Current Events > Dotard: When you see "anonymous source," stop reading!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Anonymous Sources are really starting to BURN the media. @FoxNews The fact is that many anonymous sources dont even exist. They are fiction made up by the Fake News reporters. Look at the lie that Fake CNN is now in. They got caught red handed! Enemy of the People!

When you see anonymous source, stop reading the story, it is fiction!

http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
---

I disagree with the fiction part, but most anonymous sources are "my ass".
---

This dude is so dangerous to our democracy and any sense of independent truth. Anonymous sources have always been used and have always been validated. He just wants to discredit anyone who could speak out against him and be believed.
---

Irony posted...

I disagree with the fiction part, but most anonymous sources are "my ass".

Trump has literally been an "anonymous source" many times himself
---

Remember when all those journalists were killed because of unfounded garbage like this? Guess not?
---

Also interesting that he's tweet this after that Clinton email server tweet considering that ENTIRE story by the Daily Caller was "anonymous sources"
---

Yet Trump pretty much exclusively uses anonymous sources. What he is actually against is anything he doesn't agree with. That is what makes something fake.
---

Remember those times he literally called in or submitted articles to newspapers claiming to be anonymous Trump employees and all of them praised him. And that went back to the 1980s.
---

There are many reasons someone would want to remain anonymous. That's not to say that it isn't sketchy sometimes - Kelly Conway got called out for it recently where she said something during an interview and then tried to make the reporter put it in as an anonymous source - but that's not the same thing as fiction.
---

I thought this was related to dota and I don't even play the game
change your insulting term please, it's not original
---

Say what you will. Dude loves his "1984" narrative.
---

YukihoHagiwara posted...

I thought this was related to dota and I don't even play the game
change your insulting term please, it's not original

It's also probably moddable
---

It's still mind boggling how the first word in the topic title is allowed.

If we agree that the R word is offensive, shouldn't we agree that words that emulate the R word be as offensive??
---

Caution999 posted...

It's still mind boggling how the first word in the topic title is allowed.

If we agree that the R word is offensive, shouldn't we agree that words that emulate the R word be as offensive??

Etymologically the common root between the two is the "-ard", despite the two words sharing a "t". If we ban "dotard", we must also ban "coward", "buzzard", and "bastard".

Furthermore, the only reason the r-word is banned in the first place is because of its misuse.
---

The mental gymnastics to justify your massive Trump hate boner is utterly astonishing.
---

Caution999 posted...

The mental gymnastics to justify your massive Trump hate boner is utterly astonishing.

A proper understanding of the English language isn't mental gymnastics.
---

CableZL posted...

Caution999 posted...

The mental gymnastics to justify your massive Trump hate boner is utterly astonishing.

Proper understanding of the English language isn't mental gymnastics.

Depends a great deal on the mind in question, I'd say.
---

the amount of gaslighting he is doing is going to take decades to fix

Am I really to believe the TC was going for the "coward" comparison with the topic title?

I mean...

Is that what you're selling Mr. Snake Oil salesman?
---

Caution999 posted...

The mental gymnastics to justify your massive Trump hate boner is utterly astonishing.

Lol it shows how weak your side is when that's all you got.
---

Caution999 posted...

Am I really to believe the TC was going for the "coward" comparison with the topic title?

I mean...

Is that what you're selling Mr. Snake Oil salesman?

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED
Topic Derailed

---

Caution999 posted...

It's still mind boggling how the first word in the topic title is allowed.

If we agree that the R word is offensive, shouldn't we agree that words that emulate the R word be as offensive??

Dotard doesn't emulate the R-word.

It's its own word with its own meaning and it applies to Trump, so - fair, next.
---

What is cowardly about what he tweeted then?
---

I'm a bit of a fan of etymology.

Even a word as simple as "lord" basically translates back to "keeper of the loaves". :)

Caution999 posted...

Am I really to believe the TC was going for the "coward" comparison with the topic title?

No, because "dotard" and "coward" mean two different things. May I remind you that you were the one who opened the discussion with regards to word structure association. This is your grave you've dug. Dig up.
---

Irony posted...

most anonymous sources are "my ass"

---

Caution999 posted...

It's still mind boggling how the first word in the topic title is allowed.

If we agree that the R word is offensive, shouldn't we agree that words that emulate the R word be as offensive??

"I can't justify Daddy's newest ramblings, so I'll derail the topic into something else."
---

Has he revealed the identities of the people who told him Obama was born in Kenya?
---

Its too early for a meltdown.
---

His ramblings are 100% accurate.

Would your professor accept a works cited page with an "anonymous" source???

Journalism in 2018 is a joke. If your College professor wouldn't accept it....why should your job?
---

Caution999 posted...

Would your professor accept a works cited page with an "anonymous" source???

depending on the assignment, yes.
---

Good thing I got that post in there just in time.
---

lilORANG posted...

Caution999 posted...

Would your professor accept a works cited page with an "anonymous" source???

depending on the assignment, yes.

"according to anonymous sources, you're ten times more likely to get into a car accident while intoxicated."

That sounds so official. So good.

Good news for anyone who's still in College: Start using anonymous sources on your papers. Your College Professor will be blown away and impressed!
---

Holy false equivalence
---

lilORANG posted...

Has he revealed the identities of the people who told him Obama was born in Kenya?

What about what those private investigators found? I thought I wasn't gonna believe what was found... Well, here I am, still waiting...
---

Caution999 posted...

"according to anonymous sources, you're ten times more likely to get into a car accident while intoxicated."

and that's an example of a time an anonymous source would not be appropriate.
---

Caution seems a bit more... desperate than usual.
---

Holy fuck Caution SHUT THE FUCK UP
---

dude is such a perfect rep of the average Republican voter that you can't tell me this dude isn't comedic parody.
---

eston posted...

Holy false equivalence

College is to prepare you for your future career. If your future career is journalism, you're taught to source your news ...even in High School.

If you're trained to gather sources, why would you go off that track and go after sources with no identity?
---

Caution going full dotard
---

Seriously though, what assurance do we have that anonymous sources have any credibility, or even exist? We know by now that major media outlets are all willing to lie in order to push their political agendas, so why wouldn't they also lie about their "anonymous sources"?
---

Caution999 posted...

eston posted...

Holy false equivalence

College is to prepare you for your future career. If your future career is journalism, you're taught to source your news ...even in High School.

If you're trained to gather sources, why would you go off that track and go after sources with no identity?

they are citing their sources lol. They just keep them anonymous. Notice they aren't saying "my imaginary friends say...."

PostCrisisJ2 posted...

Caution seems a bit more... desperate than usual.

He's got a bad case of gambler's fallacy, politics edition. Most of the party does at this point. They went all in on Trump early on, disgraced themselves by defending his actions, and now are too embarrassed to admit they made a mistake and reverse course so they just keep pushing nonsense hoping something actually sticks and they can claim they were right all along.
---

I don't see how anyone would be impressed with "anonymous sources".

If someone said "according to anonymous sources eating peanut butter is known to kill people" I would laugh in their face.

I would like substantial proof. I would like the source to be named. That's all.
---

Caution999 posted...

I don't see how anyone would be impressed with "anonymous sources".

If someone said "according to anonymous sources eating peanut butter is known to kill people" I would laugh in their face.

I would like substantial proof. I would like the source to be named. That's all.

Do you really not understand why a current white house employee who is leaking info to the press would want to remain anonymous? You keep making up silly hypotheticals in which an anonymous source would realistically not be used, but there are legit reasons for this practice to exist.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Seriously though, what assurance do we have that anonymous sources have any credibility, or even exist? We know by now that major media outlets are all willing to lie in order to push their political agendas, so why wouldn't they also lie about their "anonymous sources"?

Your argument is self defeating

if the media could simply make shit up then Trump would be a mass murdering serial kiddie rapist

the fact the accusations are always evidence based in scenarios where the source is endangered if they come forward says it all.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Seriously though, what assurance do we have that anonymous sources have any credibility, or even exist? We know by now that major media outlets are all willing to lie in order to push their political agendas, so why wouldn't they also lie about their "anonymous sources"?

It really just comes down to credibility of the outlet. If you don't trust the outlet then that's your prerogative. But anonymous sources are not anonymous to the reporter. It just means their name doesn't get published. Generally part of a journalist's job is to check facts, and it's not standard practice to post from a source that can't be verified.
---

eston posted...

Caution999 posted...

I don't see how anyone would be impressed with "anonymous sources".

If someone said "according to anonymous sources eating peanut butter is known to kill people" I would laugh in their face.

I would like substantial proof. I would like the source to be named. That's all.

Do you really not understand why a current white house employee who is leaking info to the press would want to remain anonymous? You keep making up silly hypotheticals in which an anonymous source would realistically not be used, but there are legit reasons for this practice to exist.

...Then you can't report on it. If you don't get permission to use that person's name or identity, then you gotta file it away. If that person is afraid they're gonna lose their job, then you gotta do the responsible thing, and file it away and see if in the future they would be willing to come out with their info.

You can't expect people to blindly accept an anonymous source. I'm sorry. If you would like to believe that source, that's your prerogative. It's my prerogative to be skeptical. That's the nature of those sources. I'm allowed to be skeptical if you can't put a name or business or some kind of accredited research to back it up.

Furthermore, using one too many anonymous sources starts to make these journalists look like fools. It gives me less reason to believe them going forward if they continue to do use these sources.
---

Caution you're displaying pure actual lunacy right now
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Your argument is self defeating

if the media could simply make shit up then Trump would be a mass murdering serial kiddie rapist

I mean they already abuse him of being the second coming of Hitler, so I don't know why you believe they wouldn't.

The problem though with falsely accusing someone of a crime is that it leads to questions of why no one has brought charges.

eston posted...

It really just comes down to credibility of the outlet.

Which most major media outlets don't have.

CNN is even willing to lie about Trump calling all hispanic people "animals" when it's obvious from the footage that he was referring to a gang that literally sells children as sex slaves.
---