The media's anti-Trump sources talk so much and say so little

[Right_in_Virginia]

The media's anti-Trump sources talk so much and say so little
Washington Examiner, Feb 18, 2017, Eddie Scarry

On every new article featuring leaks about the White House, editors should place a disclaimer: Anonymous officials cited in this piece stopped short of justifying the havoc this story is about to create.
 
A flurry of would-be bombshell reports over the last week appeared to show more ties between President Trump and Russia or further demonstrate the supposed ineptitude of the Trump administration.
 
The stories depended entirely on anonymous "current and former U.S officials" who share a lot of tantalizing information then, strangely, clam up just as things are about to get good.
 
The news media spin every "leak" into an ominous warning. But once readers get through these stories they realize something's missing. Namely, a conclusion.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that "U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised."
 
Not until nine paragraphs in did the report admit that their sources "know no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been" withheld from the White House.
 
Being withheld are intelligence sources and methods of intelligence gathering, which would sound familiar to any reporter who has kept his or her sources secret from a publisher.


More:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/anti-trump-media-talk-so-much-say-so-little/article/2615229

[EC]

Difference between a leaker and a whistleblower - a whistleblower signs his name.

I like neither, but can at least respect the ones who put their name out with the allegations.

[endicom]

These news alarums seem to have little effect on the populace. People just wait to see what Trump will do.