> It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the writing form that a lot of mainstream news articles take (advantage of?).
No, no way does a serious paper go to print with a source like that. There's room for argument about the use of anonymous sourcing, but there's a huge difference between "someone involved in the decision process" or "with knowledge of the events" (commonly used descriptions) and what the authors did here, which amounts to "someone who works for the US government anywhere, but we won't tell you their expertise".
But yes: a lot of it is about trust. We trust editors at NYT and WaPo to make sure their journalists know who their sources are and not to lie or spin about them. And while, sure, sometimes this process breaks, on the whole it's worked very well for a very long time.
Throwing it out the window so that someone can get clicks on substack posts, or (worse) because you don't like the political implications of the trusted journalism, is a really bad idea. A world of Fox and Substack, where "sincerely held opinions" take the place of "truth", is sort of a disaster.
>No, no way does a serious paper go to print with a source like that.
Many did it with Adrian Zenz ad nauseum and there's a few other outliers i've noticed. It's kinda silly.
People claim he's the target of a chinese disinformation campaign but he couldn't be an easier target if he tried.
From his far right political views to taking a number from a dubious source to begin with, rounding up a ton and then listing an even higher number or quoting numbers from a more reputable paper and adding some extra zeroes because what's a decimal point even? One would chalk it up to a mistake if he didn't pull constant weird mistakes in his favour.
> No, no way does a serious paper go to print with a source like that. There's room for argument about the use of anonymous sourcing, but there's a huge difference between "someone involved in the decision process" or "with knowledge of the events" (commonly used descriptions) and what the authors did here, which amounts to "someone who works for the US government anywhere, but we won't tell you their expertise".
"Anonymous sources" is a superior attack vector - it is well psychologically established as "normal/righteous", and it allows one complete free reign on weaving a believable tale for the public to update their local simulation with, no risk from your sources being exposed as bogus.
> But yes: a lot of it is about trust. We trust editors at NYT and WaPo to make sure their journalists know who their sources are and not to lie or spin about them.
Some people believe this, but I don't.
In fact, I think it is rather interesting how so many people have been trained to think this way, and no one notices how weird it is.
> And while, sure, sometimes this process breaks, on the whole it's worked very well for a very long time.
"Measured" (but not actually) on a relative scale.
> Throwing it out the window so that someone can get clicks on substack posts, or (worse) because you don't like the political implications of the trusted journalism, is a really bad idea.
You predict that it is a bad idea, you do not actually have any way to know this.
Imagine driving a car that is modified such that the front window is not a window, but rather a screen containing an extremely well known to be inaccurate simulation of the road - would this not make you nervous?
> A world of Fox and Substack, where "sincerely held opinions" take the place of "truth", is sort of a disaster.
The problem isn't just Fox and Substack, the root problem is humans/consciousness/culture.
Yep. I aw that. But then I rely on the trustworthiness of the authors, and when I know for a fact at least one of them has been caught literally making up lies that, when uncovered, literally disprove the narrative they were pushing, it really destroys all credibility.
He was not “caught literally making up lies”. There was an error in his reporting. Perhaps he lied, perhaps he made a mistake. Please don’t turn to hyperbole.
Or at least show me the evidence for his lies(not errors, which are not the same thing. Lies require an intent to misconstrue).
I also am not a fan of it, but I must confess I do enjoy seeing it used in the other direction.