"Democracy Dies in Darkness," but anonymous sourcing " is " darkness

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
In the current hothouse environment, with liberal media that define Trump as the antonym of democracy, the public should be wary of anonymous sources. This is especially true today. Newspapers that crusaded against Trump in their pages -- both news sections and editorial pages -- simply cannot be trusted. Theirs is not the pursuit of truth; it's the hunt for Donald J. Trump's scalp.

Earth to the Post: Your new motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness," but anonymous sourcing " is " darkness. Every source who hides behind a wall as he tries to ruin other people's careers is a self-serving coward with a personal or political axe to grind. Without knowing an identity, the public has no way of telling anything. It's idiotic for the press to demand transparency in government at the exact same time it rewards government officials who refuse to be transparent themselves.

Journalists pat themselves on the back that they would never be "stenographers to power," but they're worse than that now. In their zeal to destroy Trump, they've become stenographers to anonymous power.

It's also a pattern. Since Trump won the election, the Post has been caught in a string of over-aggressive anti-Trump stories that were based on anonymous sources and turned out to be untrue. Just last week, the Post reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to resign in the wake of the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein denied ever doing such a thing. The Post also reported that the FBI asked for additional resources for its probe of possible Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government. The acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe, testified under oath that the report was not true. It's a shame Congress doesn't get to put the media's anonymous sources under oath.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16566/bozell-democracy-dies-anonymous-sourcing-l-brent-bozell-iii
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Another way to take their new slogan is that they *want* democracy to die and they are facilitating that by perpetuating the darkness.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Another way to take their new slogan is that they *want* democracy to die and they are facilitating that by perpetuating the darkness.

"The people have spoken - the bastards" - Dick Tuck, 1966, after losing a California State Senate election.

Remember that, after nominated - they wanted people to throw him off the ticket.
After election they wanted a recount in states where there was no actual evidence of tampering or even that close a vote.
That, after elected, they pleaded with electors to change their vote.

And they've been crying for impeachment before he actually took office - something where he must commit a high crime or misdemeanor to warrant such a thing.

So they're clearly not the slightest bit interested in "democracy".
They want what they want, even if the people choose otherwise.

Currently - using their phrasing - they're trying to overturn an election by crying wolf at every move by the President while declaring they are part of a "resistance".
They've decided that whatever Trump - the elected leader - begins to do, they are going to thwart.

I've never seen such blatant disrespect and insults from actual party leaders hurled at a sitting President.

So they don't want democracy. They want the same thing when they claim to be "tolerant".
They tolerate their own views. They have no room for anything else.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Anonymous sources who hide in the dark and sneak out to the media with Fake news or rumors are slimy bastards with no ethics , no loyalty and they are cowards.
The news papers who take these slimy bastards in and report their stories as facts are not worth lining a bird cage with.
Yet that is what we have been getting as news since November.

Pity the poor fools who read this garbage and take it to heart, because their queen of power lost the election.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Anonymous sources who hide in the dark and sneak out to the media with Fake news or rumors are slimy bastards with no ethics , no loyalty and they are cowards.
The news papers who take these slimy bastards in and report their stories as facts are not worth lining a bird cage with.
Yet that is what we have been getting as news since November.

Pity the poor fools who read this garbage and take it to heart, because their queen of power lost the election.

Even Woodward and Bernstein had to PROVE what was being told them by Deep Throat - they didn't just take his word.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Anonymous sources are anonymous for a reason. I guess it's up to you who you believe. The anonymous sources on WaPo, or those on Gateway Pundit.

Regardless, they sure as hell aren't going to give permission to put their name out there. Hence not being anonymous and potentially get fired from their job. They've been a staple of journalism for a long time and only now that Trump is in office are we questioning them. That's not to say it shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, but what's the end goal here? GURPS, the author of the article, and anyone advocating leakers/anonymous sources be jailed or charged with a crime, what then? We all get news straight from the White house, or other government office? How well ahs that worked in the past? How often are those sources completely forthright with the facts? I'll say it again, how much faith do you have in your government? Enough to allow them to decide the news?

Trump, the same guy who said:
An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
So they don't want democracy. They want the same thing when they claim to be "tolerant".
They tolerate their own views. They have no room for anything else.



Progressives want a FASCIST State where they dictate to all
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Anonymous sources are anonymous for a reason. I guess it's up to you who you believe. The anonymous sources on WaPo, or those on Gateway Pundit.

Regardless, they sure as hell aren't going to give permission to put their name out there. Hence not being anonymous and potentially get fired from their job. They've been a staple of journalism for a long time and only now that Trump is in office are we questioning them. That's not to say it shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, but what's the end goal here? GURPS, the author of the article, and anyone advocating leakers/anonymous sources be jailed or charged with a crime, what then? We all get news straight from the White house, or other government office? How well ahs that worked in the past? How often are those sources completely forthright with the facts? I'll say it again, how much faith do you have in your government? Enough to allow them to decide the news?

Trump, the same guy who said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794

Anonymous sources are anonymous for a reason.

Yes: They are cowards and sneaks.

regardless, they sure as hell aren't going to give permission to put their name out there. Hence not being anonymous and potentially get fired from their job.

What is their job? Sneaking around in the dark pimping on their employer?

GURPS, the author of the article, and anyone advocating leakers/anonymous sources be jailed or charged with a crime,

If they are violating the law by exposing secret material or lying, it is a crime.
What grain of salt have you used you seem to be taking every leak as though it is truth personified.
The reason for these leaks should be thought about before these leaks are published. Is the leaker only interested in hurting the President?
The problem with that is the leaker AND the media both have the same agenda. Bury trump.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Why not? Because a Republican is in office?

Wow Really ?

you cannot see the difference when Bush and not Trump was / is in office, and when Obama / Clinton was in office ??

how many more 100's of leaks there are


you really think your boy Gary would have had it any better :shrug:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Yes: They are cowards and sneaks.



What is their job? Sneaking around in the dark pimping on their employer?



If they are violating the law by exposing secret material or lying, it is a crime.
What grain of salt have you used you seem to be taking every leak as though it is truth personified.
The reason for these leaks should be thought about before these leaks are published. Is the leaker only interested in hurting the President?
The problem with that is the leaker AND the media both have the same agenda. Bury trump.

Would we have known about Watergate had it not been for a leaker/anonymous source? Pentagon Papers? Or that after the Pentagon declared (in 2011) that cyber attacks by another country are "an act of war", Obama ordered Stuxnet to be dispatched to Iran's nuclear facilities? Or that Obama had a secret kill list? Or the leaked details on the Bin Laden raid? Waterboarding and other torture? That the US sent military gear to Qaddafi?

There's a reason Obama prosecuted more people under the 1917 Espionage Act than all other Presidents combined.

Mind you, no one was going after Trump when his anonymous sources said Obama's birth certificate is fake (but I also understand you're firmly in that camp anyway). The left hated leaks (Obama went after leakers with a vengence) then, but love them now. The right loved with leaks on Obama came out, but should now be labeled as "cowards". The left took the anonymous leak that the CIA believed Russia influenced the election as fact.

It's certainly your opinion, but I'll ask again, do you trust your government enough to let them dictate what news you get form them? If the government makes everything that is important to the public illegal, what does that make journalism? Just look at the past lies from the CIA and other agencies, they've lied to us for decades. I'm not about to start trusting them to tell the truth now. Maybe you can't trust yourself to come up with your own objective conclusion though.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...house-operation-alan-fiers-iran-contra-affair
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB118/index.htm#docs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...ress-over-the-iran-contra-affair-2346382.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/kerry-cia-lied-about-cont_n_206423.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I guess it's up to you who you believe.

Indeed. I have no intention of believing proven liars, such as the WashPo and NYT, and I certainly don't believe their "anonymous sources". That would be an amazingly foolish thing to do, wouldn't it?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Would we have known about Watergate had it not been for a leaker/anonymous source?

True - but - the Post didn't publish stuff UNTIL it was corroborated. The leaker told them what they needed to know and where to look.
They didn't print stuff from an anonymous leaker - they found it.

I'm not at all pleased with the way things are being leaked, because - well, they're saying everything.
If a loonie lieutenant massacres civilians in Vietnam, yeah, damned straight we want that leaked.

What we don't want leaked is this shotgun approach of everything and damn the consequences.
Right now, the purpose seems to be, screw up what the White House does. Not expose corruption.

I get why we must not always "trust" what our government says - I am not a crook - I did not have sexual relations with that woman - If you like your healthcare - etc.

I also get why if you're trying to get the truth - be damned sure it's right. I hate this - but - when my kids do something bad, I only punish them when I'm really certain.
Last night I BELIEVE my son was breaking his restriction, but - I had no proof. I don't base his punishment on the belief he will disobey.
I'm inclined to believe that if actual persons present say one thing but an anonymous source who was NOT present says another - I'm going with the first.
I can't bring myself to believe every innuendo and rumor without proof.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
True - but - the Post didn't publish stuff UNTIL it was corroborated. The leaker told them what they needed to know and where to look.
They didn't print stuff from an anonymous leaker - they found it.

I'm not at all pleased with the way things are being leaked, because - well, they're saying everything.
If a loonie lieutenant massacres civilians in Vietnam, yeah, damned straight we want that leaked.

What we don't want leaked is this shotgun approach of everything and damn the consequences.
Right now, the purpose seems to be, screw up what the White House does. Not expose corruption.

I get why we must not always "trust" what our government says - I am not a crook - I did not have sexual relations with that woman - If you like your healthcare - etc.

I also get why if you're trying to get the truth - be damned sure it's right. I hate this - but - when my kids do something bad, I only punish them when I'm really certain.
Last night I BELIEVE my son was breaking his restriction, but - I had no proof. I don't base his punishment on the belief he will disobey.
I'm inclined to believe that if actual persons present say one thing but an anonymous source who was NOT present says another - I'm going with the first.
I can't bring myself to believe every innuendo and rumor without proof.

I'm certainly not claiming the media is a victim in all this. They have their issues. I've said that before and I'll certainly say that again. I'm also not equating the believing all anonymous sources vs. none.

What I'm saying is, this discussion of "punish all leakers to the fullest extent of the law", "we hate leakers/anonymous sources" is bad for democracy in general. Outside of specific examples and details of various leaks/stories, a media that is critical of government and has sources inside those agencies willing to give publicly important information to news agencies is our democracy. It's been that way for a very long time, and given the government's history lying to the American people, I'm certainly not about to trust them above anyone/anything else.

Objectively looking at these stories and waiting for facts to come out should be par for the course, but I'll admit that's not been the case recently. Blame it on politics, or whatever.

If it does come out that all these leaks and anonymous sources are false, that'd be a major black eye for the media Trump's railed against during the election and so far in his term as President. It'd all but guarantee a second term for him. All Trump needs to do is stay mum on the situation until it comes out. Instead, he's posting things on Twitter about "tapes" with Comey, whining that he "has been treated worse or more unfairly than any politician in history" (completely ignoring people like Lincoln and Mandela). Some of us believe this is a good thing. Him speaking his mind. Maybe I'm alone in believing it's time to act like an adult.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Would we have known about Watergate had it not been for a leaker/anonymous source? Pentagon Papers? Or that after the Pentagon declared (in 2011) that cyber attacks by another country are "an act of war", Obama ordered Stuxnet to be dispatched to Iran's nuclear facilities? Or that Obama had a secret kill list? Or the leaked details on the Bin Laden raid? Waterboarding and other torture? That the US sent military gear to Qaddafi?

There's a reason Obama prosecuted more people under the 1917 Espionage Act than all other Presidents combined.

Mind you, no one was going after Trump when his anonymous sources said Obama's birth certificate is fake (but I also understand you're firmly in that camp anyway). The left hated leaks (Obama went after leakers with a vengence) then, but love them now. The right loved with leaks on Obama came out, but should now be labeled as "cowards". The left took the anonymous leak that the CIA believed Russia influenced the election as fact.

It's certainly your opinion, but I'll ask again, do you trust your government enough to let them dictate what news you get form them? If the government makes everything that is important to the public illegal, what does that make journalism? Just look at the past lies from the CIA and other agencies, they've lied to us for decades. I'm not about to start trusting them to tell the truth now. Maybe you can't trust yourself to come up with your own objective conclusion though.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...house-operation-alan-fiers-iran-contra-affair
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB118/index.htm#docs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...ress-over-the-iran-contra-affair-2346382.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/kerry-cia-lied-about-cont_n_206423.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

I don't want the Government dictating the news, but I also do not want it dictated by liberals using leaked BULLSH!T either.
And that is what we have.
 
Top