Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.
People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."
Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."
Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."
A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."
I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
"Anonymous sources" are not as good as "named sources". To a point, an unnamed sources is hearsay.
Stories run on uncorroborated sources, removed from further questioning, are not good, solid journalism.
Repeated stories run in this vein, on the same topic, do take on the appearance of grinding an axe.
Trump is no Churchill or anything, but where the press protected and insulated Obama, they are pointedly targeting Trump.
Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.
People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."
Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."
Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."
A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."
I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
Are you suggesting that if one of these “holdovers” hears something they think is news worthy then calls a reporter on the phone to pass it on that not hearsay, ok then….
Eventually they are going to find some of these leakers and It’s not going to go well for them or the (D) party.
Using unnamed sources is not hearsay. I suggest you look up the word "hearsay." Good day.
I agree they are targeting Trump, but I'm pretty sure there are only two Presidents since WW2 who have been overtly targeted by the press, Nixon and Trump, and both have been purposely and intentionally combative toward the press. Coincidence?"Anonymous sources" are not as good as "named sources". To a point, an unnamed sources is hearsay.
Stories run on uncorroborated sources, removed from further questioning, are not good, solid journalism.
Repeated stories run in this vein, on the same topic, do take on the appearance of grinding an axe.
Trump is no Churchill or anything, but where the press protected and insulated Obama, they are pointedly targeting Trump.
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.
People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."
Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."
Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."
A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."
I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
I agree they are targeting Trump, but I'm pretty sure there are only two Presidents since WW2 who have been overtly targeted by the press, Nixon and Trump, and both have been purposely and intentionally combative toward the press. Coincidence?
Well, I have an unnamed source that has some pretty damning information about a DP poster named calamity.
Without knowing what this information is, can we rule out that it is hearsay?
Look up the word. Hearsay does not require that the source be unnamed.
I agree they are targeting Trump, but I'm pretty sure there are only two Presidents since WW2 who have been overtly targeted by the press, Nixon and Trump, and both have been purposely and intentionally combative toward the press. Coincidence?
It's not going to go well for the West Wing leakers either. At least I hope it won't. New Kushner-Russia Story Stokes Concern of West Wing Leakers | LifeZette
I get this type of thing has been part of politics for a very long time if not from the birth of our nation. That said, I believe it is now damaging our country and stifling any governance. I also believe true journalism has died for the most part and is now just partisan platform pandering.
There sure is an open spot in the news market for a standards based, fact based and investigative based outlet.
As for the leakers regardless of location, agency or political affiliation, the Queen in Alice in wonderland said it best, Off with there heads.
Look up the word. Hearsay does not require that the source be unnamed.
lol...one of those leakers is probably Trump himself. Be careful what you wish for. :lol:
BTW, it's their.
But in order not be hearsay that unnamed person must have witnessed the conversation/act and not simply heard (or read?) of a later account of it. The unnamed source can attest to the existence of a memo but cannot vouch for the veracity of (part of?) its alleged content.
From Dictionary.com:
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
Hearsay | Define Hearsay at Dictionary.com
What doesn't "the right" get? We knew Trump had no experience but a problematic personality and too little diplomatic potty training. But we gave him the job. Don't cry now or they will think you don't get it.
Look up the word. Hearsay does not require that the source be unnamed.
Hearsay means not adequately substantiated.
One person saying a thing that cannot be corroborated or followed up on is definitely considered hearsay. Two people saying it lends more credence, but again, anonymous sources beyond the reproach of true investigation doesn't automatically take what they are saying out of the realm of rumor.
The correct answer here was: you are right, Cal, hearsay has nothing to do with anonymous sources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?