I deeply regret ever nodding along with Trump because it was intentionally provocative.

Here's the Trump tweet:

If he had instead said this:

And if it was anyone other than Donald Trump, I'd have fist pumped and been like yeah, this guy, he gets it. Obviously it goes without saying the quip is a LITTLE GLIB but see my posts earlier ITT that the real meaty criticisms of anonymous sourcing is a little too wonky for most people and this makes the point bluntly and simply in the way most news consumers can understand.

Yes well if the GOP base were capable of evaluating each individual news story critically on its merits they wouldn't be the GOP's base, they'd be the Dems'.

Chris Wray is probably going to be confirmed as the new FBI Director.

Any chance he fires Mueller and puts a stop to the investigation?

A vast majority of uses of anonymous sources are unjustifiable. Some are valid. The problem is severe because the bad uses outnumber the good ones. It's like noting there's a big problem with opiate abuse and suggesting I'm arguing we outlaw pain relief. That's not what I'm saying. The problem with anonymous source is pretty bad and I'd be happy enough if we simply just started listening to all of those public editors and ombudsmen like the one at the NYT that literally started a blog to document and catalog all of their bad uses of anonymous sources to try to get its staff and readers to pay attention to the problem and follow their own standards.

I don't think the FBI Director has that power.

it's not up to him. he might be able to quash the fbi investigation but i don't believe he can touch mueller. right now mueller is under the purview of deputy attorney general rosenstein

I doubt the US mass media right now is so bad that saving it will be pyrrhic victory. And the fight against free press is on the very top of this administration list.

I think we can both ask for better from the media, and in the process of asking for better not concede to Trump and his idiot brigades that the institution should be dismantled and censored. Part of why the media is held in low esteem and the door left open for charlatans to have their disingenuous criticisms find a voice is because of degraded practices, lower standards and high profile embarrassments (I'll obviously concede partisan emotion explains most of the negative reaction to media but some is entirely deserved).

...OF KNOWLEDGE!


Inb4 The Liberal Agenda

Huckabeast: "BUT CLINTON!"

Eric Trump Leaves Plate Of Seared Foie Gras Outside Bedroom Door Of Despondent Donald Trump Jr.

Wray won't have the authority to fire Mueller, but he can squash the FBI's own investigation.

Add one more to dvaut's list

As bobman/micro/Trolly and others have noted, it's actually a common media criticism and tons of people who cherish great journalism and document the transgressions have been sounding the alarm for some time that anonymous sourcing is way too commonplace and its an environment simply rife for abuse. Once reporters and editors start letting sources go anonymous out of convenience, rather than with genuine justifications, it's a slippery slope.

wow daughter of guitar virtuoso governor mike huckabee acting as official spokesperson for the president responded to questions about don jr with "what about hillary clinton"


also now claiming today that religious leaders normally and regularly visit the president in the oval office to lay hands on him in prayer

There's no such thing as unslanted news. It's much better if publications acknowledge their own internal biases. Pretending there is objective news is a huge problem and allows for the easier spreading of propaganda. (Although, Breitbart and what not, this may not be true if true believers take their own biased news sources as gospel).

It's very difficult because we always have to apply critical thinking and probably at some point just trust certain sources to do good work but we can never be sure of that.

I thought the whole point of the Special Council is that there would not be a FBI investigation.

I disagree by degree that the "vast majority" of anonymous source use is unjustified, at least among the big MSM, non Politico outlets.

it's insurance on the fbi investigation

I recall hearing that CNN'S news gathering operation was something like 10x larger than Fox's. MSNBC seems closet to Fox.

If their best defense is to just say "what about Hillary.." I'd say they have a big problem.

Wow. I mean, I knew James Woods had lost his ****, but I had no idea it was that bad.

hot sauce in her bag rofl you got me again ben garrison!

I literally went to CNN and clicked on like the first link at the top of the page. First one. Not even kidding:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/politi...ood/index.html

I don't think I can even quote more since it violates Fair Use or whatever. It goes on for longer. The whole article is anonymously sourced gossip. Pretense about what the President is feeling ("solace" when his friends came to pray). Innuendo about dramatic staff shakeups on the horizon. Reports of steel spined Priebus giving coach-speak pep talks to the staff. Concessions the President should shake up his staff but they can't because of Russia. Trump is derelict as President and is just watching TV. Threats about their legal culpability and naiveté of their precarious legal situation. Family drama gossip about how they're turning on each other.

I literally didn't even game this, it's literally the first thing I clicked on.

The whole article, the whole thing is literally just palace intrigue gossip. You and I have no idea which of this is empirical, what's made up, no way to tell who the sources are, what their agendas are, how much of their speculation about the feelings and tone and tenor are credible. We're not the reporting team, we obviously can't check for ourselves, but we have no way to know where the gossip is coming from and how much the purveyors are inserting their own opinions into the situation.

Literally what is the justification for this article and granting literally every single source the opportunity to dish anonymously? Can't they at least put Kellyanne Conway's name on like 75% of this and Bannon's on the other 25% or whatever? AT LEAST then you could say, well, this is maybe garbage and Bannon is trying to torch Jared and Ivanka because of his grudge, or this is Nick Ayer's quote readying the GOP for a Pence coup or whatever the ****. It wouldn't change the tenor of the article from tabloid gossip but at least it would elevate it to real journalism.

i love that selling uranium to russia is a huge deal, as if they don't already have nuclear weapons. they have more than we do!

that hamburger looks delicious