@revelette1,
Quote:If the memos are authentic
Precisely, and unless I missed something else, the guy who reported the story never saw any memo and was only read an excerpt from one.
Now this doesn't mean that the memos don't exist or that they don't contain what the source is claiming they contain, but, clearly, an article that reports Comey has asserted anything concerning the alleged content of the alleged memo is not accurate and not good journalism.
It wouldn't have been difficult to add "It has been alleged by a NYT source that Comey asserted..." or even "It is being said that Comey asserted...," but the way this was written, it implies that it is a matter of fact that Comey asserted something which is not something the NYT reporter or this reporter knows to be the case.
I have something of a problem with the original story relying on an unnamed source who didn't even produce the alleged memo, but essentially told the reporter something to the effect of
"Trust me, I'm sitting here on the phone with you and I am reading to you from a memo in my hand, that I know without a shadow of a doubt was written by James Comey."
The NYT reporter may know and trust the source, but to my knowledge there was no second source confirming the memo and it's contents. I'm pretty sure the second reporter didn't know who the original source is and there is nothing about his finding a second source to confirm the memo's existence and content.
Even if one doesn't accept that the NYT story is sketchy journalism that reporter, unlike the second one, didn't write "James Comey asserted.."
This is, in my opinion, no small thing. When I read it I did think that maybe I had missed something and Comey had (since the NYT story) confirmed the existence and content of the memo, but that is not the case. The memo and its content are no more certain now than they were when the Times ran the story, but the second reporter has written a story that indicates that it is. That is shoddy journalism and should not be dismissed because anyone believes
it will at some future date, be proven that the memo exists and it's content is what was reported.
If reporters don't want to be accused of bias (let alone shoddy reporting) then they should take greater care in avoiding very preventable errors like this one or not write with a political bias.
By beginning with a portfolio of unconfirmed allegations from single unnamed sources, the MSM is constructing a narrative that Trump and his staff have colluded with the Russians and Trump has been trying to block any investigation of the matter. This is suspect enough, but if each time the stories are retold by other outlets, certain key points about the nature of the information upon which the narrative is based are deleted or obscured, an impression is being created that the narrative is more authoritative than it actually is and therefore more likely to be true.
If such a thing happens unintentionally that there's a lot of lousy journalism out there but if it is by design, whether an individual's or a group's, it is unconscionable and the reason why the MSM is not trusted and in many cases, despised.
