Posted on 09/06/2020 11:30:14 AM PDT by DFG
The Atlantic hit piece on President Donald Trump last week used four anonymous sources to allege that he had disparaged dead World War I soldiers two years ago. Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin then claimed to have “confirmed” parts of the story — though not its main allegation — based on two anonymous sources.
The entire story failed to meet basic journalistic standards. But it is a sign of things to come — particularly if Democrats win in November, which is the Atlantic‘s goal.
Two, or even four, anonymous sources can be used to claim absolutely anything. The Atlantic described them as “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day.”
Notably, we are not told that they personally heard Trump say what the Atlantic alleges he said — they just have “knowledge of the discussion.” Someone who has “knowledge” of a discussion is a second-hand source, or worse. The point is there is no way to know if the sources are credible, or if the story is just made up.
It turns out that we do actually have some very good historical sources that dispute the Atlantic story. These include the 11 eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to deny the president said what the Atlantic alleged, but they also include other sources.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I'm guessing it was released now to divert attention away from the Nancy Pelosi hair dresser fiasco, otherwise, they would have saved until closer to election day.
Not really. When senior officials, known to the reporters, BTW, make these kinds of accusations that's news. That doesn't mean these officials don't have their own agendas and it's important for the reporters to provide context. Including the fact the officials refuse to go public.
But the use of unnamed sources is rampant in the news business and every administration, including Trump's, constantly gives reporters briefings "on background" or provides quotes from "a senior administration official". It's one of the fundamental ways the administration shapes the narrative.
Trump may or may not have said these things - I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle - but having multiple sources leak it and then confirm it to other outlets is news.
And people complaining about anonymous sources are naive and don't pay close attention to how the news works.
Maybe Pelosi, but she’s not really on the ballot-—or likely worried about angry SFers. My guess is they saw a chance to grab some military votes, distract from good job numbers, improving COVID numbers, and attention from devastating ANTIFA/BLM publicity. One or all.
And, I doubt this is their last smear attempt. To them, everything DjT does requires castration.
LOL. Any Presidential campaign that couldn't get that ad up overnight needs to fire not only their rapid response team but probably their entire campaign management structure.
You obviously have no idea how quickly these things can be produced with the technology today.
What a load.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day.My guess is that this was all started by David Frum. He's on record making that same crack in 2018.
Look at this FR article from 2018, Fox News: Trump takes heat over scrapped trip to cemetery in France:
David Frum, a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, took to Twitter to slam the move, insisting that other transportation accommodations could’ve been made in case of poor weather.“It's not even 60 miles from central Paris to the monument. If the weather is too wet & windy for helicopters, a presidential motorcade could drive the distance in an hour,” Frum tweeted. “On site, presidential advance could easily erect a tent to protect the dignitaries (and the presidential hair-do) from inclement weather.”
There is no record of President Trump worrying about his hair, but there is a record of Frum joking about it at the time.
I'm calling out Frum as the source of this hair comment that is behind The Atlantic article.
-PJ
Nothing less than a complete retraction and an apology will suffice.
The Atlantic? More like a toilet bowl.
Not too long after the mendacious report, an ad from a leftist veterans group, "VoteVets," bounced out, featuring six interviews with outraged family members of fallen soldiers. "My son was not a loser," they said.
VoteVets claims they had no idea that the Atlantic story was coming out, and they were just busy beavers who stayed up all night to get the interviews, write the slick script to ad length, edit the interviews, string the interviews together, get the sound and photography edited, put the graphics in, and get the finished product out, not just on the web, but in the hands of the morning television networks, such as Joe Scarborough's MSNBC Morning Joe show, to ensure they could run the ad and wax their outrage.
The main purpose of the hit piece is to predispose the public to believe that many military members will not vote for PDJT. Then it will be easier for the Enemedia to lie about tens of thousands of overseas military absentee ballots (which the DNC and its allies will conveniently ‘lose’, alter, or destroy).
Not new. Remember Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. They must have some real howitzers for October, or they are really going through ammo.
BREAKING: Hill Republicans suspect disputed anonymous story re Trump disrespecting fallen war vets was planted by Biden campaign: Biden used The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg pal Rep Conor Lamb (D-PA, Marine major) to amplify story. Goal:blunting military absentee ballots for Trump
The only part of that that's remotely surprising is finding people to interview, and given that it was a veteran-oriented group I'm sure they had plenty of anti-Trump vets on standby.
Again, these campaigns have invested tons of money and have very skilled people focused solely on rapid response - exactly what we see here.
In fact, I bet you could find thousands of TikTok kids who could do it without breaking a sweat.
And don't forget, they don't have to buy any broadcast ad time. All they do is run an internet ad and then provide it to friendly TV outlets to show as part of their news coverage.
Expect a lot more of these lies before November 3. That is all the democrats have. There is nothing substantial that they can bring up against President Trump, nothing at all!
“And people complaining about anonymous sources are naive and don’t pay close attention to how the news works.” I know how news works and I also know how propaganda and out and out false news works as well as leftist trolls.
A Never-Trumper who's awfully dumb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.