Heh. She sounds a lot like me, and even uses a term from Seinfeld. I am in loooooove!
“The ‘reporters’ who continue to cite ‘unnamed GOP-insiders’ as hard news sources are deemed impotent by the American public as we rise up and say, ‘The state of journalism today stinks. Let’s clean it up and expect some accountability’,” Palin wrote in an email to The Daily Caller.
Palin also mocked Politico’s use of anonymous sources, saying, “I suppose I could play their immature, unprofessional, waste-of-time game, too, by claiming these reporters and politicos are homophobe, child molesting, tax evading, anti-dentite, puppy-kicking, chain smoking porn producers…really, they are… I’ve seen it myself…but I’ll only give you the information off-the-record, on deep, deep background; attribute these ‘facts’ to an ‘anonymous source’ and I’ll give you more.”
Yeah. Why do Big Media reporters get to use "anonymous sources" which they could have just made up, whereas blogging citizens are told to have proof if they want to be taken seriously?
Why the backwards double standard? Why shouldn't the Big Media show us proof, and not just tell us all sorts of unverifiable hearsay or even lies?
Hey, guys... some guy, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me that Obama was actually born in Kenya, raised by albino orangutans and that he's currently a gay pedophile. I guess that it must be true, then. Just 'cause some guy I won't identify told me. Or so I say. What're you going to believe? Suppose I was in the Big Media instead of being a lowly nobody blogger? Would you believe me then? Why? Because I'm in the Big Media? That's not logical!
Oh, and Sarah used the term "anti-dentite". See? She's regular folk like us.... she watches Seinfeld too!
8 comments:
Don't forget the all-purpose "The Vatican says..."
Um, just one post previous, you linked to and repeated a claim from a WND article that was made by a single anonymous source.
Oopsies.
And that source is obviously more or less correct, considering the sheer massiveness of the contingent and equipment. AND considering the fact that the Obamacracy refuses to disprove the figure.
It's BELIEVABLE.
The key in anonymous sourcing is believability. When there's no evidence to go with it, such as facts like several expensive planes, over 40 vehicles, over 30 naval vessels and some 800 hotel suites, etc., etc., etc...
Very believable.
On the other hand, unnamed folks who allegedly call somebody sucky or something... there's no way to verify... so that's pisspoor.
Oopsie. Looks like Audrey made a poopsie in her panty-wanties...
Besides, it's NOT "anonymous". It's a news outlet in India that's stating the cost figure. Hardly anonymous, eh.
The WND source, that is, isn't anonymous. While they do cite an anonymous source, it's a believable figure, ain't it?
If the G8/G20 could cost a billion bucks to put on, then Obama's massive trip costing $200 mil per diem... that makes sense.
Especially when they don't want to prove otherwise.
Press use of anonymous sources is bad, unless what they say is something Canadian Sentinel finds believable, which case there's no problem with it. That's a very compelling argument you've got there.
CNN looked into the numbers. Clinton took a similar trip to Asia, and the bill was $50 million for the entire trip. FactCheck.org did the same thing. The entire war effort in Afghanistan costs approx $190 million a day, and you find it believable that peaceful state visit exceeds that?!?
I think your peddling of this completely unsubstantiated rumour simply illustrates the problem with premising the use of anonymous sources on 'what Canadian Sentinel finds believable'/politically useful. ...Time to start employing a little critical analysis on what you hear from Rush instead of hurriedly and mindlessly regurgitating it.
So... No apology or retraction?
Fact Check and Snopes are jokes.
They take their cue from George Soros.
Get a clue, clueless.
You made me laugh, btw, at your predictability.
Post a Comment