So From Now On, No More Anonymous Sources Right?

[miketx]

LOL! You clones keep going from one extreme to the next, with your pretend nonsense. Anonymous sources are good. Non stop never ending perpetual anonymous sources that you swear by is bad.

Oh, so it's the number and/or amount of them now is it?

OK, define "Non stop never evending perpetual anonymous"

What number is too little, what number is too much, and what number is just right in your estimation?

Liberal shill deflection tactic noted and discarded.

 

[iceberg]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

You know, I think given all the rancor they make about anonymous sources, Republicans think that "anonymous" is synonymous with "nonexistent," which, of course, it is not.

Moreover, the leader of the Republican party is easily the greatest user of anonymous sources. How often have we heard Trump say things like "people are saying," "people have told me," and so on. Does he even, as journalists do by using languages such as, for example, "a source at 'such and such' organization," broadly identify what people (to say nothing of credible people) said the things he claims they did? Not once that I'm aware of has he so done.

Hell, even when he attests to the assertions of specific individuals and organizations, he does so only with regard to organizations and speakers whom he knows will neither confirm nor refute his attestations, thereby allowing Trump to get away with not producing anything that expressly corroborates his claim. For example, Trump has claimed the IRS has commenced an audit of his tax returns (though he's not been specific about what recent tax years' returns are under audit), yet he's not even shared the IRS letter indicating that is indeed so. The IRS isn't going to comment on the veracity of that claim because legally they cannot. His attorneys/tax accountants won't because his discussions with them are privileged. Thus there is nobody who, and no entity that, can or will contemporaneously confirm or deny the verity of Trump's claim about his recent (2013 - 2016) tax return(s) being audited by the IRS.

it has nothing to do with "non-existent" and everything to do with "stand behind your accusations".

CNN makes incredible claims that can't be verified cause - ANONYMOUS!

it seems every single time they have a TRUMP SUCKS headline or DOOM GLOOM FOR TRUMP it's "sources familiar say" or "contacts say".

who the hell are these people?

they could be people in a newsgroup making stupid statements like we all do. but hey "sources say". CNN and most major outlets have resorted to reporting on what people say as the news, not if it actually happened.

ie -

Trump is guilty of XYZ and will be impeached. sources familiar with the story say...

who - us? their editor? maybe someone who actually knows and their credibility would give the story a ton of credibility.

but continuing to hide behind "someone said..." is bullshit. own it if you think it.

 

[MarcATL]

You realize that it isn't the sources, right?

A person who believes that what the government is doing is wrong has outlets and avenues to expose those incidents of wrong-doing. Its called a 'whistleblower program'. The program protects the whistleblower, up to and including keeping their name hidden.

So, if the media were to report that an anonymous source had reported to X agency that the government is doing this or that, they can then investigate and ask officials on the merit of the exposure, the truthfulness of the exposure, and who is involved in investigating it. This is a legitimate anonymous source. However, we don't have this level of professionalism in the media any longer. The problem is not with anonymous sources, but with the people in the media.

Journalists no longer look to report the truth. Journalists no longer wish to keep a check on the power of government; unless it is when a Republican is in power.

Today's media and alleged journalists now report ONLY on matters THEY think will harm a Republican. They give a 100% pass to anyone not associated with the Republicans. They are as active and rabid about taking down the Republicans as many partisan organizations and the DNC itself. In other words, they have proven (and they don't even bother to hide it any longer) that they are in opposition to anyone who is not a Democrat or following the progressive ideology.

Can you honestly believe that people who are rabidly opposed to a President, a political party, can be trusted, to be honest about their activities? It is far too convenient to create stories in opposition to a particular person or party by using sources of information that cannot be verified. Given the hatred of the media against Trump, they simply cannot be trusted a micrometer, or even be given the benefit of doubt.

It is not the sources, it is the watchdog.

You're drunk with the far-right anti-media propaganda.

With all the pablum that you just spewed....which source(s) do you trust? Where do you get your honest news and information?

Also, wouldn't the same argument hold true? Trump was anti-Obama since he was President. Can you honestly believe that someone so rabidly opposed to a President, a political party, can be trusted, to be honest about their activities?

Case in point, whatever happened to that information that Trump said he had about Obama and Kenya that would blow our socks off?

Hmmm....!?!?!?

 

[MarcATL]

Liberal shill deflection tactic noted and discarded.

Far rightwing partisan hack non-ability to answer a simple question tactic noted and discarded.

 

[miketx]

Liberal shill deflection tactic noted and discarded.

Far rightwing partisan hack non-ability to answer a simple question tactic noted and discarded.

It wasn't a simple question and you know it. You are attempting to distract and redirect like all shills do.

And no I won't answer you because you know as well as I do that once I supply the answer you want, or any answer, you'll simply smoke and spin even more. I see it all day long here. One would think the teachers at the shill school are getting old!

Now post again how I won't answer the question and that I have nothing! LOL.

 

[Darkwind]

So now we see that you're not interested in actual answers. Outside of you screwing up the quote systems here, let Me be clear.

Donald Trump is not the media. He is not the one out there being or tasked with being a watchdog of the government.

There simply is NO honest news sources today. None. It is the responsibility of each person to filter through the BS and determine for themselves what they think is true and what they think is false. One of the ways to do that (it's called thinking critically) is to question the motivation of the reporting.

People complain often about environmental reports put out by energy companies. They claim that they cannot be true because the source is biased toward their own interests. The energy companies report is often accompanied by information from actual sources, and yet people will disbelieve it.

The same kind of evaluative comparisons can be made in other areas of life and with regard to issues this country face.

I am saying here and now, that the exact same kind of argument can and will be made against the media. There is a thread in the Clean Debate Zone about the truthfulness of Infowars. I haven't seen it yet, but I know that the claim against them is that they are partisan hacks who cannot be trusted, to tell the truth. Even if they sourced their articles, the left won't believe them; period. Why? Because Infowars has an interest in making Democrats look bad. For Me, that makes them out to be no better than a declared political organization akin to those that are covered under the 504(c)4 statutes. Known idealogues.

Today's media is in fact, no better. They have demonstrated an active hatred for Donald Trump. They have demonstrated an active hatred for the Republican party. They are, in fact, no better than any leftwing organization whose purpose is to promote Democrat party policies and ideology. Given that, they simply cannot be trusted, and in fact, there is a very good chance that anonymous sources are either made up people, or people who are ideologues the same as they are.

The media has shown us that their interests lay with the Democrats, so like the energy company, the product they produce cannot be trusted to be anything but self-serving.

I removed your quotes so that it is clear what is being said by whom.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Republicans, I keep seeing you moaning about anonymous sources, and how they're no good.

So going forward, no more anonymous source...yes?

No idiot. No more false sources or made up sources that can't be verified because they are anonymous. What kind of fucking moron are you?

 

[MarcATL]

So now we see that you're not interested in actual answers. Outside of you screwing up the quote systems here, let Me be clear.

Donald Trump is not the media. He is not the one out there being or tasked with being a watchdog of the government.

There simply is NO honest news sources today. None. It is the responsibility of each person to filter through the BS and determine for themselves what they think is true and what they think is false. One of the ways to do that (it's called thinking critically) is to question the motivation of the reporting.

People complain often about environmental reports put out by energy companies. They claim that they cannot be true because the source is biased toward their own interests. The energy companies report is often accompanied by information from actual sources, and yet people will disbelieve it.

The same kind of evaluative comparisons can be made in other areas of life and with regard to issues this country face.

I am saying here and now, that the exact same kind of argument can and will be made against the media. There is a thread in the Clean Debate Zone about the truthfulness of Infowars. I haven't seen it yet, but I know that the claim against them is that they are partisan hacks who cannot be trusted, to tell the truth. Even if they sourced their articles, the left won't believe them; period. Why? Because Infowars has an interest in making Democrats look bad. For Me, that makes them out to be no better than a declared political organization akin to those that are covered under the 504(c)4 statutes. Known idealogues.

Today's media is in fact, no better. They have demonstrated an active hatred for Donald Trump. They have demonstrated an active hatred for the Republican party. They are, in fact, no better than any leftwing organization whose purpose is to promote Democrat party policies and ideology. Given that, they simply cannot be trusted, and in fact, there is a very good chance that anonymous sources are either made up people, or people who are ideologues the same as they are.

The media has shown us that their interests lay with the Democrats, so like the energy company, the product they produce cannot be trusted to be anything but self-serving.

I removed your quotes so that it is clear what is being said by whom.

Interesting.

 

[MarcATL]

No idiot. No more false sources or made up sources that can't be verified because they are anonymous. What kind of fucking moron are you?

Describe the process of verifying an anonymous source.

 

[MarcATL]

No idiot. No more false sources or made up sources that can't be verified because they are anonymous. What kind of fucking moron are you?

Describe the process of verifying an anonymous source.

And this is how it ended, with me simply asking a radical far rightwing Republican Trumplover to describe the process of verifying an anonymous source that HE brought up.

Why am I not surprised?