09-06-2018, 11:25 AM
(09-06-2018, 08:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good grief, all this back and forth.
When a journalist uses an anonymous source, they are (supposed to have been) vetted thoroughly. They check their credentials, ask them questions to get an idea to their credibility, etc., etc. Good journalists don't take statements at face value. Woodward is a good journalist and has a ton of credibility.
The issues with journalism right now come more from click-baity headlines than it does from the actual investigative journalism that goes on. The unfortunate truth is that the perception has allowed the ill-informed to apply the negative view across the spectrum, which just isn't fair to folks like Woodward. This isn't to say one shouldn't question things, but dismissing them outright because of one side or the other is just bias.
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.
