“Officials” said, “People familiar with the matter” said,
Name them or STFU.
Yeah, because as a government official or white house employee, you can TOTALLY criticize the president and go against the official narrative on the record without any risk of losing your job if not your entire career and being the target of torrents of abuse from the public 🙄
What’s your point?
I’m curious. Do you actually think anyone close enough to actually know wouldn’t be identified and fired anyway? Do you actually think they have sources?
I don’t care that their sources- if they even exist- don’t speak on the record. But until they’re named there are all of zero reasons to believe anything these “sources” say. Or that they exist.
What’s your point?
My point is that they’re anonymous to avoid repercussions.
Do you actually think anyone close enough to actually know wouldn’t be identified and fired anyway?
Of course. Do you have any idea how many people work for and around the president?
Do you actually think they have sources?
Of course. Jacobin isn’t the NY Compost or Breitbart. They don’t just make shit up out of thin air for clicks and propaganda purposes.
until they’re named there are all of zero reasons to believe anything these “sources” say. Or that they exist.
Yeah, because everyone should just shut up or risk severe retaliation for telling the truth about powerful people! That’s gonna be great for investigative journalism! 🤦
If this were the NY Post, you’d be agreeing with me.
Can’t have it both ways.
If this were the NY Post, you’d be agreeing with me
No. That’s not how it works.
Can’t have it both ways.
Both WHAT ways? Knowing that Jacobin don’t make shit up while also knowing that the Compost do? The hell I can’t. That is ALSO not how it works. Do you know how ANYTHING works? Anything at all?
If the sources are not verifiable, then they may as well not exist.
If they’re quoted in Jacobin, they’ve been verified by competent journalists who do their due diligence AND protect their confidential sources.
Not least, because we can’t verify the motive of that source.
Again, competent journalists know how to look into and verify their sources. Publishing their names would only serve to make it easier for people with power over them to abuse that power and for others to endlessly harass, threaten and possibly attack them.
What if this source is a staffer for Johnson whose only job is to coordinate meetings with the house speaker?
Then they’d know that and not trust anything that person says without it being verified by a much more reliable source. This is all very basic obvious stuff, dude…
I don’t care if sources don’t gossip behind the presidents back because, you know, they might get fired for leaking shit.
Yeah, because you clearly know nothing and care less about the truth getting out than whistle-blowers losing their anonymity so you can attack them for other perceived shortcomings 🙄
I dislike Biden as a president, immensely
So you’re arguing not from astounding ignorance and bias, just from absolute ignorance? Good to know, I guess 🤷
this article is a hit piece. Pure and simple.
Is your name Jon Snow? Because you clearly know nothing. About how ANYTHING works.
Oh look. Insults.
oh. and by the way. you might want to go look up at the entire purpose of sources to begin with.
Because without knowing the source, you can’t properly evaluate the source’s credibility.
without knowing where a source comes from,, it turns into blind trust. You’re trusting that Jacobin did the due diligence on their soruces… that the are only accepting credible sources, and that those credible sources aren’t acting out of some kind of malice. and that’s how you wind up with this shit show… because the Pubies bought that source’s lies hook line and sinker.
I don’t care what newspaper is telling me a thing. if that thing is sourced with “officials” or “People familiar with the matter” or any other form… it’s appropriate and necessary to dismiss that article’s assertion until they do reveal their sources. Just because the article is saying something I agree with, doesn’t make the article not a hit-piece. because the article plays on emotion, and says stuff I agree with… that’s why it gets more scrutiny than NY Post… which I’m perfectly content to just dismiss out of hand.
Oh look, still being wilfully ignorant and not understanding how journalism about powerful and vengeful people works.
Since there’s obviously no getting simple facts about how journalism works through your thick skull, we’re done here.
Do you actually think they have sources?
The New York Times? Yeah, probably.
“trust me bro” is not a source. “Sources familiar with the matter” is not a source. Nameless “officials” are not a source.
the NYT’s is as guilty of passing those off as sources just as much as any other media outlet. But without a specific name. a specific reference, it’s pure bullshit. if they had a source, they’d name them.
if they had a source, they’d name them.
You clearly have no idea how a free press has worked for the past several centuries, have you? Anonymous sources are used all the time.
Anonymous sources are used all the time.
Indeed they are; here’s one of the most famous examples:
In 2005, at age 91, Felt revealed to Vanity Fair magazine that during his tenure as Deputy Director of the FBI he had been the notorious anonymous source known as “Deep Throat”, who provided The Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with critical information about the Watergate scandal, which ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974. Woodward, who had long vowed not to reveal Deep Throat’s identity while the source was still alive, quickly confirmed Felt’s claim. Though Felt’s identity as Deep Throat was suspected, including by Nixon himself, it had generally remained a secret for 30 years. Felt finally acknowledged that he was Deep Throat after being persuaded by his daughter to reveal his identity before his death.
