September 5, 2020

Journalism question: What does it mean to "confirm" a story?

113 comments:

Temujin said...

She is a great reporter and if she did not confirm this, then she messed this one up. But her career is full of her getting the story and getting it right.

Ken B said...

Confirmations come with evidence. Where are the names?

JAORE said...

What does it mean to confirm a story?

Not enough information. First question, does the story harm Trump?

tommyesq said...

Or did she just read, or hear about, the Atlantic article and have no idea who these "sources" really are?

Owen said...

Good thing that the most important story facing the Republic is whether somebody can plausibly repeat hearsay about a random remark made years ago. As opposed to, you know, watching the country burn at the hands of bigoted unlettered Marxists.

James Pawlak said...

Here in "The Fly-Over Zone" this "Avocational Historian" must declare that THE ATLANTIC's use of anonymous statements, in its scree about President Trump and World War-I dead, is the most exact evidence that its editors and their co-actors are followers of the "Joseph Paul Goebbels School Of Journalism".

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Mixing a comment about McCain that we all know Trump said and conflating that “confirmation” with verification of the salacious Goldberg quotes is poor journalism. Griffin should not have used anonymous sources and Baier should know better than to defend shoddy reporting. Fox has turned into just another progressive NYT parrot outside of a few opinion shows. Their pollster is a nevertrump idiot. Not adding Paul Ryan to the board sure kept things steady there didn’t it!

Martha said...

Must read Glenn GREENWALD : Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite
Outlets claiming to have “confirmed” Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term.

Journalism has become a political action gossip group,without integrity or standards.

https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

wild chicken said...

Greenwald went off on this too. "Confirmation" is a sham.

But if Trump didn't say so much loose shit it wouldn't have been believable.

So, fake but accurate!

Sebastian said...

"Jennifer @JenGriffinFNC is a great reporter and a total class act."

Sure.

Et tu, FNC?

Michael K said...

Fox News has shifted left since the Murdoch boys took over.

Old proverb: First generation coolie
Second generation Merchant
Third generation rich man
Fourth generation coolie.

Limited Perspective said...

At this point, who cares. I was a loser when I joined the military. I was a high-school drop out, went to Juvenile Hall, and pretty much hated the world. I had to go through a waver process just to get in. It was for me about my only hope. In the military I found self-discipline, I found Jesus, I started taking night classes with the visiting universities on base (my first was an algebra class offered by the University of Maryland--I thought that was really something).

I credit Jesus, my wife, and the military for straighten me out (or at least making me stable). I've been married 32 years, have a degree in chemistry, been in business making money for my family and the government for a very long time, and raised three great kids. Thank God for the U.S. Air Force.

I was a loser going in, some of guys I served with were losers, none with an honorable discharge at the end their tour were losers. The unchangeable losers were kicked out. So what?

However, it doesn't sound like Trump but I wouldn't be offended even if he said it. Being offended by everything is one definition of "loser."

Birkel said...

Trump attacks FOXNews.
Lefties rush to defend Fox?
Worlds colliding.

Unknown said...

Of course she talked to the same people!

It's not like there were 12 people standing around the President when he supposedly said these things, and if the actual source did give a name of someone else in the conversation, the source would risk being outed.

In 1864, a man named McClellan ran as a Democrat against President Lincoln. Who was this McClellan? Well, he was Major General of the Army of the Potomac and General-in-Chief of the Army until November 1862. He was the equivalent of today's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What did he call Lincoln behind his back when serving under Lincoln? "Idiot" "Yahoo" "the original Gorilla."

So much for the loyalty of senior military officers.

Richard Dolan said...

Like your comment about David Brooks yesterday, the reporters even at Fox (and Baier is one of the best) are too taken with the idea that they have to push back against Trump that they don't bother to listen to what he was actually saying or even what they are saying. Nice to have lawprofs like you and Legal Insurrection do the work for them.

exhelodrvr1 said...

With something of this nature, if they aren't willing to give their names, I don't believe it.

NYC JournoList said...

The sources are described as “former sr officials.” Former means that they cannot be fired. Why is there a need to provide anonymity? As a practicing journalist I am disappointed that these reporters are abandoning any professional standard. We all know that people will lie and make things up to gain the presidency... There is too much money and power at stake to trust. The Clinton’s are billionaires. The Obama’s are on their way there. Susan Rice is a deca-millionaire.

exhelodrvr1 said...

How many times have "senior officials" lied about Trump, the investigations, etc. Obama, Biden, Rice, multiple-FBI agents? And half the country keeps falling for this!

Kai Akker said...

It's going to be a long time til Nov. 3.

Big Mike said...

Professor Jacobson gets right to the crux of the matter!

@Althouse, I thought you had a tag for him?

Jersey Fled said...

Isn't this what happened with the Russian Dossier story?

FBI leaked to the press, then used the press story for corroboration for the FISA warrant?

Douglas B. Levene said...

I haven't paid close attention to this story - the last time I looked at it, ten people had gone on the record saying that the Atlantic story was made-up bullshit, John Bolton (who was present during the alleged events) said it never happened, and the Atlantic's sources were still unnamed. I'd view that as pretty complete proof there was no substance to the Atlantic's story. Am I missing something?

tim in vermont said...

We should listen to Bret Baier because he’s pretty.

Achilles said...

The Democrats and their media allies better accept the results on election night.

They will not fair well if they push the mail fraud bullshit and the attendant removal of the thin veneer of civilization that follows.

traditionalguy said...

Fox News was once an Ailes operation. But it has been taken back by its British owners who want to see Trump destroyed. So they are hiring propagandists who will do as they are ordered to do to fake the news. It would serve them right for Trump to suddenly arrest all of the child lovers that play as if they are Globalist rulers in England.

tim maguire said...

And if she’s simply confirming that there is such a rumour without being clear that she is not confirming the underlying story, then how class an act can she be?

Martin said...

"Confirm" is too strong a word, anyway. The question is, did she get independent corroboration, which is probably all one can expect in a few hours anyway.

"Confirm" would mean a host of corroborating people with no contrary stories or doubts, a video or audio (tested to e sure it wasn't doctored), a berbatim official transcript.

If jouralism's current standards are that something is taken as confirmed when it is merely corroborated, things are even worse than I have been thinking.

MayBee said...

Also...it seems like a huge leap to say that he thought Vietnam was a dumb war and act like that confirms he said dead WWI soldiers were losers.

n.n said...

Independent evidence.

MayBee said...

I hated the way Trump talked about McCain...that's when he was at his least presidential. But Obama and the press called McCain racist, gave him the same "angry" rap they've given Trump supporters.
And McCain was actively undermining Trump. He was pushing the dossier. He was behind these 4 years of Trump being a Russian agent. So I don't really blame Trump for actively disliking McCain.

I don't think criticizing McCain- even calling him a loser- is a 4 year national tragedy.

traditionalguy said...

As for Brett Baier, he is the heir apparent to the Carlson-Hannity-Ingram triad. And Baier a Globalist that is proudly 100% Anti American Deplorables First.

Dave Begley said...

It means that Jen Griffin talked to the same lying anonymous disgruntled ex-employees!

I couldn’t believe that Jon Scott of Fox didn’t push back against the failed Mayor of South Bend when he pulled that stunt. At least I had the presence of mind to push back against that Harvard sophist.

Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept has a good piece on confirmation.

Tucker should devote 30 minutes to this story.

Matt Sablan said...

Start burning sources that lie to you people.

The Drill SGT said...

Since John Bolton, who was there, did not spend 3 pages on the story in his book, it did not happen. Further, the Navy keeps logs of communications and their weather versus helo recommendation is there is there in black and white.

DKWalser said...

'Confirming a story' means to means to verify that the story is accurate. In this case, all Fox News did was confirm that anonymous sources are willing to repeat the story. That is, they confirmed that the original story was based on anonymous sources (as opposed to being made up out of whole cloth by the author of the story). Fox News did NOT confirm that Trump said what the anonymous sources claim he did.

Did the President say what the anonymous sources claim he did? We cannot tell from the evidence presented. The President and many of those who were on the trip, including some who are detractors of the President, claim he did not say those things.

We do know that the anonymous sources claim that the President's trip to the cemetery was canceled merely because the President didn't want to get his hair wet. That claim is false. There are contemporaneous records documenting the Marine Corp canceled the flight because the weather made it unsafe. Also, contemporaneous records document that the President's security team felt the alternative of driving to the cemetery was unsafe (because the Secret Service had not vetted the route).

Either we believe that the anonymous sources lied about the reason the trip was canceled, but still believe them about their claim Trump said disparaging things about the men buried in the cemetery (which were allegedly said in the context of Trump's canceling the trip because he didn't feel like going); or, we recognize that the first lie (that Trump didn't want to go) massively undercuts the second claim (that Trump said mean things). The second claim is undercut because, absent the trip being canceled because the President didn't want to go, there no context in which the second claim makes any sense.

Wince said...

The reporter's "sources" essentially seem to say, 'Trump used these particular words, and what Trump meant by that was...' (switch to the source's words in quotes).

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

"Anonymous source" is Democrat code for "We don't have anything to go on, but we want to write a hit piece on Donald John Trump, so we'll just make up sources and call them 'anonymous.'"

Bob Smith said...

Those 500K ambassadorships don’t find themselves. You gotta make the donation.

rcocean said...

People need to read Greenwald's article on Why "Confirmation" is NOT what people think it is.

https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

Zach said...

Traditionally, it should mean "I was there and I heard it."

From context, it sounds like "there was a rumor, and I heard the rumor".

rcocean said...

Trump thinks the reporter from Fox who "Confirmed" the Atlantic story should be fired, and I agree. The Fox Reporter did NOT "confirm" the story in the normal sense of the word. She talked to someone - supposedly - who remains anonymous who said they heard the same stories about Trump's comments that were in the article. That's not CONFIRMATION. And its certainly NOT independent confirmation.

For all we know one the following may be true. The Fox Reporter:

1) Made everything up.
2) Talked to someone who made it all up.
3) Talked to someone who heard something 2nd hand.
4) Talked to the same person Goldberg did.
5) Talked to someone who took Trump's words out of context.
6) Talked to someone who only agreed with Part of what Goldberg wrote.

IOW, she didn't "confirm" anything. Like Goldberg, she has ZERO Reason to keep her "Sources" anonymous. All these people are FORMER DoD officials. They are not discussing classified into AND they are not subject to blow-back by Trump or the Federal Government.

Like Goldberg, she ONLY keeping her sources anonymous, because if we knew who they were & talked to them, Goldberg's story (and her's) would be dumped in the shitter.

Michael said...

Several people who work for the Atlantic, under condition they remain unnamed, said the Trump story is pure fiction and was crafted while the writers, stoned out of theIr minds on meth decided to make another try at bringing down Trump. The writers of this fiction, according to my unnamed sources, have a history of embellishing their anti Trump stories with comments from unnamed, fictional stories.

Zach said...

I for one would like to know the difference between "four people who had firsthand knowledge of the discussion" and "four people who heard the discussion". The dreaded passive voice!

mjg235 said...

This isn't an esoteric question inherent to the journalistic profession. Confirmation and refutation are standard epistemological concepts, and if she's really just repeating existing evidence, it obviously isn't confirmation. The quote she did unearth wasn't even disparaging of veterans, but the people who sent them to needless wars.

rcocean said...

Remember the Russia-Trump hoax that went on for 2 1/5 years? Well, the same propaganda technique was used by the Press during that Hoax. We were constantly told by the MSM that anonymous "Sources" with Mueller, with the FBI/CIA, inside DOD, working on the Senate/House Intelligence committees, had discovered evidence that Trump had colluded with Russia, or that Mueller was on the verge of destroying Trump, or that intelligence showed that Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed used by Obama, or whatever. You had people like McCain saying based on secret inside info that "Trump-Russia was going to be worse than Watergate".

And then we found out it was ALL A LIE. But the damage had been done. This is just the same technique of publishing attack Trump articles and then claiming it was true because of some anonymous source heard or saw it. We already know this one is a lie, but no doubt six months from know we'll find out the whole truth, namely it was a deliberate lie from Day 1 and Goldberg will say "So what if it was a lie, it worked didn't it?"

Narayanan said...

Journalism question: What does it mean to "confirm" a story?
---------------================
from all evidence so far I would say "confirm' is another word for "permitted plagiarism' of the narrative eagerly welcomed by interested parties.

/Reproducibility is regarded as one of the foundations of the entire scientific method, a benchmark upon which the reliability of an experiment can be tested./

it is "Reproducibility' as understood and applied in narrative engineering

rehajm said...

Yah, it's that 'he/she's a good guy' shit that comes from their friends when they are guilty. Just wave a red flag why dontcha...

Baier has never impressed me. Somebody must love him, but he seems kind of ditz. A harmful ditz. Guess he looks good in the suit behind the desk but he's just as bad a rest of em...

Mary Beth said...

Four anonymous sources have told me that the editorial staff of "The Atlantic" all have goatse screensavers.

DeepRunner said...

Bret Baier is a great anchor. But now's not the time to circle the wagons when a story has been disproved.Legal Insurrection is right. Parroting is not the same as proof.

Francisco D said...

I am waiting for another Christine Blasey Ford to appear and tell a story of Trump misdeeds that will be "confirmed" by people who recall her mentioning it some time in the past.

Of course, there will be no specific dates or persons to check out the story.

The Democrats roll this way because they have the utmost contempt for the American people and their own voters.

Big Mike said...

Remember the Russia-Trump hoax that went on for 2 1/5 years?

@rcocean, a lot of us remember the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax. Unfortunately the profession of journalism does not understand how damaging it has been to them.

Wince said...

Okay, those "sources" from the top echelons of the military and national security establishment, who've since left to make lots more money in the private sector, believe...

Trump simply does not understand non-transactional life choices. “He can’t fathom the idea of doing something for someone other than himself... He just thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker. There’s no money in serving the nation."

Protecting those lucrative private sector jobs, not "mean Tweets", are why they're staying anonymous.

Richard Dolan said...

Used to watch Special Report on Fox when Krauthammer was on the panel. After he got sick and then died, haven't had much interest in it. Never had much interest in any of the other channels.

cubanbob said...

No names so it didn't happen. The Atlantic is a vanity project for Steve Jobs widow.
Speaking of disrespecting American lives the people who are foaming at the mouth over Trump's alleged comment have no problem with Obama bin Biden willfully leaving twelve Americans to die when there was a real opportunity to save their lives.

LilyBart said...


We now have named sources, who's veracity, motivations, and proximity can be assessed. So, the game has moved forward. Without sources who claim it did happen going on the record and allowing themselves to be named so we can assess *their* veracity, motivations and proximity, continuing to use 'unnamed sources' as proof is irresponsible journalism, lacks integrity and is just garden variety hackery.

Ann Althouse said...

“ @Althouse, I thought you had a tag for him?”

Couldn’t tell that he wrote it. Don’t have a Legal Insurrection tag.

Yancey Ward said...

I bet at the bottom, there is, in fact, only one source- the other sources are just repeating what the primary source repeated to them. In fact, The Atlantic used other media outlets as confirmation, though even there, Goldberg didn't name anyone either, but he definitely tried to imply that it was additive to his 4 anonymous sources.

Someone here yesterday made the right point by asking rhetorically what is the difference between 1 anonymous source and 4? Nothing- it is all anonymous, and, thus, not really credible in any way. When people put their names to their claims, I give it more weight simply because the person is putting their reputation on the line and daring anyone to fact check it.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

who is digging into Hunter Biden's international graft?

Unknown said...

I hated the way Trump talked about McCain...that's when he was at his least presidential. But Obama and the press called McCain racist, gave him the same "angry" rap they've given Trump supporters.
And McCain was actively undermining Trump. He was pushing the dossier. He was behind these 4 years of Trump being a Russian agent. So I don't really blame Trump for actively disliking McCain.


As someone who voted for McCain in 2008, I was extremely disappointing in how petty he became in 2016. Another case for 30 year mandatory retirement from Congress in my book.

Gk1 said...

Ugh, this nonsense again. Sorry, this is from the Kavanaugh operation that failed. Repeating the same allegation from the same source is not the same as corroboration.

This BS atlantic story has the same format. Multiple nnnamed sources. Then they reveal themselves but then their story doesn't hold up when you look into the story, whether it was plausible they were even at an event then finally the story implodes into "O.k, so I can't confirm it but its still damning!" Zzzzzzz

Jeff Brokaw said...

I'm not sure what "confirmed" means, or what value it has, when all sources remain anonymous.

If a story is true, *and* important like they claim this one is, but as a source you're worried about retribution, well, you have choices, and a willingness to fall on your sword for a higher purpose says a lot about both your integrity and the higher purpose itself.

On the other hand, if you refuse to do that, that tells me it's just false.

It cannot be both uber-important and not worth putting your name behind it.

Haven't we seen this movie enough times already? Why do people keep taking the bait?

Jeff Brokaw said...

Journalists can argue all day long about what "confirmed" means in their little bubble world that nobody else cares about.

But the only important fact to be learned is: the story is true, or it is not.

Arguing about what "confirmed" means is secondary and only matters in the slightest *after* the true or false question is resolved.

Michael K said...

rcocean, that Greenwald article is excellent. Thanks.

Narr said...

Wonder of wonders, I learned a useful new term from one of the NPR high-brow (ha) panel shows--not sure which show, as I only listened long enough to get the gist--

"Citogenesis."

Exactly what happens in scenarios like this. You plant a story, then find someone who has heard it, and cite them. Perfected by Team Mueller, and still a staple of Deepstate procedures.

Narr
Clever people, hacks

mtrobertslaw said...

This charade will come to an end this way: Mr.A (identified by name) will claim he heard the story directly from Mr. B (identified by name) who told Mr. A that he was standing right next to Trump when he heard him make those very comments about our soldiers. Unfortunately, Mr. B passed away a year and a half ago and left no written record of what he heard.

roesch/voltaire said...

That looser John Kelly must be leaking to more than one person.

LilyBart said...


If all you have are anonymous sources, its worthless. It may be a place to start in journalism, but if that's all you have in the end, you can't come forward to present this as 'news'. Its just stupid gossip.

Night said...

If you watch Brett Baier you can see he is pre loaded with some rigid assumptions. I watched him misinterpret a Jeanne Pirro opinion that Biden might not be the candidate come election time. He assumed she meant through the DNC nomination process, she meant that the dems are going to find a way to remove him. Brett couldn't fathom what she was talking about.

Kevin said...

@rcocean, thanks for the link!

Journalism's New Propaganda Tool

Kevin said...

who is digging into Hunter Biden's international graft?

I can confirm it!

wild chicken said...

"Guess he looks good in the suit behind the desk"

I miss Brit Hume's hangdog look in that role.

Though he is still around.

Banjo said...

FOX fell under the sway of the left and Drudge Report suffered the same fate. Twitter is openly purging conservative opinion and Facebook has its thumb on the scale. Then there is the corporate press, formerly known as the impeachment press, and the credentialed useful idiots on campuses and the blowhards in the entertainment industry. The attempt bankrolled by plutocrats to stifle the right is reaching sinister levels in the run up to the election and is throwing gasoline on the conflagration building in the country. The riots and neighborhoods put to the torch remind me of how the Nazis used Spain as a training exercise in the 1930s. If the left thinks a Biden regency run by the Establishment with the connivance of the deep state will be countenanced by the rest of the nation, they are tragically mistaken.

Michael K said...

As someone who voted for McCain in 2008, I was extremely disappointing in how petty he became in 2016. Another case for 30 year mandatory retirement from Congress in my book.

I was a volunteer for McCain in 2000. I preferred him over W. By 2008 he was too old but I voted for him anyway. In 2016, he ran for re-election promising to "Build the Damn Wall!" and repeal Obamacare. We saw how that went. Then the Wellstone style funeral. The drug addict widow did not even invite Palin.

J Melcher said...

Wasn't there a big deal about somebody or another "leaking" when a rumor was mentioned and the supposed leaker said "I've heard that, too." ?

It was like about Valerie Jarett or something, and A said to B "I've heard she's a spy," and B says "I've heard that, too." and so *B* gets arrested for outing her.

I can't remember the details off the top of my head. But what is passed around as "confirmation" or "intelligence" in D.C. seems awfully -- situtational.



Bruce Hayden said...

“2Isn't this what happened with the Russian Dossier story?

“FBI leaked to the press, then used the press story for corroboration for the FISA warrant?”

Actually, that story was mostly Christopher Steele, feeding the story to everyone he could. Then the FBI said “it must be reputable because we hear the same story from all these sources”. They got it directly from him, then through AAG Bruce Ohr, whose wife worked closely with Steele, and may have actually written several of the pieces of the dossier (several of them appear to have been written by an academic, like Nellie Ohr, PhD, and not a retired spy like Steele). And they also got the story from several journalists, like Isikoff, whom Steele personally fed his dossier. The latter was why he was fired as a source by the FBI - but they wanted it to be true so badly that they didn’t bother to mention that to the FISC, but used the stories from these journalists as confirmation before the FISC (then destroyed the original Woods Files - which we only found out about last week).

I said “mostly”, because apparently there were some additional dossiers that tended to corroborate the general theme of the Steele Dossier - by none other than the dynamic duo of Sydney Blumenthal (long time Crooked Hillary confident and consigliere) and Cody Shearer (brother in law of the head of the Brookings Institute, Strobe Talbot, who had been the State Department #2 (Deputy Sec) under Bill Clinton). It should be remembered that Blumenthal and Shearer worked closely with Crooked Hillary while she was Sec of State, esp in regards to Libya, where they had security contracts, and may be part of why Kadaffi was taken out, turning the country into a violent failed state, and initiating her vaunted “Arab Spring”.

Which is to say that Crooked Hillary and the DNC were essentially the source of the material used to launch and justify the Trump/Russian collusion story. It was all, of course, fabricated, from the first.

J Melcher said...

PLAME, not Jarett. Scooter Libby was the dupe who agreed with the journalist who floated the rumor and agreed the RUMOR existed -- and then got punished.

All the while it was some other hack -- Robert Armitage? -- who actually and intentionally DID leak or start the rumor.

Francisco D said...

roesch/voltaire said...That looser John Kelly must be leaking to more than one person.

I know you are disappointed that you are not the main Gossip Girl.

If that is all you emotionally and intellectually stunted children have, then I am eager for the election.

It would be funny if it were not so pitiful.

tim in vermont said...

"A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on"

roesch/voltaire said...

Griffin is not backing down in the face of the Tweeter Chief, this is going to get interesting for the cult to rationalize this away with well he is an asehole.

tim in vermont said...

"rcocean, that Greenwald article is excellent. Thanks.”

That’s why they booted him from The Intercept. Solid journalism is not what they wanted.

tim in vermont said...

Remember when Jeffry Goldberg wrote that Al Qaeda and Iraq were working togther.

"this is going to get interesting for the cult to rationalize this away with well he is an asehole.”

Why don’t you rationalize this document obtained under FOIA about the flight?

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog
On that Atlantic Story -

@JeffreyGoldberg
and his "four sources" claim Trump's helicopter flight to the US/French cemetery wasn't cancelled due to weather.

FOIA docs prove this to be false.

Their "sources" are failing basic fact checks - making them essentially worthless.


Documents at this link: https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1301741080577298437

So we have four anonymous sources who refuse to be questioned against documents from the people flying the helicopters. This is why people don’t think you are very smart, honey.

Ralph L said...

The drug addict widow did not even invite Palin.

Trump said he wasn't thanked for approving the Federal contribution to the Endless Funeral of the Century.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...


https://twitter.com/meridithmcgraw/status/1301735906660028416

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

12:08 - thread winner

REad it.

the media is hot garbage.

Bob Loblaw said...

With something of this nature, if they aren't willing to give their names, I don't believe it.

Yeah, a story based entirely on anonymous sources is probably made up from whole cloth.

Gabriel said...

Lisa: You can’t post that on the internet. You don’t even know if it’s true.
Homer: Nelson has never steered me wrong, honey. Nelson is gold.
Bart: You know, it might have been Jimbo.
Homer: Beautiful! We have confirmation.

Ken B said...

Greenwald shreds the “confirmation” https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

Ken B said...

Sablan: “ Start burning sources that lie to you people.”

There is an assumption here. You assume the source deceived the reporter. I think it is more likely the source and the reporter colluded. The reporter may well have been the initiator. That is what they never do reveal the source, it would backfire.

And yes, I see that I am assuming the source actually exists, which is uncertain.

pacwest said...

Welcome to the Biden campaign plan. Sic the media dogs and hide in the basement. The intensity of these attacks will only increase in the coming weeks.
1. Draw attention away from the riots.
2. Provide cover for basement Biden.
3. Try to rouse some voter enthusiasm.
To a certain extent it is working. Look at the discussion topics on this blog. In that regard it is working like a charm.

Mary Beth said...

If "confirmed" means that the same anonymous sources were willing to repeat their stories to other news media organizations, it seems they only want to remain anonymous to the public. I don't see how the sources are actually unknown if they are talking to more than just the first reporter.

Michael K said...

oesch/voltaire said...
Griffin is not backing down in the face of the Tweeter Chief, this is going to get interesting for the cult to rationalize this away with well he is an asehole.


Asshole R/V is not "backing down" in spite of contemporaneous flight logs showing this is all bullshit. Is this what you teach R/V? Lying 101?

Nichevo said...

Asshole R/V is not "backing down" in spite of contemporaneous flight logs showing this is all bullshit. Is this what you teach R/V? Lying 101?


Imagine the serial killer teaching anything to another human being.

Crazy World said...

I remember this flight being cancelled due to the weather. This is really pathetic if two year old name calling incidents is the fall of Trump.

Great links!

Narr said...

Breaking . . . Breaking!

Sources confirm that the previously cited sources have confirmed that they are indeed anonymous sources, despite questioning, without evidence, from the Trump White House, of the since confirmed confirmation of the reported remarks.

Narr
Over to you, Rachel

Drago said...

Mary Beth: "If "confirmed" means that the same anonymous sources were willing to repeat their stories to other news media organizations, it seems they only want to remain anonymous to the public. I don't see how the sources are actually unknown if they are talking to more than just the first reporter."

We just spent 4 years dealing with "confirmed" anonymous sources who were wrong about every single thing they were "confirming" regarding the russia collusion hoax and hoax dossier.

But by all means, lets just keep doing that.

Drago said...

Reposted for Mary Beth:

Ken B
Greenwald shreds the “confirmation” https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/

The Godfather said...

The cancelled trip to the military cemetary is old news. The claim that Trump cancelled the visit because he didn't want to get his hair wet in the rain was floated and refuted then: The records showed that the weather prevented the helicopter flight, and a road trip hadn't been properly prepared. Now it's claimed by a reporter that Mr./Ms. Anonymous says that Trump bad-mouthed the honored dead. Given that weather prevented the trip, what occasion would Trump have to bad-mouth the dead? Other than general Trump-hatred, is there any reason we should believe that he said such a thing?

Michael K said...

Well, this fake news story is pretty well discredited except in the minds of terminal TDS cases. Next week's Big Story is already percolating in the mill.

No sign of interest in the story of the SS agent almost punching out Joe for feeling up his wife in a photo shoot.

Narayanan said...

since the flight (and drive) was canceled what did Trump and entourage and the press pool do with the idle time ?

watch the gorilla chanel? (le canal gorille)


Bilwick said...

This reminds me of a subject I think we discussed here only a few days ago: the propensity for members of the "liberal" Hive--especially female members of the Hive--to think that repeating an idea or an alleged fact is the same as confirming that idea or alleged fact.

Ken B said...

Drago, after how many years, finally makes a great comment.

Mary Beth said...

Drago said...8:42 PM, 8:43 PM

I read that before I commented. What in that is counter to my belief that it's the news media and their anonymous friends vs. the public? They all seem to know who these sources are so it's not exactly a secret among them, they just don't think we deserve to know because we'll do angry tweets or something.

It is just gossip and they are nothing more than gossip mongers but they want to be treated like serious journalists. To hell with them. No video, no audio, no named sources = no story.

Bunkypotatohead said...

The press doesn't have the credibility to claim anonymous sources.
Anon is functionally no different than making shit up.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

MayBee said...
I hated the way Trump talked about McCain

I didn't. McCain was a scumbag. He used his military history to screw over Republican voters. He deserved every nasty thing Trump said about him, and more

RichAndSceptical said...

My gut says someone at Fox ran the story before everything had been confirmed. If so, I expect Griffin to move to another network within a few weeks. She has always appeared to be someone who does her homework before publishing, so I expect some editor at Fox forced the publication. Just my gut reaction.

tim in vermont said...

MayBee said...
I hated the way Trump talked about McCain


Have you been following McCain’s role in the fake dossier? He was right there with Inga on that even though he was in a position to know it was all bullshit where Inga was just a useful idiot stupidly following orders. I might go piss on that man’s grave.

tim in vermont said...

" Is this what you teach R/V? Lying 101?”

He doesn’t teach, he “works” at a college. Most likely emptying waste baskets as I can’t imagine him doing something as useful as keeping the heating plant running or whatever.

tim in vermont said...

"Yeah, a story based entirely on anonymous sources is probably made up from whole cloth.”

I am thinking more like if we had the full context, it would have to do with the inarguable fact that WWI was a huge waste of human life for no good reason, that BTW condemned us to a century of war and it doesn’t seem to be over yet.

MayBee said...


MayBee said...
I hated the way Trump talked about McCain

Have you been following McCain’s role in the fake dossier? He was right there with Inga on that even though he was in a position to know it was all bullshit where Inga was just a useful idiot stupidly following orders. I might go piss on that man’s grave.


YEah, and that's why I don't blame Trump for hating him. It's also why I don't conflate- and don't think our press should conflate- Trump criticizing McCain with Trump criticizing veterans. It's also why, of course, the press has made it off limits to criticize McCain.

BUT I still didn't like the "I like heroes who don't get captured" or whatever it was he said.

mtrobertslaw said...

It is one thing to claim that a statement has been confirmed and quite another to offer actual evidence that shows the statement was confirmed. Until Griffin offers such evidence, her claim that the Trump story has been confirmed has the same weight as one of Bar Stool Billy's many pronouncements.

Bruce Hayden said...

It stinks more and more. The Biden campaign had slick campaign ads ready to go within hours of the scandal being made public, along with the ad buys. That very likely means that the ads were put together, cleaned up, rand the time slots bought before the story broke. Much of it was apparently funded by ActBlue, which means via corporate BLM contributions.

As has been suggested by others, this very likely presages the regular rollout of these fabricated attacks on Trump over the next two months. It’s going to be a rocky election run up, as we barely recover from one Dem fabrication, before we are hit with the next.

What is going to be interesting in what happens if and when Biden loses. One big problem that they are likely to face is The massive campaign finance and tax fraud going on. They are taking large corporate BLM contributions, flushing them through ActBlue, and using them to fund attacks on Trump. It is well coordinated with those running the Biden campaign. There is supposed to be a bright line between charitable contributions, that can be unlimited, but can’t be used politically, and campaign contributions that can be used politically, but are sharply limited in amounts. The individuals making these charitable contributions that end up being used politically mostly don’t worry about the fines, but rather being charged criminally - not just campaign finance violations, but also sizable IRS fraud crimes. Some of the charitable foundations involved, like the Ford Foundation should be worried about their tax exempt status. And the big corporations contributing to BLM, and thus ActBlue, the Dem Party, and Biden/Harris should be worried about their customers when they figure this out. Of course, if Biden wins, the first order of business would be to sweep it all under the rug, and make it go away, as they expected the Russians collusion hoax and all the illegal spying to do, when Crooked Hillary won.

Kirk Parker said...

tim in vt,

The Greenwald piece being cited *is* on The Intercept, datelined just yesterday (See Martha's comment at 10:09am, or several following ones.)

The Vault Dweller said...

I've seen some people try to say that confirming a story means finding additional witnesses who will say the same thing as the original witnesses. That, that is confirming a story. But it isn't really confirming a story, it is corroborating a story. To me at least the connotation of confirm means to absolutely verify that it is true. Not that the person made an allegation but that the substance of the allegation is true. Corroborate, to me atleast, means to more support an allegation. Corroborate is a weaker verb than confirm.