Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Kellhound]

An incident that perfectly mirrors the recent incident. How dare anyone compare the two!

While the outcome was the same, the situations leading up to them were different. So mirror yes, perfect no.

[starlord]

so after claiming that american embassies were under imminent threat from iran, the trump administration has canceled two classified briefings (that are required by law) to explain the threat to said embassies.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...-on-iran%3famp

[DocSavageFan]

Where do you get those mythical 1500 dead?

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YR0QR

[Ihavewaffles]

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YR0QR

Oh, Reuters have 3 iranian insiders at the highest places of power in that fundamentalist country that are really...uh.....

this is journalism version of "I know a guy"... basically they can make any shit up n claim they 'know a guy' n u believe it?

[Edge-]

Oh, Reuters have 3 iranian insiders at the highest places of power in that fundamentalist country that are really...uh.....

this is journalism version of "I know a guy"... basically they can make any shit up n claim they 'know a guy' n u believe it?

No, it's not. They're anonymous sources, which I find ironic to see conservatives using the articles given the years of "ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE FAKE NEWS!", which are a long-running standard in journalism. They don't publicly reveal the sources, but they know exactly who they are and protect their identities to protect them as a source.

This is Reuters, an extremely credible news outlet. If they've got insiders giving them info, it's credible. If their sources burn them, they stop being sources that they use, as is standard across all respectable journalism.

[Ihavewaffles]

No, it's not. They're anonymous sources, which I find ironic to see conservatives using the articles given the years of "ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE FAKE NEWS!", which are a long-running standard in journalism. They don't publicly reveal the sources, but they know exactly who they are and protect their identities to protect them as a source.

This is Reuters, an extremely credible news outlet. If they've got insiders giving them info, it's credible. If their sources burn them, they stop being sources that they use, as is standard across all respectable journalism.

Respectable journalism is to make claims, offer no proof and "I know a guy!"

Sorry, as an adult I can't accept such 'journalism'...it's one thing if they can prove what they claim is true n hide their sources, but just to make claims n offer nothing else? Also, saying it's Reuters is giving carte blanche, so they don't have to bother with proof when people like you say "well, if Reuters says so, it must be so!"...

[Machismo]

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YR0QR

Yes, it's a shame when people refuse to condemn murderous regimes and tyrants, right?

I'm glad you were also outraged when Trump befriended murderous regimes like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. I'm sure you were also up in arms when the GOP shut down calls to condemn the Armenian Genocide. Your consistency is admirable.

[Edge-]

Respectable journalism is to make claims, offer no proof and "I know a guy!"

To protect their sources, yes. If they out their sources, they both will lose them as sources and potentially get them in trouble.

This isn't new. This is a longstanding journalistic tradition, and led to massive news breaks including the Watergate reporting, which was almost entirely based off of anonymous sourcing. And the journalists in that instance didn't even know the name of their contact. They verified that they were credible which is why the reporting moved forward, but there was no name.

Sorry, as an adult I can't accept such 'journalism'

Then 90% of the field for investigative journalism is dead to you, because it relies heavily on anonymous sources.

Again, media cultivate those over long periods of time and they're extremely valuable. If media continually have bad sources, they lose credibility. That's how this works.

Also, saying it's Reuters is giving carte blanche, so they don't have to bother with proof when people like you say "well, if Reuters says so, it must be so!"...

Yes, because that's the reputation they've built for themselves, and the reputation that keeps them one of the premier news outlets. If they start shoddy reporting with poor sourcing, they're going to lose their status, and as a consequence lose readership (lost revenue) and access to a lot of people/governments.

Are we really having this fucking anonymous sources discussion again after beating this horse to death during the 2016 Trump campaign?

[Ihavewaffles]

To protect their sources, yes. If they out their sources, they both will lose them as sources and potentially get them in trouble.

This isn't new. This is a longstanding journalistic tradition, and led to massive news breaks including the Watergate reporting, which was almost entirely based off of anonymous sourcing. And the journalists in that instance didn't even know the name of their contact. They verified that they were credible which is why the reporting moved forward, but there was no name.



Then 90% of the field for investigative journalism is dead to you, because it relies heavily on anonymous sources.

Again, media cultivate those over long periods of time and they're extremely valuable. If media continually have bad sources, they lose credibility. That's how this works.



Yes, because that's the reputation they've built for themselves, and the reputation that keeps them one of the premier news outlets. If they start shoddy reporting with poor sourcing, they're going to lose their status, and as a consequence lose readership (lost revenue) and access to a lot of people/governments.

Are we really having this fucking anonymous sources discussion again after beating this horse to death during the 2016 Trump campaign?

I bolded the key word.

Verified.

Where is the verification behind Reuters claims? Ah, you left that part out.

[shimerra]

I bolded the key word.

Verified.

Where is the verification behind Reuters claims? Ah, you left that part out.

No Edge didn't. You as an adult, one who constantly surprises that you were able to make a log in let alone button your pants, don't seem to understand the concept of anonymous sources which have been a journalistic standard since the inception of the profession. If you want more direct evidence that's fine, but let's not pretend that anonymous sources magically become invalid because you declare them so.


Hey guys Watergate wasn't real in the beginning because Deep throat was an anonymous source! You heard it from this guy first.

[Ihavewaffles]

No Edge didn't. You as an adult, one who constantly surprises that you were able to make a log in let alone button your pants, don't seem to understand the concept of anonymous sources which have been a journalistic standard since the inception of the profession. If you want more direct evidence that's fine, but let's not pretend that anonymous sources magically become invalid because you declare them so.


Hey guys Watergate wasn't real in the beginning because Deep throat was an anonymous source! You heard it from this guy first.

So you are saying all un-verified information should blindly be trusted the moment it appears, gotcha

Have you found those WMDs yet?

[Edge-]

I bolded the key word.

Verified.

Where is the verification behind Reuters claims? Ah, you left that part out.

...what?

Woodward and Bernstein never publicly verified their source, they independently verified that they were legitimate, but still didn't know his name.

Reuters similarly has sources that they've verified, and very likely know directly including their name an position within the government, but are protecting their identities to maintain them as sources.

Again: If Reuters just starts making shit up and making up sources, they start losing that credibility that they've spent decades upon decades building. That's incredibly hard to build and takes a lot of time and effort, and can be destroyed rather quickly.

So you are saying all un-verified information should blindly be trusted the moment it appears, gotcha

From trusted sources like Reuters that have an established track record of accurate sourcing, yes.

Have you found those WMDs yet?

Completely different matter, and a pretty terrible strawman at that.

The CIA is not a news outlet. The Bush administration is not a news outlet.

[shimerra]

So you are saying all un-verified information should blindly be trusted the moment it appears, gotcha

Have you found those WMDs yet?

Nope. Not even close actually. But i'm not surprised you thought that's what I said given that you struggle with basic reading comprehension.

Let's practice with this. See spot run. We'll go from there.

[Orbitus]

Democrats Block A Vote To Support Iran Protesters
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/14/d...an-protesters/

TexasRules tried the same thing yesterday, the reason they voted against it, is because they have their own measure they are writing. That will probably have more of an impact than the shit Kevin McCarthy, or should I say Trump's newest colon polyp, just wrote. Considering this fucking moron isn't seeking re-election to work for Trump.

[Mormolyce]

1st, my mistake about the person

2nd, I'm not from the US.

3rd, I can't believe the amount of people who reflexively get sand in their genitals when someone points out something might not be in line.

4th, I'm anti-Trump you moron.

I've told you guys a hundred times, I don't look at user names or avatars when I post, nor do I remember most of the posters on this forum, so don't look surprised if I don't remember what country you're from or what side of any given debate you're usually on.

Nor do I care, your argument was fucking idiotic and that has nothing to do with your political persuasion.

*EDIT* Oh, you weren't even the person I was actually talking to, you just butted in. Well I guess I have nothing to say to you then, except that I'm not afraid of the fucking NSA.

[DocSavageFan]

No, it's not. They're anonymous sources, which I find ironic to see conservatives using the articles given the years of "ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE FAKE NEWS!", which are a long-running standard in journalism. They don't publicly reveal the sources, but they know exactly who they are and protect their identities to protect them as a source.

This is Reuters, an extremely credible news outlet. If they've got insiders giving them info, it's credible. If their sources burn them, they stop being sources that they use, as is standard across all respectable journalism.

Do you really want to haggle over just how many hundreds of protesters were killed by their government as if a lower number than 1500 is somehow OK...and, as such, Democrats are somehow justified in blocking a bill that condemns Iran's actions?

Wow...just wow.

[Orange Joe]

Do you really want to haggle over just how many hundreds of protesters were killed by their government as if a lower number than 1500 is somehow OK...and, as such, Democrats are somehow justified in blocking a bill that condemns Iran's actions?

Wow...just wow.

If that makes Iran so horrible. What does that say about the US killing college students?

[DocSavageFan]

If that makes Iran so horrible. What does that say about the US killing college students?

WTF? Are you really saying that the US is as bad or worse than Iran when it coming to killing college students?

[Orange Joe]

WTF? Are you really saying that the US is as bad or worse than Iran when it coming to killing college students?

I'm saying those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[JohnBrown1917]

WTF? Are you really saying that the US is as bad or worse than Iran when it coming to killing college students?

It kills more civilians overall, thats for sure.