WAPO editor Marty Baron on CBS This Morning discussing sources

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: abago71

Didn't you have anything other than the above crap to post as a first-timer? Sorry, no kindness here.

Yes. But i'm sure it's crap too.

originally posted by: six67seven

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: abago71

Didn't you have anything other than the above crap to post as a first-timer? Sorry, no kindness here.

And what have you contributed?

Do tell!

To be honest, I don't post a lot. If I don't have something valid to say, I remain silent. Sometimes the only contribution I feel worthy to post is when crappy postings like yours don't escape my notice.

a reply to: surnamename57

The first time one makes a thread, they are usually a bit rough around the edges. They get better and better. At least the OP put his/her foot in the water and made the effort.

You should try it. You have never started a thread, but enjoy coming on threads of first-timers to criticize and be snarky. That says a lot about you as a person.

Instead of a hateful judgement, you could have asked for what you felt was missing. I think you're jealous that another worked up the courage to start a thread, and you lack courage and know-how.

Just my opinion.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: abago71

Didn't you have anything other than the above crap to post as a first-timer? Sorry, no kindness here.

What are you flaming the OP for? You work for the WaPo?

I don't even use it for toilet paper.

Immoderate questions give grounds for immoderate answers.

a reply to: abago71

Thanks for posting this.
I did not find it to be 'crappy' at all.
I enjoyed it.

originally posted by: surnamename57

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: abago71

Didn't you have anything other than the above crap to post as a first-timer? Sorry, no kindness here.

What are you flaming the OP for? You work for the WaPo?

I don't even use it for toilet paper, that's why.

That's why? What?

Oh, okay, now I understand. You have a comprehension problem. That's rough. I apologize for misunderstanding. I thought you understood the opening post...my bad.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: surnamename57

I think you're jealous that another worked up the courage to start a thread

Jealous of what? Of some crap being posted? Are you really that naive? As far as your 'courage' is concerned, persons who are not aware of what they are talking about are full of 'courage'.

originally posted by: surnamename57

Didn't you have anything other than the above crap to post as a first-timer? Sorry, no kindness here.

originally posted by: abago71

Yes. But i'm sure it's crap too.

Your first Thread is very good !!

Don't let "Them" shake you up.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Funny you guys say he contradicts himself when the OP lists his answers....
But not the questions.

There's a logic failure in there somewhere.

I will admit I am frequently a victim in logic failure. Should I have included the questions?

I apologize to everyone in this thread. I do not intend to be misleading, snarky or dishonest. I was just looking for input from different people who watched the interview.

a reply to: abago71

Here is a section of dialogue with a question included.

At 4:13 in the video, Marty Baron is asked by Nora O'Donnell, "Do you know who that person is?" in regards to who the source is.
Marty Baron replies with "Um, well, we didn't name the person, I don't plan to name the person because we haven't confirmed who that is."

I interpret that as he is implying that he knows who the source is, not that he is confirming or acknowledging that he knows who it is.
That made me think that he is leading the viewer to assume that he personally knows.

a reply to: abago71

Good first post, friend.

Another thing that is rarely mentioned is that in the absence of injustice and tyranny with which to expose, leakers are never passive well-meaning sources, but are biased informers with ideological goals in mind. They want to influence the narrative.

As for Baron, you are right about his contradictions.

originally posted by: tombaccei
a reply to: abago71

They asked if he knew the persons name. He replied that he did, but couldn't report it since he needed more confirmation about the name of the individual.

Can you provide the approximate timestamp in the video where he states that he knew the person's name?
I have watched the video multiple times and cannot find where he specifically states this.

I'm just looking for clarification, not trying to start a disagreement with you or anyone.

a reply to: queenofswords

You seem to be a very chattery person. Are you a queen of words? Just asking.

originally posted by: abago71

He states they only have one source, they can't confirm that source and they need additional sources. When they can't confirm, they don't report. Yet, they have continuously released theses reports.

Am I missing something here?

Please don't flame me too bad, I'm just trying to contribute for a change.

Also Mods, please move this to the correct forum if I have placed it in the wrong one. I'm a noob.

Welcoe and good thread.

Yes, you're missing something but it's not something you'd be expected to know unless you're a journo and isn't helped by the presenters using confusing language that breaks all journalistic standards (KISS and Tell - Keep It Simple, Stupid and Tell the Story) which took me a couple of watches to realise they're talking about naming the subject of the police investigation, not the name of the anonymous source and I'm a trained journo.

The WaPo requires second sourcing, as does every other credible news outlet (i.e non-blogs) - an anonymous source isn't some random guy off the street, 99.9% of the time they're people directly invovled in the story (i.e Trump leaks come from his own staff) and they must provide documents to back up their claims - once these are seen a journo then has to cross-reference this with other sources in the know until enough evidence is aggregated that there is 'proof beyond reasnable doubt'.

The answer in the 4min mark is in response to the question 'will you name the official being investigated' - to which the editor responds he won't as it's not fully second/,multiple sourced - there's a critical difference here as directly naming the person being investigated by police could destroy their life, put their life in danger and would be illegal libel, defamation, invasion of privacy and a few dozen other laws and ethical codes. As such naming them requires a hell of a lot of evidence providing conclusive proof - otherwise they can't be named.

TL;DR - There's no contradiction. They know exactly who their sources are and know them very well - they won't name anonymous sources in any circumstances. They know a name of the person who is being investigated by authorities but won't publish it unless it is confirmed via several other sources.

Here's their Source Guidelines with examples of when/how stories and details should be run: www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: bastion

Thank you. That was very informative.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: abago71

Where's the contradictions? He states that if they can't confirm a source or have additional sources that confirm the story they don't report it. It's basic Journalism professional ethics. Sometimes after stories are announced, the media may realize they got it wrong and they retract and publically apologize.

As in regular criminal cases, you can't declare someone is guilty until you have enough evidence or "circumstantial" evidence that points in the direction that a person is guilty. The same goes for reporters. If they get enough credible sources and they all check out to that person being at the right place at the right time, and other persons close to the source are saying the same thing, than that is strong enough evidence that the information is credible.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence whether Nixon was directly involved in Watergate. The media back than reported on the possible guilt of Nixon. If it wasn't for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, Nixon would have never been exposed as being involved. It turned out they were exactly right!

Journalists can sometimes get it wrong, just like our court systems. It doesn't justify claiming everything they report is fake news just because they go against someone's support of a president or an elected official. Conservatives loved Comey for going after Hillary, and than did an about face when he was continuing the investigation with Russia.

If we continue to take sides and ignore blatant videos that contradict what a representative says, than people shouldn't be complaining about communism and dictatorship control when that is exactly what they want in their news media.

Hey, they found one of the janitors that was working for the intelligence agency to verify the secretary at the front desks discussion, they both talked to the person who cleans the bathrooms who overheard someone joking around about possible conspiracies in there.

Hey, they found one of the janitors that was working for the intelligence agency to verify the secretary at the front desks discussion, they both talked to the person who cleans the bathrooms who overheard someone joking around about possible conspiracies in there.

a reply to: rickymouse

There's a big difference between "Credible sources" and non-credible sources. You sure don't give professional journalists any kind of credibility. Not only do credible sources have to be identified the reporter has to run his or her findings through an editorial board. It's not as easy as you make it out to be.

These MSM outlets lost their credibility as journalists with me after I read the Wikileaks drops for Podesta and the DNC.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

Hey, they found one of the janitors that was working for the intelligence agency to verify the secretary at the front desks discussion, they both talked to the person who cleans the bathrooms who overheard someone joking around about possible conspiracies in there.

a reply to: rickymouse

There's a big difference between "Credible sources" and non-credible sources. You sure don't give professional journalists any kind of credibility. Not only do credible sources have to be identified the reporter has to run his or her findings through an editorial board. It's not as easy as you make it out to be.

It seems that credibility in journalism has gone out the window lately, I used to have a lot of respect for Journalists ten years ago when you could somewhat believe more than seventy five percent of what they were reporting, except around election time. I don't believe a quarter of the headlines anymore, they are all rubbish, the other media are quoting the Washington Post as a credible report. That kind of reporting is Hulu.

Did you know that there are no exceptions for a reporter publishing classified information given to them by a leaker?
Its time we started prosecuting them for accepting and printing classified information. Dont even ask their sources,just make it so toxic no one dares to publish it anymore.