Your thoughts on a news source.

[NCTraveler]

The Washington Post

1) They seem to be very consistent.
2) They seem to break new story after new story.
3) A lot of their breaking stories are from "unnamed sources"
4) Much of their reporting using "unnamed sources" over the last couple of months has been verified by facts.
5) Some of their reporting these days would be considered salacious if not for the times.
6) If what they have provided us with over the last couple of months from "unnamed sources" is true.... Wow. Just wow.

I find it hard not to take a lot of their reports with a grain of salt. Yet I do not dismiss "unnamed sources" and believe that is often how we get to the truth.

TIA

[Wounded Bear]

1. Well, we have to take all news sources with a grain of salt...

that doesn't mean that some outlets are not more reliable than others. That's obvious.

One tell seems to be anything that Trump calls "fake news" seems more likely to be true.

[NCTraveler]

14. A good sign that a source is at least on the right trail.

"One tell seems to be anything that Trump calls "fake news" seems more likely to be true."

[freddyvh]

2. i really only trust the AP and Reuters

I go right to them
media outlets are allowed to run what they want if they subscribe to those services
They can also edit the product, if they so choose

[shraby]

3. Without unnamed sources, we'd get no news except which building burned down or how much rain fell.

Reporters need to keep their sources anonymous because anything worth reporting would get the source in trouble super fast.

It's when reporters make up stuff and attribute unnamed sources we get into trouble. That's what people who run breitbart, infowars, and similar sites do.

In the Bush years, Judith (can't remember her last name right now) pulled that stunt. She used sources from the gov't like Libby, and the administration, published stories that were designed to be used on the Sunday news shows as discussion topics. She lost her job, the NYT took a serious hit for it.

So far as I can see the majority of unnamed sources material has panned out bigly. Until they don't we should pay attention to what they are telling us.

[Arkansas Granny]

7. I think you're referring to Judith Miller. She got caught up in the WMD scam during the Iraq war.

[shraby]

22. You got her!! Guess old age is catching up to me.

[dmr]

10. Judith Miller

Yup, Ole Darth Cheney while on, say Meet the Press, would say, "... as reported in the New York Times ..."

This ruse was to validate the lie he was about to tell us.

I hate thinking about those days.

[sharp_stick]

4. Reporters for the Post

have generally been working sources for years. These established outlets usually have sources that are very well connected. I trust them a lot more than the general blog guy saying he's got sources.

You don't stay employed with the Post or other legitimate organization for long if your sources turn out to be garbage.

[NCTraveler]

11. Thank you.

"You don't stay employed with the Post or other legitimate organization for long if your sources turn out to be garbage."

[FreepFryer]

5. They haven't done much, give them some time and we'll see if they are a legit paper {/SARCASM}

[Arkansas Granny]

6. The Washington Post is one of my go to sources for news.

IMO, the have a very good investigative staff and are usually on top of a story with relevant facts. They have a good track record.

I don't dismiss unnamed sources. Any successful reporter establishes a good rapport with people in the administration who will give them info on the condition of not being named. Once a source is outed, they are a source no more.

[procon]

8. Seems like you've already answered your own question.

If you're looking for some sort of a 100% guaranteed accurate, factual accounting of current events then you'll need to wait a few years until the history textbooks are written and read them with a jaundiced eye.

There are good, bad and mediocre journalistic efforts, but any news business that offers up legitimate reporting with a minimum of biases and a willingness to correct their mistakes is trying to do a decent job.

[NCTraveler]

13. "If you're looking for some sort of a 100% guaranteed accurate"

I would never "look" for such a thing. A handful of the replies are exactly what I was looking for. It's why I asked the question at DU. Members often have great insight instead of simply looking for what someone else is "looking for".

[Adrahil]

9. Do I detect a toungue firmly implanted in a cheek? NT

[NCTraveler]

12. No. I have been reading all of their reports and they seem to be very consistent.

Much of their reporting from unnamed sources has been backed up at a later day by more verifiable accounts. They seem to be explosive. They seem to by what the NYT was. Cutting edge and willing to stick their necks out. Don't get me wrong, I still like and go to the NYT.

[Adrahil]

16. Wapo is killing it.

I prefer to the NYT. Gonna be lotsa pulitzers at the Wapo after this, I think.

[PufPuf23]

15. The WAPO is better than most news sources and

is close to the Washington DC scene.

One should keep in mind the long history of the WAPO and CIA.

The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You’re Not Being Told

History reveals actual collusion between the CIA and news outlets, including the Washington Post.

By Carey Wedler | December 20, 2016

According to an unsubstantiated article by the Washington Post, anonymous CIA officials have confirmed that the Russian government hacked the United States election to favor Donald Trump. Though it’s entirely possible the Russian government attempted to influence the election, the Post has been widely criticized — for the second time in a month — for its failure to follow basic journalistic practices. Nevertheless, the narrative is sticking.

But the outlet’s behind-the-scenes relationship with the CIA is nothing new. In 2013, a conflict of interest arose shortly after Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, purchased the newspaper. As the Nation reported at the time:

“[Jeff Bezos] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.”

rest of article at: http://www.mintpressnews.com/cia-washington-post-russia-youre-not-told/223319/

more at: https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/18/the-cia-and-the-washington-post/

and: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/30/the-cia-and-the-press-when-the-washington-post-ran-the-cias-propaganda-network/

snip

In the meantime, here is a brief historical note on how at the height of the Cold War the CIA developed it’s very own stable of writers, editors and publishers (swelling to as many as 3000 individuals) that it paid to scribble Agency propaganda under a program called Operation Mockingbird. The disinformation network was supervised by the late Philip Graham, former publisher of Timberg’s very own paper, the Washington Post. 

snip

Almost from its founding in 1947, the CIA had journalists on its payroll, a fact acknowledged in ringing tones by the Agency in its announcement in 1976 when G.H.W. Bush took over from William Colby that “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any US news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.”

Though the announcement also stressed that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists, there’s no reason to believe that the Agency actually stopped covert payoffs to the Fourth Estate.

Its practices in this regard before 1976 have been documented to a certain degree. In 1977 Carl Bernstein attacked the subject in Rolling Stone, concluding that more than 400 journalists had maintained some sort of alliance with the Agency between 1956 and 1972.

snip

It would be naïve to believe that there is not an ongoing relationship between the CIA and the WAPO.

I am not making the claim that the relationship is all bad or evil, just that the relationship exists and is of long duration and maybe not all that democratic or egalitarian.

[NCTraveler]

17. Marking.

Read your post but not the links. Marking to read the links when I get home tonight. Thank you very much.

[cwydro]

18. Salacious?

Did you mean to use that word?

No matter what you think of their reporting, how is it "salacious"?

[NCTraveler]

19. What an awful choice of words on my part.

I'm going to leave it because it has been there for this long. This will stand as the correction for my poor choice of words.

Thank you for pointing that out.

[cwydro]

20. Sorry, it simply doesn't make sense to me.

What did you mean?

[NCTraveler]

21. I still think it's pretty clear.

Beyond what most mainstream outlets are reporting. Salacious almost does work. If what they have been reporting is found to be overwhelmingly accurate, it's absolutely head spinning. Ahead of the curve on damn near everything.