"Woodstein"?
BPR "Famed Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (“Woodstein”) have recently weighed in on the use of anonymous sources in the reporting of President Trump’s alleged slurs of deceased soldiers. While they use their iconic status to support the “truth” spoken by such unnamed witnesses, they unwittingly prove the profound incapability of modern journalism in its assumed role as the arbiter of truth.
"There can be no better example of this than Woodstein’s discussion of their use of anonymous sources in Watergate. These sources, Woodstein argues, were all proven truthful and brought down a sitting president. Therefore, they contend, the present anonymous sources must be telling the truth. But this jejune reasoning shows precisely how modern journalism got out over its skis in Watergate and continues to careen wildly downhill.
"It is better to be lucky than good, and the reporters were fortunate that their witnesses in Watergate were speaking contrary to their own interests against a White House to which they were otherwise loyal. And the reporters knew from the employment of the witnesses that they knew whereof they spoke. To litigating lawyers, these factors are critical, that is, competence (basis for knowledge) and lack of motive to falsify. But to journalists, such analysis is foreign, and when attempted, usually is performed amateurishly.
"Moreover, all of Woodstein’s “anonymous” witnesses were not unknown to the FBI, on whom the reporters tailgated. That they had been willing to speak to the FBI on formal interview was another indicium of truth. " . . . More
Dr. Fauci disputes alleged quotes from him in Bob Woodward ... . . . "Woodward wants us to believe that Trump intentionally deceived the American people. He knew how serious the virus was, but wanted to hide its seriousness from the public to avoid a panic. That’s the line.
"Dr. Fauci, who ranks even higher than Woodward in the esteem of liberals I know, isn’t buying it. Fauci, who had the advantage of being there, says:
I didn’t get any sense that [Trump] was distorting anything. I mean in my discussions with him, they were always straightforward about the concerns that we had. We related that to him. And when he would go out, I’d hear him discussing the same sort of things. . . .
Laugh or Cry? Reporter's Defense of Atlantic's Anonymously-Sourced Anti-Trump Hit Piece Is Cringeworthy . . . “So, please, by all means, tell me why a journalist would risk ruining their career and tarnishing their industry by making up a source,” she added.
"Well, I bet you can imagine the responses. Many are inappropriate and totally out of line, but what is this? Is the liberal media bubble that dense, or does Ms. Krauth simply not know about past events where the liberal media did invent stuff out of thin air? Maybe it’s a little of both, but Dan Rather peddling fake documents to smear George W. Bush’s Air National Guard service during the 2004 election is certainly a prime example. Why was Brian Williams yanked off of NBC’s Nightly News? Have we forgotten about Richard Jewell and the 1996 Summer Olympics? Oh, yes, and The New Republic dealing with Stephen Glass, one of the most successful fakers out there—some people cited these examples in the replies. The New York Times had to deal with the lies of former reporter Jayson Blair." . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment