FOX news confirms that Trump disparaged veterans ...

[Pommer]

No.

We need to have journalists that are impartial and who have enough integrity to report fact based news, instead of becoming gossip columnists who are giving "tea" based on unnamed sources.

So, you’d agree with the President that people who willingly lie should oughta be fired?

 

[Searching1God]

So, you’d agree with the President that people who willingly lie should oughta be fired?

That is not my issue.

All I am saying is that we need to have journalists who are actually doing their job the way they are supposed to do it.
Whether they self-correct or not, is not within my power.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No.

We need to have journalists that are impartial and who have enough integrity to report fact based news, instead of becoming gossip columnists who are giving "tea" based on unnamed sources.

Not naming your sources is nothing new, especially in the world of political reporting, and it doesn't reduce the credibility of an article or turn it into a "gossip column". The author of the article knows who their sources are, and generally their editors do as well. A good reporter will do their best to independently confirm information provided by a source and only report it if they can do so.

 

[Pommer]

Not naming your sources is nothing new, especially in the world of political reporting, and it doesn't reduce the credibility of an article or turn it into a "gossip column". The author of the article knows who their sources are, and generally their editors do as well. A good reporter will do their best to independently confirm information provided by a source and only report it if they can do so.

Not having a named source didn’t stop Woodward and Bernstein. Fortunately.

 

[Searching1God]

Not naming your sources is nothing new, especially in the world of political reporting, and it doesn't reduce the credibility of an article or turn it into a "gossip column". The author of the article knows who their sources are, and generally their editors do as well. A good reporter will do their best to independently confirm information provided by a source and only report it if they can do so.

Really?

So we are going to normalize the press regularly putting out claims using "unnamed" sources. In which way is that different from gossip rags?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Really?

So we are going to normalize the press regularly putting out claims using "unnamed" sources. In which way is that different from gossip rags?

What do you mean "going to normalize"? This practice has been used for decades in reputable journalism.

 

[Pommer]

Really?

So we are going to normalize the press regularly putting out claims using "unnamed" sources. In which way is that different from gossip rags?

The journalist knows the names of the sources.
This isn’t “I heard this in a bar in D.C.”.
If there is a lawsuit and the court decides that the sources be named, then the journalist names names or faces gaol for contempt until such time as they cough up the info.

That’s a pretty powerful method to ensure that “gossip” isn’t reported.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Really?

So we are going to normalize the press regularly putting out claims using "unnamed" sources. In which way is that different from gossip rags?

What's there to normalize? As I said, unnamed sources are par for the course in politics. Have been for decades. The practice didn't suddenly spring out of the ground in 2016. We would never have learned about Watergate if an unnamed source hadn't spoken to Woodward and Bernstein. We would never have learned about the existence of CIA black sites, or the extent of federal wiretapping, or any number of other bombshell revelations over the years.

The fact is that people aren't going to talk about certain things if they have to put their names on them. Whether that's because they fear prosecution, personal threats, losing their job, or simply bad poll numbers, it doesn't matter. If you require sources to be named, you will not get the news. You will simply get what those in power want you to hear.

What you have to trust is that journalists will vet their sources properly and verify information - and that editors will do the same. They aren't always going to get it right. People are human, and humans make mistakes. But the good ones will own up to it when that happens.

 

[Searching1God]

What do you mean "going to normalize"? This practice has been used for decades in reputable journalism.

But it is not the mainstay of reputable journalism.
It is the mainstay of gossip rags.

If I hear something about Biden, or Trump, or anyone for that matter, and the source is "unnamed", I take it very cautiously. I don't run with it. Why are people running away with this claim like it was confirmed when nowhere has it been confirmed? Could their bias be showing?

 

[Searching1God]

What's there to normalize? As I said, unnamed sources are par for the course in politics. Have been for decades. The practice didn't suddenly spring out of the ground in 2016. We would never have learned about Watergate if an unnamed source hadn't spoken to Woodward and Bernstein. We would never have learned about the existence of CIA black sites, or the extent of federal wiretapping, or any number of other bombshell revelations over the years.

The fact is that people aren't going to talk about certain things if they have to put their names on them. Whether that's because they fear prosecution, personal threats, losing their job, or simply bad poll numbers, it doesn't matter. If you require sources to be named, you will not get the news. You will simply get what those in power want you to hear.

What you have to trust is that journalists will vet their sources properly and verify information - and that editors will do the same. They aren't always going to get it right. People are human, and humans make mistakes. But the good ones will own up to it when that happens.

But what do ethical journalists do when given an information from a source that wishes to remain anonymous? first of all, they put their bias to the side. They investigate and get to the bottom of things and the truth comes out in the open sooner or later. And, they do not stir up the public with fake headlines saying the claim was confirmed when it was not.

Would you like someone writing a disparaging article about you, or a relative, or a loved one, claiming to have information from an anonymous source? Would like that to become standard journalistic practice? Or is it only okay when it is being done to Trump?

 

[Searching1God]

The journalist knows the names of the sources.
This isn’t “I heard this in a bar in D.C.”.
If there is a lawsuit and the court decides that the sources be named, then the journalist names names or faces gaol for contempt until such time as they cough up the info.

That’s a pretty powerful method to ensure that “gossip” isn’t reported.

So, why are gossip rags still in business and doing well? Very few celebrities have been able to successfully win lawsuits against gossip rags even though 80% of what they report is untrue.

In the examples you give, you are assuming the journalists have no bias. In this highly contested and volatile election period, how many journalists are free of bias?

 

[Searching1God]

Look, I always think, would I want this to happen to me?

I wouldn't be happy if some paper wrote a hit piece on me using unnamed sources. And everyone swallowed the information hook line and sinker.

On this very forum, people are always asking for links, for proofs of things that are claimed. But all of a sudden, we are willing to believe and spread an information on Trump coming from unmamed sources. 5 pages of Trump bashing comments based on claim made by unnamed sources. A thread title who is misleading and untrue.... I don't know what to say... I just expected better.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They investigate and get to the bottom of things and the truth comes out in the open sooner or later.

Yes, because they report it.

And, they do not stir up the public with fake headlines saying the claim was confirmed when it was not.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I talk to five people who I consider trustworthy but want to remain anonymous, and they all tell me the same story, the story is confirmed as far as I'm concerned. I've done my due diligence. Now, you may not trust me, which is why it's important for me to build that trust up over my career and do my utmost not to betray it, but just because you can't confirm something yourself does not mean that others haven't.

Would you like someone writing a disparaging article about you, or a relative, or a loved one, claiming to have information from an anonymous source?

Who would? But that's why you shouldn't do things that are worthy of disparagement.

Would like that to become standard journalistic practice? Or is it only okay when it is being done to Trump?

Would I like what to become standard journalistic practice? Using anonymous sources? It already is. Inventing gossip or reporting things that aren't true? Of course not. Not even about Trump. The trouble is that his supporters seem perfectly willing to dismiss any negative reporting about him as false without question.

I wouldn't be happy if some paper wrote a hit piece on me using unnamed sources. And everyone swallowed the information hook line and sinker.

Of course you wouldn't. Even if it was true.

On this very forum, people are always asking for links, for proofs of things that are claimed. But all of a sudden, we are willing to believe and spread an information on Trump coming from unmamed sources.

1. Again, this is not "all of a sudden". Journalists have used unnamed sources as long as journalism has existed. Would you tell the world something negative (but true) about a person in power if it meant you would be harassed nonstop by his friends, associates, and followers? If it meant you would lose your job? If it meant you might go to jail?

2. The reason why I ask random people on the internet for sources is because I don't trust them. They could be anyone, getting their information from anyone, and they could have any agenda. I do - in general - trust the press to vet their sources and verify information. That's their job - they are a known quantity, they have oversight through their editors, they put their names on their work. They still have biases, which I am conscious of, but bias doesn't necessarily invalidate information. It simply means that you need to be conscious of the existence of other points of view. Should a journalist break the trust that I've placed in them, I will be less willing to accept claims from them that I'm unable to verify myself.

 

[Searching1God]

Yes, because they report it.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I talk to five people who I consider trustworthy but want to remain anonymous, and they all tell me the same story, the story is confirmed as far as I'm concerned. I've done my due diligence. Now, you may not trust me, which is why it's important for me to build that trust up over my career and do my utmost not to betray it, but just because you can't confirm something yourself does not mean that others haven't.


Who would? But that's why you shouldn't do things that are worthy of disparagement.


Would I like what to become standard journalistic practice? Using anonymous sources? It already is. Inventing gossip or reporting things that aren't true? Of course not. Not even about Trump. The trouble is that his supporters seem perfectly willing to dismiss any negative reporting about him as false without question.


Of course you wouldn't. Even if it was true.


1. Again, this is not "all of a sudden". Journalists have used unnamed sources as long as journalism has existed. Would you tell the world something negative (but true) about a person in power if it meant you would be harassed nonstop by his friends, associates, and followers? If it meant you would lose your job? If it meant you might go to jail?

2. The reason why I ask random people on the internet for sources is because I don't trust them. They could be anyone, getting their information from anyone, and they could have any agenda. I do - in general - trust the press to vet their sources and verify information. That's their job - they are a known quantity, they have oversight through their editors, they put their names on their work. They still have biases, which I am conscious of, but bias doesn't necessarily invalidate information. It simply means that you need to be conscious of the existence of other points of view. Should a journalist break the trust that I've placed in them, I will be less willing to accept claims from them that I'm unable to verify myself.

Okay.

The difference between you and me here is I don't trust the press. This election is bringing out the absolute worse in people, members of the press included, so no I do not trust the press. I like for the press to back up what they are saying. If they are unable to do so, they can still say it of course, but I will take what they claim cautiously, with a grain of salt, until it is fully confirmed.

 

[Bobber]

Yes, because they report it.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I talk to five people who I consider trustworthy but want to remain anonymous, and they all tell me the same story, the story is confirmed as far as I'm concerned.

Not good enough! Their names should be known so one can even know if there are five people. You have anonymous, anonymous, anonymous, anonymous and anonymous all trying to sway the next election. How do you even know it's one anonymous?????? LOL

What if there's not even ONE and the one who makes this tale up is really laughing his head off for years to come that he or she was able to sway the American people over what......NOTHING.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Not good enough! Their names should be known so one can even know if there are five people. You have anonymous, anonymous, anonymous, anonymous and anonymous all trying to sway the next election. How do you even know it's one anonymous?????? LOL

What if there's not even ONE and the one who makes this tale up is really laughing his head off for years to come that he or she was able to sway the American people over what......NOTHING.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Okay.

The difference between you and me here is I don't trust the press. This election is bringing out the absolute worse in people, members of the press included, so no I do not trust the press. I like for the press to back up what they are saying. If they are unable to do so, they can still say it of course, but I will take what they claim cautiously, with a grain of salt, until it is fully confirmed.

Why don't you trust the press - as a whole? There are certainly press outlets and journalists that are less trustworthy than others, those who have broken the trust that I mentioned in my post. But "the press" is hardly some monolithic institution. One journalist or one news organization that doesn't live up to ethical standards does not invalidate the others.

 

[Searching1God]

Why don't you trust the press - as a whole? There are certainly press outlets and journalists that are less trustworthy than others, those who have broken the trust that I mentioned in my post. But "the press" is hardly some monolithic institution. One journalist or one news organization that doesn't live up to ethical standards does not invalidate the others.

Short answer: Because they are human.

Humans have a very hard time being impartial and unbiased. We are currently living in unprecedented times, when politic has become so volatile, and people feel so intensely about one candidate pro or con. This level of intensity in politic is not conducive to clear headedness and impartiality on either side. Therefore I do not give my trust to any journalist or press outlet. I do not take as gospel anything they say at face value. I don't care if it's about Trump, Biden, Pence, Kamala, Obama, etc...I really need to have verifiable proof before I adopt a story as being true.

 

[SimplyMe]

But what do ethical journalists do when given an information from a source that wishes to remain anonymous? first of all, they put their bias to the side. They investigate and get to the bottom of things and the truth comes out in the open sooner or later.

Exactly. At the same time, just because they write an article that is not flattering, or even is negative, against Pres. Trump (or anyone else) does not mean they are being biased. And, yes, typically the truth does come out over time, though it doesn't stop the reporters from getting a lot of flak from "apologists" -- such as Woodward and Bernstein when they reported Watergate. Sure, the truth came out over the next couple of years, but they had a rough few months when all they had was "Deep Throat" feeding them information.

And, they do not stir up the public with fake headlines saying the claim was confirmed when it was not.

And this would be false because reporters do not write headlines -- that is done by editors. It is frequently done by an editor, and unfortunately, they aren't always completely accurate. The editor's goal is to get people to read the article (and to "buy the paper" -- buy a subscription).

Would you like someone writing a disparaging article about you, or a relative, or a loved one, claiming to have information from an anonymous source? Would like that to become standard journalistic practice? Or is it only okay when it is being done to Trump?

I know Nixon didn't want disparaging articles about him or his family -- unfortunately, he typically deserved them. As a general rule, at least for a reputable news source, if they write the article you (or your family) do deserve it.

So, why are gossip rags still in business and doing well? Very few celebrities have been able to successfully win lawsuits against gossip rags even though 80% of what they report is untrue.

Because the US has rather loose libel standards for "public figures" -- basically celebrities, politicians; anyone famous. For a public figure to win a libel suit, they basically must prove "malicious intent," such as the "rag" knowing the information was false when they printed it.

It is a different standard for non-famous people, so you and your family are unlikely to have a false story printed about you. If you do, then you can sue the publisher.

In the examples you give, you are assuming the journalists have no bias. In this highly contested and volatile election period, how many journalists are free of bias?

Everyone has a bias, it is impossible not to. As you pointed out, journalists are trained to put their bias to the side, to account for it and keep it from "bleeding" into their articles.

Look, I always think, would I want this to happen to me?

I wouldn't be happy if some paper wrote a hit piece on me using unnamed sources. And everyone swallowed the information hook line and sinker.

Yet, as I mentioned above, it is unlikely to happen (as a non-famous person). If you were in a position of public trust, though, it would be a different story and they tend to be quite valuable. Some of the ways were listed earlier, where "anonymous sources" have broken open stories that we, the public, needed and deserved to know about. Unfortunately, allowing one's name to be printed can mean loss of income, harassment, and even loss of life; because those in power don't like their secrets being outed (just as you don't) -- but it doesn't change the fact we deserve to know things a politician may do or say that relates to their position.

On this very forum, people are always asking for links, for proofs of things that are claimed. But all of a sudden, we are willing to believe and spread an information on Trump coming from unmamed sources.

Two different points. First, just because something comes from "unnamed sources" does not mean it is not "proof" -- actually evidence, which is the word that should be used. If something comes from a respected news source, then that is evidence -- even if you don't like it. As has been stated, they routinely report using "unnamed sources" and, just because you don't know who the source is, the news source does and has done their due diligence -- as was pointed out, their reputation is on the line and they won't make any money if they are caught "cheating" (making up sources).

Next, ironically, many of the people here I've seen complain about unnamed sources, when the story is negative toward a political figure they like; most seem to eagerly cite articles with unnamed sources when they are negative against the "other party."

5 pages of Trump bashing comments based on claim made by unnamed sources. A thread title who is misleading and untrue.... I don't know what to say... I just expected better.

Except the threat title is not untrue. You mentioned the one part that has not been confirmed -- that Trump made comments about those that fought at Belleau Wood. The rest all has been "confirmed" by several independent news sources, including Fox News (and I think even the Belleau Wood part may have now been confirmed, but I've not seen it yet). Granted, each news source is using unidentified sources -- but with that many independent news sources confirming, it is almost certainly true.

As for the things that have been confirmed -- that it was Trump that chose not to go to Belleau Wood that day in France, there were no security issues, the Secret Service was not preventing it. The White House claims to that effect were a lie -- though honestly that bit has been known basically since it happened. If it was "too dangerous" the other Heads of State, and even the rest of the US delegation, would not have attended.

Next, it is true that Trump disparaged veterans. Again, the Atlantic talking about Trump's remarks at Arlington National Cemetary have been confirmed, that he called Vietnam Veterans "suckers" and that Trump cannot understand why someone would die for their country.

Last, we already know Trump's opinion of POWs -- he made that clear when he talked of John McCain, that people who get captured are not "heroes" -- and other less flattering comments about POWs. Of course, the big issue here is Trump isn't reliable on this subject -- while he denies the Atlantic story, it doesn't help his credibility when he claimes he didn't disparage Sen. McCain's being a POW, which he is on tape clearly doing. At this point, it seems to be the journalists who are more credible.

 

[SimplyMe]

Short answer: Because they are human.

Humans have a very hard time being impartial and unbiased. We are currently living in unprecedented times, when politic has become so volatile, and people feel so intensely about one candidate pro or con. This level of intensity in politic is not conducive to clear headedness and impartiality on either side. Therefore I do not give my trust to any journalist or press outlet. I do not take as gospel anything they say at face value. I don't care if it's about Trump, Biden, Pence, Kamala, Obama, etc...I really need to have verifiable proof before I adopt a story as being true.

While I have no issue with this idea, in fact it tends to be wise, the issue is that you didn't do that here. Instead, you automatically discounted the story because it didn't fit your bias and have attempted to belittle it on these forums. At best, you should have said that you weren't prepared to believe it, at this time, and would be interested in what information would come out in the future.

For myself, I tend also not to believe any single journalist or news source. What I try to do is read a variety of sources and, if multiple sources report and confirm a story, then I tend to accept it is probably true.

To be clear, I mean that they need to independently report and confirm a story. The difference being, often news outlets will "copy" a breaking news story -- they'll state that some news outlet is reporting XYZ. Typically in that story they'll state that they haven't been able to confirm the details -- but they want to make sure they report the "news," so they'll run the report but note they have not verified it. What I require, as in this case with Fox News independently verifying most of what was in the Atlantic article, is that different news sources each independently verify the information, and report that they have verified it through their sources (even if all the sources remain unnamed).