isadore;1860608 wrote:The person demanded anonymity to share the private conversation.

Yes, these anonymous, un-named sources have proven to be very reliable recently.

isadore;1860608 wrote:McConnell told White House chief of staff Reince Priebus over the weekend that the group's attacks were "beyond stupid," according to a Republican with knowledge of the exchange. The person demanded anonymity to share the private conversation. McConnell allies argued that the approach alienated Heller and other Republicans rather than making it easier to get their votes
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-groups-aggressive-health-care-moves-irritate-gop-48312623

When will you realize that all these anonymous sources are actually fake, in order to push a narrative?


Get in the game.

chiefy jones;1860550 wrote:I'm always close by.

But how did you know we were discussing that thread in this one?

I think someone's an alias.

isadore;1860559 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, a Republican uses the exact right term to describe Trump and his supporters:
Over the weekend, Mr. McConnell made clear his unhappiness to the White House after a “super PAC” aligned with Mr. Trump started an ad campaign against Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, after he said last week that he opposed the health care bill.
The majority leader — already rankled by Mr. Trump’s tweets goading him to change Senate rules to scuttle Democratic filibusters — called the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, to complain that the attacks were “beyond stupid,” according to two Republicans with knowledge of the tense exchange.
….The move against Mr. Heller had the blessing of the White House, according to an official with America First, because Mr. Trump’s allies were furious that the senator would side with Nevada’s governor, Brian Sandoval, a Republican who accepted the Medicaid expansion under the health law and opposes the Republican overhaul, in criticizing the bill
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/mcconnell-trump-attacks-are-beyond-stupid/

If Quaker responds with Breitbart, it'll be about a wash.

QuakerOats;1860619 wrote:When will you realize that all these anonymous sources are actually fake, in order to push a narrative?


Get in the game.

You know, I'm genuinely starting to believe this. Technically, the anonymous source part could even be true, if only in the most technical sense of the word.

Gosh a ruddies, you have a Republican Senator who is heading into a difficult race in 2018 in a state Hillary Clinton carried, and Trumpites run attack ads against him. And what would the Republican leader in the Senate with a 2 vote majority think of that? Beyond stupid.

http://breaking.projectveritas.com/cnnpart2.html

Even resident CNN mouthpiece Van Jones, noted communist, says Russia is a big nothing burger. They continue to make Trump be right on the money, over and over.

O-Trap;1860621 wrote: You know, I'm genuinely starting to believe this. Technically, the anonymous source part could even be true, if only in the most technical sense of the word.

Cases such as this one can never be definitively disproven, so an unscrupulous reporter is free to relax standards to push an agenda. It's probably more likely the case many of these anonymous sources either don't really know, or are lying to push their own agenda (not saying that's the case here). The only accountability that source has is losing credibility with that reporter, but there are many, many other reporters to take advantage of.....many of whom are more than happy to print a story that has no reputational downside risk to them.

I'm sure this has always existed. But the combination of 24-hour news cycles and general acceptance of agendas and bias in reporting has probably made it all 10X worse. The above is only newsworthy for a partisan reporter, as I'm sure this is a common occurrence of internal politics of both parties.

QuakerOats;1860624 wrote:http://breaking.projectveritas.com/cnnpart2.html

Even resident CNN mouthpiece Van Jones, noted communist, says Russia is a big nothing burger. They continue to make Trump be right on the money, over and over.

Not that some prominent Democrats are being targeted in probes the liberal media is ready to move on to discussing policy....

I think the media in general are relying more and more on "anonymous" sources than they ever have. It seems every story has a reference to some anonymous source nowdays. To the point that it almost seems peculiar to not see an anonymous source referred to.

That's because journalism is turning into entertainment. It's all a joke. No one cares about truth, only clicks, and there too many idiots who slurp it up and continue clicking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CenterBHSFan;1860653 wrote:I think the media in general are relying more and more on "anonymous" sources than they ever have. It seems every story has a reference to some anonymous source nowdays. To the point that it almost seems peculiar to not see an anonymous source referred to.

They stole this model from ESPN.

gut;1860625 wrote:Cases such as this one can never be definitively disproven, so an unscrupulous reporter is free to relax standards to push an agenda. It's probably more likely the case many of these anonymous sources either don't really know, or are lying to push their own agenda (not saying that's the case here). The only accountability that source has is losing credibility with that reporter, but there are many, many other reporters to take advantage of.....many of whom are more than happy to print a story that has no reputational downside risk to them.

I'm sure this has always existed. But the combination of 24-hour news cycles and general acceptance of agendas and bias in reporting has probably made it all 10X worse. The above is only newsworthy for a partisan reporter, as I'm sure this is a common occurrence of internal politics of both parties.

I guess my point was that with the ever-increasing polarization that we've seen in the last several elections, I'm betting there are more and more people willing to swear to something as an "anonymous source" for a particular ends, all the while justifying their actions by saying that the ends are more important (ends justifying means). It would seem that there are far too many people taking hard lines for either side, fully believing their side to be the more "ethical" option, for absolutely nobody to be willing to crawfish when stakes are high enough, at least to them.

CenterBHSFan;1860653 wrote:I think the media in general are relying more and more on "anonymous" sources than they ever have. It seems every story has a reference to some anonymous source nowdays. To the point that it almost seems peculiar to not see an anonymous source referred to.

And any criticism by political figures is being humped by some in the media as an attack on the 1st amendment. Oh my a prominent political figure called my report "fake news". When media figures critical of the government have actions by the government against them other than words then its time to sound the alarm.

It's not like in Russia where critical media figures are ending up dead in mysterious "Seth Rich" like robberies. Stand by your words and your anonymous source the 1st amendment also allows the government to call you fake. Whether that be true or not is for the people to decide.

Fox News never acted like this when Obama was doing the same to them (albeit in his more polished, professional tone).

It's these left wing fake reporters that can't handle challenges to their narrative. You know, the snake oil salesman is just trying to earn a living, too.

gut;1860699 wrote:Fox News never acted like this when Obama was doing the same to them (albeit in his more polished, professional tone).

There were, however, a few people who got a little frothy about it on here, if I recall correctly.

O-Trap;1860754 wrote:There were, however, a few people who got a little frothy about it on here, if I recall correctly.

It was wrong when Obama did it, and it's wrong when Trump does it. The difference is, Fox is the enemy so most of the media was cool with Obama doing it (with a few exceptions).

But, generally, I couldn't be happier seeing the left get a taste of its own medicine. Not that any of it will matter much in the grand scheme of things - the wingnuts will still think their side is pure as the driven snow while the other lies....while the rest of us know both sides are more cheerleader than reporters.

Trump tweets this morning were out of bounds. The msnbc anchors probably deserve some level blowback but trump needs to be presidential.

Spock;1860769 wrote:Trump tweets this morning were out of bounds. The msnbc anchors probably deserve some level blowback but trump needs to be presidential.

At first I didn't hear the "facelift" part and thought he was going to the Megyn Kelly well again.

gut;1860763 wrote:It was wrong when Obama did it, and it's wrong when Trump does it. The difference is, Fox is the enemy so most of the media was cool with Obama doing it (with a few exceptions).

But, generally, I couldn't be happier seeing the left get a taste of its own medicine. Not that any of it will matter much in the grand scheme of things - the wingnuts will still think their side is pure as the driven snow while the other lies....while the rest of us know both sides are more cheerleader than reporters.

Make no mistake, I do kind of enjoy seeing either side get a taste of its own medicine after doling it out. But both sides usually end up showing some hypocrisy when that happens. The side who took the D first ends up trying to legitimize the same thing that happened to them.

Spock;1860769 wrote:Trump tweets this morning were out of bounds.

I dare someone on here to either disagree or say they're surprised.

O-Trap;1860778 wrote:I dare someone on here to either disagree or say they're surprised.

A lot of his supporters are just fine with his comments. Sad!

Gee, must have taken the media off the travel ban, which goes into effect today.

QuakerOats;1860790 wrote:Gee, must have taken the media off the travel ban, which goes into effect today.

Pretty thinly veiled red herring, wouldn't you say? His problematic statement had nothing to do with the travel ban.

Fab4Runner;1860780 wrote:A lot of his supporters are just fine with his comments. Sad!

Fortunately, several Republican congressmen have even publicly encouraged him to stop. Ben Sasse, the normally-disturbing Lindsay Graham, Lynn Jenkins, and Speaker Paul Ryan all publicly called the comments out and noted that they are not appropriate, particularly for the office of POTUS.

I often make it a point of pride to disagree with a lot of what Lindsay Graham says, but I've gotta admit, I can't do that here.

O-Trap;1860797 wrote:Fortunately, several Republican congressmen have even publicly encouraged him to stop. Ben Sasse, the normally-disturbing Lindsay Graham, Lynn Jenkins, and Speaker Paul Ryan all publicly called the comments out and noted that they are not appropriate, particularly for the office of POTUS.

I often make it a point of pride to disagree with a lot of what Lindsay Graham says, but I've gotta admit, I can't do that here.

It baffles me that people like QO refuse to say his comments were wrong and disgusting.

Fab4Runner;1860800 wrote:It baffles me that people like QO refuse to say his comments were wrong and disgusting.

The picture of blind allegiance.