Archive

ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Anonymous sources nothing new | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Anonymous sources nothing new

Tribune-Review
| Sunday, September 16, 2018 8:27 a.m

Much of Bob Woodward’s work in “Fear: Trump in the White House” is based upon first- and second-hand anonymous sources from interviews he conducted with administration staffers. Most of the news articles written by journalists and published by The New York Times, Washington Post and others critical of Trump regularly cite anonymous sources within the White House who are always “familiar with” the meetings, writings, investigations, conversations and so on.

Now comes The New York Times’ publication of an anonymous op-ed from a Trump senior official that painted the picture of an unfit president. The writer claimed membership with a number of other such officials in a resistance movement to temper Trump’s decisions determined to be unacceptable.

But wait, this is different, something new. This is right from the horse’s mouth. This is stuff direct from eye and ear to pen. No middle man here. This guy was there. Problem is, we don’t have this horse’s name. You are right on if you guessed Mr. Anonymous. Something new? No, same lady of the night, new kimono.

Ken Mowl

Hempfield

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.