MSN
www.msn.com

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.

  • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
    320·
    6 months ago

    It’s a source talking to the NYT.

    Yes.

    If these were journalists with a long track record of deception

    Yes.

    the NYT is generally decent.

    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 AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. […] We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information.

    • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        28·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
          4·
          6 months ago

          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?

          • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
            16·
            6 months ago

            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.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                14·
                6 months ago

                WikiLeaks, for example, publishes all such headers. If memory serves some of the Panama papers were similarly authenticated.

                • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
                  31·
                  6 months ago

                  So you trust wikikeaks published the original headers?

                  Did you personally verify the headers?

                  Why do you trust wikileaks and the people who verified the headers, but not reporters?

                  • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                    14·
                    6 months ago

                    I don’t trust WikiLeaks, I trust the cryptography behind DKIM. I did in fact verify some of those cryptographic signatures myself. And you can too if you’d like, because the source material was published in full.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      53·
      6 months ago

      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)

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      36·
      6 months ago

      Anonymous sources aren’t totally cool, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel of journalism.

      I heard from an anonymous source that you sniff butts.