3 ms·
Forgive me if I read this as “this isn’t my team reporting it so we shouldn’t trust it.” How many reports over the last few years were based off “anonymous sou
by vuln 3y ago
Forgive me if I read this as “this isn’t my team reporting it so we shouldn’t trust it.”
How many reports over the last few years were based off “anonymous sources?” Funny how those sources were completely trusted and unchecked due to their allegiance to a certain party.
I’m sure as more information comes out it will be disregarded due to the source and the actual content or context will not be reviewed.
There’s a term for it but it slips my mind.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Forgive me if I read this as “this isn’t my team reporting it so we shouldn’t trust it.” How a biased third party views a source shouldn't color your own evaluation of its credibility. Individual politicians putting out press releases based on anonymous sources have never been credible. Both sides do it. The informed largely ignore it (unless you're advising a campaign). There is also gradation in the quality of anonymous sources. Anonymous source providing sworn testimony to a Congressional subcommittee or the DoJ? Very credible. Anonymous source providing intel to a well-regarded newspaper on deep background? Credible. Anonymous source that "presents as" something being relayed by someone on the fringe of their party? Obviously not credible. Doesn't matter if it's Winstrup or AOC. Again, nobody is saying ignore the subcommittee. Just, ignore this one dude who's putting out uncorroborated press releases.
- vuln 3y agoI appreciate your explanation. I understand better now. Thank you.
- faeriechangling 3y agoNah I think the phrasing “presents as” is pretty suspicious.