5 ms·

"there were unsourced media reports that said Mr. Trump wanted to put him on the Supreme Court. But now even photo ops are rare." This is where I stopped readi

"there were unsourced media reports that said Mr. Trump wanted to put him on the Supreme Court. But now even photo ops are rare." This is where I stopped reading. This article is poorly disguised political hackery. It takes very little evidence to suggest the silliest notion about your political enemies these days.

cycrutchfield 9y ago
What is not factual about that statement?
- Natsu 9y ago
  The better question is 'what's factual' as that's a random, unsourced rumor. Literally anyone can make those up and the vast majority are forgotten when they are eventually proven wrong. Yes, every so often one happens to be a real leak, but you're misinforming yourself if you treat them as credible in general. When they do that, you should treat the people with the byline on the article as having said it themselves and then evaluate what evidence (if any) they can give for that and whether they have an ulterior motive (e.g. being a partisan hack).
  - notMick 9y ago
    Well said. Media which have been selling bullshit might be making some sort term profits - however are destroying their credibility and brand.
    - cycrutchfield 9y ago
      Anonymous sources have been a thing in journalism since, like, forever.
      - Natsu 9y ago
        That's not actually a defense of the practice. To make it a defense, you would have to actually argue why a long history of yellow journalism means the public should believe anonymous rumors and to deal with arguments that even supposedly trustworthy papers have betrayed that trust, for example with the Jayson Blair scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
        cycrutchfield 9y ago
        What fraction of reporting would you say is faulty in this manner? If you think it’s a large number then you do not live in a fact-based world.
        Natsu 9y ago
        Why do you believe that facts are decided on the basis of anonymous rumors, rather than actual evidence? Trying to appeal to a bandwagon fallacy is not a great way to claim the high ground of rationality.
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    As I stated below, >If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ credibility is taken into account. >Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.
    - Natsu 9y ago
      Your premise is faulty, I don't accept any anonymous sources, including ones I agree with. In fact, I'm even more skeptical of them, not less. The fact that you have no way to verify it is what makes it worthless. You can't say "the source is reputable" because you don't know the anonymous source. Nor can you say "the journalist is credible" because they're not showing you their evidence. This is a great way to let your bias do your thinking for you and I'll have no part of that. Why do I say it's your bias? Because you have literally nothing but your subjective judgement to base your opinion on in this case. After all, if you have something else, why are you trying to judge the reliability of a random, anonymous rumor in the first place?
      - cycrutchfield 9y ago
        The journalist may be credible because of a past history of credible reporting, as well as the organization that they are a part of. Both have a reputation they aim to uphold to report the truth. Just because you are not in a position to independently verify every fact that gets reported doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. It’s ok to be skeptical, but you seem to be taking it to an extreme.
        Natsu 9y ago
        I never said it means it isn't true, I said ignore them. That means I don't use them to inform myself at all. So you've misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. I base my views on those things that can be verified, not on all the stuff that cannot be. That said, I do not suffer from Gell-Mann amnesia. I'm under no delusion that most reporters are doing anything more high-minded than trying to be the first to summarize the next big story. Nor do I normally suppose that they are experts on most subjects, particularly those like law, technology or medicine, though they have hopefully summarized an actual expert to the best of their understanding. And yes, the precious few who actually are experts of some kind (e.g. Volokh) are given due credit in the realm of their expertise and generally the sort I favor reading. I therefore tend to seek out actual, primary sources (the relevant scientific paper, actual legal scholars, the text of the actual law, etc.) and use those, rather than some reporter's rushed summary thereof, to inform myself on any matters of actual importance. So the reporters I find more credible are the ones who actually bother to link to these primary sources when they're available online. That usually means reading more from people like, say, Volokh, Popehat or the SCOTUSblog and less of CNN. Yes, I know Chris Cuomo is an attorney, but he gets special demerits for getting the law wrong (and having gotten called on it by many lawyers with more experience).
- filoleg 9y ago
  Here is an example of a factual statement that is also intellectually dishonest in a similar vein: "There were unsourced rumours from earlier that cycrutchfield assaults women. However, even arguing with them is rare nowadays for him." The only assumptions I had made is that you rarely argue with women and that you don't assault them (or people in general, which let's pretend is true for the sake of the argument), everything is factual. See why this kind of framing is dishonest?
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ credibility is taken into account. Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.
    - filoleg 9y ago
      Might have something to do with the fact that in the past few years, more than a few "journalists" from respected major publications got caught red-handed with citing sources that were later proven to be less than credible. Here is an example of that reported by Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/the-cnn-retraction-and-the-danger-of-relying-on-one-anonymous-source/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...) >Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. I tend to be suspicious of anonymous sources a lot of times even when they say what I like. That statement was just a baseless assumption about me on your part.
      - cycrutchfield 9y ago
        what percentage of journalists do you suppose make this mistake? Is your assumption that it is a widespread practice to invent sources to push some sort of agenda?

cycrutchfield 9y ago

What is not factual about that statement?

Natsu 9y ago
The better question is 'what's factual' as that's a random, unsourced rumor. Literally anyone can make those up and the vast majority are forgotten when they are eventually proven wrong. Yes, every so often one happens to be a real leak, but you're misinforming yourself if you treat them as credible in general. When they do that, you should treat the people with the byline on the article as having said it themselves and then evaluate what evidence (if any) they can give for that and whether they have an ulterior motive (e.g. being a partisan hack).
- notMick 9y ago
  Well said. Media which have been selling bullshit might be making some sort term profits - however are destroying their credibility and brand.
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    Anonymous sources have been a thing in journalism since, like, forever.
    - Natsu 9y ago
      That's not actually a defense of the practice. To make it a defense, you would have to actually argue why a long history of yellow journalism means the public should believe anonymous rumors and to deal with arguments that even supposedly trustworthy papers have betrayed that trust, for example with the Jayson Blair scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
      - cycrutchfield 9y ago
        What fraction of reporting would you say is faulty in this manner? If you think it’s a large number then you do not live in a fact-based world.
        Natsu 9y ago
        Why do you believe that facts are decided on the basis of anonymous rumors, rather than actual evidence? Trying to appeal to a bandwagon fallacy is not a great way to claim the high ground of rationality.
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  As I stated below, >If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ credibility is taken into account. >Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    Your premise is faulty, I don't accept any anonymous sources, including ones I agree with. In fact, I'm even more skeptical of them, not less. The fact that you have no way to verify it is what makes it worthless. You can't say "the source is reputable" because you don't know the anonymous source. Nor can you say "the journalist is credible" because they're not showing you their evidence. This is a great way to let your bias do your thinking for you and I'll have no part of that. Why do I say it's your bias? Because you have literally nothing but your subjective judgement to base your opinion on in this case. After all, if you have something else, why are you trying to judge the reliability of a random, anonymous rumor in the first place?
    - cycrutchfield 9y ago
      The journalist may be credible because of a past history of credible reporting, as well as the organization that they are a part of. Both have a reputation they aim to uphold to report the truth. Just because you are not in a position to independently verify every fact that gets reported doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. It’s ok to be skeptical, but you seem to be taking it to an extreme.
      - Natsu 9y ago
        I never said it means it isn't true, I said ignore them. That means I don't use them to inform myself at all. So you've misunderstood what I'm saying quite badly. I base my views on those things that can be verified, not on all the stuff that cannot be. That said, I do not suffer from Gell-Mann amnesia. I'm under no delusion that most reporters are doing anything more high-minded than trying to be the first to summarize the next big story. Nor do I normally suppose that they are experts on most subjects, particularly those like law, technology or medicine, though they have hopefully summarized an actual expert to the best of their understanding. And yes, the precious few who actually are experts of some kind (e.g. Volokh) are given due credit in the realm of their expertise and generally the sort I favor reading. I therefore tend to seek out actual, primary sources (the relevant scientific paper, actual legal scholars, the text of the actual law, etc.) and use those, rather than some reporter's rushed summary thereof, to inform myself on any matters of actual importance. So the reporters I find more credible are the ones who actually bother to link to these primary sources when they're available online. That usually means reading more from people like, say, Volokh, Popehat or the SCOTUSblog and less of CNN. Yes, I know Chris Cuomo is an attorney, but he gets special demerits for getting the law wrong (and having gotten called on it by many lawyers with more experience).
filoleg 9y ago
Here is an example of a factual statement that is also intellectually dishonest in a similar vein: "There were unsourced rumours from earlier that cycrutchfield assaults women. However, even arguing with them is rare nowadays for him." The only assumptions I had made is that you rarely argue with women and that you don't assault them (or people in general, which let's pretend is true for the sake of the argument), everything is factual. See why this kind of framing is dishonest?
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  If a journalist cites an anonymous source that is more substantial than a random rumor that somebody just made up. Usually it is corroborated and the sources’ credibility is taken into account. Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.
  - filoleg 9y ago
    Might have something to do with the fact that in the past few years, more than a few "journalists" from respected major publications got caught red-handed with citing sources that were later proven to be less than credible. Here is an example of that reported by Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/the-cnn-retraction-and-the-danger-of-relying-on-one-anonymous-source/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...) >Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. I tend to be suspicious of anonymous sources a lot of times even when they say what I like. That statement was just a baseless assumption about me on your part.
    - cycrutchfield 9y ago
      what percentage of journalists do you suppose make this mistake? Is your assumption that it is a widespread practice to invent sources to push some sort of agenda?