"Anonymous sources" =/= "Fake news"

a reply to: abago71

Care to elaborate on why you think this? Trump had been hinting at a Presidential run for quite some time. You don't start prepping to be president the year before, you spend a long time prepping for this kind of thing. Most actually spend their entire careers working up to a run for the Oval Office.

a reply to: DJW001

I just want to say that I am glad that at least someone out there agrees w/ me on this subject. Thank you for the logical and thought out post.

I am afraid that this is not the right audience for it though.

originally posted by: VoxVirtus
a reply to: DJW001

I just want to say that I am glad that at least someone out there agrees w/ me on this subject. Thank you for the logical and thought out post.

I am afraid that this is not the right audience for it though.

On the contrary, this is exactly the audience that needs to be exposed to this information, even if they reject it because they prefer to believe their cognitive dissonance comes from being lied to, rather than not exercising critical thought.

Trust but verify.

4.bp.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Trust but verify.

4.bp.blogspot.com...

Good point. Media made money by airing cigarette advertising; pro-tobacco propaganda. The government started an anti-smoking campaign; anti-tobacco propaganda. The media did not care which side they took money from. Their only agenda was to make money, which is still their only agenda.

Is the government wrong to air anti-tobacco propaganda? Or can some propaganda serve the public interest? IgnoranceIsntBliss? You still there?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

"People familiar with Comey's thinking" means people who are close to him, for example, his father or maybe one of his close co-workers. It does not mean people who have studied how he thinks.

a reply to: VoxVirtus

I will blame that on my naivety. I never really thought he would win and to look at him with such scrutiny would be a waste of resources.

I, however, now believe most governments probably have a file on anyone and everyone they think may be either an asset or target.

The seedy underbelly of politics has recently opened my eyes, a little.

a reply to: DJW001

I think the point is, that just because media tells you something, you shouldn't take it as gospel.

Most things I tentatively believe what the media is reporting, as long as those things are apolitical issues. As soon as politics are injected into the equation, it's mostly spin opinion, unless clearly identifiable sources are being presented.

a reply to: GodEmperor

I think the point is, that just because media tells you something, you shouldn't take it as gospel.

Despite what Ignorance claims, I have never said otherwise. Ignorance seems to think that absolutely nothing that the media reports is factual. I try to give people the tools to determine what is factual and what is not. The legitimate media are usually pretty precise, and give you what you need to know if you know where to look. Bush's DCI told the New York Times "on background" that the sources for the administrations' claims about Iraq were dubious or false, while Secretary Powell was grudgingly using them in the UN to justify the United States' ill conceived illegal invasion of that state. Of course, it was buried on (if memory serves) page 11 and, because it was "deep background," anonymously.

The New York Times has sometimes been called "the house organ of the State Department." If government officials are complaining to the NYT, you can bet they are doing so with good reason, and know what they are talking about.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DJW001

You're the one who wants to brand sources you dont like "Russian propaganda agents" (which would inherently ultimately bear the outcome of FBI investigations if you got your way), you want them banned from ATS, you support the federal governments Ministry of Truth legislatures, you're opposed to people being critical of the corporate MSM whom endlessly work to socially engineer US into a divided nation hell bent on militaristic global imperialism while ourselves getting economically raped endlessly by the Bankster cartel + Two Party System + ETC, etc. And you and I know this statement is 100% accurate based on your hard fought posting history around here.

That's what you call the "First Amendment". You can choke on that.

Literally everything you just said is how I describe the right wings agenda, tactics, and outcome

a reply to: Lucidparadox

Yep. The right assaulted Clinton as a "warmonger." What is Trump doing? Slashing social spending that would help his struggling supporters in Appalachia while boosting spending on the military. Not only is he upping our presence in the Syrian civil war, now he is putting boots on he ground in Yemen. Meanwhile, he is installing members of his family in key government positions. Trump is little better than a banana republic dictator, and anyone who attacks the press for exposing him is a mindless thug.

The problem with trying to explain this is it involves the reader having to educate themselves on how the third and fourth estate operate in the real world - clearly people aren't prepared to do this when the information disagrees with their biased world view and would rather keep said worldview than dare question it through education. When people are in that stage of denial and ignorance, there's little can be done to rescue them - as is evident on this thread where people clearly have no interest or background in how to read the news and deconstruct the narrative/conduct a critical discourse analysis.

People think in binary on here for some reason, there doesn't seem the want or ability to understand the subtle nuances involved in news values, source attribution and the vital role sources play in democracy, politics and media. Strange as it used to be what the site was against.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: theantediluvian

So you literally just confirmed what I was saying. "Alleged" "unnamed" "anonymous" are all code words for "I don't know but the hell with it." These news sources are tabloids now and when tmz has more substantiated reporting than all of MSM then you have propaganda not news.

It turns out that the "anonymous source" who is "close to Comey" was Comey himself. This was not a surprise to anyone who knows how to read the news. Trump regularly "leaks" his plans to the media as well.

I am bumping this thread because for the past few days people have been using the "Anonymous Source Fallacy" to delay the acceptance of the fact that Mueller is now investigating Trump for obstruction of justice. The fact that Trump's personal lawyer called the story a "leak" rather than a "rumor" should be enough to confirm the story. By the way, if Trump is innocent, he should be welcoming the investigation. It will help dispel "the cloud." The problem is Comey's testimony rings true.