Leaks and anonymous sources.

You described yourself, beeftw.

beerftw said:

It is mostly because practically all news about the trump admin has been anonymouse sources, some get forgotten fast, others get straight up debunked. The 3 msm outlets using them are cnn, ny times and washington post, they have seemed to decided to run everything and anything without verifying it in the slightest.

Those media outlets need to read the boy who cried wolf, too much of it is fake crap trying to attack trumps presidency, but if someone with info like deepthroat comes along against trump, by that time no one would believe him as everyone anonymouse since trump has taken office has been less factual and much more high school girls bathroom gossip.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I think those outlets have no idea how fast this is approaching them, kinda of like a train in a tunnel.

radcen said:

I'm in my early 50s. I'm not necessarily new on the political scene. I've seen a bit going back 3 to 4 decades.

It seems to me that leaks and anonymous sources have been part of the media/politics dance since even before I became aware. So, why all the seeming outrage over them today and trying to pin the blame for it on one person/side or the other?

:shrug:

Click to expand...

Whatever isn't fake news is a leak.

OMG, that itself was a leak!! LEAAAAKKK!!

Fenton said:

So you dont think the FBI or Intel agencies can do their jobs without the illegal leaks of unmasked American citzens ?And as far as Flynn is concerned why dont we wait for the investigaion to conclude before assesing his guilt or innocence ?

Click to expand...

The trump admin has proven that it can't be trusted with any Intel, whether to play cover up with Flynn or give it away as with Israel .

ModerateGOP said:

Until you offer me some sort of evidence as to why anonymous sources shouldn't be trusted. I will always believe in the power of Deep Throat.

Click to expand...

Want to know the difference between Deepthroat and today's leaks? Deepthroat actually provided proof in the form of documents/memo's etc etc etc. I'm still waiting on that memo that Comey supposedly wrote....have it lying around anywhere perhaps?

RickJames3000 said:

The NYT and WaPo (and to a lesser extent CNN) have NEVER been so indispensable to American freedom as they are today.
They are doing a wonderful job and deserve the praise of every American patriot.

Those who disagree and seek to malign our free press are easily (and rightfully) dismissed.

Click to expand...

Really? Gosh, what a change since the Bush cheerleader Judith Miller was there.

Indispensable? Sure, for protecting the status quo. :lol: For achieving propaganda goals of the state.

Kal'Stang said:

Want to know the difference between Deepthroat and today's leaks? Deepthroat actually provided proof in the form of documents/memo's etc etc etc. I'm still waiting on that memo that Comey supposedly wrote....have it lying around anywhere perhaps?

Click to expand...

He is due to testify June 5. I'm sure it will come to light then but even so that is an entirely different scenario and not very comparable to today's leaks.

Deep Throat's meetings with Woodward were based on secret friendly gossip between the two men. They were friends. Woodward later published and proved the stuff Deep Throat was telling him but the White House at first dismissed the Washington Post stories outright, much like the Trump White House is doing about these things, albeit much worse than Nixon's team handled it.

We already know about Comey's memo (unless you think he is just making it up. Really?)and that isn't really technically a leak. Comey just revealed that he took notes during the meeting with Trump, like any person who is good at his job should do. If Comey is found to be lying, then that would cause different kinds of trouble for him and legitimize the President's team's comments when they said Comey is a lying nutjob, but I wouldn't count on that. Comey is much too smart and knows exactly what he is doing.

Thoreau72 said:

I think you raise a good point, but since the digital age it appears the process is more widespread and common. The media is manipulated by those behind the scenes, and has been. Now with Twitter and other social media it's a slightly different game.

If journalists must cite "anonymous sources" for their stories, to me that is a red flag that a propaganda effort is being made. If no government official will use his name, I cannot help but think that what I'm reading is propaganda. That is exactly what happened a few years ago with MH17, and it seems to have accelerated in the meantime.

The manipulation of the public perception is paramount in any propaganda effort, and leaks and 'anonymous' statements are most useful. That the media is so happy to quote anonymous sources demonstrates how well the system works.

Click to expand...

The thing with leaks and anonymous sources is that just because you or I haven't been shown any evidence doesn't necessarily mean no evidence was shown to the reporter. These sources have, over the course of history, eventually been proven correct often enough to keep warranting their use. Reporters have reputations of their own to protect, which they are only going to use what they believe to be credible sources, hence the sources themselves have reputations to protect, which means only the reliable sources get used again. It wouldn't surprise me if money exchanges hands, but I do not know that for a fact. It sounds kind of like a weird duplicitous game of honor, and in a way it is.

Now, does this mean that all sources are good and reliable? Phfft, of course not. Only the naive would think so. There most certainly is an appropriate level of skepticism warranted. But, on the flip side, does this mean that all sources are bogus? No, that's just brain dead denial. And average people like here on DP who seem to think they're deserving of all the evidence right now are in a special kind of fantasy world.

radcen said:

Now, does this mean that all sources are good and reliable? Phfft, of course not. Only the naive would think so. There most certainly is an appropriate level of skepticism warranted. But, on the flip side, does this mean that all sources are bogus? No, that's just brain dead denial. And average people like here on DP who seem to think they're deserving of all the evidence right now are in a special kind of fantasy world.

Click to expand...

There is something to be said of having a healthy skepticism of the anonymous sources used, but on the flip side of that. That means, that if the anonymous sources are wrong, then the White House is right, and I haven't come up with a story that this White House has gotten correct, and when they make up their own stuff or misspeak so much it's much harder to trust them, because they can be easily fact-checked.