3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.