• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Leaks and anonymous sources.

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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:
 
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:

I've been paying attention a little longer than you. Two things come to mind, this Administration is a sieve and two we have almost real time access to information that used to be obtained via the radio, evening news (tv) or the daily newspaper.
 
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:

People always get upset when the anonymous source is making their guy look bad.
 
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:

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.
 
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:

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

If you are a lowly white house staffer who has got some juicy information, but doesn't necessarily want to come clean in fear of losing your job and getting thrown out on the street, your name getting flung through the mud so that you can never find another job in politics again, or at least in however many years the guy you supposedly made look bad is in office with his cronies. Why wouldn't you talk about it? This also can be done if you don't necessarily like your boss or at least your immediate boss too. Obviously, not everyone in every administration is loyal to their boss. Otherwise we would have a feudal system and not a democracy.
 
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:

Backstabbing is part of the game, it's just little snowflakes who are making a big deal about everything other people make a big deal about. That is also the result of social networks too!
 
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:

Because the right wing and Trump supporters see the leaks as hurting their idol. That is is pure and simple .
 
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:

Because these leaks and anonymous sources are part of a concerted effort to undemrine a democratically elected President and his agenda.
A agenda that was supported by 60 million voters

Also the legality of these leaks ( or lack of it ) is being ignored in favor of crazy Russian collusion conspiracy theories.

This didnt happen when Obama was elected, or George Bush or Clinton or Reagan or pick one.
 
This is not a neatly packaged issue. Leaks are a problem. That said, if it were not for leaks a foreign agent would be in charge of our National Security apparatus to this day.
 
This is not a neatly packaged issue. Leaks are a problem. That said, if it were not for leaks a foreign agent would be in charge of our National Security apparatus to this day.

The leaks of unmasked American citizens are more than just a problem, theyre illegal and Flynns alledged involment with foriegn govts doesnt justify his losing his rights as a American citizen

Also the motivation behind the leaks is purely Political
 
The latest is that Kushner and Russians wanted to set up secret channel communication system with the Kremlin:shock:
 
The leaks of unmasked American citizens are more than just a problem, theyre illegal and Flynns alledged involment with foriegn govts doesnt justify his losing his rights as a American citizen

Also the motivation behind the leaks is purely Political

Yeah, actually it kind of does. A foreign agent in charge of our national security apparatus is a lot worse than that fact being leaked to us. If you don't agree then, simply put, you don't think national security is important.
 
Yeah, actually it kind of does. A foreign agent in charge of our national security apparatus is a lot worse than that fact being leaked to us. If you don't agree then, simply put, you don't think national security is important.

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 ?
 
So, what about Kushner? A secret channel to the Kremlin?
 
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 ?

Flynn is a foreign agent. That's not up for debate. And the only reason he was fired is due to public outrage. And if it hadn't been for that, we would have had to wait for months, possibly years, for the FBI to somehow remove a foreign agent from being in charge of national security.

Again, if a foreign agent being in charge of national security doesn't bother you, then you don't care about national security. There's no nuance to this.
 
If you are a lowly white house staffer who has got some juicy information, but doesn't necessarily want to come clean in fear of losing your job and getting thrown out on the street, your name getting flung through the mud so that you can never find another job in politics again, or at least in however many years the guy you supposedly made look bad is in office with his cronies. Why wouldn't you talk about it? This also can be done if you don't necessarily like your boss or at least your immediate boss too. Obviously, not everyone in every administration is loyal to their boss. Otherwise we would have a feudal system and not a democracy.

The problem is not that they are anonymouse, it is that practically everything lately is anonymous, and too much of it being wring to flat out debunked. It is like I said like the boy who cried wolf, if you cry wolf the townsfolk hear it and come to your aid, if you cry it and one ain't there you get called a liar, keep doing it and no one will listen even a real one shows up.

By running every story as a means to de legitimize trump with no verifying, they are just de sensitizing the american public to the point any anonymous source against trump must be a lie, they are in such a rush to hurt trump they do not realize they are helping him in the long run.
 
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.

They have been the ringleaders of running unverified and often cpompletely fake news. Other outlests like msnbc have a very liberal bias but even they jumped off that bandwagon shortly after trump was elected, as did cbs reuters etc. What you are seeing is a divide between liberal media, between those who have journalistic integrity who have a bias but will not post everything unverified, and then you have those with a bias who will post every unverified source even if they know it is a lie, or the heading a bold mistatement.
 
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:

The outrage, where it's coming from depending on whom is being leaked or anonymously sourced about. When the leaks or anonymous sources are throwing dirt on Democrats, Democrats are all outraged and Republicans happy as all get out and vice versa. When the leaks or anonymous sources throw dirt on Republicans, Republicans are outraged and Democrats are jumping up and down with glee.

Leaks and anonymous sources is what makes Washington go around. I usually take all this stuff with a grain of salt until some solid proof pokes its ugly head out of the ground.
 
The problem is not that they are anonymouse, it is that practically everything lately is anonymous, and too much of it being wring to flat out debunked. It is like I said like the boy who cried wolf, if you cry wolf the townsfolk hear it and come to your aid, if you cry it and one ain't there you get called a liar, keep doing it and no one will listen even a real one shows up.

By running every story as a means to de legitimize trump with no verifying, they are just de sensitizing the american public to the point any anonymous source against trump must be a lie, they are in such a rush to hurt trump they do not realize they are helping him in the long run.

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but here on planet Earth we usually tend not to like those who want praise they don't deserve. All of these things are coming out of Trump's White House and yes, there is usually evidence, or confirmed reports later from multiple officials or people afterwards. The only person doing the "debunking" are people Trump pays or his supporters.

Honestly, I asked a conservative to give me evidence of which of these stories by the anonymous sources have been proved false and they turned around and gave me the official government story. This was coming from a conservative and the story was coming from the liar in chief who studies alternative facts! :lamo
 
I'm not sure what planet you live on, but here on planet Earth we usually tend not to like those who want praise they don't deserve. All of these things are coming out of Trump's White House and yes, there is usually evidence, or confirmed reports later from multiple officials or people afterwards. The only person doing the "debunking" are people Trump pays or his supporters.

Honestly, I asked a conservative to give me evidence of which of these stories have been proved false by the anonymous sources and they turned around and gave me the official government story. This was coming from a conservative and the story was coming from the liar in chief who studies alternative facts! :lamo

From your oat I already gather you have an immediate hate of trump, and an opinion no news can change, so you do not seek news, you seek validation of your own opinion, no matter how wrong or fake the news is.

If you want to know how to tell which ones are fake and which real, watch the trump admin response, they have been bad at hiding anything. If it is true you usually get a no comment or a poor runaround answer, when they are false the white house quickly refutes it.

If you got any specific article bring it up, however no one should be your personal fact checker, and I will not dig through each and every nothing burger article from an anonymous source, if you got one name it, I can probably find quickly if it holds ground atleast as probable or is a debunked piece forgotten rather quickly.
 
From your oat I already gather you have an immediate hate of trump, and an opinion no news can change, so you do not seek news, you seek validation of your own opinion, no matter how wrong or fake the news is.

If you want to know how to tell which ones are fake and which real, watch the trump admin response, they have been bad at hiding anything. If it is true you usually get a no comment or a poor runaround answer, when they are false the white house quickly refutes it.

If you got any specific article bring it up, however no one should be your personal fact checker, and I will not dig through each and every nothing burger article from an anonymous source, if you got one name it, I can probably find quickly if it holds ground atleast as probable or is a debunked piece forgotten rather quickly.


Posts like yours are soooo contradictory. I literally just told you that the official stories from the trump team shouldn't be trusted and you just confirmed that by saying that they usually have a poor response to leaks. Outside of Trump screaming for people to find the leakers.

Hate is a strong word. I am anti-Trump because of his attitude and leadership style and seemingly inability to let things go. I do like maybe three things he has done so far, but that's it! Why should that matter anyway? We are talking about credibility, not likability. It's something that Trump himself seems to struggle with. In my view Trump has neither, but again. That doesn't matter. I didn't like Obama either.

From your post, it seems like every bad thing about Trump shouldn't be taken at face value. Is that true?
 
Posts like yours are soooo contradictory. I literally just told you that the official stories from the trump team shouldn't be trusted and you just confirmed that by saying that they usually have a poor response to leaks. Outside of Trump screaming for people to find the leakers.

Hate is a strong word. I am anti-Trump because of his attitude and leadership style and seemingly inability to let things go. I do like maybe three things he has done so far, but that's it! Why should that matter anyway? We are talking about credibility, not likability. It's something that Trump himself seems to struggle with. In my view Trump has neither, but again. That doesn't matter. I didn't like Obama either.

From your post, it seems like every bad thing about Trump shouldn't be taken a face value. Is that true?

No you proved my point, you argued trump team can't be trusted, but a unverified anonymous source with unverifiable info must be trusted. Reality lies between both sides, but you fail to see it, you see your own views and yours only and seek anything to back up your view rather than seek the truth, I believe the definition is partisan.
 
No you proved my point, you argued trump team can't be trusted, but a unverified anonymous source with unverifiable info must be trusted. Reality lies between both sides, but you fail to see it, you see your own views and yours only and seek anything to back up your view rather than seek the truth, I believe the definition is partisan.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom