• 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!

Fox News is Using Unnamed Sources to Defend Trump

code1211 said:
Well, you at least are aware that a story with no sourcing is garbage.

I hope you retain this qualification as you read the stories that are unsourced, unsupported, non-factual, non-evidentiary hit pieces on Trump.
Click to expand...

I hope you learn the difference between "source said"....and..."high government official said." Otherwise, you'll never know or understand how journalism and anonymous source work and will always remain in the dark.
 
Stories can be attributed to "a source close to the investigation" or "an unnamed high government official", and such are far more believable that an opinion of "I don't buy it.'
 
RetiredUSN said:
Liberals and 93% of Journalists are feathers from the same bird.

Unnamed sources are part of the OP's subject.
Click to expand...

Does that included conservative journalists?

Your non sequitur was not part of the OP subject.
 
Moot said:
Does that included conservative journalists?

Your non sequitur was not part of the OP subject.
Click to expand...

Apparently talking about the right using unnamed sources is worse than the right using unnamed sources and don't forget the left uses unnamed sources the worst!

That's sort of the summary of this week in the White House.
 
rocket88 said:
Messaging is very important, and the Trump WH is doing a terrible job at it.
Click to expand...

That's one opinion. I think Trump is getting his message out. I don't think the team as a whole is on the same page with that messaging and that's where the improvements could be made.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I already told you. The narratives between the two aren't that different. Especially if we are to take this article at their word. Just because of... source
Click to expand...

Why doesn't MSNBC join the DNC? The messages aren't that different.

See it looks stupid when you turn the tables. Get a real argument.
 
code1211 said:
He's doing what a chief executive does.

Hires people who can do a job and then tells them to do their jobs.

Doesn't actually require much time. Other people are doing the work.

It's kind of like his Tweets. It takes him about a minute to send out a Tweet and the members of the media spend days and days with thousands of man hours responding to them.

All he did was make 140 key strokes and the little kittens in the press corps go wild.

It's the most efficient use of energy I've ever witnessed.

Helen's face launched 1000 ships. Once. Trump's thumbs launch daily fits of rage in our media elite.

This is better than watching WKRP.
Click to expand...

Sure never mind if the tweats are true or false, just thumb away...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Fighting fire with fire and do you object? :unsure13:

I ask because (and not saying you are doing this) often times those of the Progressive-Left are typically hypocritical about such things.

Like support for free speech...unless it is something they disagree with. Then it is some form of hate speech and must be prevented.

Or engaging in personal attacks, then objecting in self-righteous indignation when their subject responds in kind.

Or throwing around allegations as facts...based solely on anonymous "current and former" whomever's.

Just wondering. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I just have to laugh when I see how quickly so-called principled stands turn into "but mommy, he started it!" (especially when even that latter claim is often untrue).





Trump's spastic incivility is fine because liberals were mean to Trump. Fighting fire with fire, they say, forgetting the eight years of nastiness aimed at Obama (secret muslim from Kenya who wants to destroy America yadda yadda yadda).

Even if "he started it" was a valid principle, it doesn't apply. Not there, and not here - where media of all type has used anonymous sources for longer than anyone on this site has been alive. But now, the narrative is supposed to be that "the left" was evil in using them and if the right uses them now (nevermind they did in the past), that's fine because the left started it (which it didn't).
 
Moot said:
I hope you learn the difference between "source said"....and..."high government official said." Otherwise, you'll never know or understand how journalism and anonymous source work and will always remain in the dark.
Click to expand...

Both sources are full of **** when they aren't corroborated and anonymous? Wait...that isn't different is it? Welcome to yellow journalism, the only kind the left likes anymore.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Why doesn't MSNBC join the DNC? The messages aren't that different.

See it looks stupid when you turn the tables. Get a real argument.
Click to expand...

Well at least you admitted that Fox News is portraying Trump's message of alternative facts.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Both sources are full of **** when they aren't corroborated and anonymous? Wait...that isn't different is it? Welcome to yellow journalism, the only kind the left likes anymore.
Click to expand...

A source who is anonymous really isn't anonymous, just not named, and in the majority of instances there are others also not identified on air or print who corroborate.

Oh, and not what a certain network calls "some people say..."
 
OpportunityCost said:
Both sources are full of **** when they aren't corroborated and anonymous? Wait...that isn't different is it? Welcome to yellow journalism, the only kind the left likes anymore.
Click to expand...

Usually a journalist's anonymous sources are verified by an editor and a credible news article will give information about the anonymous source such as "former FBI agent" or "government official speaking on condition of anonymity" rather than just..."sources say."
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Usually a journalist's anonymous sources are verified by an editor and a credible news article will give information about the anonymous source such as "former FBI agent" or "government official speaking on condition of anonymity" rather than just..."sources say."
Click to expand...

That doesn't lend them any more measure of truth.
 
Parrish said:
A source who is anonymous really isn't anonymous, just not named, and in the majority of instances there are others also not identified on air or print who corroborate.

Oh, and not what a certain network calls "some people say..."
Click to expand...

And a certain ex-President...
 
Mac77 said:
A I keep reminding the left, any game you can think up conservatives can learn to play
Click to expand...

Cons didn't have a problem using anon sources during obama administration. Now they whine about it. Hypocrite cons.
 
Moot said:
I wouldn't trust any article that just says "source said" without any qualifying information about that source or even saying who the author is. This Fox News article is obviously a FAKE. I wonder who Trump had to threaten at FoxNews to get this garbage published? Just how gullible does Trump and his cohorts think Foxnews readers are? Nevermind...I think we already know the answer.


From another thread...

​
Click to expand...

That is like asking how stinky is a reeking pile of crap.
 
Praxas said:
Cons didn't have a problem using anon sources during obama administration. Now they whine about it. Hypocrite cons.
Click to expand...

That's your excuse but I don't buy it

The left is lying its ass off now and that is all that concerns me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom