Sqrl said:
madskillz said:
Sqrl said:
So your arguments come from:
- Anonymous sources that are at odds with sources willing to actually stake their reputation on their claims.
- Her political enemies.
- Previously debunked lies.
I rest my case.
|
Seriously, Sqrl, I know you like Sarah and will defend her. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But honestly, regardless of what someone posts, you'll dig and cherry pick until you find the information favorable for her. He asked for sources and I provided. Unless a person is actually there, anyone can say what they want.
There are two things I want to address - first, the video. So, you are saying it's ok to support a political party in your state that wants to secede from the Union? Why even make a video saying 'Welcome' to a group like that? There was a group like that back in the day - and tried to secede. It was in the 1860s. How sending a shout-out for a group like that - and defend it is very interesting.
Second, you would have virtually no news without a source. If they are unnamed and the information is credible, you run with it. Any news today - breaking news - never has a named source.
Of the major news announcements recently - Obama's transition team, him picking Biden, GOP folks saying McCain was finished and such - all were unnamed sources. I am a journalist - I have been for 12 years - and that's how it works. You can have a major player giving you the info - and it checks out, you name the source, you lose credibility. Sources will only get burned once. Reporters and editors have been to jail to protect their sources. Name them? Anyone not in the biz would say that, but that's not how things work in the business.
|
Here lies the problem. You, and several others, hate Palin and have spewed so many lies about her over the last two months that you've put in me in the position of being the only person around here who is willing and capable of correcting your mountain of BS, which I've done consistently and which you've ignored consistently (predictably). Now, I disagree with her on a large number of issues albeit less issues than I do Obama, and I've defended both of them against this crap consistently.
I'm one of the few who has been consistent throughout the campaign about tabloid trash like this. From the 57 states comment, banning books, mixing up article I and II of the constitution, lipstick on a pig, the Trig Conspiracies (which you still believe in), asking a handicapped guy to stand up, the muslim accusation, the terrorist accusation, people reading his prayer when he was overseas, etc..etc.. I've been against the ignorance spewed about all of this stupidity regardless of who it is meant to attack, because it's all trash and I've personally looked into each and every case before forming my opinion about it (some required more digging than others of course). I know for a fact you can't say the same thing as you've engaged in perpetuating several of these tabloid smears in this thread already, so spare me the talking-points ad hominem attack trying to paint me as a Palin stooge and stick to the substantive points, because frankly I'm not going to stand for it, that much I promse you.
Now on the issue of her speach to the AIP: I just want to be clear, is it your assertion that what she has done amounts to an association and an association with a disreputable group/individual is valid criticism? I find it interesting how giving a pre-taped speach to a group of political opponents is somehow more troubling to you than a lengthy association and working relationship with a known terrorist who had plans to kill 25 million Americans (I could go into much greater detail, but I'm not looking to deter the discussion to Obama)....but Palin as a sitting governor gives a pre-taped speach to an officially recognized political party and only then do you have a "Z0MG!!"? reaction. Pah-lease.
Now on the issue of the AIP specifically, you have your facts off a bit. The AIP contends that Alaska was never properly brought into the Union and they want the citizens of Alaska to be given a fair vote on the issue. Several members of their party do not want Alaska to be part of the US, including several officials of the party, but their platform is for the issue to be brought to a vote because it was never properly handled..not a secession vote. A subtle distinction certainly, but quite important because I can understand the motivations for one but not the other. The party is attempting to remedy what it views as a fruadulent vote, which is far different than a vote to secede. I have no desire to see Alaska no longer part of the Union and Palin has never said a single thing to indicate she does either, so the entire argument is a bit of a non-sequitur. To be honest I would emplore any individual who hasn't seen the video to watch it and then form their opinion, it says everything that needs to be said.
And for the record I think all intellectually honest individuals should be able to agree that regardless of our wishes about Alaska remaining in the union (and I feel strongly that they should) the fact is that if the people of Alaska were actually denied their right to vote on the issue the first time then that problem needs to be corrected. Obviously they first have to prove it was corrupt though, and I don't think they've done a very good job of it thus far. If they do manage to convince me though, I would be compelled to support a new vote and I would hope the majority of people would support their right to a fair vote as well. Whether I like the outcome or not I won't hold up the curtain of ignorance to protect a fraudulent vote.
On your second point, yes you are correct that sources are important for news, even unnamed sources, I never suggested otherwise and if you read what I wrote you will see that (that was the point of the Omaha/Utah beach story I linked as well as the ensuing two large paragrapsh that dominated the post). The problem here is that, and as a journalist you should know this, an unnamed source is usually used as justification for starting an investigation and upon discovery of sufficient (not just "some") corroborating evidence for the source's story you then go to print highlighting the corroborating evidense as well as the original information from the source labeling each appropriately for the public to make a determination.
Furthermore the type of story you would use unnamed sources for is the classic whistleblower situation like a Watergate story, typically something involving government malfeasance. Comparatively, the standards for running with an anonymous source on a character assassination piece are, and ought to be, significantly higher because you can potentially ruin someone's life/career with even an innocent mistake let alone malicious intent from the source, this is basic journalist integrity 101. Any journalist worth a damn knows that an anonymous source alone is completely insufficient for running with a story and it is irresponsible to air. Even in Watergate with what they felt was a very reliable source they still corroborated and backed up the story and information before going to print.
The issue isn't "should you use anonymous sources", the issue is "should you use anonymous sources as your only justification for a story" and the answer is an emphatic and resounding "NO" and it should echo from any journalist with even the slightest shred of decency and integrity. These very basic standards were not met in this case, and it was plain to see from the stories that were written, and you linked, that there was no corroboration. You really don't have a leg to stand on here, and frankly I wish you would man-up and admit that these stories were and are unsubstantiated tabloid trash rather than childishly continue to stick to a position after it has been shown to be untennable.
For the record I'm not asking for any reporters to name their sources, I understand and respect that relationship which is why I feel it should not be abused. I am however asking you to name your source for your positions here as I have been able to. If you are relying on unnamed sources to combat my named sources then please refer to the first paragraph of my last post where I thank you for conceding the high ground. I do appreciate it.
|
