[BostonCard]

Look at these two headlines from the NY Times in the last couple weeks before the 2016 election:

NEW EMAILS JOLT CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN RACE’S LAST DAYS (Oct 29, 2016)
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia (Oct 31, 2016)

BC

---

Is that what happened in this thread?  I thought I was pretty explicit about what I did not see reported on/investigated in the story about the QB's heart condition.  

As for The Atlantic, I don't know much about it.  I did read the article you reference.  I happen to agree with a lot of the psycho-analysis at a gut level regarding Trump, who is a deeply flawed and insecure narcissist.  But I also can see that the anonymous comments are classic hearsay; and that the opinions of some on Trump's mindset are just that.  I also looked at the Top 10 articles from The Atlantic today, and the Top 6 are reasonably characterized as anti-Trump.  

So it it reasonable or unreasonable to say that I can agree with the crux of an article while also acknowledging that the facts upon which that crux is based are . . .  a bit sketchy, and that the publication may have an anti-Trump bias?

No, I was just replying to Lex' general statement that "It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive," which in turn was a reply to 2006alum; although your post started us down this (Terry rule territory sidetrack), I didn't mean to imply that you specifically was engaging in lazy thinking by noting your general cynicism of the MSM (which I think was your original point).

On the newest allegations against Trump...  If the newest allegations against Trump are false, this could happen either because a source lied to the reporter or the reporter is lying to the reader. The fact that Goldberg had four sources means either that four people are lying to him or he made up the fact that he had four sources.  The fact that several other news outlets (Reuters, AP) confirmed the findings means that clearly Goldberg didn't make up the quotes, and thus it is unlikely that he made up the fact that he had four sources.  Therefore either the article is accurate, or Goldberg's four sources are wrong.  This could be because they all have second-hand knowledge and all are repeating the same mis-information or they're all telling the truth.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/09/03/rep...s-suckers/

A senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018 cemetery comments.

  

Obviously someone stepping forward and publicly making the comments would be ideal, but this is solid reporting from a solid reporter.

BC

PS, Lex, Bolton didn't say it didn't happen; he said he didn't hear it ("I didn't hear that," Bolton told The New York Times. "I'm not saying he didn't say them later in the day or another time, but I was there for that discussion." link).

[BostonCard]

Look at these two headlines from the NY Times in the last couple weeks before the 2016 election:

NEW EMAILS JOLT CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN RACE’S LAST DAYS (Oct 29, 2016)
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia (Oct 31, 2016)

BC

---

Is that what happened in this thread?  I thought I was pretty explicit about what I did not see reported on/investigated in the story about the QB's heart condition.  

As for The Atlantic, I don't know much about it.  I did read the article you reference.  I happen to agree with a lot of the psycho-analysis at a gut level regarding Trump, who is a deeply flawed and insecure narcissist.  But I also can see that the anonymous comments are classic hearsay; and that the opinions of some on Trump's mindset are just that.  I also looked at the Top 10 articles from The Atlantic today, and the Top 6 are reasonably characterized as anti-Trump.  

So it it reasonable or unreasonable to say that I can agree with the crux of an article while also acknowledging that the facts upon which that crux is based are . . .  a bit sketchy, and that the publication may have an anti-Trump bias?

No, I was just replying to Lex' general statement that "It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive," which in turn was a reply to 2006alum; although your post started us down this (Terry rule territory sidetrack), I didn't mean to imply that you specifically was engaging in lazy thinking by noting your general cynicism of the MSM (which I think was your original point).

On the newest allegations against Trump...  If the newest allegations against Trump are false, this could happen either because a source lied to the reporter or the reporter is lying to the reader. The fact that Goldberg had four sources means either that four people are lying to him or he made up the fact that he had four sources.  The fact that several other news outlets (Reuters, AP) confirmed the findings means that clearly Goldberg didn't make up the quotes, and thus it is unlikely that he made up the fact that he had four sources.  Therefore either the article is accurate, or Goldberg's four sources are wrong.  This could be because they all have second-hand knowledge and all are repeating the same mis-information or they're all telling the truth.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/09/03/rep...s-suckers/

A senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018 cemetery comments.

  

Obviously someone stepping forward and publicly making the comments would be ideal, but this is solid reporting from a solid reporter.

BC

PS, Lex, Bolton didn't say it didn't happen; he said he didn't hear it ("I didn't hear that," Bolton told The New York Times. "I'm not saying he didn't say them later in the day or another time, but I was there for that discussion." link).