Woodward trashes the NYT op-ed

The_Original_Birther · September 10, 2018, 11:58am

madasheck:

BillBrown:

The_Original_Birther:

BillBrown:

The_Original_Birther:

BillBrown:

The_Original_Birther:

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

Ooops, you got cornered and won’t answer. Oopsie.

Why is it always this easy…

The_Original_Birther · September 10, 2018, 12:00pm

madasheck · September 10, 2018, 12:01pm

The_Original_Birther:

madasheck:

BillBrown:

The_Original_Birther:

BillBrown:

The_Original_Birther:

BillBrown:

The_Original_Birther:

So Woodward is to be trusted again…

Is he? Why do you think so? I’m just reporting what he said. Stunning, isn’t it?

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I haven’t said either of those things. I think you win the 1st liberal lie of the day award.
Good work- two more of those awards and you win the Order of Marx.

I asked a question…I didn’t state anything…so I’ll ask again

He’s always trusted…so you believe this but not what he said about trump???

I’ve already answered that. I’m not going to play Whack -A-Lie this morning.

Ooops, you got cornered and won’t answer. Oopsie.

Why is it always this easy…

It would seem he thought he had a gotcha moment to play up and get some support from the Trump cheerleaders here. He didn’t think it through.

Plasmaball · September 10, 2018, 12:03pm

Even with them knowing…I’m just basing it off how Woodward does things. It’s all speculation…

madasheck · September 10, 2018, 12:07pm

Here’s a lot more of the interview cited in the OP. Woodward’s argument is set in the fact he doesn’t know who the writer is. But the Times wouldn’t have published it without knowing. If they did, he has an argument. But like he did with Deep Throat, they know.

Mountain_Soldier · September 10, 2018, 12:08pm

The Times says they know the identity of the person.

madasheck · September 10, 2018, 12:09pm

You say that like you doubt it. They know who it is. They wouldn’t have published it if they didn’t. Journalists don’t use anonymous sources to make things up.

Mountain_Soldier · September 10, 2018, 12:11pm

The N.Y. Times has already done that. And CBS.

madasheck · September 10, 2018, 12:11pm

When? 10char

zantax · September 10, 2018, 12:11pm

madasheck:

BillBrown:

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

No, it isn’t the same thing as deep throat, protecting his identity was done because he was disclosing a criminal conspiracy and he claimed to fear for his life. This op-ed is little more than gossip and self-aggrandizement.

Mountain_Soldier · September 10, 2018, 12:12pm

Blair? Rather - Bush national guard fakes.

madasheck · September 10, 2018, 12:13pm

zantax:

madasheck:

BillBrown:

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

No, it isn’t the same thing as deep throat, protecting his identity was done because he was disclosing a criminal conspiracy and he claimed to fear for his life. This op-ed is little more than gossip and self-aggrandizement.

How? The writer has first-hand knowledge of what was in the op-ed.

CaughtInTheMiddle · September 10, 2018, 12:14pm

Liberal Journalist and anonymous OpEd.

MichaelScarn · September 10, 2018, 12:14pm

Fitting for the Trump administration.

zantax · September 10, 2018, 12:15pm

madasheck:

zantax:

madasheck:

BillBrown:

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

No, it isn’t the same thing as deep throat, protecting his identity was done because he was disclosing a criminal conspiracy and he claimed to fear for his life. This op-ed is little more than gossip and self-aggrandizement.

How? The writer has first-hand knowledge of what was in the op-ed.

What was in the op-ed wasn’t anything but gossip, he wasn’t disclosing details of a criminal conspiracy. Unless it was his own.

madasheck · September 10, 2018, 12:21pm

Mountain_Soldier:

madasheck:

Mountain_Soldier:

madasheck:

Mountain_Soldier:

madasheck:

Plasmaball:

Woodward is saying that because of how he sourced things and plays the game. He is like a prosecutor. He has the evidence already, he wants to see where you slip up.

So I assume in woodwards mind it’s not it’s not credible because it cant be backed up.

The Times knows the ID of the person. Am I missing something? If they didn’t, that would undermine their Op-ed. But they do.

The Times says they know the identity of the person.

You say that like you doubt it. They know who it is. They wouldn’t have published it if they didn’t. Journalists don’t use anonymous sources to make things up.

The N.Y. Times has already done that. And CBS.

When? 10char

Blair? Rather - Bush national guard fakes.

Blair was a plagiarist and a fabricator. He was fired by the Times. As far as Rather goes, he still defends his story to the hilt. So neither of your examples really mean anything.

The_Original_Birther · September 10, 2018, 12:23pm

Basically claiming the prez is a madman but the deep state has everything under control…
Mr. Kush…I mean Mr. Anonymous should reveal himself…

madasheck · September 10, 2018, 12:26pm

zantax:

madasheck:

zantax:

madasheck:

BillBrown:

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

No, it isn’t the same thing as deep throat, protecting his identity was done because he was disclosing a criminal conspiracy and he claimed to fear for his life. This op-ed is little more than gossip and self-aggrandizement.

How? The writer has first-hand knowledge of what was in the op-ed.

What was in the op-ed wasn’t anything but gossip, he wasn’t disclosing details of a criminal conspiracy. Unless it was his own.

There was no gossip there. That’s some strange word smithing going on there.

Mountain_Soldier · September 10, 2018, 12:28pm

At the time, Rather acknowledged, “if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”

But the story was true. He just can’t provide any evidence of it.

zantax · September 10, 2018, 12:28pm

madasheck:

zantax:

madasheck:

zantax:

madasheck:

BillBrown:

I believe the leftist key-word is “stunning” for these two anonymous hit pieces.
That being the case, here goes:
The stunning Bob Woodward stunningly trashes the stunning NYT op-ed.
Woodward says it doesn’t meet journalistic standards and shouldn’t have been published.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Watergates-Woodward-says-Times-Trump-op-ed-not-up-to-his-standards-566904

Seems the rightist – aka the OP – didn’t get the meaning of Woodward’s words. He said this.

“It’s very important who it is. It’s very important whether this is somebody who witnessed and participated,” Woodward said. "I would say 'Okay, name me who was there.

The NYT knows the person. What Woodward is saying is that the public needs to know the name. Sorry, but he’s wrong. They don’t. Hey Bob, did the public need to know Deep Throat’s identity? You didn’t think they did. You don’t need to know the op-ed writer’s identity. Same situation as Deep Throat.

And it’s not stunning unless you don’t know how journalism works.

No, it isn’t the same thing as deep throat, protecting his identity was done because he was disclosing a criminal conspiracy and he claimed to fear for his life. This op-ed is little more than gossip and self-aggrandizement.

How? The writer has first-hand knowledge of what was in the op-ed.

What was in the op-ed wasn’t anything but gossip, he wasn’t disclosing details of a criminal conspiracy. Unless it was his own.

There was no gossip there. That’s some strange word smithing going on there.

Opinion | I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - The New York Times

Did I miss some sort of serious allegation of criminal wrong doing in the piece?