5 ms·

whether he did or did not do what they are accusing him of, the fact that this is a 3rd hand article (NPR quoting a Washington Post article quoting their source

whether he did or did not do what they are accusing him of, the fact that this is a 3rd hand article (NPR quoting a Washington Post article quoting their sources) whose source is so ambiguous that it has no meaning ("current and former U.S. officials" is broad enough to include retired postmen and your local tax collector) makes me worry for the future of our democracy.

hendersoon 9y ago
The story was independently confirmed by The New York Times and Buzzfeed, each citing two anonymous sources. Moreover, the national security advisor's rather curt statement addressing the matter did not actually deny what the Post reported-- read it carefully.
- ryanx435 9y ago
  more anonymous sources, and not denying is not the same as confirming.
  - hendersoon 9y ago
    Deep Throat was an anonymous source. Anonymous sources are fine. You don't think he would deny it, if it didn't happen? C'mon.
    - ryanx435 9y ago
      no, i don't think he would deny it and i don't think he would confirm it, either. have you heard of the glomar response? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response or lying by ommision? or being deliberately ambiguous? there are many reason why he wouldn't deny it if it didn't happen. I can't read his mind, and neither can you. assuming his intentions one way or the other is a dangerous misstep. as for anonymous sources, their credibility is directly tied to the credibility of the source that reports their stories. what if they Washington Post is making stuff up to sell papers? not saying they are, but they could be.
      - URSpider94 9y ago
        If the WaPo was making this up, then the NYTimes and Reuters would not have published independent confirmations. They are more than happy to hang each other out to dry if they can't confirm a story, especially one this momentous. That's the point of having multiple independent news outlets. There are also few news sources more credible than the Washington Post.
        ryanx435 9y ago
        lets take this a step further. how did NYTimes and Reuters confirm the story? did they use the same anonymous source? did they use a different anonymous source? How would they even know if its an independent confirmation if the source is anonymous in the first place or merely 1 source giving the same information to different news outlets to create the perception that the story has been confirmed independently? this is sockpuppeting 101: it happens every day on reddit and other internet forums. what makes you think that its not possible when we're talking about russia and the united states?
        URSpider94 9y ago
        Yes, it's possible they were all punked. However, these are all very experienced news organizations with a hundred-odd Pulitzer Prizes each. I trust them to do their homework and check with independent sources. Additionally, it's very interesting to see that McMaster's denial does not refute the core point of the news pieces -- he says that Trump did not disclose sources and methods. Nobody is alleging that he did -- the allegation is that he disclosed intel that is so specific that it could only have come from one source.
        URSpider94 9y ago
        To add, the story in the NYTimes is getting a lot more specific: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-... Lots of details as to specifically what Trump shared that was troublesome, and how McMaster's denial didn't address the issue.
mcphage 9y ago
> the fact that this is a 3rd hand article (NPR quoting a Washington Post article quoting their sources) The 2nd hand source was posted to HN, but quickly flag killed. The 1st hand source is not a media figure, nor are they in interested in writing a tell-all Medium article.
mcphage 9y ago
> whether he did or did not do what they are accusing him of, the fact that this is a 3rd hand article See, now even the President has admitted it! You can't get any more first hand than that!

hendersoon 9y ago

The story was independently confirmed by The New York Times and Buzzfeed, each citing two anonymous sources. Moreover, the national security advisor's rather curt statement addressing the matter did not actually deny what the Post reported-- read it carefully.

ryanx435 9y ago
more anonymous sources, and not denying is not the same as confirming.
- hendersoon 9y ago
  Deep Throat was an anonymous source. Anonymous sources are fine. You don't think he would deny it, if it didn't happen? C'mon.
  - ryanx435 9y ago
    no, i don't think he would deny it and i don't think he would confirm it, either. have you heard of the glomar response? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response or lying by ommision? or being deliberately ambiguous? there are many reason why he wouldn't deny it if it didn't happen. I can't read his mind, and neither can you. assuming his intentions one way or the other is a dangerous misstep. as for anonymous sources, their credibility is directly tied to the credibility of the source that reports their stories. what if they Washington Post is making stuff up to sell papers? not saying they are, but they could be.
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      If the WaPo was making this up, then the NYTimes and Reuters would not have published independent confirmations. They are more than happy to hang each other out to dry if they can't confirm a story, especially one this momentous. That's the point of having multiple independent news outlets. There are also few news sources more credible than the Washington Post.
      - ryanx435 9y ago
        lets take this a step further. how did NYTimes and Reuters confirm the story? did they use the same anonymous source? did they use a different anonymous source? How would they even know if its an independent confirmation if the source is anonymous in the first place or merely 1 source giving the same information to different news outlets to create the perception that the story has been confirmed independently? this is sockpuppeting 101: it happens every day on reddit and other internet forums. what makes you think that its not possible when we're talking about russia and the united states?
        URSpider94 9y ago
        Yes, it's possible they were all punked. However, these are all very experienced news organizations with a hundred-odd Pulitzer Prizes each. I trust them to do their homework and check with independent sources. Additionally, it's very interesting to see that McMaster's denial does not refute the core point of the news pieces -- he says that Trump did not disclose sources and methods. Nobody is alleging that he did -- the allegation is that he disclosed intel that is so specific that it could only have come from one source.
        URSpider94 9y ago
        To add, the story in the NYTimes is getting a lot more specific: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-... Lots of details as to specifically what Trump shared that was troublesome, and how McMaster's denial didn't address the issue.

mcphage 9y ago

> the fact that this is a 3rd hand article (NPR quoting a Washington Post article quoting their sources) The 2nd hand source was posted to HN, but quickly flag killed. The 1st hand source is not a media figure, nor are they in interested in writing a tell-all Medium article.

mcphage 9y ago

> whether he did or did not do what they are accusing him of, the fact that this is a 3rd hand article See, now even the President has admitted it! You can't get any more first hand than that!