I just realized something I hadn't really consciously thought about before in regards to how believable articles are when their sources are "confidential" and "intelligence officials" etc.
I have no problem believing an article like this at all even with no hard source, but I immediately discard reports that put the US in a positive light with the same lack of hard sources.
Then I thought "well that's not really fair, I shouldn't just believe this either then". Shortly after that though, I realized that if someone were publishing material AGAINST the US or its allies' interests then they're taking a big risk and they MUST have some sort of credible source or sources, whereas if they're just being a propaganda mouthpiece there's no risk to their sources being complete shit or even non-existent.
So while the article could be just as much bullshit as any other, it's less likely in my opinion, because there is a risk to publishing completely false information based on shadowy or non-existent sources.
It's not necessarily relevant in this particular instance since the source is straight from the horse's mouth. Every once in a while, they brag about things like this because they understand there will be no recourse from their own side on the hypocrisy and belligerency of what they did. The conversational register they're aiming for isn't the crowd that thinks this is wrong, but those that would be delighted that the CIA and Trump were taking action to be "tough on China" and trying to "regime change it."
The journalistic paradigm you're referring to is the "anonymous source says they personally saw Stalin eating all the grain with a big spoon" skit where they use the "unverifiability gimmick" to attack an adversary. It's not a reporting tactic done against one's own side. Reuters would have never published this if it could not verify the sources.
Even in the article here, it's "according to former U.S. officials..." and "three former officials..." which of course isn't a hard source.
Weirdly enough I hadn't read this with the target audience in mind so it came off as putting the US in a really bad light, but now I can see why you'd be confused with what I said because this is precisely the type of article they use the "anonymous sources said" tactic with.
Now when I re-read what I said maybe I hadn't actually realized that I don't read shit like this in the 'target audience' mode that maybe I used to read it in without even realizing it. Thanks for your thoughts!
I have no problem believing an article like this at all even with no hard source, but I immediately discard reports that put the US in a positive light with the same lack of hard sources.
That's called Confirmation Bias and is fucked up, but is part of becoming an adult. We need to learn to have a critical eye on everything, specially in things that support our worldview.
I mean it's an analysis of power relations. calling it confirmation bias kind of misses the whole point. the poster's first reaction was that it was confirmation bias and then stopped to think about it more.
I just realized something I hadn't really consciously thought about before in regards to how believable articles are when their sources are "confidential" and "intelligence officials" etc.
I have no problem believing an article like this at all even with no hard source, but I immediately discard reports that put the US in a positive light with the same lack of hard sources.
Then I thought "well that's not really fair, I shouldn't just believe this either then". Shortly after that though, I realized that if someone were publishing material AGAINST the US or its allies' interests then they're taking a big risk and they MUST have some sort of credible source or sources, whereas if they're just being a propaganda mouthpiece there's no risk to their sources being complete shit or even non-existent.
So while the article could be just as much bullshit as any other, it's less likely in my opinion, because there is a risk to publishing completely false information based on shadowy or non-existent sources.
I'm not sure I follow.
It's not necessarily relevant in this particular instance since the source is straight from the horse's mouth. Every once in a while, they brag about things like this because they understand there will be no recourse from their own side on the hypocrisy and belligerency of what they did. The conversational register they're aiming for isn't the crowd that thinks this is wrong, but those that would be delighted that the CIA and Trump were taking action to be "tough on China" and trying to "regime change it."
The journalistic paradigm you're referring to is the "anonymous source says they personally saw Stalin eating all the grain with a big spoon" skit where they use the "unverifiability gimmick" to attack an adversary. It's not a reporting tactic done against one's own side. Reuters would have never published this if it could not verify the sources.
Even in the article here, it's "according to former U.S. officials..." and "three former officials..." which of course isn't a hard source.
Weirdly enough I hadn't read this with the target audience in mind so it came off as putting the US in a really bad light, but now I can see why you'd be confused with what I said because this is precisely the type of article they use the "anonymous sources said" tactic with.
Now when I re-read what I said maybe I hadn't actually realized that I don't read shit like this in the 'target audience' mode that maybe I used to read it in without even realizing it. Thanks for your thoughts!
That's called Confirmation Bias and is fucked up, but is part of becoming an adult. We need to learn to have a critical eye on everything, specially in things that support our worldview.
I mean it's an analysis of power relations. calling it confirmation bias kind of misses the whole point. the poster's first reaction was that it was confirmation bias and then stopped to think about it more.