If you want to know where the source of a rumor or story starts in all the newspapers.

[Peacetrain]

just check where they got their story from. It never ceases to amaze me that suddenly something will blow up from Mr. Anonymous.. and all the newspapers are carrying it.. and it must be written on stone tablets and the TRUTH.

Well the truth is this.. there is very little independent reporting or investigating going on anymore.

Most stories just get picked up through a news service or it is one newspaper parroting another.

Just because you can read the same word for word (dead giveaway) in 12 different newspapers and 20 different blogs does not make it true.


That old chestnut.. you repeat a lie often enough people take it as the truth.

The big papers.. Murdoch comes to mind right away.. are power brokers ..not champions of the truth.

It is up to the individual to feather it out the best they can.

[tridim]

1. I saw a Politico hack on MSNBC this morning praising Hamsher and FDL

That is a big piece of the puzzle right there.

I don't know which source I trust less.

[MineralMan]

4. Yah. FDL is the source of a lot of rumors. Their online pundits

spew whatever happens to come into their heads or is placed there by someone. There's no integrity in many of the writers at FDL. Whatever political position they take can always be supported by "Unnamed Source" or "A Highly Placed White House Official." Both are a freebie. You can use them to say whatever pleases you, then claim journalistic privilege if someone asks you who the source is. It's a bad thing in journalism much of the time.

[emulatorloo]

12. A very interesting alignment.

Thanks for posting.

[MADem]

15. Go check who owns POLITICO....

There ya go...

[MineralMan]

2. Most rumors in the media start with something from

the famous "Unnamed Source." This Washington, DC celebrity is the source of so much that we read daily. Also known as "A source close to the White House" or "close to something or another," has all the latest information the media wants to spread. Insisting on his/her "anonymity," this spokesperson is free to say any damned thing it wants.

The secret: That Unnamed Source probably doesn't really exist, except as a phrase in a story.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. It's a more "legitimate" version of the Faux News "Some people say...." preface.

[Wait Wut]

28. Believe it or not...

...I learned that in my journalism class. If you're writing an article and want to include your own opinion, use "unnamed" or "anonymous" source. Granted, they didn't tell us to do this with factual reporting, only opinions. What's happening today is not journalism anymore, it's fiction. Poorly written fiction.

[Bluerthanblue]

3. yup- I remember

being fascinated by the topic of "yellow journalism" in grade school. (yellow used to be my favorite color)
That school lesson has come back to me over and over these last several years.

The men who founded this country understood the power of the press. I think we need to really scrutinize the information we allow to enter our thinking closely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

:hi:

happy to rec.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. It's an echo chamber in a very real sense of the word.

[madamesilverspurs]

7. How about sources for memes?

F'rinstance, who slipped the word "cave" into the conversation? No way that was inadvertant. The way it emerged simultaneously in MSM - and here on DU, for that matter - more than suggests deliberate intent. Creepy.


-

[tridim]

8. Frank Luntz.

[KittyWampus]

11. I'll see your Frank Luntz and raise you a Grover Norquist.

[tridim]

18. Yep, with Hampsher's FDL as the primary megaphone

It's all so freaking obvious.

[mzmolly]

23. Indeed!

:popcorn:

[Liberal Veteran]

9. A succinct and creepily accurate synopsis of my thoughts last night.

I was starting to question the whole thing and I distilled my suspicions into three possibilities.

1. Trial balloon (to test the waters on the notion).
2. Psy-ops (intentionally stirring the pot to demoralize the base).
3. Mass hysteria (essentially a game of "telephone" gone badly wrong).

[Mojorabbit]

22. I vote trial balloon followed

by a huge smackdown from the public. I'd almost bet my house on it.

[mzmolly]

24. I'm voting #2 and 3.

:hi:

[saras]

14. The problem with memes is that believing in them makes you paranoid

It was an obvious concept that lots of people had been talking about for months, and needed a name. When a good, clear name came along that conveyed both literal and emotional content to most people's satisfaction, they started using it. It's a normal linguistic activity, and nothing surprising.

And I'm surprised that no one mentions the corporatist plants here at DU, it's always those neocon progressives at fault, but perhaps that's because DU is always third or fourth in line with the story and not actually the source.

[emulatorloo]

17. When I heard Todd whatshisname (the Repug Operative) on Hardball

claiming that "Obama will cave" I knew somebody was pushing that word to the Republican talking heads.

[DevonRex]

27. Creepy and intentional. Some people have worked very hard to

Undermine the Democratic Party and Obama.

[KittyWampus]

10. Internet Liberals very often fall prey to the Ratfuckers. And yet think they're so well informed.

[emulatorloo]

19. I'd forgotten that term. It is pretty apt

[Mojorabbit]

32. Actually we are well informed

Over and over we have been in the know first despite being told we were over reacting.

[emulatorloo]

13. An excellent summary. I really appreciate you taking the time to post in

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. All it takes is one media outlet to start a landslide, too.

Do you remember that story about a mass grave filled with children in East Texas a few weeks ago? It was reported first by a local TV station and within an hour was everywhere. As it turned out it was also false, but no one actually bothered to verify the story before spreading it far and wide. This is what we have for media today. A huge rumor mill all linked together regurgitating the same sensational vomit.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. And don't forget the breathless coverage of "Balloon Boy".

Or the "death" of Gabrielle Giffords.

[JTFrog]

20. K&R!

[lunatica]

21. It's usually a good thing to wait a day or two also

News comes too fast now. No time is taken to distill it or fact check it. But most of the time reliable sources will get to the bottom of the story within the time it takes to fact check.

I've found this to be a good practice. Too many times the first reaction is an automatic reactionary one designed to control the message.

[Peacetrain]

26. That is probably the best advice and of us can take.. it does

change so quickly

[mzmolly]

25. K and R.

:kick:

[Itchinjim]

29. knr

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Peacetrain.

[sofa king]

33. For those interested in source dissection:

I cannot recommend highly enough a fine book (now two volumes, I think), called After the Fact, by James Davidson.

In the first volume, Davidson has a chapter in which the language selection and writing style of Woodward and Bernstein in their book The Final Days is carefully examined, showing how the perspectives and presentation of the authors automatically eliminates some sources and potentially identifies others.

Modern reporters do not have the same commitment to source protection, fact verification, and concise writing, so in my experience during the Bush years it was actually easier to turn over a few rocks and see which former Bush Administration official was supplying the erroneous facts. My estimates at the time were that the two most important sources for the press during the Bush years were Condoleeza Rice, Andy Card, and Karl Rove, with almost nobody else actually talking to the press on the record or off. Dissenting voices came from Colin Powell and his staff, and nowhere else.

Modern reporters often take great pains to surreptitiously drop the name of the source or at least a hint of whom it is into the article, often mentioning that source or that source's department in passing, in the third person, in a seemingly tangential paragraph or sentence. It rarely mattered during the Bush years, as the information anonymously provided was always untrue and ultimately attributable to Rove no matter who actually told the lie.