3 ms·
Both quotes cite their sources — “former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter” — in the parts of the sentence you cut off: > The U.S. government
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
Both quotes cite their sources — “former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter” — in the parts of the sentence you cut off:
> The U.S. government concluded within the last two years that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cell-phone surveillance devices that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington, D.C., according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.
>
But unlike most other occasions when flagrant incidents of foreign spying have been discovered on American soil, the Trump administration did not rebuke the Israeli government, and there were no consequences for Israel’s behavior, one of the former officials said.
It’s not clear from the second quote alone that “unlike other occasions” is part of their sources comments or the author’s contextualizing. Luckily, they clarify later in the article:
> The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which likely would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government condemning its actions.
Whether or not you trust Politico is another thing. But don’t claim they’re not citing their sources when they very clearly are.
- creaghpatr 7y ago>according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter. It would matter if there were any substance to the claims, it might make sense. But instead, the article goes a step further as you quote here: >> The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which likely would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government condemning its actions. This take, of course, hinges on the premise being correct, which there is no substance to prove it is. This is classic oppo laundering.
- dullgiulio 7y agoIt is not so hard to imagine why the source would like to remain anonymous.
- pessimizer 7y agoIt's also extremely common to float false information through "anonymous government officials."
- creaghpatr 7y agoCorrect, which is why it is oppo laundering, as opposed to just a hit piece.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoYou're moving the goalposts. Regardless of the intent of the piece, it clearly cites its sources.
- creaghpatr 7y agoIt cites 3 former senior administration officials, which narrows it down to thousands of people who may or may not be privy to such info. It’s the same as saying, “according to 3 human beings...” . The sources won’t be burned so we’ll never know- it’s the same as making it up.