Why do you have a problem with me asking for the source? Its a legitimate question to ask to determine the articles credability.
Because we both know you aren't asking for the score.
The move was obvious because it's been played by you personally and other Trump defenders/supporters en masse: deny the legitimacy of any report if the source is not identified. (EDIT: or, apparently, when it was identified).
Why do I have a problem? It is dishonest to the core. You do not do it when someone on the left is said to have done a thing. This is for obvious reasons. Despite your words, you know perfectly well that journalism cannot be a watchdog as against government without anonymous sources. You ask for the source because you guess that the source must be anonymous. After all, this is someone or someones talking about an IG report that hasn't quite been released. If they're blabbing, they get in trouble. So they'll do it anonymously. So you ask, knowing full well you intend to reject it out of hand if you learn the truth (that is assuming you didn't open the link).
And you ALSO know that once the IG report is out, you will never circle back to address your "anonymous source" rejection even if the IG report confirms what the source says. You'll never say "gee, I was wrong. The source was right." You'll just be saying whatever Trump/Fox is saying about the report. THAT is also why I have a problem.
I have a problem with fundamental dishonest. I have a problem with power for power's sake. And I have a problem with the fact that just about every last one of you Trumpists's defenses contradicts everything you said before
and you simply do not care.
Whatever comes out, throw words at it. Ignore what was said before. Ignore everything.
Deny everything, admit nothing, attack attack attack.
THAT is why I have a problem.
Want to explain how journalism could possibly work if we didn't have anonymous sources? Here's the shape of the kind of thing that would happen:
Vengeful politician does bad thing. Source reveals it to journalist. Journalist does not publish unless journalist can name source. Journalist names source. Source is fired, smeared, attacked by politician. Now other potential sources around politician are scared. They don't want to get run out of DC. They won't tell anything in the future AND they will not confirm what source said. Politician is protected.
You know this. You cannot possibly be capable of using a computer and
not understand this. Therefore, your motivation to attack the source must be based on political lean: who is the source saying something bad about and what is it. THAT is why I have a problem. And you would too if left-lean people dismissed everything negative said about a left-lean politician that was not fully authenticated.
I have a problem because it's ****ing dishonest.
Sure, people shouldn't take "a source says" as gospel truth but they sure as hell shouldn't reject it out of hand. Again, because we know that if we all rejected it out of hand, no corrupt politician goes down. And "corrupt politician" includes Democrats, whom you want to go down. Which gets back to another one of the reasons I have a problem: I haven't seen a single one of you Trump defenders who attack all "anonymous sources" who say bad things about Trump (even when backed up by many sources, or live testimony, or the WH's own memo) do the same for an "anonymous source" who says something about a Dem.
Maybe it happened, but it can't be often because I sure don't see it here on DP and I waste
far too much time here. Just....**** this.
If the media source that reports that an anonymous source said this about what the IG report will say turns out to be wrong,
feel free to ignore that media source. That's the honest and logical recourse. But you don't do that. You simply reject "anonymous sources" when they're bad for someone you think is on your team, but accept them when they're bad about someone on the other team. Or the inverse.
It's like Americans almost want to destroy their own democracy, just so long as it means they showed the "other sided" what's what. I had my doubts about adults when I was a kid, but damn, I wasn't nearly as suspicious enough. This is nationally suicidal insanity.
