5 ms·

I think the key mistake was that the NY Post didn't cite "anonymous sources." That would have made it bulletproof.

by tengbretson 6y ago

rhino369 6y ago
Instead of Guilianni, they could have just said "persons familiar with the contents of the emails."
- tzs 6y ago
  That or "anonymous sources" wouldn't have helped. That works with papers that have a long earned reputation of mostly reporting facts. They may have biases in their selection of which stories to run, or what angles to approach those stores from, but what they report as a fact is in fact a fact far far far far more often than not. (Pause for people to jump in to cite examples of such papers getting it wrong. This will be the small set of examples that is always cited). The Post is not such a paper.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    Let's see Twitter's list of trusted newspapers. No way such a thing exists.
  - Covzire 6y ago
    Papers with long-earned reputations do themselves tremendous discredit when they hire full blown political activists with no regard for the truth, as the WP, NYT etc have done for at least a decade.
benmw333 6y ago
Serious question - How does that make it legitimate? In our eyes (the viewers) or twitter's terms&cond?
- mcfly1985 6y ago
  Twitter allows all sorts of garbage claims about Trump from mainstream media sources which simply cite "anonymous sources". Most recently the NYTimes claimed to have Trumps tax returns - without evidence verifying the authenticity. Over the last few years, Russiagate relied almost entirely on "anonymous sources" - and we all know how that turned out.
  - ketzo 6y ago
    > and we all know how that turned out. With a bunch of Trump campaign and administration officials admitting in federal court to collaborating with Russian government? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials#Trump_administration_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
    - mcfly1985 6y ago
      Oh, looks like you know better than the investigators attempting to prove something illegal happened! You better go let Nancy know you have evidence to finally impeach Trump! Quick! I bet Rachel Maddow can get you on air.
      - iaw 6y ago
        The conclusion of the investigation was that it wasn't reasonable to indict a sitting President not that nothing illegal happened. In fact, the wording danced right up to the fact that something illegal did happen but the President can't be charged while in office.
        mcfly1985 6y ago
        So many left wing nut cases who can't admit Russiagate was a hoax. Get a life.
        iaw 6y ago
borvo 6y ago
These anonymous sources you mention are only anonymous to the readers. Typically a story from an anonymous source will be verified with multiple other sources, perhaps also anonymous, to make sure that the media source is not getting played. Here we have Hannity's former assistant writing a "sensational" story in a tabloid rated as the least credible news outlet in NY. Also, they apparently tried to keep their source anonymous but messed up. Really going to fall for this? Again?
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  I've long-since stopped listening to anonymous intelligence officials. Any time you get their quotes, you've got to flip a coin to decide whether it's a legitimate leak,or an attempt to direct the media narrative without putting the organization's reputation on the line. Anonymous officials ready to support any given narrative seem to be a dime a dozen anymore. Unless the leaked information is accompanied by an insurmountably huge collection of documents outlining a complex tapestry of affiliations, interests, and events such as the alphabet agencies are want to produce, I typically assume it's the latter. The NYT doesn't get a pass from me just because it used to be great, and do the work requisite to earn its sterling reputation. I honestly wish I could provide citations where they've fallen here, but most of them come from The Intercept's podcast (Intercepted, I recommend it), where Scahill's opening rants regularly take aim at publications across the spectrum's use of anonymous officials, and the questionability of the claims they cite, and it would be far too exhausting and disheartening to record them all. As petty as some of them have been, it's just background noise, anymore.

I think the key mistake was that the NY Post didn't cite "anonymous sources." That would have made it bulletproof.

rhino369 6y ago

Instead of Guilianni, they could have just said "persons familiar with the contents of the emails."

tzs 6y ago
That or "anonymous sources" wouldn't have helped. That works with papers that have a long earned reputation of mostly reporting facts. They may have biases in their selection of which stories to run, or what angles to approach those stores from, but what they report as a fact is in fact a fact far far far far more often than not. (Pause for people to jump in to cite examples of such papers getting it wrong. This will be the small set of examples that is always cited). The Post is not such a paper.
- rhino369 6y ago
  Let's see Twitter's list of trusted newspapers. No way such a thing exists.
- Covzire 6y ago
  Papers with long-earned reputations do themselves tremendous discredit when they hire full blown political activists with no regard for the truth, as the WP, NYT etc have done for at least a decade.

benmw333 6y ago

Serious question - How does that make it legitimate? In our eyes (the viewers) or twitter's terms&cond?

mcfly1985 6y ago
Twitter allows all sorts of garbage claims about Trump from mainstream media sources which simply cite "anonymous sources". Most recently the NYTimes claimed to have Trumps tax returns - without evidence verifying the authenticity. Over the last few years, Russiagate relied almost entirely on "anonymous sources" - and we all know how that turned out.
- ketzo 6y ago
  > and we all know how that turned out. With a bunch of Trump campaign and administration officials admitting in federal court to collaborating with Russian government? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials#Trump_administration_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
  - mcfly1985 6y ago
    Oh, looks like you know better than the investigators attempting to prove something illegal happened! You better go let Nancy know you have evidence to finally impeach Trump! Quick! I bet Rachel Maddow can get you on air.
    - iaw 6y ago
      The conclusion of the investigation was that it wasn't reasonable to indict a sitting President not that nothing illegal happened. In fact, the wording danced right up to the fact that something illegal did happen but the President can't be charged while in office.
      - mcfly1985 6y ago
        So many left wing nut cases who can't admit Russiagate was a hoax. Get a life.
        iaw 6y ago

borvo 6y ago

These anonymous sources you mention are only anonymous to the readers. Typically a story from an anonymous source will be verified with multiple other sources, perhaps also anonymous, to make sure that the media source is not getting played. Here we have Hannity's former assistant writing a "sensational" story in a tabloid rated as the least credible news outlet in NY. Also, they apparently tried to keep their source anonymous but messed up. Really going to fall for this? Again?

crocodiletears 6y ago
I've long-since stopped listening to anonymous intelligence officials. Any time you get their quotes, you've got to flip a coin to decide whether it's a legitimate leak,or an attempt to direct the media narrative without putting the organization's reputation on the line. Anonymous officials ready to support any given narrative seem to be a dime a dozen anymore. Unless the leaked information is accompanied by an insurmountably huge collection of documents outlining a complex tapestry of affiliations, interests, and events such as the alphabet agencies are want to produce, I typically assume it's the latter. The NYT doesn't get a pass from me just because it used to be great, and do the work requisite to earn its sterling reputation. I honestly wish I could provide citations where they've fallen here, but most of them come from The Intercept's podcast (Intercepted, I recommend it), where Scahill's opening rants regularly take aim at publications across the spectrum's use of anonymous officials, and the questionability of the claims they cite, and it would be far too exhausting and disheartening to record them all. As petty as some of them have been, it's just background noise, anymore.