is just made up" and conservatives don't exactly try very hard to clarify that.
In the sense that Mensch might've had a source for her claim that Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered. Or I could email CNN and claim Duterte offered bribes to Trump, and they could write Explosive Revelations Emerge Phillipine Influence and have a source. Because they do have a source. When your source credibility is in such deep trouble, you up the need for corroboration or you turn into classier Alex Jones with cooler looking TV programs, websites, and reach. I've been over before in this forum about how I use the term, and the "seems to imply" is either naïveté or swallowing too much of your own propaganda.
Fast thread moves fast.
Okay so you've apparently mentioned before in the thread how you personally define 'fake news,' and I'm guessing at what 'fake news' means, so your interpretation is that I'm either naive or drinking my own kool-aid. Have you considered that I maybe missed the pages where you clarified that? Because I honestly have no clue what 'fake news' means when you use it. You've used words like "lied" to suggest that you think the stories are literal fabrications, but pressed for examples, you have to cite a) not particularly reputable individuals like Mensch, b) hypotheticals like "if I e-mailed CNN I bet they would publish w/e I e-mailed them" or c) cases where the facts of the story are true, but you think the headline or conclusions are deceptive. Like, Saudi Arabia did, in fact, donate a bunch of money to a charity Ivanka is credited with creating, and Trump did not appear to have a problem with that. But you think calling it the "Ivanka fund" is deceptive because the fund is not managed and run by Ivanka, it was merely a brainchild of hers (if I understand correctly). But the stories you're calling fake are, at worst, insufficiently clear in describing Ivanka's relationship to the fund. The facts are true, you just think the presentation of those facts is deceptive.
My question wasn't about any of that. It was about whether there's any evidence of them actually fabricating stories whole-cloth. Not writing deceptive headlines, not burying ledes, but actually making up sources and publishing pure fiction as fact. You can argue that those other practices are sufficient for us to question their journalistic integrity, and that's fine, it's just not what I was asking. Because you allege that any random person like yourself could e-mail pure fiction to CNN and they'd publish it, but normal journalistic standards are designed to prevent scenarios like that. They're supposed to confirm the source's identity to be certain they're in a position to know about the material, and they're supposed to verify every story with at least two independent sources before publishing; it's possible that they're cheating on those rules, but evidence that they're cheating on those rules is exactly what I asked about and so far I haven't seen any. Maybe I missed that page of the thread too?
I find it clear that journalistic standards are being waved. I won't keep repeating myself about a desire to twist out some form of "There's a kernel of truth at a deep level, which means only deception, which means fake news is an improper term." I've found your explaining to be a bit too far on the side of someone pissing on the boots and calling it rain. Sure, a liquid fell from above, so I'm not fully lying right? Spicer met with his team prior to a press conference, but somebody could allege he was hiding. Congressmen are joking around about everybody being on Putin's payroll, it's a politically explosive assertion in private, sworn to secrecy immediately afterwards. With a base level of understanding that they'll twist words to start stories, it becomes very dubious that Comey really asked for more money and Rosenstein threatened to resign ... he could even have said the Russia media hysteria makes him want to quit and you bet some aide will leak that as a threat to resign. AHCA makes rape a pre-existing condition ...it doesn't, CNN originally publishes that it did + Show Spoiler [Other Problems] +
So far, the only examples offered as evidence that such discrimination is common have fallen far short. In CNN's story, a woman's insurance application was rejected for unspecified reasons that she believes were related to her history of domestic abuse, though the insurance company didn't actually provide any reason. She was able to get health coverage from another insurer not long after.
In the story getting much more attention, a woman who had been sexually assaulted was prescribed anti-HIV medication as a precaution. When she tried to apply for new insurance coverage not long after, her application was denied because of a company policy against insuring anyone who had been on the HIV medication recently. The insurers did not initially deny her claim because she was a rape victim—they weren't even aware of that information at first, though she says she did later inform them. If anything, the company is guilty of not treating this woman differently based on her history of sexual assault.
In the story getting much more attention, a woman who had been sexually assaulted was prescribed anti-HIV medication as a precaution. When she tried to apply for new insurance coverage not long after, her application was denied because of a company policy against insuring anyone who had been on the HIV medication recently. The insurers did not initially deny her claim because she was a rape victim—they weren't even aware of that information at first, though she says she did later inform them. If anything, the company is guilty of not treating this woman differently based on her history of sexual assault.
"How could anyone hear this story and not have skeptical alarm bells go off?"
This 40-long tweet story is a good example breaking open a case.
I didn't really mention all the retractions and PolitiFact pinocchios (props to them trying to claw back to relevance) because I had a sneaking suspicion that people would defend them on the merits (Gorsameth denies seeing retractions, for one). As opposed to defending the rush to publish, overlooking false premises, looking up the details, bad argumentation, and false conclusions, and retracting sometimes days later.
So I say all of the above (small snippet, there's been loads ... ex Washington Examiner writeup) really to show the relevant outlets earn the fake news epithet through this pattern of behavior. I see proof that sources mislead to the true nature of the conversation, but reporters frequently take it at face value without corroboration. Leakers are mostly aligned at taking down Trump and have great motive to stretch the truth to its limits. Then, reporters clearly misrepresent transcripts in pursuit of an agenda. Stories get published with little attention to establishing the facts of the case. I gave a hypothetical along the lines of the pre-existing conditions story ... woman doesn't know why she was denied, it's reported she was denied based on domestic abuse ... woman denied for a company's policy on HIV-meds, reported it's because of her rape. It was published, everyone was outraged, none of its basic assertions were true and nobody reads the retractions/corrections/[u]changed headlines and weasel-words corrections (humorous)
I'm only in here slightly interested in how much common sense is taking a vacation in Trump-Russia-Evil central 2017. I wanted to lay out enough of a pattern to see if one or two people could look at the falsehoods, deception, twisting, poor sourcing and admit it gives a reasonable person doubts that they can trust anonymously sourced articles in future. Also, essentially to conclude that journalistic ethics among widely read news sources are at a critically low period. Sometimes, you read things without preconceptions, so I wager there's some value in offering these up in a single post (especially if you've missed some pages haha. They're valuable to read to see goalpost shifting and consider why we have to grasp at straws to find underlying truth if its neck-deep in lies by omission or blatant mischaracterization). Because you'd be right to assume "normal journalistic standards" would prevent nearly all these untruthful stories in the past, and that surely is not the case now. But hey, maybe you won't take other people's words for it and will examine my case a bit more openly than in the past.
I read the quoted tweet chains, as well as the big washington examiner list. I agree that most of those should never have been published, although a few of them I might challenge, and several come down to "somebody wrote an article, the WH disagreed," which isn't worth much these days. Some of them the WH wouldn't even be in a position to deny, like "Spies Keep Intelligence from Donald Trump on Leak Concerns." If a story comes down to the media claiming something about the administration and the administration denying it, we can hardly call that "fake news" without some proof the administration is actually right. You can even see at the bottom of their list they were originally calling it fake news when CBS reported that Trump's pick for Navy secretary was on the verge of withdrawing, just because the WH denied the report. A week later, the guy withdrew. There's also several items on this list that are probably showing the Washington Examiner's biases much more than they are actual fake news (e.g. citing a single Washington Times article to support the claim that ~2 million illegal immigrants voted in this election, and labeling all reports that this didn't happen fake).
But yeah, there's a lot of stuff on here that isn't up to journalistic standards. In most cases it looks like just a mistake on the part of the news outlet – CNN probably didn't set out to misinterpret Nancy Sinatra, for instance, they probably just misinterpreted a tweet. Obviously just calling her and asking for comment before publishing would have been a good idea, but it seems unlikely that this was a sinister plan on CNN's part, just not doing their homework on a fluff story. I could speculate on each one and why it happened, but at the end of the day you probably wouldn't take my speculation as worth much anyway. I could also point out that mistakes happen even in times of high journalistic integrity, and ask what baseline we should expect for how often improperly sourced stories should come out, but again I don't think that would much reduce your frustration with the reporters whose incompetence or laziness or partisanship let these stories out the door.
Here's where I'd push back, though. The practice you're criticizing (news outlets using anonymous sources within the administration to publish critical stories) has been essential for us to learn about some of the uglier things happening in this administration, and has already helped keep the administration honest on several of them. The media is why Flynn got fired; the media is why Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel; the media is how we know Trump was freely sharing intelligence that we promised Israel we wouldn't share. Because if we made a similar list of all the times Trump and his team had blatantly lied about something, I bet it'd be at least as long. And in he face of so mendacious an administration, we need to have somebody checking up on them to make sure we're not getting the wool pulled over our eyes.
So you'd probably like if a new journalistic standard were promulgated, under which any information learned from anonymous sources is not used for a story – only if they will go on the record. But realistically that world means that anybody wanting to expose lies or corruption or mere incompetence in the administration would essentially have to ruin their career to do so. Which means either a) people would be too selfish to give up their career, and shady behavior would never come to light, or b) some people would be courageous enough to give up their career to leak about shady dealings, but very quickly those people would be weeded out, leaving only those that lack the conscience or courage to speak out. In other words, an ethic like that is an authoritarian's wet dream, and given Trump's track record I think we need every defense we can get right now.
Which is why I was asking specifically about fabricating sources. If there was good reason to think that practice had become common and widespread, then very quickly we couldn't trust any anonymously sourced article, but I still haven't seen a single instance in which a source appeared to have been fabricated. I wasn't drawing the distinction between that and things like lazy vetting, deceptive headlines, etc. to tell you not to call those things fake news, or to say that those things aren't really breaches of journalistic ethics. But if WaPo wrote some headlines I thought were deceptive and then claims to have an anonymous source within the administration and give some quote, I can still probably assume that there is in fact an administration source that said that quote. If the National Enquirer has an anonymous source that said some quote, I can probably assume they made that shit up.
I'm not even alleging it's all sinister from the start. Much is, like I criticized in source conflicts of interests, but the size and scope of poor journalistic standards is absolutely troubling. I think you understand my point of view at some level, even though you differ from the conclusion. The fabrications have been used to say the complete opposite of what sources have said in the past. That lends itself to the conclusion that between the source's selective leaking and interpretations and journalists biased interpretations, it matters little if there's an official source and a quote on the subject, because it will be stretched to mean things completely different than a leak. This is what mainstream news outlets must seek to correct before anonymously sourced articles are believed again.
The good news is the more serious charges are being actively investigated. All the foolish claims that obstruction attempts will succeed (that it was attempted is no longer a foolish claim from Comey) are misplaced. If any FBI findings are concealed from Congress or the public (as appropriate), we'll have the Deep Throat patriotic leaks on the double. Nobody would stand for it. So the impact on the side of citizen distrust will be mostly allayed. I'm not going to invest the time in a mega post of what the partisan leak campaign means for America, and how it compares to what possible damage Trump could cause, until most of this current stuff plays itself out. I do really see much of this helping Trump in the long run to preserve his relationship to his base.
I can certainly agree that there's some poor journalism out there, and some sloppy reporting. sadly much of it from the right as well.
anonymous sources are still believed to a substantial degree; it's only certain people on the opposite side who refuse to believe them.
most others recognize that the sourcing isn't known, so they may be unreliable, but there's also a decent chance they are reliable. but that's an inevitable result of any system; and it depends on the quality of the vetting the journalists use, which is in fact quite good at the more reputable institutions.
there isn't a partisan leak campaign; at least not much, mostly it's a trump is truly unfit for office and it shows leak campaign.
trump's base wouldn't be troubled by anything he did; and it would be preserved in any event, unless other people were willing to be so quiet that nothing would be heard from them; but it's not in their individual interest to be that quiet.
Your post would be the opposite possibility, if all my observations and deductions are totally wrong. Obviously, I think it's you misplace your belief, and your side refuses to admit the truth. From the context of what you say, I gather you don't really believe in this inevitable state. You betray some sense of hope in improvement.
The right certainly has its bit of tribalism in it's media particularly with Trump. I have no problem with acknowledging that.
The partisan leak campaign is aimed at preventing Trump at exercising his duties of office, which pairs with his ineptitude in appointments and prudent speech. They use that cover well. A government structure that does this because he's "unfit for office" is stupid and dangerous. The people will decide through their elected representatives whether he deserves to be impeached and removed; if you serve in the executive branch and particularly IC, your job is to advance the priorities of the executive or quit. I'll except Mattis leaks, which could be consequential, and Comey dialogue. The rest just hurts America in ways Trump could only dream of doing, and erodes American's trust that a future Republican president wouldn't just be subjected to the same treatment.
