Bob Woodward's new book FEAR

[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.