3 ms·
>But how would you know? How much less credible can you get than anonymous staffers sourcing HuffPo, regurgitated by Techdirt? It sounds very credible to me. I
by pflats 14y ago
>But how would you know? How much less credible can you get than anonymous staffers sourcing HuffPo, regurgitated by Techdirt?
It sounds very credible to me. I don't doubt that, out of all the staffers involved, two would head to one of the bigger political websites to share their impressions about what's been a bit of a sensational case.
Would you prefer that HuffPo include a New York Timesean "according to two aides with knowledge of the briefing, who spoke under condition of anonyminity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter"? I'd be a lot more skeptical if it were highly-placed sources, but these aren't.
- tptacek 14y agoI would prefer the NYT to HuffPo, period, because the NYT has a formal policy for handling anonymous sources and a public editor/ombudsman tracking their integrity, where HuffPo is, like Gawker, incentivized to publish immediately on any pretext as long as the story is likely to generate pageviews. But having said that, you have an adversarial hearing run by the opposition party; it is hard to imagine there not being some staffer for some congressperson leaving such a hearing unprepared to ding the administration. Which is why you'd want something better than "anonymous" and "staffer" and "impression".