But let's get this thread rolling again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rgoodlaw/...47889356677120
But let's get this thread rolling again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rgoodlaw/...47889356677120
Every blog sucks
Anonymous sources from reputable publications should be taken with a grain of salt, of course (always ask yourself who benefited most from that information getting out- that usually tells you where it's coming from), but they are generally accurate. Outlets like ABC, WaPo, NYT, NBC, etc. don't publish stories on a single anonymous source except in extraordinary circumstances (and they typically make it very clear).
Anonymous sources from non-reputable publications should generally be assumed to be false. It's not that they are always false, but there isn't the same guarantee of journalistic standard, and they often abuse the "anonymous source" concept to proliferate fake news.
Having said all of that- I would say take any story about what Mueller's team is going to say/do with an entire ocean of salt. Mueller's team has been airtight. The "anonymous sources" have been the Trump legal team/friends and grand jury witnesses. It's never from the Mueller team itself.
I've seen several journalists allude to the fact that the steady stream of "Mueller's about to wrap things up!" tips are coming directly from Trump's legal team and allies (likely to placate him), for example.
Yes, anonymity is something I take with a grain of salt. That's why I don't typically believe any of it. Even if it comes from a 'reputable' source, the political climate shifts far too much and too often to deem any anonymous source as credible. The age of technology has shifted what can and cannot be faked far too much.
Again, all anonymous sources should be looked at with doubt. The guarantee of journalistic standards from places is called into question, in my mind, when I see 30 previous publications that hold no actual merit or deviation to the already hostile environment that is political alliances. I've always doubted the news because agenda, agenda, agenda.Anonymous sources from non-reputable publications should generally be assumed to be false. It's not that they are always false, but there isn't the same guarantee of journalistic standard, and they often abuse the "anonymous source" concept to proliferate fake news.
What point do you stop shoveling salt into the ocean?Having said all of that- I would say take any story about what Mueller's team is going to say/do with an entire ocean of salt. Mueller's team has been airtight. The "anonymous sources" have been the Trump legal team/friends and grand jury witnesses. It's never from the Mueller team itself.
Placating one side or the other is pretty much what journalists do these days. So again, salty ocean.I've seen several journalists allude to the fact that the steady stream of "Mueller's about to wrap things up!" tips are coming directly from Trump's legal team and allies (likely to placate him), for example.