this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
42 points (71.4% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5456 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes, that's how reporting with anonymous sources works. The person writing the article knows who they are and verified that they're "close to Biden". You just have to determine whether you think the author is just making it all up.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Its barely journalism though. Facts are better than rumors.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let's say you're a journalist. You have an in with Antony Blinken and, let's say, Karine Jean-Pierre. They both want to tell you the same thing, and you want to report it. You know they are valid sources, but you and they both know there would be HUGE blowback (personally and professionally) if they were attributed by name.

What's your alternative, and how realistic is that?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Report away, its still rumors if it isnt attributed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps, but maybe a rumor that should be taken more seriously than what your weird neighbor down the street says.

Yes, it could be made up bullshit still but then you can look at the journalist themselves. Where do they work? Do you trust that source? Why or why not?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is there a "journalist score" somewhere that rates journalists rumors over time as fact or fiction?

Are youfamiliar with the journalist in OPs article? Can you attest to their validity in their reporting? Do you have previous rumors they've reported that ended up true? How often are their reported rumors fact vs lie?

There has to be data somewhere, right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not to my knowledge, but it was a secret informant and journalist who basically brought down Nixon. I'm not saying this story is or is not trustworthy, but I am saying this kind of reporting with anonymous but credible sources is nothing new.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

Recency is irrelevant, validity is what im looking for

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

Not really journalism. Skepticism if anything.