The New York Times is still trying to scrub the egg of their face after yesterday’s big “Anonymous” dud. With even lefties pissed at them, they’re gonna have to work extra-extra-hard to restore the public’s faith in their journalistic integrity.
Or, they can just try pulling exactly the sort of BS the New York Times would pull:
“The biggest concern is that it has the potential to become ammunition for people who want to undermine anonymous sourcing at the New York Times writ large,” one Opinion staffer tells @joepompeo https://t.co/H83yoU1fr7
— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) October 29, 2020
From Joe Pompeo in Vanity Fair:
As for the view from the Times’ Opinion department, someone who works there told me, “A number of people are grumpy about it, but it’s weird because the person who made the decisions isn’t running the place anymore. I think the biggest concern is that it has the potential to become ammunition for people who want to undermine anonymous sourcing at the New York Times writ large.”
First of all:
one >anonymous< Opinion staffer? https://t.co/GEHXtuUOcx
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) October 29, 2020
C’mon, New York Times. Have you seriously learned nothing?
But even more importantly, after all that’s happened, the New York Times’ “biggest concern” going forward is that people might use it as “ammunition” to undermine the Times’ credibility?
That’s the biggest one?
— Regs (@r3gulations) October 29, 2020
As we’ve seen, the New York Times is more than capable of doing that on their own.
“This evidence that we’re full of shit could be ammunition for people who say we’re full of shit” https://t.co/3JYkuTcYXU
— Relax, I didn’t vote for the guy you hate (@jtLOL) October 29, 2020
Yes, NYT’s actions have undermined their credibility.
— art jones (@drivenbyart) October 29, 2020
Doesn’t look like the NYT needs much help undermining their sourcing, they’re doing great on their own.
— Anonynurse Practitioner (@ArthurNonymous) October 29, 2020
The NYT’s fast eroding credibility is a suicide, not murder.
— No Followers, Please (@NoFollo92476663) October 29, 2020
That was already happening. Anonymous sources are fine when used judiciously but it’s been the backbone of just about every negative article about @POTUS. This latest revelation is just the nail in the coffin.
— Looney Riot (@CraZed77) October 29, 2020
Speaking of which:
Yeah, sort of makes you wonder if the sources for the Steele dossier are junior Brookings Institution wash outs. How lowly could the source be on the Russian bounties story? https://t.co/ZCDNa1PRtM
— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) October 29, 2020
We’re just dying to find out.
