Anonymity, John McCain, and the mass media, part 7

Recently, I came across the following website. I suggest you check it out if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com



https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367

The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”

Webmasters Earn Money Here!

Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.

Recently, I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:

September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

My recent posts have involved four news stories—two dealing with the NIU murders, one on John McCain, and one about a death at the U.N. What did these three distinct articles have in common? All reported “information” based upon the ubiquitous anonymous source.

Tonight, a brief look specifically at the John McCain story in relation to the anonymous information given in the story. The original news article was published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 21, 2008, page A2.

The relevant information for this post was contained in the following paragraph: “The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with Vicki Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain. The New York Times suggested an inappropriate relationship between the Arizona senator and Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The New York Times quoted anonymous aides saying they had confronted McCain and Iseman, urging them to stay away from each other, before his failed presidential campaign in 2000.”

On my February 9, 2008 post I wrote the following: I think the libertine mass media has now decided that John McCain will win the Republican Party Presidential nomination and it is now time to start the attack on him to prevent continued Republican control of the White House.

That night I also wrote: He (John McCain—my addition) is the “Republican” darling of the libertine mass media. That is, until he actually runs against a libertine Democrat for the Presidency.

First then, I would point out the obvious. The article of February 21, 2008 seems to be a continuation of the just beginning and probably continual assaults upon John McCain until the conclusion of the Presidential election. The first such assault that I’ve read was the article discussed on my February 9, 2008 post.

In the news story of February 21, 2008 the two newspapers dragged up something that supposedly occurred before the 2000 Presidential primary campaign—at least seven plus years ago. The New York Times used the all too common anonymous source to try to support its version of the story.

According to the news article from The Associate Press (I have not read the original stories printed in the Washington Post and the New York Times), The Washington Post does identify its source as John Weaver a former aide to the Senator. The Post seems to have even asserted that there was a split between the two (although that may have been inserted by the writer(s) of The Associated Press). However, the story I read did not identify the reason for the split and more importantly did not explain WHY Iseman was “urged” to stay away from McCain.

Reporters supposedly have been taught to discover the “who, what, and why” of a story. The WHY in this case seems overwhelmingly important since it could be a very innocent reason why she was “urged” to stay away. IF, indeed, she was. It may have been simply that because of her profession, the leaders in the campaign did not want even a hint of McCain being friendly with someone in a profession (lobbyist) that had negative connotations.

According to the article from the Associated Press, “The New York Times suggested an inappropriate relationship between the Arizona senator and Iseman, a Washington lobbyist.” The article did not identify the alleged “inappropriate relationship.” Perhaps, it was meant to be left to the imagination of the reader. Certainly, the article did not provide another supposed emphasis of standard reporting—“the facts, nothing but the facts.” Innuendo seems to be some reporters chief weapon when dealing with “news” related to Republicans.

“The New York Times quoted anonymous aides saying they had confronted McCain and Iseman, urging them to stay away from each other, before his failed presidential campaign in 2000.” Here, of course, is where the “anonymous” source(s) are inserted into the “news” article.

This results in the same problems of any anonymous source for any alleged story being covered. Were these anonymous sources actually involved in the “confrontation”? Notice too the use of the words “confronted” and “urged.” Were “confronted” and “urged” the words used by the anonymous sources or were the words selected by the reporter to report the incident? “Confronted” and “urged” have a different slant to the incident than, for example, “met with” and “asked.”

How do we know that the reporter didn’t make up the account? Why were individuals who supposedly provided the information not identified? How can anyone else confirm the truthfulness of the story if the sources of the story are not identified? How can the reader know for certain if there was more than one person. Perhaps the reporter had only one source but expanded it to “aides” attempting to give credence to the information. Who knows?

How many times is anonymously reported information wrong or misleading? How often do later articles correct wrong information that allegedly came from an anonymous source? Does everyone who read the first article also read the later correction? Does everyone who read the original article eventually accept that the corrected information is indeed true or do they have doubts because of the already processed original information?

Why use anonymous sources? Why not take the time to verify the truth before reporting what may or may not be true? Why not identify the anonymous sources? Why would someone give such information to a reporter? Does he or she or they have an ulterior motive? Do they have an ax to grind? Are they seeking revenge for some unknown reason? Are they actually aides to the Senator? Knowing the source helps to give credence to the information or helps to call the information into question if the known source is also known not to be reliable.

I have said that John McCain is not my ideal candidate for the Republican Party. However, this article appears to be a “hatch job” trying at all costs to initiate doubts about John McCain and his worthiness to be President. The use of anonymous sources reinforces such a conclusion. It could be nothing more than the deranged imagination of a reporter who supports the ultimate libertine Democratic candidate.

Why should, why would anyone give credence to such a story based upon anonymous sources which may or may not exist? Anonymous sources who may or may not know the facts. Anonymous sources who may or may not be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The use of anonymous sources is BAD reporting. Such “news” should be discarded by people who want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.