Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Brian Peacock]

I think the allegations are so serious that they demand serious investigation. You've just said they're not credible so they should be ignored. Thus, everyone not ignoring them is indulging incredulity, and anything that does make it into the public domain, from anonymous sources or otherwise, is quickly batted away. You don't need or want to know what's going on because you already know - it's #FAKENEWS.

[Seabass]

[Scot Dutchy]

Seabass your images are not visible here.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a good enough image by Dutch standards.

[Forty Two]

I think the allegations are so serious that they demand serious investigation. You've just said they're not credible so they should be ignored. Thus, everyone not ignoring them is indulging incredulity, and anything that does make it into the public domain, from anonymous sources or otherwise, is quickly batted away. You don't need or want to know what's going on because you already know - it's #FAKENEWS.

Mere allegations are generally not enough to start an investigation. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians on the Uranium One deal, for example. Those allegations, if true, are deadly serious. So, under your logic, they demand a serious investigation.

However, to warrant legal proceedings, there generally has to be more than just a "serious allegation." There has to be a serious allegation backed by probable cause.

No, the situation here is the reverse - you think you already know what's going on, which is why you accept any anonymous source allegation as true regardless, and if it's later disproved and shown to be fake, you ignore it and continue to believe your conclusion. You already think Trump must have done something wrong.

Yes, I "quickly bat away anonymous sources." Why shouldn't I? Four news sources "independently verified" anonymous sources and proceeded to report that Trump was given access to wikileaks documents before they were made public and during the campaign, which was an earthshattering revelation, and it caused pundits to rise in applause and cheers at the prospect of Trump's demise! The smoking gun had been found! ABC, CNN, and MSNBC all verified it! Stock market took a 300+ point tumble on the news. Only.... it was flat, out, false. Bullshit. Made up. Trump's campaign was emailed after the documentation had already been made public, to inform them of the great trove of info that had just been MADE PUBLIC. LOL.

So, yes, anonymous sources have taken a hit lately.

The Steele Dossier - made up, invented, paid for by political opponents, and used go generate secret FISA warrants to listen in on Trump "associates." Paid for by the DNC who hired a foreign company, Fusion One, to acquire the information - dirt on their opponent - FROM RUSSIAN SOURCES! And, the Dossier, as the director of the CIA said, could not be corroborated, and before BUZZFEED -- fucking BUZZFEED -- published it, the mainstream media wouldn't touch it, because they couldn't corroborate it.

Not too long ago, in 2016, this article appeared on Alternet -- as you know, a hyperconservative, pro-Trump outlet -- https://www.alternet.org/media/relying- ... -standards An analysis of The New York Times' use of anonymous sources found - "only one in five instances met the paper’s own citation standards."

One thing is certain: Anonymity continues to be granted to sources far more often than a last-resort basis would suggest…. But 2015 is another year to try to root out what some have called the “anonymice”—and the dubious rationalizations they travel with.

Whenever Times reporters cite an anonymous source, they are supposed to clearly spell out in an adjacent explanation that source’s relevant background and motivations for remaining anonymous

I've never seen outlets, including the NYT, spelling out the "relevant background" of an "anonymous source close to the Trump Administration," and I've never seen them explain the "motivations" for remaining anonymous. I think that rule is honored in the breach.

Many, many more of 2015’s anonymous-source front-page stories were not like the above, however. For every confidential whistleblower quoted, there were dozens more unnamed “American officials” to be found; time and again, the powerful enjoyed the privilege of anonymity orders of magnitude more often than the powerless. All too often, the Times front page resembled a journalistic dumping ground for anonymous source-driven ego scoops, trial balloons, buck-passing and what University of London professor and media critic Aeron Davis calls “inter-elite communication.”

Sound familiar? Does 2017 and 2016 seem any different from that description?

This leaves the last, least visible orbit of anonymity, one that is populated by every hit-and-run citation by a Times reporter of a “senior administration official” or “Western diplomat” or “person in law enforcement” that offers nothing else by way of context to the reader. Nearly invisible yet stubbornly common, these deeply embedded anonymous sources act like the journalistic equivalent of dark matter. Remember how Times policy says all anonymous sources are supposed to be coupled with an explanation and reason for granting it? Well, every one of these examples fails to live up to that promise. Of all the ethical shortcomings of the Times’ anonymity practices, the continued existence of drive-by anonymity ranks among the worst.

Take a look at the stories with the anonymous sources about Trump over the last year. How many offered context? How many offered an explanation for the reason to grant anonymity? How many are "drive by anonymity?"

Two major front-page stories—about asupposed “criminal inquiry” into Hillary Clinton’s emailsand on the San Bernardino terrorists’ online presence—both had to be walked back (sometimes more than once) after key claims initially provided by, respectively, unspecified “law enforcement officials” and “senior government officials” turned out to be wrong. Also worth noting: Both corrected articles violated the Times‘ confidential source policy—both before and after the correction ran. A close reading of how each story failed suggests the act of adding the missing context for the anonymous sources might have forewarned the reporters—two of whom shared a byline on both flawed stories—of potential problems before publishing.

See? It's not a partisan issue. There is no reason to be giving broad anonymity to "law enforcement officials" and "senior government officials." It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. If a story demands use of anonymous sources, it's the exception to the rule, and the source needs to be vetted, and the reason for anonymity explained, etc.

As a last point, what is most disturbing is that when the media has found out that they were lied to, or given false information, they aren't making the anonymous source pay with loss of anonymity. When someone sends a reporter down a false path, and embarrasses the reporter by having given false information, the correction should, in my view, disclose the source who did it. The reporter should also have to try to verify what the anonymous source is saying. Some vetting of the information should be done so the reporter will be able to credibly say "this source is anonymous for good reason, but I am confident of the information." The reporter's job is not to spit out whatever people tell him. The reporter is there to find the truth.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Forty Two, you continue to parrot the right-wing talking point about the Steele dossier as 'made up, invented,' 'uncorroborated' etc. When I pointed out that several items in the document have indeed been corroborated, you simply ignored that, which is convenient.

As for 'secret FISA warrants to listen in on Trump "associates,"' I was unaware of any solid confirmation that had taken place. There have been anonymous sources who claimed that Manafort was the subject of a FISA warrant, however.

Given the fact that Manafort has been indicted for failing to register as an agent of a foreign power, it would seem that perhaps a FISA warrant was justified. Who the other Trump associates that anonymous sources claim have been the subjects of FISA warrants, I don't know, but maybe you can tell me.

[Brian Peacock]

Do FISA do public warrants as well as secret warrants? Seems to me that 'FISA warrants' would suffice, and that 'secret FISA warrants' are a rhetorical over-egging ladled on for effect.

[L'Emmerdeur]

... rhetorical over-egging ladled on for effect.

A delightful turn of phrase.

You are of course correct. FISA warrants are, due to the nature of their subjects, secret.

[Brian Peacock]

I think the allegations are so serious that they demand serious investigation. You've just said they're not credible so they should be ignored. Thus, everyone not ignoring them is indulging incredulity, and anything that does make it into the public domain, from anonymous sources or otherwise, is quickly batted away. You don't need or want to know what's going on because you already know - it's #FAKENEWS.

Mere allegations are generally not enough to start an investigation. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians on the Uranium One deal, for example. Those allegations, if true, are deadly serious. So, under your logic, they demand a serious investigation.

OK. But let's not conflate contexts. Again, you're invoking a moral equivalence to imply an innate biased or partisan outlook in addressing the alleged personal failures of two individuals. But reducing this to personal comparisons is, I fear, missing the point - and by quite a mark.

Sure, I'll grant -- for the sake of argument -- that Clinton and Trump have had a different experience with regard to these sets of allegations, but I'm sure you'll also accept that the context of the allegations in each case is different also: the cited Clinton allegation concerns a possible personal failure; the allegations surrounding foreign interference in the election and the nature and content of the interactions between Russia and Trump Campaign are of a significantly higher order as they concern a possible compromising and/or failure of US democratic practices, institutions and processes.

From where I'm sitting it's cheifly Trump and his PR team who have made "this Russia-Trump thing" all about him, and by focusing on that he and his sympathisers, favourable commentators and grass roots supporters have felt free to flail away at Hillary and bleat on about how Donald is so hard-done by, how he's being singled out for special treatment and subjugated to harassing propaganda from the #FAKENEWSMEDIA. Indeed, how many times has the first impulse of a Trump supporter to a news story about the ongoing investigations been, "But what about Hillary?!"? Eh?

Now, President Trump could have said that these allegations about the possible compromising of US democratic practices, institutions and processes are very serious and we need to get to the bottom of them, but he didn't say that - he didn't take a statesman-like approach or even cast himself as the defender of US democracy. To be honest, I don't think that would occur to him or his team. No, his first impulse was to trenchantly deny even the possibility, to point the finger at his political opponents, to blather on and bluster about how he personally is the most maligned and ill-treated President in history - and let's not forget that the first impulse of some very significant members of his campaign crew was to actually and demonstrably lie about their own actions.

So perhaps Hillary has some questions to answer, but the fact that you think she got off lightly does not in anyway undermine or diminish the seriousness of the allegations against the Trump Campaign and the part Russia may have played in the election.

However, to warrant legal proceedings, there generally has to be more than just a "serious allegation." There has to be a serious allegation backed by probable cause.

No, the situation here is the reverse - you think you already know what's going on, which is why you accept any anonymous source allegation as true regardless, and if it's later disproved and shown to be fake, you ignore it and continue to believe your conclusion. You already think Trump must have done something wrong.

You've tried this a few times now -- cast me as 'one of them', as 'an unbeliever', and dismissed my points on that basis. It doesn't work, and I won't be drawn into justifying my point of view to your satisfaction as a condition of my ongoing contributions to this discussion.

Yes, I "quickly bat away anonymous sources." Why shouldn't I? Four news sources "independently verified" anonymous sources and proceeded to report that Trump was given access to wikileaks documents before they were made public and during the campaign, which was an earthshattering revelation, and it caused pundits to rise in applause and cheers at the prospect of Trump's demise! The smoking gun had been found! ABC, CNN, and MSNBC all verified it! Stock market took a 300+ point tumble on the news. Only.... it was flat, out, false. Bullshit. Made up. Trump's campaign was emailed after the documentation had already been made public, to inform them of the great trove of info that had just been MADE PUBLIC. LOL.

Again, you seem to be pushing context-free accusations against those four news outlet for making shit up just to damage Trump but, as already noted, the concern here is not so much with the reporting of the source but with the source itself. The news outlets have clarified and correct the story, and you and I both know to what lengths serious news outlets have to go to in order to verify and fact-check their sources. I understand that it's easier all round to accuse the #FAKENEWSMEDIA of mean-spirited, biased partisanship and fictionalising, it fits so nicely into Trump's 'They're all against me' martyr complex narrative, but the wider picture and the implications surely do not escape you here?

And besides, an argument from incredulity is still a fallacy, particularly when used to fillet a red herring, reupholster a strawman, to tone-police the debate, or shift the goal posts onto a different ground entirely. E. G...

The Steele Dossier - made up, invented, paid for by political opponents, and used go generate secret FISA warrants to listen in on Trump "associates." Paid for by the DNC who hired a foreign company, Fusion One, to acquire the information - dirt on their opponent - FROM RUSSIAN SOURCES! And, the Dossier, as the director of the CIA said, could not be corroborated, and before BUZZFEED -- fucking BUZZFEED -- published it, the mainstream media wouldn't touch it, because they couldn't corroborate it.

Not too long ago, in 2016, this article appeared on Alternet -- as you know, a hyperconservative, pro-Trump outlet -- https://www.alternet.org/media/relying- ... -standards An analysis of The New York Times' use of anonymous sources found - "only one in five instances met the paper’s own citation standards."

One thing is certain: Anonymity continues to be granted to sources far more often than a last-resort basis would suggest…. But 2015 is another year to try to root out what some have called the “anonymice”—and the dubious rationalizations they travel with.

Whenever Times reporters cite an anonymous source, they are supposed to clearly spell out in an adjacent explanation that source’s relevant background and motivations for remaining anonymous

I've never seen outlets, including the NYT, spelling out the "relevant background" of an "anonymous source close to the Trump Administration," and I've never seen them explain the "motivations" for remaining anonymous. I think that rule is honored in the breach.

Many, many more of 2015’s anonymous-source front-page stories were not like the above, however. For every confidential whistleblower quoted, there were dozens more unnamed “American officials” to be found; time and again, the powerful enjoyed the privilege of anonymity orders of magnitude more often than the powerless. All too often, the Times front page resembled a journalistic dumping ground for anonymous source-driven ego scoops, trial balloons, buck-passing and what University of London professor and media critic Aeron Davis calls “inter-elite communication.”

Sound familiar? Does 2017 and 2016 seem any different from that description?

This leaves the last, least visible orbit of anonymity, one that is populated by every hit-and-run citation by a Times reporter of a “senior administration official” or “Western diplomat” or “person in law enforcement” that offers nothing else by way of context to the reader. Nearly invisible yet stubbornly common, these deeply embedded anonymous sources act like the journalistic equivalent of dark matter. Remember how Times policy says all anonymous sources are supposed to be coupled with an explanation and reason for granting it? Well, every one of these examples fails to live up to that promise. Of all the ethical shortcomings of the Times’ anonymity practices, the continued existence of drive-by anonymity ranks among the worst.

Take a look at the stories with the anonymous sources about Trump over the last year. How many offered context? How many offered an explanation for the reason to grant anonymity? How many are "drive by anonymity?"

Two major front-page stories—about asupposed “criminal inquiry” into Hillary Clinton’s emailsand on the San Bernardino terrorists’ online presence—both had to be walked back (sometimes more than once) after key claims initially provided by, respectively, unspecified “law enforcement officials” and “senior government officials” turned out to be wrong. Also worth noting: Both corrected articles violated the Times‘ confidential source policy—both before and after the correction ran. A close reading of how each story failed suggests the act of adding the missing context for the anonymous sources might have forewarned the reporters—two of whom shared a byline on both flawed stories—of potential problems before publishing.

See? It's not a partisan issue. There is no reason to be giving broad anonymity to "law enforcement officials" and "senior government officials." It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. If a story demands use of anonymous sources, it's the exception to the rule, and the source needs to be vetted, and the reason for anonymity explained, etc.

As a last point, what is most disturbing is that when the media has found out that they were lied to, or given false information, they aren't making the anonymous source pay with loss of anonymity. When someone sends a reporter down a false path, and embarrasses the reporter by having given false information, the correction should, in my view, disclose the source who did it. The reporter should also have to try to verify what the anonymous source is saying. Some vetting of the information should be done so the reporter will be able to credibly say "this source is anonymous for good reason, but I am confident of the information." The reporter's job is not to spit out whatever people tell him. The reporter is there to find the truth.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two, you continue to parrot the right-wing talking point about the Steele dossier as 'made up, invented,' 'uncorroborated' etc. When I pointed out that several items in the document have indeed been corroborated, you simply ignored that, which is convenient.

I didn't ignore it - but things like the Russians posting on facebook is laughable. So fucking what? They are allowed to post on facebook, like everyone else. And, Trump retweeting such a post (which apparently were Russians posting stuff online pretending not to be Russians) is not wrong or problematic. What's the scandal? Russia wanted Trump elected. Film at 11?

The dossier alleged that there was an effort to exacerbate the aversion felt by Sanders voters against Clinton? The link you provided doesn't support that the DOSSIER'S allegation was confirmed at all. It posts a lot of speculation, but not confirmation. And, again, so what? What does that have to do with Trump doing something wrong?

As for 'secret FISA warrants to listen in on Trump "associates,"' I was unaware of any solid confirmation that had taken place. There have been anonymous sources who claimed that Manafort was the subject of a FISA warrant, however.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fb ... ts-n827421

Given the fact that Manafort has been indicted for failing to register as an agent of a foreign power, it would seem that perhaps a FISA warrant was justified. Who the other Trump associates that anonymous sources claim have been the subjects of FISA warrants, I don't know, but maybe you can tell me.

I'm just going by what the FBI said. You'll let me know if on this one they're to be believed, or if this is one of the times we don't believe them.

The charges relate to lobbying activity and failing to register as an agent of Ukraine (long before the election). But according to the indictment, from roughly 2008 through 2014, Manafort and Gates did not register with the U.S. attorney general as agents working on behalf of Ukrainian interests, as required by law. A separate count alleges they made false and misleading statements about their activities.

Once again... what does this have to do with Trump?

[Forty Two]

... rhetorical over-egging ladled on for effect.

A delightful turn of phrase.

You are of course correct. FISA warrants are, due to the nature of their subjects, secret.

That isn't necessarily a fact everyone reading this is aware of. But, correct, technically redundant.

[Brian Peacock]

Technically redundant, but rhetorically useful.

[Forty Two]

I think the allegations are so serious that they demand serious investigation. You've just said they're not credible so they should be ignored. Thus, everyone not ignoring them is indulging incredulity, and anything that does make it into the public domain, from anonymous sources or otherwise, is quickly batted away. You don't need or want to know what's going on because you already know - it's #FAKENEWS.

Mere allegations are generally not enough to start an investigation. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians on the Uranium One deal, for example. Those allegations, if true, are deadly serious. So, under your logic, they demand a serious investigation.

OK. But let's not conflate contexts. Again, you're invoking a moral equivalence to imply an innate biased or partisan outlook in addressing the alleged personal failures of two individuals. But reducing this to personal comparisons is, I fear, missing the point - and by quite a mark.

You'll need to articulate a material difference -- why are the allegations sufficient to warrant action against Trump, but not a former secretary of State, former Senator, accused of self-dealing and selling uranium to a foreign power (trading influence for huge donations)? The most common blurb I get on that is people saying she's not the President. That's true, of course, but hardly a material reason for the FBI not launching a serious probe. Investigations of non-Presidents occur all the time.

Sure, I'll grant -- for the sake of argument -- that Clinton and Trump have had a different experience with regard to these sets of allegations, but I'm sure you'll also accept that the context of the allegations in each case is different also: the cited Clinton allegation concerns a possible personal failure; the allegations surrounding foreign interference in the election and the nature and content of the interactions between Russia and Trump Campaign are of a significantly higher order as they concern a possible compromising and/or failure of US democratic practices, institutions and processes.

There are allegations against Clinton that mirror those against Trump. Fusion GPS - a foreign entity - paid for by Clinton and the DNC, to acquire dirt on an opponent from foreign sources.

Further, the Uranium One allegation involves national security.

From where I'm sitting it's cheifly Trump and his PR team who have made "this Russia-Trump thing" all about him, and by focusing on that he and his sympathisers, favourable commentators and grass roots supporters have felt free to flail away at Hillary and bleat on about how Donald is so hard-done by, how he's being singled out for special treatment and subjugated to harassing propaganda from the #FAKENEWSMEDIA. Indeed, how many times has the first impulse of a Trump supporter to a news story about the ongoing investigations been, "But what about Hillary?!"? Eh?

That may be as may be. i can't really comment on that. When the FBI seems to be favoring Hillary, and talking about their duty being to see Trump not elected, and that insurance policies are in place to see to it that he isn't. And, those same FBI agents are working on his investigation and Hillary's investigation AND they alter the allegations in the Hillary investigation to make sure that the language is such that it's "careless" and not "grossly negligent," etc. You wouldn't say "what about hillary?" under those circumstances? I would. Fuck yeah. That's a key question here. We know "why not Hillary?" right? Because the FBI agents involved thought it was their duty to fuck Trump, and help Hillary, because she should be winning the election 100,000,000 to zero.

Now, President Trump could have said that these allegations about the possible compromising of US democratic practices, institutions and processes are very serious and we need to get to the bottom of them, but he didn't say that - he didn't take a statesman-like approach or even cast himself as the defender of US democracy. To be honest, I don't think that would occur to him or his team. No, his first impulse was to trenchantly deny even the possibility, to point the finger at his political opponents, to blather on and bluster about how he personally is the most maligned and ill-treated President in history - and let's not forget that the first impulse of some very significant members of his campaign crew was to actually and demonstrably lie about their own actions.

What they deny is their involvement. He did not trenchently deny that Russia might be trying to fuck with our electoral process. Those are two different issues. Just because Russia does propaganda, and facebook posts, or even tries to hack stuff - that does not mean TRUMP or his team did anything wrong, even if Russia really hated Clinton.

So perhaps Hillary has some questions to answer, but the fact that you think she got off lightly does not in anyway undermine or diminish the seriousness of the allegations against the Trump Campaign and the part Russia may have played in the election.

They don't undermine or diminish allegations against Trump. But, the reality is there are not "allegations against the Trump campaign and the part Russia may have played in the election." That's the thing. What do you think the allegation against the Trump campaign is? Who made the allegation? Where is it printed? Did the FBI make that allegation? Who? When?

These discussion always turn around and around referring to the serious allegations, without posting "the allegation." Let's list them --

Allegation 1 -- The Trump campaign is alleged to have done _______________________________________.
Allegation 2 -- The Trump campaign is alleged to have done ________________________________________.

You know what it boils down to? Nothing. Each thing mentioned about Trump Jr and anyone else in the campaign amounts to a big nothing, but all together they're supposed to make smoke. Even Manafort is nothing - he's under the gun for stuff he did in 2014 and earlier - the only issue more recently was lying about it.

You've tried this a few times now -- cast me as 'one of them', as 'an unbeliever', and dismissed my points on that basis. It doesn't work, and I won't be drawn into justifying my point of view to your satisfaction as a condition of my ongoing contributions to this discussion.

Right after you cast me as "one of them" an "unbeliever" in "the allegations." The anonymous sources - I'm supposed to believe them.

Yes, I "quickly bat away anonymous sources." Why shouldn't I? Four news sources "independently verified" anonymous sources and proceeded to report that Trump was given access to wikileaks documents before they were made public and during the campaign, which was an earthshattering revelation, and it caused pundits to rise in applause and cheers at the prospect of Trump's demise! The smoking gun had been found! ABC, CNN, and MSNBC all verified it! Stock market took a 300+ point tumble on the news. Only.... it was flat, out, false. Bullshit. Made up. Trump's campaign was emailed after the documentation had already been made public, to inform them of the great trove of info that had just been MADE PUBLIC. LOL.

Again, you seem to be pushing context-free accusations against those four news outlet for making shit up just to damage Trump but, as already noted, the concern here is not so much with the reporting of the source but with the source itself.

No, it's both - because the reporter has an obligation to confirm the source, to vet the source. The whole idea of being a trusted news source is that their own reputations are on the line when they trust an anonymous source. That's why reputable sources say they use anonymous sources in the rare case, and only in exception circumstances, and only with disclosure of the context and need for secrecy.

Further, the issue is not just with the source - but it certainly is with the source. Now that the source is shown to be bogus - reveal the source. That's usually a condition on being an anonymous source - anonymity is conditional on truth.

And the reporting, by the way, strongly implied that they had seen the email.

The news outlets have clarified and correct the story, and you and I both know to what lengths serious news outlets have to go to in order to verify and fact-check their sources. I understand that it's easier all round to accuse the #FAKENEWSMEDIA of mean-spirited, biased partisanship and fictionalising, it fits so nicely into Trump's 'They're all against me' martyr complex narrative, but the wider picture and the implications surely do not escape you here?

The ABCNews guy who broke the story was suspended for a month without pay. That sure as shit says something bad went on. Usually nothing happens when these sources come up empty.

This has been happening repeatedly. And, half the articles I read are based on nothing more than anonymous sources, and they are on stories that don't need anonymous sourcing. Some report on Trump flying into a rage -- "sources close to the President say Donald is raving like a lunatic in the oval office..." - oh, sure -- a story of little interest except to smear the President, and it's an anonymous source who says "Trump is a dick." There are many stories like that.

And besides, an argument from incredulity is still a fallacy, particularly when used to fillet a red herring, reupholster a strawman, to tone-police the debate, or shift the goal posts onto a different ground entirely. E. G...

The Steele Dossier - made up, invented, paid for by political opponents, and used go generate secret FISA warrants to listen in on Trump "associates." Paid for by the DNC who hired a foreign company, Fusion One, to acquire the information - dirt on their opponent - FROM RUSSIAN SOURCES! And, the Dossier, as the director of the CIA said, could not be corroborated, and before BUZZFEED -- fucking BUZZFEED -- published it, the mainstream media wouldn't touch it, because they couldn't corroborate it.

Not too long ago, in 2016, this article appeared on Alternet -- as you know, a hyperconservative, pro-Trump outlet -- https://www.alternet.org/media/relying- ... -standards An analysis of The New York Times' use of anonymous sources found - "only one in five instances met the paper’s own citation standards."

One thing is certain: Anonymity continues to be granted to sources far more often than a last-resort basis would suggest…. But 2015 is another year to try to root out what some have called the “anonymice”—and the dubious rationalizations they travel with.

Whenever Times reporters cite an anonymous source, they are supposed to clearly spell out in an adjacent explanation that source’s relevant background and motivations for remaining anonymous

I've never seen outlets, including the NYT, spelling out the "relevant background" of an "anonymous source close to the Trump Administration," and I've never seen them explain the "motivations" for remaining anonymous. I think that rule is honored in the breach.

Many, many more of 2015’s anonymous-source front-page stories were not like the above, however. For every confidential whistleblower quoted, there were dozens more unnamed “American officials” to be found; time and again, the powerful enjoyed the privilege of anonymity orders of magnitude more often than the powerless. All too often, the Times front page resembled a journalistic dumping ground for anonymous source-driven ego scoops, trial balloons, buck-passing and what University of London professor and media critic Aeron Davis calls “inter-elite communication.”

Sound familiar? Does 2017 and 2016 seem any different from that description?

This leaves the last, least visible orbit of anonymity, one that is populated by every hit-and-run citation by a Times reporter of a “senior administration official” or “Western diplomat” or “person in law enforcement” that offers nothing else by way of context to the reader. Nearly invisible yet stubbornly common, these deeply embedded anonymous sources act like the journalistic equivalent of dark matter. Remember how Times policy says all anonymous sources are supposed to be coupled with an explanation and reason for granting it? Well, every one of these examples fails to live up to that promise. Of all the ethical shortcomings of the Times’ anonymity practices, the continued existence of drive-by anonymity ranks among the worst.

Take a look at the stories with the anonymous sources about Trump over the last year. How many offered context? How many offered an explanation for the reason to grant anonymity? How many are "drive by anonymity?"

Two major front-page stories—about asupposed “criminal inquiry” into Hillary Clinton’s emailsand on the San Bernardino terrorists’ online presence—both had to be walked back (sometimes more than once) after key claims initially provided by, respectively, unspecified “law enforcement officials” and “senior government officials” turned out to be wrong. Also worth noting: Both corrected articles violated the Times‘ confidential source policy—both before and after the correction ran. A close reading of how each story failed suggests the act of adding the missing context for the anonymous sources might have forewarned the reporters—two of whom shared a byline on both flawed stories—of potential problems before publishing.

See? It's not a partisan issue. There is no reason to be giving broad anonymity to "law enforcement officials" and "senior government officials." It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. If a story demands use of anonymous sources, it's the exception to the rule, and the source needs to be vetted, and the reason for anonymity explained, etc.

As a last point, what is most disturbing is that when the media has found out that they were lied to, or given false information, they aren't making the anonymous source pay with loss of anonymity. When someone sends a reporter down a false path, and embarrasses the reporter by having given false information, the correction should, in my view, disclose the source who did it. The reporter should also have to try to verify what the anonymous source is saying. Some vetting of the information should be done so the reporter will be able to credibly say "this source is anonymous for good reason, but I am confident of the information." The reporter's job is not to spit out whatever people tell him. The reporter is there to find the truth.

There's nothing "fallacious" about that. That article shows quite clearly why we ought not trust anonymous sources blindly, and why they should be used sparingly in news articles, and why there must be context given about the source to show why the source must be anonymous.

Look - it's crying wolf - if you lead us down the path 3 times with anonymous sources, I'm not buying your anonymous sources anymore, not until you earn a track record of accuracy.

[Brian Peacock]

Being as you're clearly reluctant to engage my broad point all I'll add is this observation...

What they deny is their involvement. He did not trenchently deny that Russia might be trying to fuck with our electoral process. Those are two different issues. Just because Russia does propaganda, and facebook posts, or even tries to hack stuff - that does not mean TRUMP or his team did anything wrong, even if Russia really hated Clinton.

Which is, as you continue to drag this matter back to one which is, and can only ever be, a question of moral equivalence between Trump and Clinton you appear more than happy to presuppose the conclusions of multiple ongoing enquiries, and express those conclusions in such terms as to explicitly hand the President's campaign team, and by extension the Russian government and the President himself, a free pass justified on the basis that someone else once did a bad thing. The thing is, if Clinton had been elected I would be just as eager in calling for a full and independent enquiry no matter who it touched - that the 17 agencies of the US intelligence community agreed that Russia had actively sought to swing the election in favour of the Trump Campaign is irrelevant - as to some extent is the extent of their success. The fact is Russia actively sought to interfere. What has the President actually done to secure the operation of US democracy? Don't tell me, he would have done a lot by now if only the Democrats and the #FAKENEWSMEDIA hadn't been making his life so darned difficult.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Forty Two, you continue to parrot the right-wing talking point about the Steele dossier as 'made up, invented,' 'uncorroborated' etc. When I pointed out that several items in the document have indeed been corroborated, you simply ignored that, which is convenient.

I didn't ignore it ...

OK, kindly point out where you responded, because I missed it.

... but things like the Russians posting on facebook is laughable. So fucking what? They are allowed to post on facebook, like everyone else. And, Trump retweeting such a post (which apparently were Russians posting stuff online pretending not to be Russians) is not wrong or problematic. What's the scandal? Russia wanted Trump elected. Film at 11?

The point is that Steele discovered the Russian propaganda effort and wrote it down in his reports long before anybody else was aware of it, or at least before it became public knowledge. He didn't 'make it up' or 'invent' it, just as with the other items in my post.

The dossier alleged that there was an effort to exacerbate the aversion felt by Sanders voters against Clinton? The link you provided doesn't support that the DOSSIER'S allegation was confirmed at all. It posts a lot of speculation, but not confirmation. And, again, so what? What does that have to do with Trump doing something wrong?

Again, I'm addressing your repeated assertion that Steele 'made up' or 'invented' the contents of his reports. It's true that the link doesn't mention the dossier, but it reports on the evidence discovered by Sanders campaign workers (not 'speculation').

Sometimes it was hard to tell who was doing the trolling and for what purposes. Aleta Pearce, 54, who lives in Malibu, California, was an administrator of half a dozen pro-Sanders Facebook groups and a member of many others. In May 2016, she posted a memo to various Facebook groups about the fake news issue, warning of bogus sites.

“The pattern I’m seeing is if a member is repeatedly posting articles that are only from one URL that person is just there to push advertising,” Pearce wrote. “They probably have a sock account with little to no content. They are often from Russia or Macedonia.” (A “sock” or “sock puppet” account uses a false identity to deceive.)

Pearce added, “Please share this with other Bernie groups so we can put an end to this spam bombing that’s filling up our pages and groups. It’s time to chase the mice out of the hen house and send them a message. They don’t know who they are messing with.”

The first tidal wave of spam was mostly anti-Bernie, Pearce recalled, posted by Clinton backers. (David Brock’s Clinton-backing super PAC had likely paid for some portion of those.) But after Clinton became the Democratic nominee in July, Pearce noticed a switch to anti-Hillary messages with links to fake news and to real news with obnoxious pop-up ads.

“Every site publishing those ― you clicked on the article, you would be slammed with ads and strange articles,” Pearce told HuffPost. “It was overwhelming. It was 24/7.”

She kept a list of fake news sites to watch for ― it grew into dozens. There were posts on the Clinton-has-Parkinson’s conspiracy and the Clinton-is-running-a-pedophilia-ring-out-of-a-pizza-shop conspiracy.

[source]

The Orbis report [aka 'Steele dossier'] also refers specifically to the aim of the Russian influence campaign “to swing supporters of Bernie Sanders away from Hillary Clinton and across to Trump,” based on information given to Steele in early August 2016. It was not until March 2017, however, that former director of the National Security Agency, retired Gen. Keith Alexander in Senate testimony said of the Russian influence campaign, “what they were trying to do is to drive a wedge within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group.” A March 2017 news report also detailed that Sanders supporter’s social media sites were infiltrated by fake news, originating from “dubious websites and posters linked back to Eastern Europe,” that tried to shift them against Clinton during the general election. John Mattes, a former Senate investigator who helped run the online campaign for Sanders, said he was struck by Steele’s report. Mattes said, Steele “was writing in real time about things I was seeing happening in August, but I couldn’t articulate until September.” It is important to emphasize here that Steele’s source for the change in plan was “an ethnic Russian associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump [who] discussed the reaction inside his camp.”

[source]

No comment about the other instances of Steele's work being confirmed by later investigations?

As for 'secret FISA warrants to listen in on Trump "associates,"' I was unaware of any solid confirmation that had taken place. There have been anonymous sources who claimed that Manafort was the subject of a FISA warrant, however.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fb ... ts-n827421

Wray's statement was extremely vague, and may apply to FISA warrants issued for surveillance of Trump campaign team members, or may apply to FISA warrants issued for surveillance of suspected Russian agents. Manafort wasn't mentioned in that story, and though it does mention Carter Page, Wray certainly did not confirm that a FISA warrant was issued for surveillance of Page. So I still await the solid confirmation that I requested.

Given the fact that Manafort has been indicted for failing to register as an agent of a foreign power, it would seem that perhaps a FISA warrant was justified. Who the other Trump associates that anonymous sources claim have been the subjects of FISA warrants, I don't know, but maybe you can tell me.

I'm just going by what the FBI said. You'll let me know if on this one they're to be believed, or if this is one of the times we don't believe them.

The FBI has not confirmed that a FISA warrant was issued for surveillance of Manafort, so 'what the FBI said' does not support your assertion.

Once again... what does this have to do with Trump?

My post, as you very well know, was in regard to your repeated regurgitation of the right-wing talking point that Steele's work was 'made up' etc. etc. The only use of Trump's name was when I was referring to Trump campaign workers.