Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Read the news like a spy

posted by Fnord666 on Monday January 09 2017, @06:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the just-call-me-Harriet dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

President-elect Donald Trump is clearly antagonistic toward the mainstream media. That attitude is unlikely to change after Inauguration Day. His disdain for journalists and reluctance to release details about his finances and business ventures may force journalists to rely increasingly on anonymous sources, a strategy that reputable news organizations have long frowned upon.

So in the age of Trump, how should a reader approach coverage that relies primarily on anonymous sources?

Read the news like a spy.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Read the news like a spy | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 64 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @04:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @04:53PM (#451501)

    I'm not 100% sure what everybody else is commenting on within this thread... maybe some kind of anti-MSM, anti-establishment subtext was in the summary which I missed?

    Anyway, this article is an interesting read and seems to make sense and is a clever new perspective on what to think about when news reports quote "sources" in a place. However, the example they gave is awful. They claim that it's not feasible for the incoming Trump administration to put pressure on Kuwaiti ambassador to change venues for a variety of reasons (too risky, few people would know, etc). However, this doesn't pass the sniff test.

    Business frequently gets done via casual comments and desire to please. It's very plausible for Trump to have made an off-hand remark (maybe with specific intent, or maybe just accidental casual small-talk) about how he liked his hotel there or something, and then the Kuwaiti ambassador to see a way to try to curry favor and change venues. It's also not that secret (people who are organizing the event would know the switch, as would both the previous venue and the new venue).

    So overall... while the skepticism the article suggests seems superficially valid, it also seems like it could easily be mis-applied to create false skepticism on things you inherently don't want to believe.