This isn't all it's cracked up to be. The editors now demanding review are the same editors who allowed the carefully unsubstantiated story to be published, anyway; the same editors who set that standard in the first place. Too, given the volume of writing and the pace of publication, how carefully will that "review" be done on all those stories, even on a single subject? Just a lick and a CNN promise. And what about all the unsubstantiated rumors on other subjects these guys publish or repeat?
More importantly, there's still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources of those "anonymous" sources' claims.
still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources
Watching All the President's Men makes me downright nostalgic. Nothing allowed to be published on the word of a single unnamed source. Ben Bradlee stomping around and bellowing "When is someone going to go on the record in this story?" The very concept of people going on the record.
It's from something Iowahawk suggested on Twitter: when they refer to "an anonymous source", substitute "a mysterious gypsy woman".
"A mysterious gypsy woman, speaking on condition of anonymity..." "Mysterious gypsy women highly placed in the Justice Department..." "According to a mysterious gypsy woman familiar with Comey's thinking..."
Or, they've been scapegoated. There's no way to tell without corroboration from independent--that is to say, non-CNN--sources. These "resignations" are being reported by the same section that published their false story.
And, jaed, you're still more optimistic than I--Iowahawk's mysterious gypsy women are more believable than "anonymous" sources, both from the perspective of which one is more likely actually to exist and from the perspective of which of the two has more integrity. Tom's on the right track.
For further delectation: Sarah Palin is suing the NYT for claiming a couple of weeks ago that she caused the shooting of Gabby Giffords: "Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”
Good. Couldn't happen to a nicer pack of shameless liars. Go, Sarah, go. It's hard to win a libel suit if you're a public figure, but this is bad enough that it may be possible. (And if you can't get relief from the courts over a statement like this, I may have to start asking why we have libel law at all.)
This isn't all it's cracked up to be. The editors now demanding review are the same editors who allowed the carefully unsubstantiated story to be published, anyway; the same editors who set that standard in the first place. Too, given the volume of writing and the pace of publication, how carefully will that "review" be done on all those stories, even on a single subject? Just a lick and a CNN promise. And what about all the unsubstantiated rumors on other subjects these guys publish or repeat?
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, there's still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources of those "anonymous" sources' claims.
Nothing is changing at CNN.
Eric Hines
still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources
ReplyDeleteWatching All the President's Men makes me downright nostalgic. Nothing allowed to be published on the word of a single unnamed source. Ben Bradlee stomping around and bellowing "When is someone going to go on the record in this story?" The very concept of people going on the record.
Mysterious gypsy women, all of them.
You're more optimistic than I am, jaed. At least gypsy women can be believed to exist.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
It's from something Iowahawk suggested on Twitter: when they refer to "an anonymous source", substitute "a mysterious gypsy woman".
ReplyDelete"A mysterious gypsy woman, speaking on condition of anonymity..."
"Mysterious gypsy women highly placed in the Justice Department..."
"According to a mysterious gypsy woman familiar with Comey's thinking..."
I dunno, I might be more likely to believe it if they did that, jaed.
ReplyDeleteBut three CNN folks have resigned over this: "Thomas Frank, who wrote the story in question; Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the unit; and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, have all left CNN."
But three CNN folks have resigned over this....
ReplyDeleteOr, they've been scapegoated. There's no way to tell without corroboration from independent--that is to say, non-CNN--sources. These "resignations" are being reported by the same section that published their false story.
And, jaed, you're still more optimistic than I--Iowahawk's mysterious gypsy women are more believable than "anonymous" sources, both from the perspective of which one is more likely actually to exist and from the perspective of which of the two has more integrity. Tom's on the right track.
Eric Hines
For your delectation, today.
ReplyDeleteProject Veritas: American Pravda: CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE&feature=youtu.be
CNN producer, calling CNN executives out on their (my father's favorite word for "harmful nonsense.")
cuss words an all.
Valerie
Or, they've been scapegoated.
ReplyDeleteSure, but at this point aren't we just rooting for casualties?
No, I'm rooting for corroborated use of anonymous sources. It's why I continue to tilt at that windmill.
ReplyDeleteStill, if CNN and its pseudo-journalist employees--every single one of them--disappear from the fabric of society, where's the loss?
Eric Hines
For further delectation: Sarah Palin is suing the NYT for claiming a couple of weeks ago that she caused the shooting of Gabby Giffords: "Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011.”
ReplyDeleteGood. Couldn't happen to a nicer pack of shameless liars. Go, Sarah, go. It's hard to win a libel suit if you're a public figure, but this is bad enough that it may be possible. (And if you can't get relief from the courts over a statement like this, I may have to start asking why we have libel law at all.)
At the very least, she needs to refuse settlement; the public trial will illuminate about the NYT.
ReplyDeleteDiscovery should be fun, too.
Eric Hines