Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Funny I don't see the letter writer's name mentioned.
Aren't unnamed sources what Trump generally terms Fake News! ? ![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://pics3.city-data.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
|
I tend to agree in most instances, but maybe for different reasons. When so called journalists were trusted/respected, you assumed if they had a confidential informant and/or anonymous source, those people were vetted and real.
Thus even if the person worked at XYZ department, they were not just some low level hack with an ax to grind, or needing the money.
However, in the last 20 years or so, many examples of journalists cutting corners have exposed their laziness, bias, or downright dishonesty. They are not properly vetting sources, they are intentionally looking for people who have a one-sided version, and worst of all, some are making up biased stories just to push an agenda.
Sure, none of us like it when stories are framed with an intentional bias baked in, all in an effort to skew the cold hard facts, and let us decide what to think. But when you cross that line, by fabricating that sources even exist, and the false info is coming from your own warped mind, then these people need to be run out of the business.
Whether any of that is true in this case, who knows, because it is had to determine if an anonymous source is real or not.
Brennan will not be the first, nor last head of an intelligence agency with little to no experience in the field. In my estimation this is a mistake, and needs to be addressed sooner than later.
`