5 ms·

Unless David E. Sanger is a new Jayson Blair, I'd say the connection is confirmed, not just suspected. There are no weasel words in the article, meaning both th

Unless David E. Sanger is a new Jayson Blair, I'd say the connection is confirmed, not just suspected. There are no weasel words in the article, meaning both the journalist, his editor, and NYT are putting their reputation at stake. This is as strong as a newspaper story gets.

slurgfest 14y ago
Is it really true that "someone published in a newspaper said so, therefore we can rely on its being true"? I don't think so. Hard data, credible sources are what make a strong newspaper story - not a convenient message from someone who would be embarrassed if the story were untrue (something which is at least as hard to disprove in this case as it is to actually prove)
- Fargren 14y ago
  Reporter's sources need a right to remain anonymous if journalism is to unveil important crimes. While it is not hard evidence, an article by a respected reporter on a respected publication is, normally, to be trusted. He probably has sources, but he can't reveal the in order to protect them. He trusts them enough to bet his reputation on what they say. It's a sketchy system, but it's the best we can get if we want journalism to remain investigative (though we may already be losing that battle).
- abrahamsen 14y ago
  Depends on who "someone" is, what the "newspaper" is, and what was said with "said so". In this case "someone" is a double Pulitzer Prize winner, and what was said was something of a nature that means the editor in any reputable newspaper will demand hard evidence, i.e. he will have the names of all the sources, and confirmed with at least some of them. If the story is a fraud (possible, look up Jayson Blair), the editor would have to be in on it, and it would be a larger scandal than the story itself, which really just confirms what everybody already suspected. The story is as good as investigative journalism gets. And yes, reputation matters a lot in journalism. Jayson Blair is a life coach today.
eli 14y ago
The story is indeed confirmed, but the NYTimes write-up is definitely better. Ars does not add much and what they do add is speculation.
- tsotha 14y ago
  So... someone involved is going on the record? Someone who can do interviews on, you know, Fresh Air and say "I was involved in this project"? The fact that the NYT thinks it's true doesn't mean much, particularly since they've been punked so many times.
  - duaneb 14y ago
    With politicians involved, this kind of article (i.e. a reputable leak) is more dependable.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Reporters make up unnamed government officials all the time. While I agree the scenario they're painting isn't difficult to believe, calling it "confirmed" is going too far.
      - duaneb 14y ago
        I agree, but it's more of a confirmation than whatever might come out of a politician's mouth in public.
  - johnpowell 14y ago
    I assume if it wasn't true the administration would have held a press conference denouncing it by now.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      On the other hand, they say a story can't be considered true until it's received an official denial.

slurgfest 14y ago

Is it really true that "someone published in a newspaper said so, therefore we can rely on its being true"? I don't think so. Hard data, credible sources are what make a strong newspaper story - not a convenient message from someone who would be embarrassed if the story were untrue (something which is at least as hard to disprove in this case as it is to actually prove)

Fargren 14y ago
Reporter's sources need a right to remain anonymous if journalism is to unveil important crimes. While it is not hard evidence, an article by a respected reporter on a respected publication is, normally, to be trusted. He probably has sources, but he can't reveal the in order to protect them. He trusts them enough to bet his reputation on what they say. It's a sketchy system, but it's the best we can get if we want journalism to remain investigative (though we may already be losing that battle).
abrahamsen 14y ago
Depends on who "someone" is, what the "newspaper" is, and what was said with "said so". In this case "someone" is a double Pulitzer Prize winner, and what was said was something of a nature that means the editor in any reputable newspaper will demand hard evidence, i.e. he will have the names of all the sources, and confirmed with at least some of them. If the story is a fraud (possible, look up Jayson Blair), the editor would have to be in on it, and it would be a larger scandal than the story itself, which really just confirms what everybody already suspected. The story is as good as investigative journalism gets. And yes, reputation matters a lot in journalism. Jayson Blair is a life coach today.

eli 14y ago

The story is indeed confirmed, but the NYTimes write-up is definitely better. Ars does not add much and what they do add is speculation.

tsotha 14y ago
So... someone involved is going on the record? Someone who can do interviews on, you know, Fresh Air and say "I was involved in this project"? The fact that the NYT thinks it's true doesn't mean much, particularly since they've been punked so many times.
- duaneb 14y ago
  With politicians involved, this kind of article (i.e. a reputable leak) is more dependable.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Reporters make up unnamed government officials all the time. While I agree the scenario they're painting isn't difficult to believe, calling it "confirmed" is going too far.
    - duaneb 14y ago
      I agree, but it's more of a confirmation than whatever might come out of a politician's mouth in public.
- johnpowell 14y ago
  I assume if it wasn't true the administration would have held a press conference denouncing it by now.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    On the other hand, they say a story can't be considered true until it's received an official denial.