Totally going to happen. All the never-Trump Republicans are currently advising them to go public, to ensure that they’ll be at the head of that line - the first few will reap the rewards, and the rest will get nothing.
But I expect when this administration is over, most of the White House will be, “That op ed, it was me! Ok, I didn’t actually write it, but…”
7 Likes
The NYT might well publish something that is scurrilous, silly, grotesquely partisan or overhyped. I’m pretty sure they would not publish something from an anonymous source unless that source had the genuine goods.
The identity of the traitor will almost certainly be revealed within the working lives of the editors responsible (possibly much sooner). If it’s not someone at or near cabinet level, that will do serious harm to the paper’s reputation, and kill the careers of the people responsible. They’re relentlessly self-important about this sort of journalistic ethics; I’m pretty sure it’s a serious issue in their internal politics.
3 Likes
There is no crime committed here. It isn’t a police matter.
5 Likes
You say that, yet so much of political news is from “anonymous sources” and the reliability of a lot of it is a bit iffy. A lot of times they do contain truths, but there is chaff as well. I am not just talking about the Trump administration, but all of them. Though Trumps has certainly been more scandalous than the last couple for sure.
The difference between these sort of gossipy news stories and this new Op-Ed is the deliberate “first person” telling. This isn’t an article that “sources say…” this is “I am that source and I say…”. But it is still kinda weird, IMO. I can’t recall something like this happening in recent memory, but maybe there is a previous example(s).
Hmmm that is a reasonable theory. Not sure it is the case, but it might be.
That isn’t much different than any other administration. One could argue others had SOME transparency, but they were mostly opaque.
Nah. Candy Crush. May he lose his whole fortune buying those scammy power ups.
5 Likes
8 Likes
I’m not saying Trump isn’t worse, but calls for better government transparency predate Trump.
If you think this admin somehow isn’t ‘shady on steroids’ by comparison then I don’t know what to make of how you seem to perceive the world around you.
O_o
Our government has always been corrupt and duplicitous, but everything we’ve seen over the last two years takes it to a whole new level of fuckery.
11 Likes
“Anonymous” isn’t the same as “unknown to the Times.” I can’t recall any precedent for the New York Times making up one of their sources.
5 Likes
No, that isn’t what I am saying. When I said " isn’t much different than any other administration." I was referring specifically to transparency. i.e. What is going on in government is open and observable. This is an issue at every level of government.
That is separate from the other shady fuckery going on. You can be fairly clean, and still keep the inner workings in the dark.
As a severe example of lack of transparency pre-Trump, it would be the info released by Snowden and Manning or things like ACA being created and voted on with out even able to read through the whole thing.
When Trump eventually leaves office, government transparency is still going to be a concern.
I mused it as a possibility, but I agree it is unlikely the source is made up. But a real source doesn’t mean it is 100% reliable either. Part of political “news” is political “gossip” and there is misinformation and half truths mixed in. Or do you also believe everything the Times or other established papers publish about people like Clinton or Obama?
The source needn’t be “reliable” for an editorial, because the newspaper isn’t presenting the writer’s claims as objective fact. The newsworthy part is that a high-ranking administration official would publish such a letter in the first place.
13 Likes
It would not surprise me if the current POtuS would know two French phrases:
L’état, c’est moi and Droit du seigneur.
3 Likes
The same except one is important.
And this one: Après nous, le déluge.
3 Likes
Quite right, must’ve slipped my mind…
9 Likes
Maybe so, but they must do some vetting? Sure, they can say “the NYT editors” don’t agree with the following…", but they are leasing out a pretty big platform and giving some legitimacy just by being in the “paper of record”.
2 Likes
I’ d just like to stop and point out that you used the words “fingered” and “m o i s t” in the same sentence when referring to @beschizza…
that is all.
6 Likes
Finally, a person concerned about the really important issues. 
3 Likes
They apparently vetted the identity of the author to the satisfaction of the paper’s editorial board. The opinion and claims expressed by the author seem pretty newsworthy whether or not one agrees with the author.
5 Likes
Sorry, I hope my trollies are cheeky and fun. I wouldn’t want to dampen anyone’s spirits.
1 Like
