If all this stuff on the Trump/Russia collusion investigation that the news media has been reporting is true, what do they have to lose by not posting the names of their supposed sources? If they're on to something, naming the sources is at least an indicator of some kind of validity to the stories, and if something bad happens to that source, BOOM. There's your obstruction of justice, there's your impeachment, there's your Trump-on-the-curb.
So why not name the sources if the stories are true?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
twitter.com
washingtonexaminer.com
breitbart.com
youtu.be
blogs.reuters.com
twitter.com
It's against journalistic ethics, and would undermine their ability to get future sources.
They're listening to Trump through his phone
Since 2015
Because their sources are usually whistleblowers leaking classified info
>journalistic ethics
where have you been the last 2+ years?
well the second half of my statement stands.
>why not name the sources if the stories are true
DO NOT ATTACK THE STELLAR REPORTERS OF CNN
in fact, being able to get more sources and thereby make more ratings/money is the only reason for journalistic ethics, it's purely transactional. which is why it's incorruptible.
Because the sources are pretty much all in the heads of journalists.
is this a serious question or is Sup Forums literally this retarded?
doesn't matter, since they just write whatever they want and end it with 'sources say'.
wouldn't be surprised if it's a bored trump supporter "tipping" all these fake news networks most of the time
>So why not name the sources if the stories are true?
Fair point. But of course the whole thing is a hoax dreamed up by Pedoesta to distract from (i) his own and Hillary's dealings with Russia, and (ii) his (Pedoesta's) failure as a campaign manager.
The IC has goosed it along:
twitter.com
That helps bigly to generate sexy, jaw-dropping stories. (The FBI's Mark Felt's (aka Deep Throat) collaboration with Bob Woodward was the pioneering form of such IC/journalist collusion, that (i) got Felt what he wanted (revenge against Nixon for not appointing him head of the FBI when Hoover died), (ii) made Woodward and Bernstein into superstars, (iii) got rid of Nixon, whom the vast majority of the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) genuinely despised, just as they genuinely despise Trump.)
And, last but not least, all the hysteria is good for business -- it generates a lot of clicks, and garners a lot of eyeballs. Trump has been a boon for the media.
Not that I'm siding with CNN, but not naming sources in sensitive matters is a matter of course. Wikileaks does the same thing, and it does not tarnish their credibility. What does tarnish their credibility is a poor track record of these stories turning out to be true, and their inability to provide actual evidence. But withholding source names is standard for obvious reasons. So that person can continue acting as a source. Because if it's found out that they blabbed, they'll just be closed off as a source of information/fired/etc. This should be obvious to you.
None of it is true. It's a complete fabrication by the media, intelligence(lol)community, and the DNC. An entire fiction. Also, EVEN if it were true, even if Trump colluded with Russia out the ass, it's not a crime. Sorry.
>Journalistic ethics are incorruptible, they just mean something completely different than what people think they do.
Sounds about right.
Difference is A) Nixon actually did something, and B) The media's trust ratings in 1972 were about double what they are today.
The Washington fucking Post will published a story if a Trump fart leaks from the white house. Do any of you fucking retards really believe that if there were absolutely any real collusion it wouldn't be leaked? This whole thing is a fucking farce so liberals can carry this nonsense into the 2018 election hoping it wins them votes. It's obvious.
Fair point.
Nixon did nothing wrong ab initio (he did not order the break-in). He should have followed Buchanan's advice and burned the tapes.
And Mark Felt should have been drawn and quartered for leading a successful coup d'etat against the President of the United States.
They kill any real source of information.
>why not just blow your load
You guys are straight up in denial. You have the most powerful man on the face of the earth and you ask why the investigation isn't playing it's incomplete hand yet? You realize this is the normal way a serious investigation goes let alone an investigation into a highly connected, powerful person. Typically they will wait until they have a case that is incredibly solid before they play their hand.
if all the stuff the media says about trump and russia is true there is not enough to start a special investigation, let alone impeach.
If instead they just say 'Russia' enough times they can ride the innuendo train all the way to the next elections
So you have a shit pickle here, and we'll assume two likely scenarios
>The source is real, and the information is real
That means those who do leak are likely in some danger of at least being fired or much worse. Scott Adams actually has a good point in that these people may feel compelled or feel they are being a hero for doing so, but it seems of late the "bombshells" are farts in the wind more than the Nixonian drama CNN and NYT would have you believe.
>The sources are made up, so the information is not real or greatly exaggerated. At best hersay from a "friend of a friend"
Remember when they reported on a memo, read over a phone, from somebody who wasn't the origin and was supposidely "unclassified"? Welcome to the other side of this; imagination land. Journalists can some times make up sources or misconstrue meanings by fluffing up actual content, to at least sell something. Claiming they need to protect their sources saves them from libel charges and they hide under the umbrella of journalistic protections that ironically they abuse when doing this.
That memo is a good example because it can never be verified, it has no real origin that we know of, and the contents were, at best, opinions. It was made to seem as if Trump was calling everything down, when really it seems like an uncomfortable dad talk.
I think what it really boils down to is motive and who stands to gain. We know major media outlets are currently on a witch hunt, so that should always be in the back of your mind. On top of that, research foreign newspaper/publications takes on it to compare. If you notice more inflammatory and insidious language in the domestic papers you might see how authentic or the reality of these sources pieces are. Also look into the ownership of each publications.
Rosenstein has Jewed Trump big time, just as Mark Felt (Watergate's 'Deep Throat') Jewed Nixon.
There was no need for an investigation of the muh Russia nothingburger.
But the investigation will now provide the lugenpress with a constant, never-ending series of anti-Trump faux happenings to trumpet.
7 Reasons Why a Russia Special Counsel is a Bad Idea
washingtonexaminer.com
Under Rosenstein, we have become like Stalinist Russia: ‘Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’
breitbart.com
Did you just post (((media))) articles to try to brainwash me?
Maybe...just stay with me for a moment here...maybe if the investigation is allowed to commence at full speed, we can lay this thing to rest. To quote an intelligent man, Donald J Trump: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
No.
It's going to be a clusterfuck, no two ways about it.
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not. These special counsel deals are *always* a clusterfuck.
And it is one thing when the *Republicans* are investigating, e.g., Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or Lois Lerner and the IRS -- and must sail into the wind of an extremely hostile media that is constantly minimizing and ignoring the various transgressions exposed -- turning them into "nothing," although the substance in each of those cases was truly scandalous and criminal.
It is another thing entirely when the media takes all the dribs and drabs of faux happenings and blows them up into huge, epic outrages.
Which is precisely what the media is going to be doing for the next several years.
And if the GOP loses the House in 2018, Trump *will* be impeached (although I doubt he would ever be convicted by the Senate).
Byron York's piece breaks it all down very well.
>washingtonexaminer.com
The "investigation" of the muh Russia nothingburger is politics, pure and simple. And the media is going to use the "investigation" to constantly pound the drum and blast Trump for the next several years.
Dropping this off
>youtu.be
Wikileaks has anonymous sources
CNN just makes shit up
That's what happens when you have a populace increasingly obsessed with conspiracy and loathing for government (and I'm not saying it's a bad thing) but don't be surprised. Everyone wants to be a rebel fighting the corrupt and evil dictators. It's a rebelliousness for those in power.
>he will be impeached
I see nothing wrong with this. If you do illegal things, expect to be impeached. Pretty simple. I know you don't like that notion because I guess, "well Obama and Hillary got away with things". That's called hypocrisy.
>still posting other peoples' opinons from the (((media)))
>muh anonymouse sources are legit
>yours are fake news
>That's what happens when you have a populace increasingly obsessed with conspiracy
No, this is what happens when the GOP gets out-maneuvered by the Democrats (with a large assist from the media).
>I see nothing wrong with this. If you do illegal things, expect to be impeached.
It's not a question of him doing illegal things, and it's not a question of truth. The Democrats are out for blood and are in a state of Trump derangement syndrome.
If the Democrats controlled the House today, Trump would have ALREADY been impeached. It's very clear they don't give a shit about the truth -- it's a political death match, and the only thing that matters is winning.
PS: You're obviously a fucking shill and don't belong here - with your assumption of Democrats acting fairly and honestly -- HA! - but carry on if you wish.
continuing to be able to get more sources also means the general public gets more information.
I believe that Comey pal and lawfare blogger Benjamin Wittes has admitted that Schmidt got the story from him.
Wikileaks posts primary sources so yeah that is true.
My feeling is that the Democrats have invoked a Monkey's Paw situation here. Muller is going to be looking into ALL possible Russian connections, which includes the Clinton emails (which the FBI has, thanks to Weiner) and the DNC and Podesta emails. Muller will go wherever those investigations lead. This is conjecture on my part, but the official reasoning for firing Comey plays as weak is because the real reason for getting rid of him is that he was impeding FBI investigations that Sessions wanted to move forward on. Comey was Obama's man and an agent of the Deep State. He was going to have to go, sooner or later. And all the wailing and knashing of teeth about "Muh Russians" provides cover for whatever investigations the Sessions DOJ is actually moving forward on. And the beauty of it is, the media and the Democrats can't call attention to what Sessions is up to without revealing they're worried about it.And Sessions has been up to a lot, with something like 2000 arrests for human trafficking since he assumed the role of Attorney General, which most of the media has largely ignored.
because they're not fucking real.
>2005
On 12/29/12, President Obama signed HR 4310, (at night, during the holidays, in the dark, so that no one would even know); the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1078 (thomas.loc. gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.4310:) of the bill authorizes the use of propaganda inside the US, which had previously been banned since 1948 when the Smith-Mundt Act was passed. The media was also reclassified as “entertainment”.
> never forget this
That's the difference, folks.
Both the Washington Post and the NYT have been self-critical about over-use of anonymous sources -- because it's a bad and dangerous way to practice journalism* -- but they always end up going back to the practice because it produces big headlines which generate ad revenue.
Jack Shafer - an excellent journalist and critic of journalism - has analyzed and sharply criticized the journalistic misuse of anonymous sources since forever. Here's the first story of his that comes up when I search it:
>All major newspapers have policies about anonymous sources, and largely ignore them and editors largely don’t enforce them vigorously...
>Anonymity benefits sources by allowing them to feed their versions almost unimpeded to the press if they locate a gullible or corrupt reporter. Anonymity benefits reporters, too, by potentially increasing their byline counts, by giving them “scoops” (however spurious or short-lived), and by signaling their availability to other anonymous sources.
>The downsides of anonymity, of course, are too many to list in a column, but here are two: Anonymous sourcing reduces the pressure on official sources to take responsibility for their utterances. And it promotes the gaming of news outlets, with anonymous sources gravitating to the most pliant reporters and editors. Neither is good for the news.
blogs.reuters.com
top agencies, opposition parties, private investigators, faggots on reddit, and the mainstream media and its reporters have been digging for a long time and have come up with nothing. not even fake evidence. just totally nothing at all and nobody is even suggesting there might be. there are no sources, there is no evidence. they are just trying to overthrow a sitting US president with lies and there will be violence if they somehow succeed.
>My feeling is that the Democrats have invoked a Monkey's Paw situation here.
Look, I honestly hope you're right - I would LOVE for you to be right, and to see Trump btfo these assholes - but I'm seeing the glass as half-empty right now. At the moment.
It's just the whole process of these investigations, the grinding out, for years. It's a fucking drag. And usually, historically, it seems like the Democrats are just flat-out better at devious political stuff. (This is a thought I've gotten from reading a lot of history the past year, seeing the Dem machinations before the Civil War, and then their astonishing recovery from the debacle of losing the CW during Reconstruction -- it's like it's in their blood or something -- a genius for political deviousness.)
At the same time, for all their deviousness, the Democrats also periodically make major blunders, the latest example being the decision to run Hillary as their candidate.
So maybe this will turn out to be another blunder on their part. If Team Trump could flip the script on the Dems, that would be a beautiful thing.
Everybody knows Trump is guilty, he said it on tv
>"Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" Donald Trump
That is 100% of the case they have against him
You're quite right of course.
It's like a bad joke. It IS a bad joke.
Except it's really happening.