1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

US Raid on ISIS in Syria

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, May 16, 2015.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Jesus Christ. And, only two of them -- both anonymous -- describe "hand-to-hand" combat:

    The troops engaged in close quarters combat with the target and his body guards, even trading blows “hand to hand” as they rushed the targets, two of the defense officials said.
    ...
    There was some resistance from armed guards and from Abu Sayyaf himself, but the raiders were prepared for that, a third official told The Daily Beast.


    And, please, let's not pretend these two officials aren't both working off of the same approved talking points.

    It's still the official, approved story, no matter how many "sources" are involved in distributing it.
    The fact that the Pentagon/WH has more than one person reaching out to reporters to distribute the story doesn't change this.

    If you talk to two different witnesses to the same event, and they tell you the same version of events, it lends credence to the story. That's not what is happening here.
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I like this line too:

    Known as the “emir of oil and gas,” Abu Sayyaf was believed to be a key figure in financing ISIS operations, the first official said, and the second compared him to a chief financial officer.


    Really Daily Beast? This guy was "known" as the "emir of oil and gas"? How long had you know about him?
     
  3. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Then your problem is with government sources in general.
     
  4. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Honestly, YF, I don't understand your beef here. On the one hand, you have sources who likely have an agenda. On the other hand, you have a news event for which those are your only sources. You can either report the event, based on those sources, or you can not. In the short run, there's no other way.
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Can you just admit that "multiple sources" in this case means nothing? They're all approved sources, telling the same approved story, from the same approved talking points.
     
  6. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    If you believe what you just typed, you should never, ever watch Fox News, read Drudge, believe anything funded by the Koch Brothers or the guy who owns the New York Post or read Breitbart.

    The problem with journalism today is many people think it should be entertainment. It's not. It is meant to inform.

    People write for three reasons: entertain, persuade and inform. Journalism is informing. That has been completely blown to shreds in the last 20 years.

    Good journalism is founded on honest people reporting honestly from honest sources.
     
  7. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    I'm trying to illustrate that there's a little more due diligence than just "swallowing the official line without question." And, yes, seven sources is better than two.

    I've already detailed the parts of the story I'd have held off on pending further corroboration. The hand-to-hand stuff is way down on the list.

    Also, I'm not sure you fully understand how "attribution" works.
     
  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I'm just looking for a little skepticism here. Just a little.

    Just tell me that this is what's being told to you, by government officials, and that you can't independently confirm the story.

    And, don't pretend like you're some "insider" who knew all about the powerful "Emir of Oil and gas" though few else knew about him.

    Just tell us that what you know about this guy is only what you have just learned, as told to you by your anonymous government source.
     
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    How is seven approved, anonymous administration sources, all reading from the same talking points better than one?

    If the sources are independent of each other, that's important. If they are actual witnesses to an event, that's important.

    Seven sources reading from the same script adds nothing to the story.
     
  10. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    The source that said the other high-value targets weren't there as hoped was reading from the same script as the others?

    The independent "analysts" who suggest this was an attempt by the Pentagon to shift the "narrative" away from ISIL gains in Iraq and elsewhere in Syria were reading from the same script as well?

    What about the source who said the raid was merely part of a larger attempt to confirm the ISIL No. 2 was in fact dead as the Iraqi government claims?
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Those sources aren't the ones peddling the "hand-to-hand" combat details, or the details about the magic bullets that literally shoot around human shields.

    The first idea is attributed simply to "some analysts". That could literally be anyone:

    Some analysts argued the Pentagon appeared eager to shift the narrative away from the ISIS advances this week

    The other source is simply a "US official" and he/she doesn't tell us about "hand-to-hand" combar, or magic bullets.

    Another senior US official, who asked not to be identified for this article, told The Daily Beast that Abu Sayyaf was one of several ISIS figures targeted in the raid but that the others had left before the strike-force arrived, suggesting although the mission had been fully successful, US commanders were hoping to ensnare bigger ISIS leaders.
     
  12. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    So, in other words, all seven sources were not reading from the same script.

    I'm not sure what your hangup is about the hand-to-hand stuff. As I said, it's WAY down the list of things that need to be reported further.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page