3 ms·
Instead of Guilianni, they could have just said "persons familiar with the contents of the emails."
by rhino369 6y ago
Instead of Guilianni, they could have just said "persons familiar with the contents of the emails."
- tzs 6y agoThat 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 agoLet's see Twitter's list of trusted newspapers. No way such a thing exists.
- Covzire 6y agoPapers 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.