SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Washington Post reports FBI’s investigation of Trump included a counterintelligence inquiry:
The FBI investigation into President Trump that was opened almost immediately after he fired then-Director James B. Comey also included a counterintelligence component to determine if the president was seeking to help Russia, and if so, why, according to people familiar with the matter.
The decision by then-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe to open an investigation of a sitting president was a momentous step, but it came after Trump had cited the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election in his decision to fire Comey, these people said.
The counterintelligence component of the Trump investigation was first reported by the New York Times.
Late Saturday night, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Trump in an interview if he is or ever was working for Russia. Trump responded, "I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked." Referring to the New York Times story, he went on, "I think it’s the most insulting article I’ve ever had written."
See also The Guardian.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @08:17PM (12 children)
I really wish I could filter every single claim that comes from an anonymous source before I even see it. They turn out to be misleading or even totally made up about 80% of the time, forcing me to believe the opposite of whatever the news says by default. Anyone know how to make a firefox addon that does this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:05PM (10 children)
These are unnamed sources (e.g., someone within the government in a position to know, but doesn't want to comment on the record) as opposed to a anonymous source, who could be anyone sending hot tips into TMZ.
If an unnamed source misleads a journalist the journalist will never trust them again (and will tell all their journalist colleagues). Just because the public doesn't know the identity of the source yet, that doesn't mean the journalist doesn't know who the source is (and usually their editor and/or publisher know as well).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:36PM (8 children)
Then the journalist should keep track of their record in trusting anon sources and show us how reliable they are. There is no need to reveal any more info than is already in the leak, just to go back and check them against what eventually happened or was revealed.
Until then, I'm assuming its a scam (which has worked out quite well for me so far). Anyway, the average consumer of this stuff will just go on believing for no reason at all apparently, so thats never going to happen.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:00PM (5 children)
How do you know journalists don't keep track of the reliability of sources? Their editors and publishers certainly keep track of the accuracy of each journalist's stories (and the number of times they get sued). It would be detrimental to a journalist's career to get things wrong on a regular basis (or get something really big wrong just once).
I think you are confusing "I have never see it" with "it doesn't exist".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:11PM (4 children)
I'm sure they do, and the track record is atrocious. If it wasn't they would brag about it to their readership.
It's "graded" on a scale. The goal is to not stick out with too good ("they must be presstituting") or too poor ("there wasnt even a rumor to begin with") of a record relative to your peers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:24AM (3 children)
I'm grading your posts an a scale ... and even then they get an "F".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:38AM (2 children)
Just like the priest who wanted to give me an F for not believing in his God, your F for not believing (what is indistinguishable to me from) random crap a Washington post journalist heard shows I am on the right track.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:43AM (1 child)
Go spend some time reading the liberal bastion called The Wall Street Journal. You'll still get an F, but at least it will take your mind off your obsession with WaPo.
BTW, your reference to religion is telling. Many Trump sycophants equate their support to religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:11PM
Wall street journal is the same.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday January 14 2019, @04:10AM (1 child)
If a journalist were to publish a history of "this anon source gave me this list of stories, of this level of reliability", then I am certain that anyone working in that area could identify who the leak was merely from the intersection of people who knew about each story.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:34AM
They don't need to that, only keep track of their own record in choosing which rumor to listen to. No additional information need be released.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @03:47AM
Unless, of course, the journalist gets something back in exchanging for spreading lies, such as an easy story and access/connections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @09:19PM
**citation needed**
[Look out! One is behind you!]
And, no, you do not wish that, and even if you did, you couldn't know before you saw it that it was anonymously, free-range, gluten-free sourced.