nabalzbbfr:

Here is Glenn Greenwald, who loudly complains about uncorroborated news stories in the Washington Post and NY Times, uncritically swallowing hook line and sinker the claims of some dubious "journalist", undoubtedly because it aligns perfectly with his paranoid prejudices about the "vast right wing conspiracy". This story has all the hallmarks of a "news story" by Janet Cooke or Stephen Glass.

Once again, the total clueless of the typical troll is revealed. Reporters write first-hand reports all the time. In doing so, they require no corroboration, because they are first-hand witnesses. Often they add additional information that is sourced--what time a fire started, according witnesses, how long a family has lived in the house they've just escaped from, etc. But what the reporter witnesses first hand requires no sourcing.

On the informational side, the reason is obvsious: they were there. On the reliability side, the reason is equally obvious: if they just make stuff up, they will be out of a job--and a career.

What requires sourcing is stories about things not witnessed first hand, and the rule is that factual assertions generally require two sources to presented as such. Conflicting accounts or interpretations only require a single source, since they are not presented as fact.

Anonymous sources are subject to widely varying rules--one of the sorest subjects of American journalism over the past several decade. Generally speaking, the less use of them the better, but the use of such source to obtain inside information not favorable to the institution they come from is gernerally seen as the most legitimate use, especially when designed to pry loose additional information and further confirmation that can be placed on the record.

The problematic practices that Glenn typically highlights relate to the practice of using demands for secrecy to pass out the official story piece by piece as if it were simply true, with little or no attempt at corroboration or effort to include dissenting views or critical perspectives.

The journalistic failings of such stories are, for the most part, blatantly right out in the open for anyone to see. Glenn frequently cites other stories either to illustrate the broader pattern they are part of, or to highlight how misleading they are by quoting from a story that does things properly. But the initial recognition that something is wrong generally requires nothing more than a basic grasp of how journalism is supposed to be done.

In contrast, the problems with Janet Cooke and Stephen Glass's storties were not immediately visible to the ordinary readers' eyes. They were problems of intentional deceit that got past the editors' lax supervision. In contrast to the sorts of failings that Glenn points to, they are extremely rare in practice, which is why they are associated with a few notorious names. Editors as well as writers can have their careers ended by such practices, a penalty that generally quite effective.

In contrast, the sorts of sourcing abuse Glenn that highlights have become conventional practices, and is it corruption of those conventions themselves that Glenn is criticizing, along with the specific instances. His criticism, as well as the evidence supporting it are all out in the open, visible for inspection by one and all.

On the other hand, you simply assert--without evidence--that a story whose content you don't like "has all the hallmarks" of a seemless fabrication. But what are those hallmarks, other than the fact that nothing about the story is blatantly untrue? What do you want? Stories that are obviously lies? Apparently so, it would seem.

Beneath your multi-level confusion about the practices of journalism and press criticism there is the simple intuition that the reporter is just lying. Then why not come out and say so?

Perhaps because then someone might ask you to prove your assertion? Perhaps because then it would be obvious that you simply reject any information that doesn't fit your preconceived worldview?

Don't worry, nabalzbbfr. That's been obvious to all of us here for a very, very long time.

RealName:

Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You
Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You Fuck You

The quail hides between two branches.
An undisclosed location.

I understand your reluctance to cite this sort of evidence, but I think you're being overly cautious. Not that I want to change how you do things. It's probably good that you are over-cautious. I merely wanted to note that, generally, anecdotal evidence ought to be regarded as helpful in illuminating the specific sorts of dynamics involved within broader boundaries established by more rigorous methodologies, such as empirical polling data and rigorous scrutiny of the actions and explanations proferred by leading political figures and influential opinion-makers.

The problem with rightwing and corporate media use of annecdotes is at least two-fold: (1) Basic questions of veracity. They just love to make shit up. (2) Questions of representativeness. (The Hitler video submitted to Moveon.org, for example). But annecdotes themselves should not be rejected out of hand merely because of how they're frequently misused.

All of which brings me to this:

The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn't he sound like the liberal media? Later, over dinner, a tablemate from Denver calls Buckley "a coward". His wife nods and says, " Buckley's an old man," tapping her head with her finger to suggest dementia.

Note how perfectly it dovetails with the casual savaging of anyone who dares to decline a cup of koolaid, a pattern documented repeatedly over the past 6+ years.

It's not that Buckley is the voice of sanity as I would define it. But he is representative of competant monarchical rule, (England in the 1500s, for the most part) as opposed to monarchical infanalism (France in the 1700s). And for that, he must be given the "crazy uncle" treatment.

The case for a just God just got a wee bit stronger. If not for all those dead Iraqis.