Jump to content
Bill & Katya

Tips For Reading Washington Post Stories About Trump Based On Anonymous Leaks

32 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

It's always a anonymous sources with the left them they take it as gospel. The right actually wants to know the source  before we run to the hills with the information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's always cool when trump confirms anonymous leaks on twitter tho, must leave you guys stumped! is there a matching piece breaking down how to read/process the many conflicting and ever changing white house statements with trump's twitter/interviews? bet it's just a 'wait and see' 'fly by the seat of your pants' approach. bless ya'lls hearts.

Edited by smilesammich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

And yet you need a website to tell you how to think and what opinions to have. LOL.

Don't need a website, but verifiable sources would be beneficial.  We all know journalists are right down there on the trustworthiness scale with politicians and lawyers, heck, I think Used Car Salespeople are more trusted.  So when I see anonymous sources I tend to be very skeptical.  I didn't need this story to tell me that, it was just a change from the all out Trump bashing from the MDL who seem to be acting like 'squirrels on crack' to quote Art Laffer.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Don't need a website, but verifiable sources would be beneficial.  We all know journalists are right down there on the trustworthiness scale with politicians and lawyers, heck, I think Used Car Salespeople are more trusted.  So when I see anonymous sources I tend to be very skeptical.  I didn't need this story to tell me that, it was just a change from the all out Trump bashing from the MDL who seem to be acting like 'squirrels on crack' to quote Art Laffer.

The purposes of anonymous sources were to protect sensitive information, especially for whistleblowers. Now it's used so the media can just slander anyone they want without repercussion. If this is how it's going to be, it's time to start jailing members of the media for anonymously sourced garbage that isn't proven, until they reveal their sources or prove the information is accurate.

Edited by IAMX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

I don't know how much more of this winning the American people can handle. :jest:

Would we ever know given all the news from biased news organizations hell bent on destruction.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Would we ever know given all the news from biased news organizations hell bent on destruction.

Trump reaps what he sows. With or without the MSM he is not presidential material and it shows on a daily basis. I said in another thread yesterday that I can see Trump causing a major disaster during his presidency and I've seen nothing in his behavior since he took office that says otherwise. He is mentally unstable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Teddy B said:

Trump reaps what he sows. With or without the MSM he is not presidential material and it shows on a daily basis. I said in another thread yesterday that I can see Trump causing a major disaster during his presidency and I've seen nothing in his behavior since he took office that says otherwise. He is mentally unstable.

Best of two terrible alternatives.  The only difference if Hillary had actually won would be the biased media attention would be less, and any media source that did actually question her would be labeled as sexist, or extreme Right Wing.  There are all sorts of hypotheses about her mental competency, but thankfully we don't have to witness the mess she might have created.


Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Best of two terrible alternatives.  The only difference if Hillary had actually won would be the biased media attention would be less, and any media source that did actually question her would be labeled as sexist, or extreme Right Wing.  There are all sorts of hypotheses about her mental competency, but thankfully we don't have to witness the mess she might have created.

The bolded part we agree on, we were screwed either way. Which one of them is the worst is up for debate. I personally think that Hillary's political experience would have prevented most of the crapshow that Trump has caused because of his inexperience and insecurity. Politics is no place for someone with severe insecurity problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The purposes of anonymous sources were to protect sensitive information, especially for whistleblowers. Now it's used so the media can just slander anyone they want without repercussion. If this is how it's going to be, it's time to start jailing members of the media for anonymously sourced garbage that isn't proven, until they reveal their sources or prove the information is accurate.

Yeah like that wont have a chilling effect on the first amendment.  Under what charges?


ftiq8me9uwr01.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Trump reaps what he sows. With or without the MSM he is not presidential material and it shows on a daily basis. I said in another thread yesterday that I can see Trump causing a major disaster during his presidency and I've seen nothing in his behavior since he took office that says otherwise. He is mentally unstable.

Trump is the leaker in chief and it is apparent that the current leakers are not obama or career staff but those closest to the president.

Edited by ccneat

ftiq8me9uwr01.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

On May 10, the Washington Post‘s Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sari Horwitz, and Robert Costa claimed:

[Deputy Attorney General Rod J.] Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

But the “person close to the White House” who made the claim without using his or her name was contradicted by none other than Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein himself. The next day he said, “I’m not quitting” when asked by reporters. “No,” he said to the follow-up question of whether he had threatened to quit.

 

On May 10, Ashley Parker wrote:

Last week, then-FBI Director James B. Comey requested more resources from the Justice Department for his bureau’s investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussion.

The story was based on anonymous sources, naturally, and noted “The news was first reported by the New York Times.” If true, it would support a narrative that Trump had fired Comey not due to his general incompetence but because he was trying to thwart a legitimate and fruitful investigation. Anonymous sources again had something very different to say from people whose comments were tied to their names, who all denied the report. The Justice Department spokeswoman immediately responded that the claim was false, and her quote was included in the story:

 

On May 10, the Washington Post‘s Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sari Horwitz, and Robert Costa claimed:

[Deputy Attorney General Rod J.] Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

But the “person close to the White House” who made the claim without using his or her name was contradicted by none other than Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein himself. The next day he said, “I’m not quitting” when asked by reporters. “No,” he said to the follow-up question of whether he had threatened to quit.

 

On May 10, Ashley Parker wrote:

Last week, then-FBI Director James B. Comey requested more resources from the Justice Department for his bureau’s investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussion.

The story was 

The story went viral before the truth caught up. As per procedure, the Obama administration had, in coordination with the incoming Trump administration, asked for the resignations of all political appointees. While it would have been traditional to let them stay for a few months, the Trump team let them know that their services wouldn’t be necessary. The entire story was wrong.

Rogin also had the false story that Steve Bannon had personally confronted Department of Homeland Security’s Gen. John F. Kelly to pressure him not to weaken an immigration ban. Take it away, Kelly:

‘It was a fantasy story,’ Kelly said. Of the reporter, he said: ‘Assuming he’s not making it up… whoever his sources are, are playing him for a fool.’

Each of these stories were explosive breaking news that served an anti-Trump narrative but later turned out to be false.

This week, the Washington Post reported that President Trump threatened national security during his meeting with Russians last week. The story was based on anonymous leaks regarding a real meeting that took place. The report was immediately slapped down as false by multiple high-level Trump officials who were present in the meeting:

 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “During President Trump’s meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov a broad range of subjects were discussed among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. During that exchange the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations.”

Dina Powell, deputy national security advisor for strategy, was also in the meeting. She said, “This story is false. The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”

 
Now, clearly a meeting took place, and clearly things were discussed. But it’s hard to know if anything else in the Washington Post story was true. Particularly with three individuals all pushing back against it.

For context, it’s worth noting that breaking news is frequently wrong. In the aftermath of a terrorist attack or an active shooter, responsible journalists pass around a guide for how to monitor breaking news. Here it is:
Screen-Shot-2017-05-15-at-9.59.49-PM.png

Perhaps we need a similar guide for how to handle breaking news that comes from the Washington Post. It turns out we can keep many of the tips:

  1. In the immediate aftermath, news outlets will get it wrong.
  2. Don’t trust anonymous sources. If democracy dies in darkness, anonymity is not exactly transparent or accountable. Unless someone is willing to to put his or her name with a leak, be on guard. Pay attention to how well the reporters characterize the motivations of the anonymous leaker. All leakers have motivation. Does the paper seem to have a grasp on how the motivation affects the veracity of the leak?
  3. If someone is leaking national security information in order to support the claim of a national security violation, be on guard.
  4. If someone is claiming a serious national security crisis but not willing to go public with the claim and resign in protest of same, be on guard.
  5. Compare sources willing to put their name and reputation on the line.
  6. Big anti-Trump news brings out the fakers.
  7. Pay attention to the language that the media uses. Is a story about something unimportant being written in such a way as to make it seem more important?
  8. Beware confirmation bias. Everyone has the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories. Be on guard that you don’t accept critical or exonerating evidence to match your political preferences.
  9. Pay attention to how quickly and fully editors and reporters correct stories based on false information from anonymous sources. If they don’t correct at all, it’s an indication of a lack of respect.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/16/tips-for-reading-washington-post-stories-about-trump-based-on-anonymous-leaks/

I am glad to see a new found interest in fereting out falsehoods and fake news.  


ftiq8me9uwr01.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×