Robert Parry, lately of RT and Consortium News, has made a claim:

[MineralMan]

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/13/democrats-too-clever-by-half-on-clinton/

In an article at that link, he claims that superdelegates aligned with Hillary Clinton are having second thoughts. Yet, in the article, he doesn't name a single superdelegate to support his claim. Not one. He quoted exactly nobody who expressed such a viewpoint who is a superdelegate.

Why? Because he doesn't know any who feel that way. He may, in fact, have not even bothered to ask any of them. Instead, he puts his own opinions in the mouths of non-existent superdelegates.

Robert Parry, at one time, was an award winning journalist. That time appears to have passed. His article is not an example of excellent journalism in any way. It has no supporting evidence. It is simply his wishful thinking, written in journalistic English. Without corroboration, though, in the form of quotes from actual superdelegates, it is a total sham, not journalism of any kind.

Don't believe me? Click the link and read what he wrote.

That is not journalism. It is propaganda. Sorry Robert. You have jumped yet another shark.

[virtualobserver]

1. so, you actually believe that Superdelegates for Hillary would want to publicize their doubts.....

......on the record. I'm guessing that you haven't heard about the dangers of being on the enemies list.

[SFnomad]

5. The non-existant enemies list the Republicans like to talk up all the time? n/t

[virtualobserver]

9. Don't be naive.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hit-list-102067

[SFnomad]

11. Yawn, every politician has a list of who helps, who doesn't, who can be depended upon for support

who can't. Talk about being naïve.

On Edit:
You sounded like you were alluding to the list of people the Clintons have known who died in "mysterious circumstances" ... and going back to your post ... I stand by that characterization.

[virtualobserver]

12. first the list is nonexistent....then everyone has a list like that......make up your mind.

[SFnomad]

14. I thought you were talking about the Clinton "murder" list ... and going back to your post

yeah, you were alluding to it. That list is non-existent, except in Republican wild fantasies.

Your post:

I'm guessing that you haven't heard about the dangers of being on the enemies list.

[virtualobserver]

18. no, I wasn't... I was speaking of political danger....you can climb out of your bunker

Tulsi Gabbard: People warned me against endorsing Sanders

[SFnomad]

20. what a load of crap ... sure you were alluding to it, it's really pretty clear ... buh bye n/t

[virtualobserver]

21. Ridiculous....you actually believe that I was implying that Hillary would KILL Superdelegates....

if they didn't support her....

The absurdity of your assertion leaves me speechless. Get a grip!

[MineralMan]

22. I don't know, but writing as though you have discussed

this with superdelegates is not journalism. No sources named = No facts presented.

As for "enemies lists," I have no knowledge of that, one way or another. That's not the subject of my post.

[virtualobserver]

26. actually it is journalism...when people are afraid to go on the record.

Are you questioning his journalistic integrity?
This guy is no lightweight and he has earned the right to be taken seriously.

From Wikipedia

Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 and the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2015. He has been the editor of Consortium News since 1995.

[MineralMan]

27. In such situations, the writer should say so.

There are simple phrases for quoting someone off the record. No such thing occurred in Parry's article.

I take him seriously. I think he did a lousy job with this article. I explained why.

[virtualobserver]

40. either he is lying, or he is telling the truth....quoting serves no purpose

[kstewart33]

39. Parry easily could have quoted doubting delegates with no names attached.

It happens every day in every publication outlet.

Seymour Hersh was once a great journalist. Today, no one will listen to or read him. His career has been long over because his alleged conspiracies are unbelievable.

[leveymg]

2. Even Tweety asked the question last week, "What do we do if something happens to Hillary?"

Then he added, "Like her emails." He didn't get anything close to an honest, straight answer from any of the party regular hacks he was talking to, but he asked the question. What do think, MM? What happens when the FBI report finds she violated her security clearance and federal laws. What is to be done?

[MineralMan]

23. Parry didn't ask a question. He made a statement that had no support.

There is a difference. Truly, there is.

[leveymg]

30. Reliance on anonymous sources is SOP for the NYT, WaPo, etc.

Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

While I agree in principle that reliance upon anonymous sources is to be minimized as a matter of journalistic CYA and credibility, it remains an accepted and commonplace practice in journalism. You seem to be singling out Parry for a critique that more properly should be applied to the entire profession.

[MineralMan]

32. When those publications do so, they acknowledge that they are doing that.

I give much less credence to such stories, of course. No name for a source lowers the credibility of that source. But stating that an unnamed source is being used is standard practice.

[leveymg]

33. I notice that anonymous sources is becoming ever more common, as is backtracking

by major papers when unnamed sources, or their agencies, refuse or are unable to provide conformation, hanging reporters out to dry. I notice this sort of thing happened last summer with some of the initial reporting that Hillary was being investigated by the FBI. The sources got cold feet -- in this case, the Bureau refused to confirm -- and, the Times had to retract. It now turns out the initial reports were correct. There never was a "security review."

It's a bigger problem than the refusal of independent journalists, such as Perry, to provide clues about who may be telling things to them.

[MineralMan]

34. I think that's too bad, frankly, and I dislike the use

of unnamed or anonymous sources in journalism. It causes me to doubt the validity of the conclusions drawn.

But, I have nothing at all to do with what publications do.

[leveymg]

35. It's a function of how powerful institutions are fencing off information that was once public sphere

Disqualification for serious lapses in judgement and apparent law breaking was once considered to be mandatory for public officials and candidates. Information about their actions wasn't treated as classified, proprietary, or disclosed on a "need to know" basis. I can't recall a serious candidate being allowed to pursue the office of Presidency with this level of evidence of violation of security clearance. I can't recall anything like this has ever happened.

Meanwhile, the nominating process seems to be stuck in some sort of automatic pilot mode while it performs an agonizingly slow system diagnosis. This is dangerous.

The lack of official release of information causes distrust of all sources of information.

[bobthedrummer]

37. +1 "Free Press"=Freaking Domestic Information Operations & perception management for many years

The Office of Strategic Influence and its satellites never "closed".

[leveymg]

38. They move back and forth between US election campaigns and foreign regime change operations

This goes back to Nixon's plumbers and CREEP. The result is the global spoilation of elections and the discrediting of democracy.

[annavictorious]

3. Apparently winning primary contests

counts as a "coronation" in his eyes.

[timmymoff]

4. Do you not claim to be some sort of writer? Never heard of "off the record"

or in confidence? "Don't quote me but...." You have, but you have a habit of "playing dumb"

[leveymg]

8. What did Orwell say about the Outer Party members? They are always the last to know,

and hold onto old prescribed truths longest until told to give them up.

[bettyellen]

13. except Parry does not claim to be quoting anyone off the record at all. "The onlookers might sense"

....that they had made a terrible mistake but couldn’t correct it. They would be left to grit their teeth and hope that Clinton’s self-inflicted wounds, such as her private emails as Secretary of State, don’t fester and become fatal. "

He admits this is all his own imaginings. Your mistake for thinking he quoted anyone, wishful and lazy thinking.

[timmymoff]

15. He doesn't have to quote sources

and I am lazy, so lazy I won't be able to vote for president in November. Must be all the free stuff I want, but I do wish you well . Get to crackin' you have a corporatist to sell.

[bettyellen]

16. Reporters will state they have sources of the record- IF THEY DO. He does not have any sources.

He admits he is imaging how people will feel. How you interpreted that to be a source is beyond reason.
Go on and make yourself irrelevant in November- that will teach us!

[MineralMan]

24. Yes, I am a writer, but I'm not a news or political writer.

I used to write articles and reviews about computer products. Now, I write small business websites. I am not a "journalist." I am a writer, but I do understand journalistic ethics. I have never used any unnamed source for anything, nor would I ever, even if the occasion arose.

[SFnomad]

6. And the BS cheerleaders are eating this up ... because, well, it's all they have

scraping the bottom of the barrel

[Punkingal]

7. As Hillary supporters so often say....

Under the bus with Robert Parry.

[tokenlib]

10. The superdelegates have to be careful...

Hillary still has the receipts.

[arendt]

17. Way to smear.

Perry founded Consortium news over 20 years ago. He, like Tom Hartmann, makes appearances on RT, because corporate news has blacklisted him.

You tell the story backwards (Lately of RT and...) in order to smear Parry with the "Russia is always evil" brush.

I have seen an upsurge in Perry bashing over the last few days.

So typical. Ignore the left. When you can't ignore it, smear it.

[MineralMan]

25. My comments were about his lack of sourcing for his

statement. I identified him by referring to places where his writings appeared. Not everyone knows who Robert Parry is, I think.

My point remains. He provided zero evidence for his statement. Therefore, I dismiss his statement.

[tularetom]

28. Recently, Debbie WS made a statement in a TV interview

She said that Hillary Clinton was not the target of the FBI investigation and when asked by the interviewer how she knew that, she replied that her sources had so informed her.

The host of course asked her to reveal her sources and she not only failed to do so, she refused to do so, saying only that her understanding was that Clinton was not a target.

Do you dismiss WS's statement? She provided no source.

[MineralMan]

29. She's not a journalist, is she?

[polly7]

31. Pathetic try. nt.

[GeorgeGist]

19. His only reference to superdelegates, doesn't support your claim ...

Even though the vast majority of “super-delegates” – i.e., party insiders – have lined up behind Clinton and she leads in pledged delegates, Sanders continues to win primaries, including recent ones in Indiana and West Virginia, and he could roll up a series of victories in upcoming western state races.

[Logical]

36. Ass Grab Man! nt