Seriously....can this guy be any more stupid? Has to be the stupidest man ever to lead a power. Putin must be so happy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/us/health-care-bill-trump-pence.html Senator: Mr. Prez, our opponents will call this a big tax cut for the rich Trump: Tax cut? No no no...we will deal with taxes later...don't worry Sura faints
Ahh yes, an unnamed senator., according to an aide... The New York Times loves their unnamed sources. They are always so accurate aren't they?
Why don't you give it up instead of swallowing and promoting leftist propaganda? Try a little critical thinking and stop giving these politically driven media liars the benefit of the doubt for their unsourced BS.
Do you have a list of news stories with unnamed sources that all turned out to be inaccurate? Or have you just been told that unnamed sources always mean the story is false and bought into it?
If those unnamed sources turned out to be telling the truth, then they are Deep State leakers who should investigated by the FBI.
Just off the top of my head.. Made up claim that Deputy AG threatened to resign after the Comey firing, attributed to unnamed sources and later flatly debunked by the Deputy AG himself. Claim that Trump divulged the source of the laptop bomb intelligence to Russian officials in Oval Office meeting, attributed to unnamed sources. Later contradicted by participants of the meeting. "Secret server" in Trump Tower communicating with a Russian bank. "Computer scientists" seeing indications of voter irregularities in Wisconsin. Golden Showers dossier.
At least one of your listing don't belong, but that's not so important. How many unnamed sourced stories turned out to be true? I think we can just said... bad news is fake news, and good news is real news Watergate scandal would be fake news, because anonymous sources: The connection between the break-in and the re-election committee was highlighted by media coverage—in particular, investigative coverage by The Washington Post, Time, and The New York Times. The coverage dramatically increased publicity and consequent political repercussions. Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House. Woodward and Bernstein interviewed Judy Hoback Miller, the bookkeeper for Nixon, who revealed to them information about the mishandling of funds and records being destroyed.[27]
Richard Nixon would have gotten away with Watergate today. People weren't rabid fanboys and dismissed every peice of negative press about their god emperor.
Name me a time NY Times has been caught fabricated anonymous sources. Publishers that have century old reputations aren't going to just fabricate sources. You might think they spin. You might think they disproprtionatly cover topics that you might think are not important but that's all subjective. Find proof that NYT has ever fabricated a anonymous source. We see what the moderate to liberal news media does when they discover when their journalists don't fully vet their sources. They take immediate self responsibility and take action. Right wing sources only are forced to apologise when their sponsers threaten them.
If they aren't fabricating them, they sure as hell aren't fact checking and verifying them. There used to be a journalistic responsibility to verify. That is now a thing of the past for these organizations. So either they are fabricating sources or relying on sources who lie and fabricate information. Both are bad and both are a far cry from what journalists used to do. Century old reputations don't last very long when you're publishing inaccurate, unsourced smear pieces every single day. You tend to lose credibility.
There is at least one of those which did actually turn out to be true. Another one has yet to be proven or disproven. So those would need to be removed. But I do thank you for listing some that turned out to be untrue. Of course, we know that many stories with unnamed sources have turned out to be true. Unnamed sources aren't something new in regards to journalism. Trump himself has relied on and referred to articles and unnamed sources.I, like almost every journalist, agree that a named source is better than an unnamed source. But simply dismissing every single story because they include unnamed sources isn't actually wise, since they so often turn out to be correct. The most one could say is that they aren't as reliable as named sources.
