ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 7th September 2018, 07:28 AM   #361
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Why?
So the stupid right-wingers will shut up with their whining about "anonymous sources" to distract from the point.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:29 AM   #362
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,991
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Can we not call it an "anonymous" source, and call it an "undisclosed source"?
Why? We all know what we're talking about. A semantic slapfight isn't necessary.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:33 AM   #363
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why? We all know what we're talking about. A semantic slapfight isn't necessary.
Apparently we all DON'T know what we are talking about, which is why there are stupid right-wingers whining about the NYT relying on "anonymous sources."
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:33 AM   #364
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,486
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Can we not call it an "anonymous" source, and call it an "undisclosed source"?
I for one like it when The PDJT tries to say "anonymous".
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

Last edited by alfaniner; 7th September 2018 at 07:35 AM.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:34 AM   #365
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,570
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Can we not call it an "anonymous" source, and call it an "undisclosed source"?
We could, but there's no reason to. "Anonymous" is standard nomenclature for this sort of situation, and the editorial board's statement provides sufficient clarification for anyone who needs it made more explicit.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:35 AM   #366
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

C4. I don't see a valid argument for doing what the editorial claims to be doing and then announcing it anonymously in the paper. That has no real upside and could just make Trump worse. WTF?

I can think of a few arguments. For instance:

Imagine you're an old school conservative and you hate seeing your party chained to Trump and his ilk (coming down the road with more crazy populists).

Most establishment GOP have been to some extent playing ball and climbing on board the Trump train, for what they might call pragmatic reasons. But in the longer term, they feel a pressing need to break that association. It may be that they see shameful impeachment coming, or just that they want to push the GOP back to a less insane place (or more traditionally crazy, depending on your stance on the GOP).

I think part of that task is establishing a narrative that divorces establishment GOP folks from Trump. and "We were working against him from inside" is one way to do that.

I'm not sure how effective it will be in the long run. But I think one thing that's central to the Trump train is that it's hard for everyday GOP votters to defect. Because right now that means admitting they were catastrophically wrong/tricked AND to that the Dems are right and deserve support. Giving Trump supporters a right wing separate from Trump that they can run back to is really the only plausible out for them.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:36 AM   #367
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We could, but there's no reason to. "Anonymous" is standard nomenclature for this sort of situation, and the editorial board's statement provides sufficient clarification for anyone who needs it made more explicit.
But we're clearly seeing a lot of equivocation in public discussion of the issue. There's certainly value in depriving those opportunities.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:36 AM   #368
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 29,431
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yeah, but, an anonymous op ed isn't porn.

And if the NYT wanted to include porn, they could. Free market. They actually sell more by not including porn. I think the readership would prefer to keep booties and boobies in a separate mental box from Krugman, Friedman, and war corespondents.
I don't know, depends on the definition of porn, I'll bet there are Trump hating people having their way with themselves while reading it, even as we speak.
__________________
"Never judge a man until youíve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, youíll be a mile away and have his shoes."

Last edited by Mike!; 7th September 2018 at 07:37 AM.
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:39 AM   #369
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,078
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...34180972654592

Quote:
Trump on the NYT op-ed: "Number one, The Times should never have done that, because really what they've done, virtually, it's treason."

(Note: It is not treason.)
Video embedded in tweet.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:40 AM   #370
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,078
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Can we not call it an "anonymous" source, and call it an "undisclosed source"?
Let's call it "anomanous".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:44 AM   #371
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,672
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I know I promised to stop, but "DT a loser."
Nobody laughed at mine....

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Arse'ol DT (Donald Trump)
Iím sure it cracked the Lodestar Code!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:44 AM   #372
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,388
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
So the stupid right-wingers will shut up with their whining about "anonymous sources" to distract from the point.
Like they shut up about illegal immigrants because the politically correct way to refer to them is undocumented?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:48 AM   #373
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,388
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Anonymous accusations against Donald Trump?

At least Omarossa had the guts to come forward and face cross-examination.
When Bob Woodward's book hits the street, maybe you can get more detailed source information on how your hero has feet of clay.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:59 AM   #374
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,156
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You say that like they're all independent sources. But we don't know that. It's common to leak things through multiple channels, making it look like there's more sources than there actually are.
Are you saying that Woodward interviewed a single person?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:01 AM   #375
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
So the stupid right-wingers will shut up with their whining about "anonymous sources" to distract from the point.
And you think changing the word "anonymous" to "undisclosed" would silence those criticisms? Not sure how the semantic game would help here . . .

One thing would silence the criticism for sure: Disclose the source. If it is indeed a high level admin official (cabinet) then that would indeed be a bombshell and the contents of that op-ed have to be taken seriously. If it's not a cabinet member then it becomes a much more open question about how seriously to take it. It's entirely possible this person is not all that high-level and doesn't speak for anyone else. There may not even be a group of people actively opposing Trump as described in this op-ed.

An undisclosed source in a paper with a perceived liberal/anti-Trump bias leaves it all completely open as to how seriously the American public should take this.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:04 AM   #376
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
And you think changing the word "anonymous" to "undisclosed" would silence those criticisms? Not sure how the semantic game would help here . . .
Because it's not semantic.

The source is not anonymous.

Don't let stupid right-wingers frame the issue.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:09 AM   #377
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,774
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Because it's not semantic.

The source is not anonymous.

Don't let stupid right-wingers frame the issue.
Just because one person (or a small handful of people) at the NYT knows who the anonymous author is doesn't make it "not anonymous".
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:11 AM   #378
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Just because one person (or a small handful of people) at the NYT knows who the anonymous author is doesn't make it "not anonymous".
The NYT knows who the author is and refuses to disclose it. It's undisclosed.

That is very different from an "anonymous source"
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:14 AM   #379
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,653
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I can think of a few arguments. For instance:

Imagine you're an old school conservative and you hate seeing your party chained to Trump and his ilk (coming down the road with more crazy populists).

Most establishment GOP have been to some extent playing ball and climbing on board the Trump train, for what they might call pragmatic reasons. But in the longer term, they feel a pressing need to break that association. It may be that they see shameful impeachment coming, or just that they want to push the GOP back to a less insane place (or more traditionally crazy, depending on your stance on the GOP).

I think part of that task is establishing a narrative that divorces establishment GOP folks from Trump. and "We were working against him from inside" is one way to do that.

I'm not sure how effective it will be in the long run. But I think one thing that's central to the Trump train is that it's hard for everyday GOP votters to defect. Because right now that means admitting they were catastrophically wrong/tricked AND to that the Dems are right and deserve support. Giving Trump supporters a right wing separate from Trump that they can run back to is really the only plausible out for them.
Ok, perhaps some good but still much more downside from poking the erratic man-child in the oval office.

As to calling them "anonymous" vs "undisclosed", it would be silly. Pretty much all anonymous sources are really just undisclosed. Most people are aware of that. Reporters for the most part don't run with stories from sources that are truly anonymous, at least not without confirmation. They generally realize how unreliable that would be.

Last edited by ahhell; 7th September 2018 at 08:15 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:15 AM   #380
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,774
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
The NYT knows who the author is and refuses to disclose it. It's undisclosed.

That is very different from an "anonymous source"
No, it's not. When journalists use the phrase "anonymous source" in reporting info first hand, the journalists themselves always know who the source is (if we're talking about real journalism).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:16 AM   #381
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
As to calling them "anonymous" vs "undisclosed", it would be silly. Pretty much all anonymous sources are really just undisclosed. Most people are aware of that.
I don't think they are. I think there are many who believe that "anonymous" just means "someone is making it up." That's what Dear Leader keeps telling them.

That is clearly not the case here.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:18 AM   #382
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No, it's not. When journalists use the phrase "anonymous source" in reporting info first hand, the journalists themselves always know who the source is (if we're talking about real journalism).
But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:22 AM   #383
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,388
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."
They do know when someone is trying to, as they would perceive it, weasel out of calling something what it is.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:23 AM   #384
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Because it's not semantic.

The source is not anonymous.
If the source is not anonymous, then perhaps you can identify them?

If the name is undisclosed, the author is anonymous. It's like, the definition of the word.

But fine, use whatever synonym for anonymous you like -the point remains that the undisclosed nature of the author is at issue. It leaves the question of the veracity of the claims open.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:24 AM   #385
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."
And why do they think that?
Because it is SOP for basically all right-wing self-proclaimed news sources, following the proud tradition of Rush Limbaugh.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:24 AM   #386
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,774
All of the rightwingers here know that the NYT editor knows who it is.

This is silly. We should let it go.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:24 AM   #387
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,285
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That person isn't angry with the NYT for publishing the op-ed, they're angry with the writer for not doing the right thing.

And rightly so. They're basically using Trump to advance an ultra-conservative agenda while trying to contain his incompetence. What they should be doing is removing him from the office, either by invoking the 25th amendment or publicizing his incompetence enough that he will be impeached.
Exactly.

The author of the letter loves the racism/bigotry, the locking of children in cages, the transfer of wealth to the richest part of society, the ruining of the environment. They just don't want republicans LOOK bad while doing so. They'd rather their racism etc. be packaged better.

If they were really seeking to help, instead of trying to hide and/or control Trump's worst impulses, they'd highlight them, shout them from the rooftops, and make sure everyone knows exactly what Trump is doing. That way, voters in the future elections (those thinking of voting for Trump in 2020, or those voting Republican in the midterms, and thus enabling Trump) know exactly what they are getting.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 7th September 2018 at 08:27 AM.
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:29 AM   #388
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,570
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are you saying that Woodward interviewed a single person?
No. But the author of this piece could very well also be one of Woodward's sources, which would mean this isn't any sort of confirmation of Woodward's book.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:30 AM   #389
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. But the author of this piece could very well also be one of Woodward's sources, which would mean this isn't any sort of confirmation of Woodward's book.
or Michael Wolff's,

or Omarosa's (who also could have faked the tapes).
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 7th September 2018 at 08:32 AM.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:34 AM   #390
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,570
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
or Michael Wolffs
We already know Wolff's book has more holes than Swiss cheese. Don't you remember Wolff blowing up his own credibility by insinuating that Haley was having an affair with Trump on airforce one?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:34 AM   #391
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,144
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
And you think changing the word "anonymous" to "undisclosed" would silence those criticisms? .
Why would anyone consider that to be a valid criticism? Protecting sources is a critical aspect of a free press. The real controversy here should be the continued Republican attacks on key institutions require do maintain a free an democratic society.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
One thing would silence the criticism for sure: Disclose the source
What you are effectively calling for is the ability for the Present to act as any dictator would and silicone any/all criticism.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
An undisclosed source in a paper with a perceived liberal/anti-Trump bias
The author is clearly a Republican, but why does political leaning matter to you so much? It seems like your test for whether you trust someone or not is whether they hold the same political view as you, which a is dangerously stupid way to evaluate information.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:36 AM   #392
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."
In this case, this isn't "real journalism" as in a story written by an NYT reporter using anonymous sources. This is an op-ed -an opinion piece- written by an outside party that is being published anonymously. There was no corroboration or vetting of the veracity of the claims. The most the NYT did to corroborate it was to identify a real person in the admin who wrote it.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:39 AM   #393
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Why would anyone consider that to be a valid criticism? Protecting sources is a critical aspect of a free press. The real controversy here should be the continued Republican attacks on key institutions require do maintain a free an democratic society.

What you are effectively calling for is the ability for the Present to act as any dictator would and silicone any/all criticism.
Uh . . . no. Take a step back . . .

Quote:
The author is clearly a Republican, but why does political leaning matter to you so much? It seems like your test for whether you trust someone or not is whether they hold the same political view as you, which a is dangerously stupid way to evaluate information.
Again, no. Don't project your biases on to me. Read what I wrote and try responding to the actual words.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:40 AM   #394
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,502
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
We already know Wolff's book has more holes than Swiss cheese. Don't you remember Wolff blowing up his own credibility by insinuating that Haley was having an affair with Trump on airforce one?
Credibility compared to what? News outlets starting from Fox and going further to the Right?

Compared to most of these sources, Wolff has done a sterling job of professional reporting.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:40 AM   #395
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
In this case, this isn't "real journalism" as in a story written by an NYT reporter using anonymous sources. This is an op-ed -an opinion piece- written by an outside party that is being published anonymously. There was no corroboration or vetting of the veracity of the claims. The most the NYT did to corroborate it was to identify a real person in the admin who wrote it.
Yes.

Why should they do any more?

It's a guest editorial by an undisclosed someone in the President's administration. Published on the editorial page. What should they corroborate other than the author?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:40 AM   #396
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,144
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
But stupid right-wingers don't know what "real journalism" means.

This isn't about the discussion with real journalists, this is about stupid right-wingers who think that "anonymous source" means "made up."
See my final comment in my previous post. Republicans have adopted the stance that they only trust information that comes from Republicans which the exact same political outlook as themselves. They view any outer source as implicitly untrustworthy. This is why they despise Science, Journalism, Academia, etc so much. The only way they will accept something as a fact is if it matches their preconceived belief regardless of how flimsy the basis for that belief is.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:41 AM   #397
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,774
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. But the author of this piece could very well also be one of Woodward's sources, which would mean this isn't any sort of confirmation of Woodward's book.
It's really more of a very weird preface/introduction to it.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:43 AM   #398
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,570
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Credibility compared to what? News outlets starting from Fox and going further to the Right?
This is an irrelevant tu quoque. Credibility isn't just a relative measure. Do better.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:44 AM   #399
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Yes.

Why should they do any more?

It's a guest editorial by an undisclosed someone in the President's administration. Published on the editorial page. What should they corroborate other than the author?
I never said they should. You keep invoking "real journalism." I'm simply pointing out that this ain't it. It's an unverified opinion piece and the anonymity of the author makes verifying it impossible.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:45 AM   #400
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,144
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post

Again, no. Don't project your biases on to me. Read what I wrote and try responding to the actual words.
I did. Your actual words represent a sheep like mentality that is consistent with a disintegrating democracy. Every dictator and would be dictator ever faced with a free press protecting it's sources has made similar complaints and demands.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.