Why do people think "Patriotism" is "Hate-riotism"? (America) - Page 21

Alceste · #**201** 05-21-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

Hi 9-10ths,

But the story's importance seems to override the potential retribution for the source. Because now all we have a story based on anonymous sources which diminishes its credibility.

Only to you, Joe, only to you.

Journalists often have to promise to protect the anonymity of their sources in order to get them to speak freely.

9-10ths_Penguin · #**202** 05-21-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

But the story's importance seems to override the potential retribution for the source. Because now all we have a story based on anonymous sources which diminishes its credibility.

So give it whatever credence you think it deserves. It is what it is.

I do recognize that no knowing who the story came from makes it more difficult to verify, but you're asking for an alternative that was probably never available to the journalist.

In many cases, a story will never come to light unless a source comes forward. Sometimes, those sources won't come forward if they feel that doing so could put them at risk.

It's entirely your prerogative to ignore claims from anonymous sources if you want. It's also entirely the prerogative of others to give those claims whatever weight they think is appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alceste

Only to you, Joe, only to you.

Given the choice, I'd prefer a verifiable source to an anonymous one too. However, that doesn't mean anonymous sources are worthless.

Reverend Rick · #**203** 05-21-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Given the choice, I'd prefer a verifiable source to an anonymous one too. However, that doesn't mean anonymous sources are worthless.

Agreed. An anonymous source could be 100% correct, or a complete fabrication. If GWB was to have said something like that, I doubt he would have spoke within ear shot of anyone who would not keep his confidence.

Joe Stocks · #**204** 05-21-2008, 06:25 PM

Hi Alceste,

I printed that PNAC document. It should take me a night or two to read and digest. Then I'll start a thread discussing the possible fascist components of the document.

Quote:

Only to you, Joe, only to you.

Journalists often have to promise to protect the anonymity of their sources in order to get them to speak freely.

Not really. I wonder why no reputable news organizations took the story. I suspect because of its lack of credibility. It amounts to 'a few people say this guy said X.' Not really convincing. It may be true, we just don't know. If it is true, I share your disdain for Bush on that matter.

Joe Stocks · #**205** 05-21-2008, 06:26 PM

Hi 9-10ths,

Quote:

Given the choice, I'd prefer a verifiable source to an anonymous one too. However, that doesn't mean anonymous sources are worthless.

Or worth anything.

Alceste · #**206** 05-22-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Stocks

Hi Alceste,

I wonder why no reputable news organizations took the story. I suspect because of its lack of credibility. It amounts to 'a few people say this guy said X.' Not really convincing. It may be true, we just don't know. If it is true, I share your disdain for Bush on that matter.

Meh, I couldn't really give a toss whether it's true or not, since coming from a single blogger it obviously can not be proven either way. I find it very consistent with his behavior though, signing more arbitrary presidential vetoes and exceptions than any president in US history, pushing through laws and policies that clearly violate US and international law, and appointing an unprecedented ratio of convicted criminals to high office. His well-documented public behavior shows complete disregard for the rule of law, so it doesn't stretch my credulity to accept the story is probably true. You can only go so far with hearsay though - it's definitely better to concentrate on his better documented outbursts of contempt for the US Constitution - like the Patriot Act, for example, or Guantanemo Bay, or the national surveillance program, or the illegal occupation of Iraq.