- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
It just seems like everyone is missing the point regarding leaks, anonymous sources, etc
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:22 pm
I watch the arguments on here and while they have their points of interest, it seems like no one really talks about the fundamental thing we have been learning over the last year or more.
First, let's talk leaks of information clearly derived from some form of surveillance. You know what? The leaks are FAR from what should be bothering you regarding the security breaches. In fact, at least you are AWARE of the leaks.
But, that' misses the whole fricking point. The POINT is, we already knew we were living in an ever more grandiose surveillance state and now, it's pretty much irrefutable that the data collected is NOT exactly safe from whackos who would misuse it.
People want to talk about Snowden, this Reality chick, and anonymous people leaking classified info? Silliness. I want to talk about the OBVIOUS fact that if we have people who are able to access the info that can't be trusted not to go public with stuff, we also have people with access to this information not afraid to use it in ways we'll never hear about.
How many congressman, judges, Senators, businessmen, etc etc have received calls from people only too happy to use information resulting from the surveillance state? I mean, surely the people of this board don't believe that the only people in intel agencies willing to misuse info are people who leak political shite to the press! LOL
Now lets talk anonymous sources. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with anonymous sources.
What IS wrong is acting like anonymously sourced stories are by default, credible, just because you like the person who reported it.
When a reporter uses an anonymous source, we are unable to vet the source. We can't evaluate if the source is someone we should pay a lot of attention to or just a little. The ONLY way we can evaluate that is thru the lens of the reporter. So, we aren't really evaluating the source's credibility. We are evaluating the writer's credibility. Did that writer double check the info? Was the info even checkable? Stuff like that.
Well. I'm sorry. It is perfectly fair to people to say, "ya know what?..........If I watched you nearly brought to tears in early November, I probably shouldn't completely trust that you are doing your due diligence in evaluating your anonymous source".
C'mon, is that even really that astonishing a thing to point out?
First, let's talk leaks of information clearly derived from some form of surveillance. You know what? The leaks are FAR from what should be bothering you regarding the security breaches. In fact, at least you are AWARE of the leaks.
But, that' misses the whole fricking point. The POINT is, we already knew we were living in an ever more grandiose surveillance state and now, it's pretty much irrefutable that the data collected is NOT exactly safe from whackos who would misuse it.
People want to talk about Snowden, this Reality chick, and anonymous people leaking classified info? Silliness. I want to talk about the OBVIOUS fact that if we have people who are able to access the info that can't be trusted not to go public with stuff, we also have people with access to this information not afraid to use it in ways we'll never hear about.
How many congressman, judges, Senators, businessmen, etc etc have received calls from people only too happy to use information resulting from the surveillance state? I mean, surely the people of this board don't believe that the only people in intel agencies willing to misuse info are people who leak political shite to the press! LOL
Now lets talk anonymous sources. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with anonymous sources.
What IS wrong is acting like anonymously sourced stories are by default, credible, just because you like the person who reported it.
When a reporter uses an anonymous source, we are unable to vet the source. We can't evaluate if the source is someone we should pay a lot of attention to or just a little. The ONLY way we can evaluate that is thru the lens of the reporter. So, we aren't really evaluating the source's credibility. We are evaluating the writer's credibility. Did that writer double check the info? Was the info even checkable? Stuff like that.
Well. I'm sorry. It is perfectly fair to people to say, "ya know what?..........If I watched you nearly brought to tears in early November, I probably shouldn't completely trust that you are doing your due diligence in evaluating your anonymous source".
C'mon, is that even really that astonishing a thing to point out?
10
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:23 pm to ShortyRob
I thought this was gonna he a Seth Rich thread.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:26 pm to Seldom Seen
quote:
I thought this was gonna he a Seth Rich thread.
I'm not going to say I never start threads that are retreads, but, it ain't common.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:27 pm to ShortyRob
Anonymous sauces.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:30 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Anonymous sauces.
It's also pretty much not my thing to use word variants that seem to have been invented in the 7th grade.
No "Trumpkin", "Odumba", "Obummer", "Sauces", "Cuck", etc etc from me.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Now lets talk anonymous sources. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with anonymous sources.
What IS wrong is acting like anonymously sourced stories are by default, credible, just because you like the person who reported it.
When a reporter uses an anonymous source, we are unable to vet the source. We can't evaluate if the source is someone we should pay a lot of attention to or just a little. The ONLY way we can evaluate that is thru the lens of the reporter. So, we aren't really evaluating the source's credibility. We are evaluating the writer's credibility. Did that writer double check the info? Was the info even checkable? Stuff like that.
I posted a thread yesterday where I postulated that, perhaps, a journalist should have an ethical duty to disclose any anonymous source that provides wrong information.
I was sort of categorically shut down by the idea that any reporter who did that would never get a source again.
I tended to agree, but the more I've thought about it, I think I've concluded that if that really WAS the ethical expectation and every "anonymous source" KNEW it was, it would probably result in a better journalistic world.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:36 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
When a reporter uses an anonymous source, we are unable to vet the source. We can't evaluate if the source is someone we should pay a lot of attention to or just a little. The ONLY way we can evaluate that is thru the lens of the reporter. So, we aren't really evaluating the source's credibility. We are evaluating the writer's credibility. Did that writer double check the info? Was the info even checkable? Stuff like that.
There was a day when the press as an institution had the credibility to use unnamed sources but they have squandered the faith of the American people and that's a pretty big problem for the Republic going forward. Everyone should go back and read Ben Bradlee's various accounts of Watergate and how he agonized over the propriety of publishing Woodward and Garfunkel's Deep Throat info.
(Unrelated but there are also some fascinating hints that DT was in fact a composite and not solely Mark Felt. I really think they're still protecting someone.)
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:37 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
When a reporter uses an anonymous source, we are unable to vet the source. We can't evaluate if the source is someone we should pay a lot of attention to or just a little. The ONLY way we can evaluate that is thru the lens of the reporter. So, we aren't really evaluating the source's credibility. We are evaluating the writer's credibility. Did that writer double check the info? Was the info even checkable? Stuff like that.
Unnamed sources are a legitimate thing and have been for decades. Funny how nobody questions it when the unnamed sources are talking about Russell Wilson's leadership or what zany thing LeBron asked for to go back to Cleveland. Only when the message goes against your narrative is it questioned. Funny how that works!
When the source is named, y'all smear them
When the source is Trump, you say "take him seriously, not literally".
This post was edited on 6/9/17 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:38 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Unnamed sources are a legitimate thing and have been for decades. Funny how nobody questions it when the unnamed sources are talking about Russell Wilson's leadership or what zany thing LeBron asked for to go back to Cleveland.
When the source is named, y'all smear them
When the source is Trump, you say "take him seriously, not literally".
What the frick are you babbling about?
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:39 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Y.A. Tittle
you're out of your depth
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:40 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I posted a thread yesterday where I postulated that, perhaps, a journalist should have an ethical duty to disclose any anonymous source that provides wrong information
That would gut said journalist's ability to ever get sources again.
I'm not into that.
I have no problem with anonymous sources.
But, you have to take them for what they are. You can't act like Mother Teresa just got up and testified to lock solid fact every time you read an "anonymous" sourced story.
AND, you have to acknowledge when the person responsible for evaluating that source's credibility has no credibility themselves.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
you're out of your depth
I guess
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:40 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The POINT is, we already knew we were living in an ever more grandiose surveillance state and now, it's pretty much irrefutable that the data collected is NOT exactly safe from whackos who would misuse it.
I have been screaming this in threads and getting completely blown off. Why should we even be trusting our government with these secrets anyways? Why is our government allowed to avoid being beholden to its people? The government should never be allowed to gather this information and they shouldn't be allowed to keep any info secret other than maybe troop locations and movements during war time.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
That would gut said journalist's ability to ever get sources again.
Did you read the rest? What if that was the clearly understood ethical expectation?
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:42 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
how nobody questions it when the unnamed sources are talking about Russell Wilson's leadership or what zany thing LeBron asked for to go back to Cleveland.
Those two guys have no immediate effect on my lifestyle. Politicians do. Damn, a little weak for you with that line of thinking.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:42 pm to ShortyRob
Very true.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:42 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:I agree and said nothing otherwise.
Unnamed sources are a legitimate thing and have been for decades
I simply was describing how you must evaluate an anonymously sourced story and that is by evaluating the person who gave it to you.
That's just reality.
quote:I think you should probably rethink your use of the word no one there.
Funny how nobody questions it when the unnamed sources are talking about Russell Wilson's leadership or what zany thing LeBron asked for to go back to Cleveland
But, that's sort of my point here. We ALL tend to take "anonymous sources" far more rock solid than they should be.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:44 pm to kingbob
quote:
I have been screaming this in threads and getting completely blown off.
Look at THIS thread.
People immediately jumped to the sources part.
I probably should have just left that out.
But yes, we have a serious issue that no one seems to want to talk about because the various leaks work in one or the other side's favor.
No one is asking themselves.
"Hey........how many frickers are NOT leaking but instead just using the information for their own personal ends"?
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:45 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
It's also pretty much not my thing to use word variants that seem to have been invented in the 7th grade.
"Sauces" started on the TD coaching changes board.
Posted on 6/9/17 at 1:46 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
"Hey........how many frickers are NOT leaking but instead just using the information for their own personal ends"?
I suspect those are the ones 'getting theirs', while the leakers are the ones being left out.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News