Sunday, December 11, 2016

Cautionary note …

… Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence.

what makes claims from anonymous sources so especially dubious is that their motives cannot be assessed. Who are the people summarizing these claims to the Washington Post? What motives do they have for skewing the assertions one way or the other? Who are the people inside the intelligence community who fully ratify these assertions and who are the ones who dissent? It’s impossible to answer any of these questions because everyone is masked by the shield of anonymity, which is why reports of this sort demand high levels of skepticism, not blind belief.
I am starting to wonder if Jeff Bezos ever bothers to read the newspaper he owns, the quality of which seems to have declined since he bought it.


  1. I'm glad to see you taking Greenwald seriously, for he does some very good work.

    As to lack of evidence, yes indeed -- a shortcut Trump also favours, it seems.

  2. I like Greenwald a lot. He seems an honest commentator to me.