Obviously in the current climate people are going to be triggered by anything Donald Trump says and reflexively assuming the opposite is true, with good reason, I get it.

Assume anyone but Donald Trump was levying the criticism and remove the rightwing agitpropy Fake News magic words, and whatever faceless non-Trump avatar would say something like "Remember, when you hear the words "sources say" from the media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist." they would be dead-on, accurate, and that is very good advice.

I think Albom is the only one from this list who still has a career now, I'm surprised he recovered.

The problem is that the story that Trump tweet will be taken to be about is now very visibly sourced from his own son on twitter. Actually crediting him with addressing and possibly helping the very real issue you're raising seems a bit much.

If it does, though, I agree wholeheartedly that it's creditable.

Each of these cases are about individual journalists who have gone off the rails. You left out Brian Williams BTW who really should have been permanently kept off the air IMO.

Your post makes it sound like media companies are intentionally fabricating news as part of policy. You make it sound like the mainstream media as a whole has an agenda in this regard. Slander is still a thing, and I can assure you that media companies and journalists do not take it lightly.

Exactly. The use of anonymous sources to whistleblow is critical but the use of anonymous sources to simply pass innuendo and gossip or rank propaganda (as you say, not necessarily lies, but simply to portend authority onto what is essentially speculation and gossip and favorable interpretations of events), and the damage done by that **** on the public has been huge. "Officials say..." was like an enormous part of the total bull**** package that tried to build the public appetite for the Iraq War.

Someone? More like everyone. For example, "Everyone at the G20 is talking about John Podesta", like GTFO with that bull**** propaganda scheme to enable a foreign adversary's goal of using your idiot ass to stage a complete takeover of Western Democracy...with all due respect, you UNpresidential piece of ****.

I'd have no problem with Trump criticizing the media's overuse of anonymous sources, however that is defined (and it is almost certainly different for different people). The problem I et al have with it is that, like most everything else he says, it is coming from a place of complete dis-ingenuousness. He has NO problem with anonymous sources painting him in a good light. He has no problem making up stories from whole cloth and citing those (same?) anonymous sources as "proof." He regularly cannot back his **** up when called out on it, which is sadly all too rare, during personal interviews. I mean, we're talking about a guy who posed as his own spokesman in a radio interview ffs.

TLDR I'll hear this criticism, but not from Trump or anyone who supports him.

You read too much into what I say, but by the same token, I don't say it lightly even though I mean something different. I don't think the media writ large is guilty of the Trumpian "they just make stuff up" but it's a toxic combination of being lazy, wanting to curry favor with officials, deadlines/speed to get the story out in a world that moves rapidly, dwindling resources, etc. -- a toxic mix of factors that lead to a really pernicious use of anonymous sources which have degraded the quality of journalism. And that's the people with good intentions! As riverman points out, for instance -- take a look at what little original reporting Fox News does and their whole entire schitck is literally just anonymously sourced nonsense:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...sources-2017-5

I mean for ****'s sake, that whole story is almost certainly just made up out of whole cloth by Sean Hannity.

There's no "agenda" at play. Journalists are under pressure to find amazing stories, using anon sources or just making **** up is an easy way to get there. Like, the guy who made up a story abouit crack houses wasn't pushing any kind of sinister agenda.

Graham going in on Don Jr during this FBI director hearing.

Obviously cheering on Trump is provocative and I apologize, I knew better even when I wrote the original post which is why I tried to caveat it. But MORE people should just be like "anonymous source? You could just be making that **** up entirely, shame on you" and yelling at consumers of news to be careful of it in the blunt Trump style. Because they are very overused and journalism watchdogs have been decrying this very thing for a long time, but it gets lost on the audience. Because far too often the criticism of anonymous sources gets wrapped in technocratic journalist mumbo jumbo when the real meat of the criticism is simply that by relying on anonymous sources, journalists are doing a bad job and "are you making this up?" should be the default skepticism applied unless they have very clear justifications and they print those along with the quotes/details from the anonymous source.

This is the key to your entire post about anon sources.

They are being OVERused now but for very good reasons.

1) The level of corruption in Trump's WH is not only unprecedented, it's downright dangerous. These stories need to get out to the public for the sake of national security, and the threat is increasingly more devastating each few days.

2) Sources need protection more than ever before. Trump has shown no limit to the amount of time and energy (and taxpayer resources) he will spend using his POTUS power to extract revenge on people for truthfully exposing him and his cohorts.

We constantly make it out like 2p2 is important or something. There is a war between Trump and the media and we all know what side we're on. A democratic leader going on a media blitz right now about the failures of the main stream media right now would be awful. But, let's not act like the press is above reproach, dvaut's sympathies are in doubt, or this thread on 2p2 is some sort of important public platform.

I often blame laziness, and it may apply to individual reporters, but if news organizations defund investigation there will be ramifications.

The danger is actually in the war between Trump and the media we say, "well, Trump is against anonymous sources, therefore they're great. I'm for whatever Trump is against." That's a fallacious line of reasoning that can be very damaging for the post Trumpian future if we ever get there.

Maybe I should express it differently: that hypocrite ******* Donald Trump is sullying the good name of critics of anonymous sourcing in modern journalism, **** him and the horse he rode in on

But seriously more people should be like "anonymous sourced? You made that up, tell me why your source needed anonymity." That should be the default consumer-of-news reaction every time.

It's real awesome a president and campaign under FBI investigation get to appoint a FBI director.

Uh the context here is obviously the political coverage, and for the most part just NYT, WaPo, and CNN. There really hasn't been a single problem with anonymous sources that I can remember. Comey story checked out. Flynn story checked out. Fredo story checked out.

If anything, the closest thing to a problem actually worked in favor of the Trumpkins when NYT used "wiretapping" in a headline due to anonymous source (or misunderstanding that source) prior to Trump's Obama/wiretapp claim.

NYT and WaPo specifically didn't touch the Steele dossier and CNN merely mentioned it.

They are not under pressure to find amazing stories. They are commonly assigned to cover their beats and not to miss anything that falls under the category of their beat. Journalists who fabricate stories do so at considerable risk to their careers and possibly to their personal finances. Again, slander is a thing still.

That said, I do think that there is a trend toward increasingly slanted news. FOX has a conservative slant. MSNBC has a liberal slant. Both also have "personalities" who blur the line between celebrity and journalist. Most of the online news sites that have sprung up over the past decade or two can be labeled liberal or conservative. Its a disturbing trend, but the fact is, that we apparently like our news slanted. Increasingly, the channels and publications that play it down the middle are losing viewers and readers. Each of us should ask ourselves, if we indeed do like to view our news with a slant, and if we do, that says something about our society, and what it says probably isn't that great.

That's still better than what's already starting to happen and will just get worse; people ignoring them for much worse bull**** from twitter/facebook/youtube.

i only watched the very first part but the guy seemed like a qualified reasonable dude. who knows what's in his head or what he'll do, but he's saying the right things. ideally he would still recuse himself from any investigation of the WH or russia because of who nominated him and how the last fbi director was fired

The MSM is taking heat for things they aren't doing though. Why should we ignore all the BIG **** and tear apart small things to no end? That's what Fox and Trumpists do all day long.

Honestly, Trump coverage IS beyond reproach since he's been POTUS. Responsible outlets like CNN and MSNBC, or the NYT and WaPo do not post fake stories or lies. They just don't need to. There isn't enough time in the day to cover all the REAL damaging stories.

People ITT are just pointing out exactly how unbalanced the left and the right are these days. The divide was widened greatly lately.

And this applies to everything Trump does, not just the media. It's always blow up the small, good achievements and downplay the negative stuff. They just happen to be so corrupt that the favorable Trump events are being pushed harder and harder and are being recycled and played on loop. It's tiring.

I think there is a line to be drawn, maybe, wrt the use of anon sources, but I'd have no idea where to draw such a line and I'd question anyone who claims they do so idk what to do about it.

I do fully believe that the complete rejection of anon sourcing would have an extremely chilling effect on investigative journalism though, as others have mentioned. And of course not all anon sources are bad, Nixon is a two-term average GOP chief executive without them.

from wikipedia

Wray was New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's personal attorney during the Bridgegate scandal.[11][12] During the scandal, defense attorneys for a pair of Christie's inner circle sought access to Christie's missing cellphone.[13] Two years later, the phone turned up in Wray's possession

Also the firm he works for advises Trump’s family real estate empire.

Sure let's trust that guy.

I wouldn't get carried away about spin or slant when one particular group of outlets (on the RIGHT) is completely lying, making up conspiracies, and refusing to retract errors while the others (both middle and left) aren't.

There is a clear distinction between spin and lying, or between opinion and fact.

I keep thinking the most likely leaker of the Jr./Russian chick emails were leaked by the Russians. Is my tinfoil hat overheating?