Enemies of the People? Trump's Assault on the Press

[Infidel144]

I just look on these as his way to bypass the media to express his frustrations. (Not that I even really pay much attention to his tweets.) If anything, this form of communication is more to rile up the opposition and rally his supporters. I think in that respect and judging by the comments on this forum, he is succeeding in that goal.

And we have a winner. (Or close enough). Trump's twitter wub is not intended for Gen. Chris, which is why his whinging is worth less than nothing. Trump's twitters are for those who will vote for him. That by doing so he can stick a thumb in the eye of the MSM and other TDSers is likely seen as just added bonus, and resulting wub fits are a source of amusement.

[Gaidin]

They are because sometimes the White House lacks any better expression as to his desire.

[TheDarkKnight]

Does Bob Woodward count as the Press?

That new book looks interesting.

And it is hilarious how Trump ate up everything Woodward said about the Obama administration but the second Woodward starts writing about HIS administration he starts calling Woodward a liar.

If a generator powered by hypocrisy could be invented, the attitude on the right on this issue could power a small city.

[Gaidin]

Does Bob Woodward count as the Press?

That new book looks interesting.

And it is hilarious how Trump ate up everything Woodward said about the Obama administration but the second Woodward starts writing about HIS administration he starts calling Woodward a liar.

If a generator powered by hypocrisy could be invented, the attitude on the right on this issue could power a small city.

Here’s the problem: people that typically at least lightly defend Trump are on Woodward’s side.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AriFleisc...15246081347584

[NorseThing]

The problem is not really a problem exclusive to Woodward. From a CNN Money article:

Newspapers like The New York Times and networks like CNN have led the way with scoop after scoop about Trump's behavior behind closed doors.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/04/med...ess/index.html

Of course, CNN 'likes' the book since it supports the CNN editorial bias in their own reporting which CNN takes pride in leading the way.

This bigger problem is all reporting that uses confidential sources. Woodward was spot on with Deep Throat and his editors backed him in the reporting. Today it is more a matter of habit and not even a major editor decision to allow confidential sources to take the lead in the reporting. This opens up the accusation that the reporters are simply making things up or that the confidential sources are making things up. In some cases this is true. In other cases it is the result of selection of what facts to give and what facts to omit. By using a confidential source, no person can even attempt to 'cross exam' the source. Thus we get fake news.

I would have preferred a Woodward book on the value of confidential sources and when, why, and how often they should be used. We do have snippets of this in the reporting if you search. A better organized effort could aid journalism students. If this book has already been released in some form, I would be interested. I would buy that book and I have not bought any book for about a decade.

[Gaidin]

Unfortunately for you, Woodward has already earned his reputation for truthfully filetting administrations. Where were you in EVERY administration since Nixon?

[NorseThing]

Unfortunately for you, Woodward has already earned his reputation for truthfully filetting administrations. Where were you in EVERY administration since Nixon?

Didn't I just say that? From my prior post above yours:

Woodward was spot on with Deep Throat and his editors backed him in the reporting.

Is there a point I am missing?

[Gaidin]

All his books. Woodward is more than Deepthroat.

[TheDarkKnight]

Yeah Woodward has a long history of this. It's nothing new.

As I said, Trump was cheering Woodward on...when he was tackling the issues in Obama's administration. Now that Woodward is "against Trump" Trump is gonna treat him like everyone else he feels is "wronging" him (tackling the issues in HIS administration)

As I said...Hypocritical.

[NorseThing]

The hypocrisy of Trump is also the hypocrisy of most major internet media providers (mainly CNN, but all of them really). And I do agree that Woodward has a long history on this. That should not make it acceptable to use confidential sources except in the most exceptional of cases. To publish a book filled with a bulk of confidential sources could be part of the problem here.

[Gaidin]

The hypocrisy of Trump is also the hypocrisy of most major internet media providers (mainly CNN, but all of them really). And I do agree that Woodward has a long history on this. That should not make it acceptable to use confidential sources except in the most exceptional of cases. To publish a book filled with a bulk of confidential sources could be part of the problem here.

Confidential sources are up to the sources. Not up to the person being written about. That's the first thing you need to realize. Confidential sources can be about whether the information can get the person in some sort of trouble, or whether it will let them speak more freely. Or if it won't get them in any technical trouble, will their industry blacklist them for speaking out? There are many reasons to stay anonymous. And it is up to the source. Not the journalist.

Second, and something I can address now that I have a keyboard in front of me instead of a cellphone. Why doesn't Woodward write a book about confidential sources and when and how to use them? Because he's a journalist in the field and not a professor of journalism in a University. To be blunt, and to slightly mock the teachers as much as I appreciate them, Woodward works for a living. You get from Woodward. You want a textbook, find the professor's writing. It shouldn't be that hard with all the schools of journalism that actually have a good reputation out there to find something to give you the information you want.

Trust me, Woodward has a good enough fortress around this book and Trump doesn't have a good enough political coordination that just screaming FAKE NEWS won't really hurt Woodward. He's not going anywhere, nor is his book. That's the first thing you need to realize. This isn't the first time Woodward has done this. This IS the first time Trump has done this. Woodward has survived the proverbial presidential PR assault before on his books. Who do you think is going to come out on top. Really.

[Katsumoto]

The book couldn't exist without the confidential sources, though. It's just the way these things are. Most people aren't going to talk candidly if they're in danger of losing their job, family or community, and it comes down to whether you want to trust the reporting in light of that. In the case of Woodward, it seems highly unlikely that at least some of his reporting isn't true.

The most vivid passages of his books usually come from the quotes of his high-level sources. That's certainly true of Fear. It's John Kelly the chief of staff, who describes the Trump White House as "Crazytown". It's James Mattis who apparently mocks the president as a 5th or 6th grader - a ten year old. Mattis has denied saying those things. Kelly says he didn't call the president an "idiot". But try winning a credibility contest against Bob Woodward, one of America's most trusted journalists.

So detailed are his studies - and so well-sourced - that they've become part of the historical record. His trilogy of books on George W Bush - Bush at War, Plan of Attack and State of Denial - have not yet been bettered. The Commanders remains a classic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45415158

[NorseThing]

Then the natural result is that Trump is critical and calls out 'fake news'. My point is not that confidential sources should never be used, but use them sparingly and with a great deal of editor oversight on the process. Woodward's book seems to fail at this in particular because the author is so established that we all accept it as told to Woodward. But the problem is not Woodward's reliability on the reporting, but the reliability of his confidential sources to give fair and accurate accounts when there is no independent means to validate the controversial. Of course this particular book will be forgotten long before the November election cycle except by those with an axe to grind or to use to support more confidential sources in reporting.

[NorseThing]

The use of confidential sources is up to the reporter. They do not need to be used. The reporter can choose to not use the source within the article. It is never up to confidential source to determine what is used and not used in an article. In the case of Woodward, his using of the confidential sources means sales of a book. Even the publisher approves of more sales of the book. That does not mean that the public wins. I do not really give a hang whether Trump or Woodward 'win' in their little tweeter / reporter media shout match.

Edit: before some one else chimes in - I think opinion pieces in a newspaper are different from news articles. I find it a bit humorous that the NY Times has a controversy on using unnamed authors of opinion pieces. I found this CNN piece more damage control on 'Fear' than real reporting: https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/med...dao/index.html

In any case confidential sources are simply different than confidential opinion pieces. CNN is simply and intentionally missing the point, I think.

[Gaidin]

The use of confidential sources is up to the reporter. They do not need to be used. The reporter can choose to not use the source within the article. It is never up to confidential source to determine what is used and not used in an article.

You're not hearing me. It is up to the source if the source's name is revealed. The reporter protects the sources or the reporter isn't trustworthy and the reporter has no sources and they're finding another career. LEARN THIS SIMPLE STRING OF EVENTS AND HOW IT WORKS PLEASE.

If the reporter can find no source willing to be named but has plenty of sources willing to be anonymously quoted what the living hell are you willing to bet they're going to do? The mother of all stories with anonymous sources or nothing? Learn how this crap works now. I don't care if you like it. I care how it works. Or you will be left behind.

[Heathen Hammer]

You're not hearing me. It is up to the source if the source's name is revealed. The reporter protects the sources or the reporter isn't trustworthy and the reporter has no sources and they're finding another career. LEARN THIS SIMPLE STRING OF EVENTS AND HOW IT WORKS PLEASE.

If the reporter can find no source willing to be named but has plenty of sources willing to be anonymously quoted what the living hell are you willing to bet they're going to do? The mother of all stories with anonymous sources or nothing? Learn how this crap works now. I don't care if you like it. I care how it works. Or you will be left behind.

Or, you know, reporter could just have made up the "anonymous" source to make more sensationalist claim. I'm pretty sure that you'd dismiss Infowars article based on anonymous sources about how DNC establishment is full of pedophiles, but you'd eat up same kind of claim made in regards to GOP by CNN or MSNBC and probably ask for seconds.

[Winston Smith]

Or, you know, reporter could just have made up the "anonymous" source to make more sensationalist claim. I'm pretty sure that you'd dismiss Infowars article based on anonymous sources about how DNC establishment is full of pedophiles, but you'd eat up same kind of claim made in regards to GOP by CNN or MSNBC and probably ask for seconds.

Because CNN, MSNBC, BBC etc have established themselves as trustworthy.

Infowars is full of .

[Kyriakos]

Because CNN, MSNBC, BBC etc have established themselves as trustworthy.

Infowars is full of .

BBC isn't seen as trustworthy. It has been the gov's mouthpiece since forever, used to sell wars based on lies, and an endless source of scandals, including paedophilia, misogyny and racism.
And they sort of have a far bigger budget than IW; let alone an obligation to the paying public.

[Aexodus]

Because CNN, MSNBC, BBC etc have established themselves as trustworthy.

Perhaps, but CNN and MSNBC undeniably have a bias in reporting.

The Jeremy Corbyn fiasco tells me the BBC doesn’t like him very much however. I would say the BBC has a slightly metropolitan, neo-liberal bias, not necessarily a ‘left’ bias. They’re definitely liberal on social issues.

But I mean, what kinda bubble do you need to live in to think this is a good idea.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or this

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Infowars is full of .

Correct

[Katsumoto]

Or, you know, reporter could just have made up the "anonymous" source to make more sensationalist claim. I'm pretty sure that you'd dismiss Infowars article based on anonymous sources about how DNC establishment is full of pedophiles, but you'd eat up same kind of claim made in regards to GOP by CNN or MSNBC and probably ask for seconds.

This makes about as much sense as comparing a hotdog stand to a Michelin star restaurant.