The Briefing Room
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: endicom on November 14, 2018, 12:36:28 am
-
Twitchy
Brett T.
Nov. 13, 2018
Remember back in September when there was the big brouhaha over who wrote that unsigned op-ed in the New York Times claiming to part of the Resistance in the White House vowing to thwart parts of President Trump’s agenda and his worst inclinations?
We still don’t know who wrote it, but we do know we don’t put a lot of faith in anonymous sources from the Trump administration — make that especially from the Trump administration.
The headline of this post might sound like it came from a fortune cookie, but it’s actually a line from the Los Angeles Times, which is looking into President Trump’s low profile following so many rallies before the midterm elections.
More... https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/11/13/sources-say-president-has-retreated-into-a-cocoon-of-bitterness-and-resentment-ben-shapiro-zings/
-
Good retort from Shapiro.
-
What I learned. Sorkin makes millions writing the same script over and over and over again. What a coked up fraud.
-
What I learned. Sorkin makes millions writing the same script over and over and over again. What a coked up fraud.
Does coke make people repetitive?
-
Does coke make people repetitive?
I don't think so, but it makes dumb asses feel brilliant which is easily the case with this clown.
-
And sounds a bit like what was said about Nixon.
-
Does coke make people repetitive?
People are always accusing me of doing that. They say that I'm redundant, that I repeat myself, that I say things over and over.
I don’t know where anyone would get such an idea?
-
My managing editor made it very clear to my fellow reporters and me that we had to name our sources. We were not permitted to cite anonymous sources, and the only time we could cite a report was when it was a police report (from a named police department).
If you read just about any negative news article about Trump (and they're all negative) from AP, Reuters, WashPoo, etc., you see "sources say" or "according to reports." This is not good reporting. It violates just about every tenet of reporting, in fact. Those old rules have been discarded, clearly, in order to completely convert news reporting to editorializing.
-
My managing editor made it very clear to my fellow reporters and me that we had to name our sources. We were not permitted to cite anonymous sources, and the only time we could cite a report was when it was a police report (from a named police department).
If you read just about any negative news article about Trump (and they're all negative) from AP, Reuters, WashPoo, etc., you see "sources say" or "according to reports." This is not good reporting. It violates just about every tenet of reporting, in fact. Those old rules have been discarded, clearly, in order to completely convert news reporting to editorializing.
There was a time when The NY Times straight news stories held to a strict standard, too. Editors would unceremoniously cut words or entire paragraphs from a story if the language strayed from facts into unsubstantiated opinion; which was one reason why reports would often read choppy.
-
There was a time when The NY Times straight news stories held to a strict standard, too. Editors would unceremoniously cut words or entire paragraphs from a story if the language strayed from facts into unsubstantiated opinion; which was one reason why reports would often read choppy.
I never saw that time. In my experience, they've always been more propaganda than news.