3 ms·

Not one individual quoted in the article. Not 1. Seems like legacy media is not pretending anymore and has transitioned into make-believe land after CNBCs airi

Not one individual quoted in the article. Not 1. Seems like legacy media is not pretending anymore and has transitioned into make-believe land after CNBCs airing of "unconfirmed information" about tariff pause only 1 day ago.

rsynnott 2y ago
… Hold on, are you expecting them to name their sources? On this? Really? Like, protecting sources is about as old as journalism. Without it, you’re really just a conduit for press releases.
- Clubber 2y ago
  Unfortunately bad faith actors also use "anonymous sources," to push agendas that aren't exactly an accurate representation of what's going on. The FBI and CIA are notorious for this. Example. "Anonymous sources in the CIA said..." That's a leak but not a real leak. You can tell because if it was a real leak, the government would track them down like Snowden.
  - nxobject 2y ago
    That being said, this is clearly _not_ the FBI or the CIA. The power dynamics for anyone saying anything critical of the Trump administration in the media are strongly, strongly not in their favor.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      Right but I'm saying in general stories using nothing but anonymous sources should be held with a higher level of skepticism than ones with documented sources or even corroborating anonymous sources. This doesn't seem to have either.
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  >>>>Without it, you’re really just a conduit for press releases. Thats arguably what the press has been doing for the CIA in the last decade more or less. >>> hold on, are you expecting them to name their sources? On this? Really? Yes. edward snowden went against the security state. its not far fetched to expect more transparency over a simple govt policy related to an agency that is under the microscope (DOGE) Particularly when trust in media is an all all time low Particularly because of behavior just like the one displayed by reuters
  - dandellion 2y ago
    > Edward Snowden Well, I think you already got the answer to your own question with your own example.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I mean, it didn't go great for Snowden, and that was even before government by vindictive man-baby. No-one is going to go on the record on this sort of thing under current conditions.
vharuck 2y ago
I'm sure you mean that the article doesn't name any federal worker or person with knowledge of the events which they've quoted or paraphrased. In which case, of course. This administration has shown it will vindictively punish any dissent or disloyalty. Nobody wants to give their name for that. I will not disbelieve accounts just because the sources won't attach their names to them. If the administration wants better coverage, they need to accept that their employees may not always agree with or like them. Some quotes from the article (was it really that hard to search for quotation marks yourself?): >"We have been told they are looking for anti-Trump or anti-Musk language,” a third source familiar with the EPA said. >"Be careful what you say, what you type and what you do,” a manager said, according to one of the sources. >Last year, before Trump was elected, Musk suggested AI could be used to replace government workers, according to a person with direct knowledge of his comments. “The concept was that through taking the government data that they could build the most dynamic AI system ever,” the person said, adding that AI could then “do the work.”
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  >>> I will not disbelieve accounts just because the sources won't attach their names to them Sounds like traditional media information is an article of faith for some, versus just another data point to analyze and address with skepticism in the search for truth.
  - vharuck 2y ago
    I didn't say I would automatically believe something just because the reporter says "anonymous source." The reality is the administration's PR people spout an endless steam of lies, and "leakers" who share real facts are fired. There is no surprise to how this plays out: reporters seek the truth, employees want to share the truth, employees don't want to be fired, and you get anonymous sources out the wazoo. The reason I said anonymous sources don't cause me to immediately dismiss articles is because I don't want to reward the admin for purposefully creating this shitty situation. I'll use other critical reading skills to determine the articles' value. It sucks that heavy reliance on anonymous sources isn't a huge flag anymore, but it is what it is.
stuaxo 2y ago
Would you put your job on the line and provide a quote in that situation ?
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  These are workers making $0 working for DOGE. lol
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    The number one rule in tech, if you aren't paying you are being manipulated and someone else has the power behind the seen. I'd rather the un-elected people with great control over my government WERE paid by the government. It should scare you that government manipulation/control is the product and we don't know who it is sold to.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
      The problem with that assertion is that workers are not interchangeable commodities. Background maters. Your example assumes that most unpaid people are your avg bureaucrat salarymen, looking to pay mortages, with expensive side mistresses etc. But these are not the workers we are talking about. Here are often tech millionaires that made their money actually selling things people found enticing. For them, the extra dollar is just a small marginal gain on their life. Whereas for the average salaryman you are referring, money is a matter of actually having food of the table. Not all dollars earned are the same.

rsynnott 2y ago

… Hold on, are you expecting them to name their sources? On this? Really? Like, protecting sources is about as old as journalism. Without it, you’re really just a conduit for press releases.

Clubber 2y ago
Unfortunately bad faith actors also use "anonymous sources," to push agendas that aren't exactly an accurate representation of what's going on. The FBI and CIA are notorious for this. Example. "Anonymous sources in the CIA said..." That's a leak but not a real leak. You can tell because if it was a real leak, the government would track them down like Snowden.
- nxobject 2y ago
  That being said, this is clearly _not_ the FBI or the CIA. The power dynamics for anyone saying anything critical of the Trump administration in the media are strongly, strongly not in their favor.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    Right but I'm saying in general stories using nothing but anonymous sources should be held with a higher level of skepticism than ones with documented sources or even corroborating anonymous sources. This doesn't seem to have either.
IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
>>>>Without it, you’re really just a conduit for press releases. Thats arguably what the press has been doing for the CIA in the last decade more or less. >>> hold on, are you expecting them to name their sources? On this? Really? Yes. edward snowden went against the security state. its not far fetched to expect more transparency over a simple govt policy related to an agency that is under the microscope (DOGE) Particularly when trust in media is an all all time low Particularly because of behavior just like the one displayed by reuters
- dandellion 2y ago
  > Edward Snowden Well, I think you already got the answer to your own question with your own example.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I mean, it didn't go great for Snowden, and that was even before government by vindictive man-baby. No-one is going to go on the record on this sort of thing under current conditions.

vharuck 2y ago

I'm sure you mean that the article doesn't name any federal worker or person with knowledge of the events which they've quoted or paraphrased. In which case, of course. This administration has shown it will vindictively punish any dissent or disloyalty. Nobody wants to give their name for that. I will not disbelieve accounts just because the sources won't attach their names to them. If the administration wants better coverage, they need to accept that their employees may not always agree with or like them. Some quotes from the article (was it really that hard to search for quotation marks yourself?): >"We have been told they are looking for anti-Trump or anti-Musk language,” a third source familiar with the EPA said. >"Be careful what you say, what you type and what you do,” a manager said, according to one of the sources. >Last year, before Trump was elected, Musk suggested AI could be used to replace government workers, according to a person with direct knowledge of his comments. “The concept was that through taking the government data that they could build the most dynamic AI system ever,” the person said, adding that AI could then “do the work.”

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
>>> I will not disbelieve accounts just because the sources won't attach their names to them Sounds like traditional media information is an article of faith for some, versus just another data point to analyze and address with skepticism in the search for truth.
- vharuck 2y ago
  I didn't say I would automatically believe something just because the reporter says "anonymous source." The reality is the administration's PR people spout an endless steam of lies, and "leakers" who share real facts are fired. There is no surprise to how this plays out: reporters seek the truth, employees want to share the truth, employees don't want to be fired, and you get anonymous sources out the wazoo. The reason I said anonymous sources don't cause me to immediately dismiss articles is because I don't want to reward the admin for purposefully creating this shitty situation. I'll use other critical reading skills to determine the articles' value. It sucks that heavy reliance on anonymous sources isn't a huge flag anymore, but it is what it is.

stuaxo 2y ago

Would you put your job on the line and provide a quote in that situation ?

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
These are workers making $0 working for DOGE. lol
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  The number one rule in tech, if you aren't paying you are being manipulated and someone else has the power behind the seen. I'd rather the un-elected people with great control over my government WERE paid by the government. It should scare you that government manipulation/control is the product and we don't know who it is sold to.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    The problem with that assertion is that workers are not interchangeable commodities. Background maters. Your example assumes that most unpaid people are your avg bureaucrat salarymen, looking to pay mortages, with expensive side mistresses etc. But these are not the workers we are talking about. Here are often tech millionaires that made their money actually selling things people found enticing. For them, the extra dollar is just a small marginal gain on their life. Whereas for the average salaryman you are referring, money is a matter of actually having food of the table. Not all dollars earned are the same.