Journalists use the tool of "anonymous sources" to push out stories of dubious repute, to push agendas, and do the bidding of their chosen political party. They hide behind the first amendment and defend the practice by saying it’s the only way you can get people to talk. But there are two major problems with this:
First, by definition a person who needs anonymity to be able to talk is probably not supposed to be talking, which means he or she is betraying someone else’s trust or privacy by doing so. And second, if we don’t know who the journalist’s source is then we’re left to assess the credibility of the report based on how much we trust the journalist, which they have made hard to do.
That’s not how this is supposed to work and with the whistleblower complaint concerning Ukraine, we’ve got that same problem, but an even more severe case of it. Not only do we not know who the whistleblower’s sources are, we don’t even know who the whistleblower is. So we’re being asked to trust second-hand reports from anonymous sources, conveyed to us by a “whistleblower” who is himself anonymous, and admits to not having witnessed any of what he’s complaining about.
And is it more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing DJT of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.
Is it any surprise, then, that key details of the whistleblower’s story are falling apart? We already know there are details of the whistleblower’s complaint that are directly contradicted by the call transcript, such as Trump demanding a quid pro quo and Trump asking about Biden eight times. Now we know the whistleblower got at least some of the call participants wrong. Is anyone starting to wonder if the whistleblower is Christopher Steele? Because this is starting to sound about as accurate as his notorious dossier.
The media will continue to dissect every syllable of every statement going forward and read some kind of devious intention to every word. Known unreliable media outlets will continue to introduce unsubstantiated rumors and old unproven unsourced news stories into the news cycle and never ending anti-Trump panel discussions to be referenced in later committee hearings as truth, dems in turn feed media talking points. Rinse and repeat. You can also expect a lot of want-to-be Woodward & Bernsteins "throwing crap out to see if anyone denies it" type journalism. This is the basis on which House Democrats presume to impeach the president, with media as their bullhorn.
UPDATE: Anyone who watched any 30 min block of CNN today saw the above paragraph illustrated para excellence.....
Image via Doug Ross Foundation For Owning Marxists[NY POST]
~ Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS for the Linkage! ~