08-21-2020, 12:50 AM
College football QB with post Covid heart disease
08-21-2020, 04:49 AM
strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
Cal delenda est
08-21-2020, 11:11 AM
(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
08-22-2020, 05:52 PM
(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
08-23-2020, 06:23 AM
(08-22-2020, 07:03 PM)oldalum Wrote:The MSM potential thread is a bit too political, IMHO, for this board.(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote: ESPN is the MSM?Au contraire, they're the Everything SEC Propaganda Network
On the sports cancellations related to COVID19 on ESPN -
I have found ESPN's coverage of the NCAA very hard to watch. Their opinion types jump on and talk about how the NCAA is such a disorganized enterprise. They pretend as if they don't known the conferences and schools are able to do their own thing even though their network has coverage and unique sub-networks for many conferences.
They also go on and on about how awful it is that these conferences are doing things for the money, when a good chunk of the TV revenue money on the table is coming from ESPN. I would have thought the ESPN employees would recognize their employer's role in the COVID19 challenge for conferences when they pretend to be outraged at how conferences might be worried about losing contractual TV revenue.
(08-22-2020, 07:03 PM)oldalum Wrote:The MSM potential thread is a bit too political, IMHO, for this board.(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote: ESPN is the MSM?Au contraire, they're the Everything SEC Propaganda Network
On the sports cancellations related to COVID19 on ESPN -
I have found ESPN's coverage of the NCAA very hard to watch. Their opinion types jump on and talk about how the NCAA is such a disorganized enterprise. They pretend as if they don't known the conferences and schools are able to do their own thing even though their network has coverage and unique sub-networks for many conferences.
They also go on and on about how awful it is that these conferences are doing things for the money, when a good chunk of the TV revenue money on the table is coming from ESPN. I would have thought the ESPN employees would recognize their employer's role in the COVID19 challenge for conferences when they pretend to be outraged at how conferences might be worried about losing contractual TV revenue.
08-23-2020, 08:28 AM
(08-23-2020, 06:23 AM)Farm93 Wrote: They also go on and on about how awful it is that these conferences are doing things for the money, when a good chunk of the TV revenue money on the table is coming from ESPN. I would have thought the ESPN employees would recognize their employer's role in the COVID19 challenge for conferences when they pretend to be outraged at how conferences might be worried about losing contractual TV revenue.The beauty of it is most people aren't going to realize ESPN is a big part of the equation, if not the genesis of the problem. By attacking somebody else, they will (probably largely effectively) direct all scrutiny elsewhere.
(08-23-2020, 06:23 AM)Farm93 Wrote: They also go on and on about how awful it is that these conferences are doing things for the money, when a good chunk of the TV revenue money on the table is coming from ESPN. I would have thought the ESPN employees would recognize their employer's role in the COVID19 challenge for conferences when they pretend to be outraged at how conferences might be worried about losing contractual TV revenue.The beauty of it is most people aren't going to realize ESPN is a big part of the equation, if not the genesis of the problem. By attacking somebody else, they will (probably largely effectively) direct all scrutiny elsewhere.
08-23-2020, 12:01 PM
(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
Is that a serious question? If so, the answer is "yes."
(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
Is that a serious question? If so, the answer is "yes."
(08-23-2020, 12:01 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
Is that a serious question? If so, the answer is "yes."
My view: If you're conservative and you don't like what they say, they're the MSM. If you're liberal and you don't like what they say, they're a Russian bot or run by the Kochs or Murdocks. Nothing a like a good ad hominem to excuse not engaging with an argument on the merits.
(08-23-2020, 12:01 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
Is that a serious question? If so, the answer is "yes."
My view: If you're conservative and you don't like what they say, they're the MSM. If you're liberal and you don't like what they say, they're a Russian bot or run by the Kochs or Murdocks. Nothing a like a good ad hominem to excuse not engaging with an argument on the merits.
09-04-2020, 12:28 PM
I thought this was an interesting article. It may well be that there is more damage from virus infections of which we were previously unaware.
https://www.medpagetoday.org/infectiousd...on&vpass=1
How the effects of influenza compare to those of COVID-19 is at the moment unknown, but it is probably true that both are problematic.
https://www.medpagetoday.org/infectiousd...on&vpass=1
How the effects of influenza compare to those of COVID-19 is at the moment unknown, but it is probably true that both are problematic.
I thought this was an interesting article. It may well be that there is more damage from virus infections of which we were previously unaware.
https://www.medpagetoday.org/infectiousd...on&vpass=1
How the effects of influenza compare to those of COVID-19 is at the moment unknown, but it is probably true that both are problematic.
https://www.medpagetoday.org/infectiousd...on&vpass=1
How the effects of influenza compare to those of COVID-19 is at the moment unknown, but it is probably true that both are problematic.
09-04-2020, 03:21 PM
(08-23-2020, 03:25 PM)2006alum Wrote:(08-23-2020, 12:01 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
Is that a serious question? If so, the answer is "yes."
My view: If you're conservative and you don't like what they say, they're the MSM. If you're liberal and you don't like what they say, they're a Russian bot or run by the Kochs or Murdocks. Nothing a like a good ad hominem to excuse not engaging with an argument on the merits.
It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive. Nor is it an ad hominem attack to say that Fox (which I consider now to be part of the MSM) is conservative. It’s simply the truth.
(08-23-2020, 03:25 PM)2006alum Wrote:(08-23-2020, 12:01 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-22-2020, 05:52 PM)akiddoc Wrote:(08-21-2020, 11:11 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(08-21-2020, 04:49 AM)newguy Wrote: strong evidence that you don't have to be old to take damage from this disease.
I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.
You could be right; however, isn't it also possible that the guy had a debilitating heart condition that was discovered as a result of Covid contraction and/or protocols?
I don't mean to downplay significance of potential issue - and clearly this kid has serious health concerns. But it's more of a critical reading and reading comprehension thing. I don't know, maybe my jaded view of agenda-driven MSM reporting on this has me suspicious of too many things.
Regardless, best to the kid for a full recovery.
ESPN is the MSM?
Is that a serious question? If so, the answer is "yes."
My view: If you're conservative and you don't like what they say, they're the MSM. If you're liberal and you don't like what they say, they're a Russian bot or run by the Kochs or Murdocks. Nothing a like a good ad hominem to excuse not engaging with an argument on the merits.
It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive. Nor is it an ad hominem attack to say that Fox (which I consider now to be part of the MSM) is conservative. It’s simply the truth.
09-04-2020, 03:29 PM
(09-04-2020, 03:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive. Nor is it an ad hominem attack to say that Fox (which I consider now to be part of the MSM) is conservative. It’s simply the truth.
Right, there's nothing inherently wrong about pointing out a media's biases. However, I think the problem is that usually it is the start and end of a lazy analysis. So you see stuff like "The Atlantic is part of the MSM, thus its story about Trump denigrating war casualties is 'fake news'"
BC
(09-04-2020, 03:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive. Nor is it an ad hominem attack to say that Fox (which I consider now to be part of the MSM) is conservative. It’s simply the truth.
Right, there's nothing inherently wrong about pointing out a media's biases. However, I think the problem is that usually it is the start and end of a lazy analysis. So you see stuff like "The Atlantic is part of the MSM, thus its story about Trump denigrating war casualties is 'fake news'"
BC
(09-04-2020, 03:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-04-2020, 03:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive. Nor is it an ad hominem attack to say that Fox (which I consider now to be part of the MSM) is conservative. It’s simply the truth.
Right, there's nothing inherently wrong about pointing out a media's biases. However, I think the problem is that usually it is the start and end of a lazy analysis. So you see stuff like "The Atlantic is part of the MSM, thus its story about Trump denigrating war casualties is 'fake news'"
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?
(09-04-2020, 03:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-04-2020, 03:21 PM)lex24 Wrote: It’s not an ad hominem attack to say that the MSM, with the exception of Fox, is progressive. Nor is it an ad hominem attack to say that Fox (which I consider now to be part of the MSM) is conservative. It’s simply the truth.
Right, there's nothing inherently wrong about pointing out a media's biases. However, I think the problem is that usually it is the start and end of a lazy analysis. So you see stuff like "The Atlantic is part of the MSM, thus its story about Trump denigrating war casualties is 'fake news'"
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?
09-04-2020, 05:12 PM
The problem with "anti-Trump bias" as a concept is that facts and truth are biased against Trump.
09-04-2020, 05:24 PM
(09-04-2020, 05:12 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: The problem with "anti-Trump bias" as a concept is that facts and truth are biased against Trump.
The majority of the time, without question.
So, I try and ask this question when reading articles in MSM (and you can include all standard ones, including Fox): how would you expect "the story" to read/be covered if Obama were the president? Or any less offensive personality, Democrat or Republican? Yes, it takes some speculation - but it's not as difficult as one might think. What I think it helps you realize is the number of gratuitous shots or spins that are presented because so many in the media are so against Donald Trump.
I think a retrospective on the media during the Trump presidency 20 years from now (assuming we survive) would be pretty interesting. It's "too close" right now for too many. But maybe when the froth settles down a bit . . .
(09-04-2020, 05:12 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: The problem with "anti-Trump bias" as a concept is that facts and truth are biased against Trump.
The majority of the time, without question.
So, I try and ask this question when reading articles in MSM (and you can include all standard ones, including Fox): how would you expect "the story" to read/be covered if Obama were the president? Or any less offensive personality, Democrat or Republican? Yes, it takes some speculation - but it's not as difficult as one might think. What I think it helps you realize is the number of gratuitous shots or spins that are presented because so many in the media are so against Donald Trump.
I think a retrospective on the media during the Trump presidency 20 years from now (assuming we survive) would be pretty interesting. It's "too close" right now for too many. But maybe when the froth settles down a bit . . .
09-04-2020, 06:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-04-2020, 06:49 PM by 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
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/
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).
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
(09-04-2020, 04:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: 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/
Quote: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).
(This post was last modified: 09-04-2020, 06:49 PM by 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
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/
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).
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
(09-04-2020, 04:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: 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/
Quote: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).
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »