|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 29, 2024 15:28:04 GMT
So now we like anonymous sources?
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 29, 2024 15:31:10 GMT
So now we like anonymous sources? As opposed to NHJ’s opinion? I’ll take it. Is there any reporting that has called the sandwich story into question? |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 29, 2024 15:43:35 GMT
So now we like anonymous sources? As opposed to NHJ’s opinion? I’ll take it. Is there any reporting that has called the sandwich story into question? Not to go all oop on you here, but you are being pretty fluid here in what you consider to be reliable reporting, and the sole determining factor appears to be whether the reporting does or does not back your side of the aisle. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 29, 2024 15:51:55 GMT
As opposed to NHJ’s opinion? I’ll take it. Is there any reporting that has called the sandwich story into question? Not to go all oop on you here, but you are being pretty fluid here in what you consider to be reliable reporting, and the sole determining factor appears to be whether the reporting does or does not back your side of the aisle. We have what, three people, on the record, who say they were told this story in real time. The Atlantic says that they fact checked it and they are satisfied that it is true. The Washington Post columnist says she has a source on background that has convinced her that the story is true. And, given their active Slack chanel, you know everyone in the Times building knows by know who facilitated that employee training, and who was in the training. And we have no one denying that it happened. Dr. Ford’s best friend, who she put at the party, could not verify her story. And the others who she claimed were there deny such a party ever happened. Kavanaugh literally had a calendar from the time showing it didn’t happen. And, unlike Dr. Ford, who couldn’t say when the party happened, or where, or even prove that she had ever met Kavanaugh, the sandwich story has a fixed place, date, and roster of participants. It’s almost impossible to prove Dr. Ford’s story false, because of the lack of specifics. The sandwich story could be more specific, and it happened in the NYT building, with fellow Times employees. I’m pretty sure they could prove it false… if it was false. |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 29, 2024 16:09:47 GMT
Not to go all oop on you here, but you are being pretty fluid here in what you consider to be reliable reporting, and the sole determining factor appears to be whether the reporting does or does not back your side of the aisle. The Atlantic says that they fact checked it and they are satisfied that it is true. LOL. "Just trust us." |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Feb 29, 2024 16:11:41 GMT
The Atlantic says that they fact checked it and they are satisfied that it is true. LOL. "Just trust us." Quite the cherry pick there. |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 29, 2024 16:14:40 GMT
Quite the cherry pick there. You can't spend years railing against anonymous sources and "just trust us" journalism, then about-face this time around because you want the story to be true. It is completely disingenuous for you, of all people, to include as part of your "evidence" of the story's veracity the fact the publication assures us that it "fact-checked" the piece. Come on, man. |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 29, 2024 16:16:39 GMT
Not to go all oop on you here, but you are being pretty fluid here in what you consider to be reliable reporting, and the sole determining factor appears to be whether the reporting does or does not back your side of the aisle. The Washington Post columnist says she has a source on background that has convinced her that the story is true. Forgot to "LOL" this one, as well, so ... LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by Ridiculously Dull Bobby on Feb 29, 2024 16:53:47 GMT
BUT WHAT ABOUT DR. FORD AND JUSTIN FAIRFAX?!?!?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by oop on Feb 29, 2024 18:02:15 GMT
Quite the cherry pick there. LMAO @ you whining about cherry picking. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 29, 2024 18:12:35 GMT
On the one hand we've got multiple independent (but anonymous) confirmations ... on the other, we've got Nikole Hannah-Jones. Boy, this is a tough one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 29, 2024 18:15:19 GMT
On the one hand we've got multiple independent (but anonymous) confirmations ... on the other, we've got Nikole Hannah-Jones. Boy, this is a tough one. That's all well and good, but I had been told previously, with some frequency, that anonymous sources are not to be trusted. |
|
|
|
Post by oop on Feb 29, 2024 18:16:58 GMT
Careful. YankeeFan doesn't like having his lies and hypocrisy pointed out to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Feb 29, 2024 18:24:13 GMT
I suspect that something close to the version of the story told in the Atlantic, but the notion of YankeeFan of all people throwing this word vomit up as a mic drop of some sort is pretty comical: I just had a belated conversation with a third person who had deeper firsthand knowledge of L'Affaire Chik-Fil-A than simply "Adam told them after it happened". I now consider the veracity of the incident to be settled beyond reasonable dispute. He is owed an apology. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorquant on Feb 29, 2024 18:26:45 GMT
On the one hand we've got multiple independent (but anonymous) confirmations ... on the other, we've got Nikole Hannah-Jones. Boy, this is a tough one. That's all well and good, but I had been told previously, with some frequency, that anonymous sources are not to be trusted. I'll confess that posters' leitmotifs don't interest me as much as they do others, but was YankeeFan's a blanket rejection or merely a strong consignment to the lowermost rungs? If it was the former, I suppose I can see the criticism. If it was the latter, however, it would seem ranking the anonymous confirmations ahead of NHJ's "there's no way that happened" doesn't strike me as unreasonable. |
|
