Saw this today, and … well, I’m not going to be so forgiving to people suggesting to vote Third Party rather than vote for Biden. If Trump wants me to do something, and you want me to do that same something, that tells me you’re aligned with Trump.
Saw this today, and … well, I’m not going to be so forgiving to people suggesting to vote Third Party rather than vote for Biden. If Trump wants me to do something, and you want me to do that same something, that tells me you’re aligned with Trump.
Ah the great anonymous source. I’m sure it isn’t someone in the democrat campaign! They would never!
It’s a source talking to the NYT. If these were journalists with a long track record of deception, then I would raise questions, but the NYT is generally decent.
Anon sources are totally cool, but only if they’re being cited by someone that is trustworthy.
Yes.
Yes.
I had a good laugh, thanks!
Anonymous sources aren’t totally cool, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel of journalism.
They should absolutely not be used for opinion, and normally need to be backed up by third party evidence.
The reporter is the third party who confirms the evidence, either by finding corroboration with another source or who knows enough about the source to know if they could have that knowledge.
This does require reporter to be trustworthy, but that is true about anyone who provides evidence.
That is not true of anyone who provides evidence in the sense that non anonymous sources can be verified by third parties. That’s precisely why anonymous sources are considered the bottom of the barrel of journalism.
How do you trust the third parties when they say they verified something that can’t be replicated in a lab, like on the authenticity of an email?
Why doesn’t that criteria apply to journalists?
Huh, I don’t trust the authenticity of an email until I’ve seen some cryptographic proof (like DKIM, GPG, S/MIME)
That criteria totally does apply to journalists.
Where do you ever see that level of detail on emails you don’t personally receive?
WikiLeaks, for example, publishes all such headers. If memory serves some of the Panama papers were similarly authenticated.
Prove them as a completely unreliable source then. Should be easy for you.
(This person won’t and will probably only deflect or provide a single article that was corrected)
We’re you alive during the Iraq war? Jesus fuck.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
You can start on Wikipedia of all places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
I heard from an anonymous source that you sniff butts.
Kind of proving the point aren’t you. I eat ass, I don’t sniff it.
You don’t take in the bouquet of a fine wine before sipping?
Found one.