190
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
190 points (92.0% liked)
politics
19296 readers
1514 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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?
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.
Maybe just go back to truth social bud?
You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists - gmtom - George W. Bush
Are the MAGA under your bed too? Liberals are the worst, you people are so brainwashed that you can't imagine anyone who doesn't think like you isn't to the right of you.
The alternative to you being to the right of us is that you're to the left of us, but are too stupid to see that you're being played by the Republicans. Their plan for the next 4 years is an utter dismantling of the government and rebuilding it in the Conservative image. So, which are you. Invested in the Right, or too stupid to see you're playing right into the Right's hands?
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
Clue bus for everyone who thinks this idiot is correct.
Anonymous sources are definitely the least reliable source, and if you can get someone to stake their name and reputation on a claim, you much rather do that than use an anonymous source. However, anonymous sources do have their place in journalism!
Had Edward Snowden kept his name secret, he might well have escaped his fate of being forced to live in Russia. Had Julian Assange not revealed his name, he might be back in Australia or somewhere else besides a British jail. Anonymous sources exist to allow information to be passed to reporters when that information is either confidential or sensitive, or could put the source at risk. Generally, if you want to use an anonymous source, you need to meet the following requirements:
Rather than the reputation of the source, you use the reputation of the reporting media. Granted, there's been a lot of BS peddled by the Media of late, and so it's hard, and sometimes you have to be a bit more discerning that you might have back in the day. Do you trust NYT? That's up to you. I do. Ghostalmedia does. But the useful idiot/trumper wildbus doesn't. You'll have to make up your own mind.
I'll point this out. There's no way Biden can be knocked out of the running now. In January, one of two things will happen. Either Biden will take the oath of office, or Trump will. No amount of third parties or other nonsense will change that (because we don't have RCV, 51 Lefties can lose to 49 Righties if 3 Lefties vote for Jill Stein and 48 vote Joe Biden, and that'll remain the same if 48 vote Jill Stein and 3 vote Joe Biden). Read Project 2025 and know this is the framework for Trump's first day in office if he wins, and decide: Is your single issue important enough to let Trump into office? If so, go ahead and vote for the distraction object. Just know you're doing the DUMB thing and will suffer for that choice. We warned you in 2016 and you didn't listen. It's up to you if you will listen to us in 2020.
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.