Bob Woodward's new book FEAR

[GMDino]

(09-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dear lord, you are a professional victim, all the while spewing venom.

Your selective moral outrage is noted.

(09-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Gladly.



Ahh, he may have told a lie now.  See, that's different than saying he definitely lied, like your boy Fred stated.

Then take it up with Fred.

(09-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll take your word for it.  However, what you said is Mattis cannot be a very moral or ethical person as he accepted a cabinet position under Trump.  Again a definitive declaration.  You stated something as a fact that cannot be verified as a fact.  That makes it your opinion.  Hence my attacking your statement and your history of making such statements.

I said:

Quote:If had perfect ethics and morals he never would have accepted his position under Trump.

No one is perfect so if you don't see that as sarcasm/hperbole I can't help you.

(09-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A person's profession does not automatically make them a moral or an ethical person.  That being said certain professions require a degree of discipline, hard work and sound ethics in order to succeed. 

Take that up with bfine.

And discipline, hard work and ethics do not mean that person would never lie.

(09-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given the history of the Catholic church I'd certainly hope so.

Aye, but they were in the vast minority. And accused of the same things you accuse others of who have even questioned Mattis. That doesn't Mattis did or didn't lie....or did or didn't backtrack to cover what he said in private. It means he can be questioned the same as anyone else no matter how many people thing he did/does a good job or how ethical people think he is.

(09-06-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you, you do the same.  

[Vas Deferens]

(09-06-2018, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't see anyone dismissing them outright, I do think a person like Mattis deserves more credibility than an anonymous source, even one vetted by Woodward.  The timing of the book also gives me pause.  Sure interest in politics is highest around election time, so there are economic reasons.  However, releasing it so close to a mid term that so many are calling a critical election reeks to me of attempting to subvert public opinion.  Nothing about this feels right and it plays right into the belief among many that the will of the electorate is being subverted by career bureaucrats and the media elite.  

I also agree with your point about the journalism profession.  The problem is there are far more click bait journalists than there are old school ones like Woodward.  I'm afraid the latter won't be with us much longer. 

Definitely a lot of trash journalism and commentary out there, only catering to preconceived notions.  But there are also younger journalists doing great work, like the ICIJ and work they did on the paradise papers.

[BmorePat87]

(09-06-2018, 12:08 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Definitely a lot of trash journalism and commentary out there, only catering to preconceived notions.  But there are also younger journalists doing great work, like the ICIJ and work they did on the paradise papers.

and unfortunately they're getting lumped in with the others by broad attacks on the media. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-06-2018, 10:09 AM)Vlad Wrote: True.

Curious, can evidence from an anonymous source no matter how thoroughly vetted  be used against a plaintiff in a court of law?
Probably not my guess. Amounts to hearsay...take it with a grain of salt...same approach I would take towards anonymous sources in a book.

Any witness statement, which is what these sources amount to, is questionable in a court of law. Witnesses are unreliable. Memories are terrible, people insert their opinions, all sorts of things alter the testimony. Whether a witness or a source is anonymous or not doesn't make much difference; you still have to take what they say with a grain of salt. This is, though, why journalists and our judicial systems looks for sources or witnesses that are saying the same thing. That corroboration gives strength to the testimony.

I haven't read the book, I don't know what was being said or how many were saying it, but the things being said about what's in the book and what is in the op-ed aren't really news. We've heard similar things from multiple people over the past year and a half. This leads me to believe there is a large amount of truth to the overall statements in these writings.

(09-06-2018, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't see anyone dismissing them outright, I do think a person like Mattis deserves more credibility than an anonymous source, even one vetted by Woodward.  The timing of the book also gives me pause.  Sure interest in politics is highest around election time, so there are economic reasons.  However, releasing it so close to a mid term that so many are calling a critical election reeks to me of attempting to subvert public opinion.  Nothing about this feels right and it plays right into the belief among many that the will of the electorate is being subverted by career bureaucrats and the media elite.  

I wouldn't call the book subverting public opinion, but to each their own. don't disagree that the timing of things is interesting, but when isn't something like this timed intentionally to make the biggest headlines and have the greatest impact on public discourse?

(09-06-2018, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I also agree with your point about the journalism profession.  The problem is there are far more click bait journalists than there are old school ones like Woodward.  I'm afraid the latter won't be with us much longer. 

There are more good journalists out there than many would like to believe. But this is why I follow them on social media. I don't follow news organizations, I follow the journalists. When they give me something to read, I know it's good.

(09-06-2018, 11:44 AM)Dill Wrote: On the money.  I would only tweak this a bit by saying that many of the "ill-informed" are willfully so. 

Journalists are presumed "liberals" first and so discounted from the get go.  That skepticism of professional journalism is just the flipside of uncritical belief in Team Trump statements.  "Look at what is in his heart, not what he says!"  

This is especially funny to me given that Woodward is a Republican.

[*michaelsean*]

Wonder if media matters likes him now.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/01/woodward-as-liberal-icon-not-exactly/192862

[Dill]

(09-06-2018, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wonder if media matters likes him now.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/01/woodward-as-liberal-icon-not-exactly/192862

Too close to Bush. Yes. "10 Days in September" must be a painful memory to Woodward.

I think he has been trying to present himself as "fair and balanced" over the last 20 years; but it is certainly a weakness in his judgment that he could not see problems down the road when Bush was linking Iraq to Afghanistan before the latter had even been invaded. At the very least Woodward saw a "strong leader" where the rest of us saw a guy being, or letting himself be, played.

I don't see Woodward putting outright lies in the mouths of "senior officials" though. The smoke is there in the WH, billowing up in dense, black clouds. Up to us to judge whether there is a fire.

[hollodero]

(09-06-2018, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wonder if media matters likes him now.

Why would you wonder that?

[Vlad]

(09-06-2018, 12:00 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: This speaks volumes.

Yes it does, glad you read the rest of that post.

 So what is it exactly Vas that you are resisting?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-07-2018, 12:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Why would you wonder that?

Why would you wonder that I wonder that?  But, they seemed to believe he lacked some credibility in 2013.  

[hollodero]

(09-07-2018, 12:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why would you wonder that I wonder that?

That's a fair question :) I am fairly certain it's not because I'm in love with you though.

(09-07-2018, 12:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But, they seemed to believe he lacked some credibility in 2013.  

Yeah possibly. I just consider the "media matters" opinion such an amazingly irrelevant issue... considering the deeply troubling state of your presidency, as described in books and op-eds and basically from everyone.
100% credibility is one thing (I trust no one in your media 100%) - but at this point, not the main issue. I don't believe NYT, Woodward and all these others just completely make up the stories they put out from A to Z. And if they don't completely make it up, you have way more severe troubles than speculating about "media matters" inconsistency.

[fredtoast]

(09-07-2018, 12:30 PM)Vlad Wrote: Yes it does, glad you read the rest of that post.

 So what is it exactly Vas that you are resisting?

Huge tax breaks for the wealthy paid for with credit.

Remember when Republicans used to worry about the national debt?  But as soon as Trump broke out the credit card to give them tax breaks the conveniently forgot it ever existed.

[GMDino]

https://www.newsweek.com/will-bob-woodward-release-book-interview-tapes-course-1120817

Quote:WILL BOB WOODWARD RELEASE TRUMP BOOK INTERVIEW TAPES? 'OF COURSE'


Veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward said he would back up his reporting on the Trump administration if challenged—by releasing recordings made during interviews.

Woodward’s latest book, titled Fear: Trump in the White House, detailing layers of White House dysfunction, faced denials from officials with close ties to the president, including former Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn, Chief of Staff John Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Even before publication, Donald Trump had called the book a fraud and a “con on the public.”

But Woodward, who became a household name through his investigation of Watergate and disgraced President Richard Nixon, told CBS This Morning on Thursday that he had amassed “literally hundreds of hours of tapes.” He said he would use them as evidence if pushed to do so, "if somebody comes out and denies something specifically,” he said. “If somebody really wants to challenge me, of course. Again, I have made agreements with people that these sources are going to remain confidential.”

The book is based on conversations with “participants and witnesses” in the Trump administration, the author said, noting that he was not surprised by officials’ recent denials.

'Survival Denial'
“Look, going back to the Nixon case, with any of these books, you are going to have what I call 'survival denial' by somebody who wants to be politically connected with the president, and that’s fine,” Woodward told CBS. “I have done this time and time again—you get denials.” 

On Wednesday, Woodward told MSNBC that individuals inside the White House had been worried about Trump's performance, citing the “inability to grow, the inability to listen, the inability to change his mind.” He added: “The people closest to him do not trust him, and the impulse-driven presidency is something the more people know the more they realize we are at risk.”

Fear:Trump in the White House reported that key aides to the president had hidden letters they didn’t want the president to see. According to the book,  Kelly once called the president an “idiot” and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, following one meeting, called him a “moron.”

The president, who reacted harshly to the book as it hit the shelves, had previously posted a series of statements to his personal Twitter feed, reportedly written by high-level White House aides.

Quote:
[/url]Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump





The Woodward book has already been refuted and discredited by General (Secretary of Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of Staff) John Kelly. Their quotes were made up frauds, a con on the public. Likewise other stories and quotes. Woodward is a Dem operative? Notice timing?
7:18 PM - Sep 4, 2018

• 
  83.9K
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037117638101688320]58.4K people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy


“Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost,” he tweeted on September 5. “Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?” The president also suggested that Woodward was a “Dem operative.”