1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NYT anonymous source OpEd

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by Arc, Sep 5, 2018.

  1. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Recently it has been suggested by some that the press AKA the media can at times be the “enemy of the people.”

    The press or media has responded by expressing extreme outrage over what they decry as an outrageous lie. They falsely claim that merely making such a charge is an infringement on free speech and freedom of the press. An allegation that borders on lunacy!

    Today the New York Times, “All the News Fit to Print”…(and then some) has in the eyes of many endorsed the concept that the press can at times be the enemy of the people.

    They have done so by publishing an anonymous op-ed by a “…senior official in the Trump Administration.”

    The Times defends their action by stating:

    “The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.”

    The author’s charges are extraordinarily severe and inflammatory. They strongly imply that the president should be removed from our office so dangerous is he to the nation and its citizens.

    Claims and allegations at the level presented merely cannot or should not be published anonymously under the sole protection or guise that in divulging the name of the source would cost that person their job.

    Might they lose their jobs? That’s the basis for the New York Times granting their source anonymity?

    The New York Times choice in publishing an OpEd using an anonymous source making such serious claims is blindly making a case for those crying the press is the enemy of the people.
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I respectfully disagree. The official is known to them and seems to be somebody they trust. Would they and us prefer the official be named. I think yes, but should they withhold important information and hold their source confidential? Confidential sources are used every day.

    Anybody's acceptance of this information as fact is probably predicated on their previous views of Trump as president. I would point out that it is in line with both previously published information and Trump's own views of his own intelligence. If nobody else is as smart as he then why should he listen to anybody's advice?

    Do I know it is true or accept it as such? I lean towards acceptance as it is so in line with his previous behavior and words.
  3. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    “The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States,” Sanders wrote in a statement. “He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign."

    So says Sarah Sanders, Whitehouse Press Secretary. She’s never said anything as WH Secretary that was more true, accurate, and directly and specifically on point.

    Had the Times Op-Ed named the source then their Op-Ed would be kosher and relevant. Not naming the source makes them the spreader of self-serving gossip and rumors that if true have the most serious implications for the nation.

    Had the coward used their name than we could confront the accuser and in an investigative good-faith probative seeking manner to allow them to offer up their the proof of their claims or allegations.

    Proof! Where are the proof and or credibility of the claims? At this point there is none.

    This is as of now not a legal case. But it illustrates why in criminal cases we have the constitutional protection under the Sixth Amendment that, “The accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

    The cowardly low life that wrote the Op-ed has no credibility if anonymous. If what they claim is true or mostly true then all of us need very much to know if it is true or not. When reported anonymously it is in of itself worthless to any rational cogent prudent person.

    Given the claims, the writer has the responsibility to identify himself and prove his allegations. They owe it to all of us regardless of political persuasion or one's view of Trump.

    The New York Times is in regards specifically the Op-Ed is has sunk to the same level of credibility as the National Inquirer or Tattler.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2018
  4. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I loved and cherished my time as a Mason. When the Grand Master of Tennessee did something that I considered to be heinous, I spoke up. When I refused to shut up, I was given the choice to voluntarily withdraw from the Masons or be expelled.

    I chose expulsion.

    Whoever wrote this is a moral coward. To actively undermine your boss, direct or bosses boss, is a betrayal of trust that cannot stand. If you don't like the direction you're heading, either invoke the 25th Amendment or GTFO.

    Trump is a threat to the entire Washington culture. He's not beholden to anyone, he got there by himself, he didn't rise through the ranks and thus "deserves" it like Hillary thought. He's a honey badger 'cause he don't give a shit.

    If I would have seen this during Obama's time in office, I hope that I would have the same opinion.

    Either make a stand, fight and possibly die on that hill, or retreat from the field of battle.
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Arc and Mark, I do not disagree with either of you on the nature of the person who contacted the NYT. I do not believe I would behave that way. But my point remains, if the NYT has confidence that their source was legitimate and should know of what he speaks did they not have a duty to publish?

    As a company commander I had a battalion commander who wanted to pursue charges against a female who had entertained several males at the same time. I told him charges would have to be preferred against all or none. He was later a brigade commander when I was an operations officer of one of his battalions. He told my commander to watch me but that I could be trusted to make honest recommendations. My commander was puzzled to say the least.
  6. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Shiny, the NYT, or any other news source, has no "duty to publish." They can print or not print any article they want. They can make up their own ethics code and standards for what they publish, however those are not binding in any way.

    The reason why people buy their product is because they at some level trust the veracity of what is printed. The MSM has destroyed that trust in it's blatant bias toward or against certain people. The undeclared blending of hard news and opinion and concealing that fact, plus refusing to publish anything positive about Trump is why they have little to no viewership/readership.

    The MSM gave Obama deep and sloppy fellatio for eight years, while incessantly hammering Bush and Trump. I just looked up an article I wrote in 2014 where the number of MSM reports on presidential approval numbers were reported on, comparing the same time frame of Bush's and Obama's presidencies. For every news report on Obama's approval numbers, there were 14 on Bush. I will bet you for Bush, a negative report was emphasized while a positive report was minimized. I am also quite sure the reverse was for Obama.
  7. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    No doubt there is bias. All news sources have it. That is why I read more than one source.

    But with Trump there does not have to be much bias. He makes ludicrous statements on his own and his tweets speak volumes. Quoting Trump, reading his tweets, and watching his conduct at rallies is enough. One has to read no spin, no editorials to make judgments of this president.
  8. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    It is here that your premise falls flat. The Times has no knowledge of the truth of the statements. The factual accuracy and the context of what is said is the only thing important, not whether or not the unnamed source was in a position to know but whether or not they are being fully truthful and accurate. We don't even know if he works in the White House. There are dozens or hundreds of senior officials in "the Trump administration."

    The people surrounding Nixon were in the position to know all of the facts or truth. Did they tell the truth or did they blatantly lie? And they were on the record for most of their lies.

    The point of the OpEd by your reasoning is that is they are the New York Times and we should trust what they say because they print it.

    A friend of mine for the past twenty-one years is a Professor Emeritus of Journalism at Fullerton College. She is a former investigative journalist for a major city newspaper and the author of many books on writing and journalism among other topics. She currently uses her skills to conduct writing classes at a military base for combat vets from Iraq and Afghanistan that suffer from PTSD. She creates an environment where they can unload their thoughts and feelings about what is causing their PTSD.

    She writes to me on the subject of the anonymous Op-Ed:

    The Times at this point is literally printing unsubstantiated gossip and rumor by going the anonymous route and breaking major rules of journalism. Those are the facts and the facts are indisputable.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2018
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I saw what you did with that last line.
  10. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Of all the things, people, and organizations that I would think would bring a REAL Constitutional Crisis, I would have never guessed it would have been the New York Fucking Times.

    They must be on a deathbed.

    The Atlantic has been VERY Left in their coverage since about 2011. This is THEIR OpEd:

    A New York Times Op-Ed Sparks a Crisis - The Atlantic
  11. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Thanks to David Frum the author of the Atlantic piece. IMO he illustrates brilliantly with his analysis a great example of that old saying, "He can't see the forest for the trees."
    ethics likes this.
  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  13. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    My own thoughts are on the way. I have to let the words cool down so monitors don't burst into flames.
  14. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I don't disagree with either the Atlantic article or the WPO article. I also stand by my original post in this thread. Gutless wonders can still speak truth. Yes, they can color the truth to match an agenda. Yet, when what they write closely matches the behavior and character of the president it is difficult to dismiss it out of hand.
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Waiting with abating breath, Mark.

    Kidding, I don't care.

Share This Page