The NYT has already written that they know who the writer is and are choosing to keep him or her anonymous.
The sheer fucking brazen audacity the author displays staggers me.
The GOP is rotten to the core. Arrogant traitors who have convinced themselves of their rightness and superiority.
This is fucking astounding. They put an empty suit in office, and then stage an internal soft coup to keep the suit from fucking things too much.
The literal deep state, comprised of the GOP, is openly bragging about subverting electoral power.
8 Likes
4 Likes
Jesus fucking christ, that NYT op-ed is pure insanity. They are basically admitting to a coup, to undermining the administration, because they know that the administration is corrupt and insane but want to save themselves the embarrassment of admitting that and taking official steps to remedy it by removing the president. And for what reason? For some fucking tax cuts. Because they agree with “some” of Trump’s policies. The question is of course which? Do they agree with jailing children because their parents dared to try and save them from war zones or is that a price those officials are “willing to pay” for their tax cuts? Is there even a fucking difference? No, there is not. Complicit fucking rat bastards all of them.
5 Likes
Yeah, there is zero percent chance that a paper like the NYT would go to print with something like that if they didn’t absolutely know and have proof of who it was. “Anonymous source” means that they’re not telling you the name, it almost never means they don’t know the name.
8 Likes
This also creates a really interesting dynamic at the NYT where their News Department is now trying to discover the identity of the Op-Ed writer while the head of their Opinion Department already knows who he/she is.
Are you sure they would be doing this? It sounds like this may go against various journalistic ethics.
Anyway, the “soft coup” going on in the White House in some ways may be a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” though it depends on the individuals involved. The NYT Op-Ed author seems like a total douche and, yeah, I really don’t think I can defend him at all, especially given how much he likes a lot of Trump’s agenda outside of the completely wack-a-doodle stuff. However, someone like Mattis doing what he can to prevent WWIII may be a different case, if only because if he did what we think would be the “right” thing, i.e. resign and testify publicly about all the shit going down, it runs the severe risk that a yes man would be his replacement and allow Trump to do all the horrible shit before the Con-man-in-chief can be somehow removed from office.
The News and Opinion departments at the NYT are completely separate and bifurcated. They have no bearing on each other. Now, there could be some internal directive that the news department shouldn’t try to investigate who the author is, but discovering who wrote the editorial would definitely qualify as “news,” so the NYT would normally want to try discover and reveal that first.
I liked a Times reporter saying they now have to launch a investigation into their opinions department to find out who wrote the essay :-p
1 Like
That internal directive is along the lines of what I thought of as “journalistic ethics.” Especially since it’s not good to burn a journalist’s sources.
I can see that, but does it violate “journalistic ethics” if one reported discovers another’s source? I don’t know.
If the Opinion Department participated and helped the News Department discover who the author was (which would be pretty easy considering that they know already who it is), THAT would violate “journalistic ethics.” But again, News and Opinion have no contact with each other. Does it violate journalistic ethics if a reporter at the NYT burns or reveals a source at the Washington Post?
Ok, just one more of these.
It’s a complicated issue, and it may require a lot of thought.
One thing to keep in mind is if a particular person or organization reveals a source, said source will be less likely to cooperate with journalists in the future, either for the burning organization, or in general.
For example, let’s pretend Joey Joe-joe Shabbadoo (JJS for short) is the anonymous opinion writer at the NYT. If he is revealed by the NYT, even outside the opinion section, then it becomes very likely he will refuse to work with the NYT ever again, and hence they lose a potentially valuable source, assuming that in the future he’s still in a position where he could provide valuable information, in or outside the Trump admin. He also will be fired, meaning you can’t get any more useful information on the Trump admin from him.
If the Washington Post somehow reveals JJS’s identity, well, in addition to him losing access, he may no longer wish to be a source to anyone at all in the future, even in roles outside the Trump admin, because he’ll feel he cannot trust reporters to keep his identity private.
I’m not a journalist, but from what I’ve read and heard in interviews with prominent journalists (coincidentally I listened to one this morning on Preet Bharara’s podcast), revealing sources is an absolute no-no. At most, a journalist may share sources with fellow journalists, especially if they work for the same organization, but they will never make them public. There also have been numerous occasions where journalists, supported by their organizations, have gone to prison in order to not reveal their sources.
I’m well aware why it’s bad for a news agency to reveal the identity of their sources. I also understand why reporters and news agencies would want to protect their confidential sources and that many reporters have gone to prison for not revealing a source.
But having said all that, I don’t think “journalistic ethics” would prevent one reporter from discovering the source of another reporter’s article, especially if it was done without help.
In the current situation, I would have to imagine that when the NYT’s Opinion Editor was talking to, or communicating with, the author of the Op-Ed piece, the Opinion Editor would be obligated to explain that the News and Opinion sections at the NYT are separate and that there might be a situation where one part of the Times was investigating who the author was, even as another part was trying to protect his or her identity.
I firmly believe the writer is trying to rehabilitate the GOP and set themselves up as a “reasonable” conservative for the post-Trump era.
I don’t believe reasonable conservatives exist. But I do believe that is their goal.
5 Likes
Well, sure, they can discover who the source is, of course. The ethics would come in if the reporter decides to publicly reveal the source. Going back to JJS being the author of the op-ed, let’s assume everyone’s favorite mild-mannered reporter, Clark Kent, manages to independently figure out that he is the author.
JJS (picks up phone): Hello?
CK: Hi, this is Clark Kent from the Daily Planet. I believe you’re the author of the NYT op-ed on undermining Trump. Is this correct?
JJS: Umm…
CK: Don’t worry, this will just be between you and me. I won’t make it public. I’m just building out my own sources.
JJS: Oh, umm, okay. Yes it was me.
This is probably fine from an “ethics” point of view. Where it breaks down is if the next day’s front page of the Daily Planet says, “Joey Joe-joe Shabbaddoo Revealed as Author of NYT Op-Ed.” That’s where the problem would lie.
I don’t think anyone is trying to dispute that. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that’s what the writer is trying to do.
To use your own example, before anything else, Clark Kent would first have to to establish if the conversation was on the record or not. If it wasn’t, then no, the Daily planet would probably not publish who JJS was. If the conversation was on the record, Clark Kent would never promise to not make JJS’s identity public. Why else would Clark Kent contact JJS in the first place if not to write an article about who the author of the Op-Ed was?
Edited to add: I’m sure @Churba could chime in and give us a professional’s view of the situation.
Hence, I want them outed. It’ll be glorious if it’s Pence.
1 Like