FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by nailer

In other words, we don't know if these statements are accurate, inaccurate, or made up.

Without corroberation, probably not. But, veracity of the source is a factor, someone with a rep for veracity has more credibility than someone that doesn't.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Without corroberation, probably not. But, veracity of the source is a factor, someone with a rep for veracity has more credibility than someone that doesn't.

And an unknown source has no veracity.

[Pio1980]

Less than this WH with a proven track record of mendacity? Hardly a reliable source of anything.
Undisclosed sources aren't unusual, it's the conduit that decides whether to stake their reputation on the source and the content. In other words,
Who's word would you take, based on the record.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I expected that Trump would cherry-pick this part of Comey's testimony. Are you cherry-picking or are you stating your confidence in Comey's veracity?

Read what's in the post, counselor. It speaks for itself, no spin required.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

That means, "we can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of the reports". It has nothing to do with the accuracy or mendacity of them.

Originally Posted by nailer

In other words, we don't know if these statements are accurate, inaccurate, or made up.

It's a new low for the press. They don't really care whether their sources are credible or not. If the sources are useful to push the press's preferred narrative, thats all that is required.

[MrPots]

"They don't really care whether their sources are credible or not."

One has to wonder why some people hold the press to higher standards than the president.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Less than this WH with a proven track record of mendacity? Hardly a reliable source of anything.
Undisclosed sources aren't unusual, it's the conduit that decides whether to stake their reputation on the source and the content. In other words,
Who's word would you take, based on the record.

The WH's veracity has nothing to do with my two previous posts.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

It's a new low for the press. They don't really care whether their sources are credible or not. If the sources are useful to push the press's preferred narrative, thats all that is required.

And overstatement on your part.

[whell]

Originally Posted by MrPots

"They don't really care whether their sources are credible or not."

One has to wonder why some people hold the press to higher standards than the president.

One has to wonder why some don't learn the lessons of history. The press in this country have a unique roll, and historically referred to as the "fourth branch of government" or "fourth estate". This unique roll is protected by the First Amendment. While certainly not legally a co-equal branch of government, the unique roll that was envisioned for the press was that it is the news media's responsibility to inform the electorate, which is essential to a functional, effective democratic form of government.

So, held to a higher standard? Maybe, to the extend that this "fourth branch's" role is to help keep the other branches "honest".

What really appears to be happening is that, much like the rest of Washington DC, the fourth branch is becoming more dysfunctional every day.

[whell]

Originally Posted by nailer

And overstatement on your part.

I don't think so. When journalistic methods breakdown such that water cooler gossip within the DC Beltway starts being reported as "news", something's seriously wrong.