Um, where have you been the past 60 years of modern journalism?
Anonymous sources are not a recent phenomenon. Every major news outlet, including evening news has utilized anonymous sources. You’re referring to an era in journalism—even broadcast journalism—that never existed.
Bernstein & Woodward’s reporting during Watergate was built on …
Um, where have you been the past 60 years of modern journalism?
Anonymous sources are not a recent phenomenon. Every major news outlet, including evening news has utilized anonymous sources. You’re referring to an era in journalism—even broadcast journalism—that never existed.
Bernstein & Woodward’s reporting during Watergate was built on anonymous sources (who was later revealed to be Mark Felt); The Pentagon Papers was originally provided to the press anonymously; anonymous sources have been established in journalism way before the Obama years.
I guess you’re new to Ali’s reporting. He’s similar to every credible independent journalist who has sources from across the political spectrum.
But yes, let’s defend the guy who has had well-established perverted behavior. Ali even gave Schlapp a chance to respond.
What "well-established" behaviors was he charged with and convicted of? Or are you citing more hearsay?
99.9% of the reporting from the legacy/failed media since Trump ran for office has been garbage allegations from anonymous sources. If you missed the massive escalation in it that resulted in them totally losing the trust of the people, that's on you.
But that led sane people to do is give zero credence to any allegations until they become more than hearsay anonymous sources.
I strongly suggest you look up reports on Matt Schlapp over the past 2 years. I'm not going to sit here and post links.
Most of it turned out to be accurate. You should just say that you hate any unflattering story about anyone in Trumpland, rather than give me a retort that insults my intelligence. At least your commentary would be a half-turn more honest.
And please learn the definition of hearsay. It does not apply when the sources cited by Ali are primary sources—direct witnesses to Schlapp's behavior in question. Your incorrect application of the term negated everything you just said.
Even CPAC internally acknowledged there was a problem, but as with many institutions with powerful men—especially in right-wing politics—they rather cover up & enable.
Your sources of "news refer to "allegations", "according to [unnamed] people with direct knowledge of the situation". And from CNN and WaPo, no less, who spent two years spewing nothing but garbage and lies about Trump and Russia. Then they did the same to Matt Gaetz after Biden's corrupt DOJ refused to indict him.
I don't believe anything said by any member of the media when it's based on anonymous sources. Clearly you do.
Um, where have you been the past 60 years of modern journalism?
Anonymous sources are not a recent phenomenon. Every major news outlet, including evening news has utilized anonymous sources. You’re referring to an era in journalism—even broadcast journalism—that never existed.
Bernstein & Woodward’s reporting during Watergate was built on anonymous sources (who was later revealed to be Mark Felt); The Pentagon Papers was originally provided to the press anonymously; anonymous sources have been established in journalism way before the Obama years.
I guess you’re new to Ali’s reporting. He’s similar to every credible independent journalist who has sources from across the political spectrum.
But yes, let’s defend the guy who has had well-established perverted behavior. Ali even gave Schlapp a chance to respond.
What "well-established" behaviors was he charged with and convicted of? Or are you citing more hearsay?
99.9% of the reporting from the legacy/failed media since Trump ran for office has been garbage allegations from anonymous sources. If you missed the massive escalation in it that resulted in them totally losing the trust of the people, that's on you.
But that led sane people to do is give zero credence to any allegations until they become more than hearsay anonymous sources.
I strongly suggest you look up reports on Matt Schlapp over the past 2 years. I'm not going to sit here and post links.
Most of it turned out to be accurate. You should just say that you hate any unflattering story about anyone in Trumpland, rather than give me a retort that insults my intelligence. At least your commentary would be a half-turn more honest.
And please learn the definition of hearsay. It does not apply when the sources cited by Ali are primary sources—direct witnesses to Schlapp's behavior in question. Your incorrect application of the term negated everything you just said.
I’m a Trump supporter and I believe it completely. He gives off those vibes.
As I figured, you have zero evidence of your claims.
I’m going to humor you:
Here’s Schlappy agreeing to a half million dollar settlement, paid by his insurance company, to ax a lawsuit:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/27/politics/matt-schlapp-settlement-sexual-assault-lawsuit
The plaintiff, who filed the lawsuit lied that there was no settlement until it was revealed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/28/matt-schlapp-cpac-assault-claim-leadership/
Here’s a story about the origin of the lawsuit, where the plaintiff provided contemporaneous text messages.
CPAC board member wanted the organization to investigate additional claims of sexual misconduct:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/08/26/matt-schlapp-cpac-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
Even CPAC internally acknowledged there was a problem, but as with many institutions with powerful men—especially in right-wing politics—they rather cover up & enable.
Hope this helps.
Your sources of "news refer to "allegations", "according to [unnamed] people with direct knowledge of the situation". And from CNN and WaPo, no less, who spent two years spewing nothing but garbage and lies about Trump and Russia. Then they did the same to Matt Gaetz after Biden's corrupt DOJ refused to indict him.
I don't believe anything said by any member of the media when it's based on anonymous sources. Clearly you do.