So, someone on the Internet posts stuff you like.

[MineralMan]

You know, "facts" about things that interest you. Lots of them. Suddenly, that someone becomes the latest guru on whatever it is that's in the news. Really? Did we not learn from Glenn Greenwald? Are we still so gullible that we believe everything we read that says what we'd like to hear? Did we not get lessons on gullibility in 2016?

Please be skeptical about Internet folks who appear to have an "inside track" on what's going on. The reality is that if you throw enough stones, often enough, odds are high that one of them will hit the thing you're throwing them at.

We all want something to happen that destroys Donald Trump's presidency. We all want news about such things. Imagine someone understanding that and posting exactly what we want to hear. Apparently, it doesn't even have to be true, necessarily, for us to call that someone a genius who has his/her finger on the pulse of truth.

I remind you once again of Glenn Greenwald, Jill Stein and others. Please be careful about who you believe.

[bigtree]

1. I think this is a strawman

...most people don't make heroes out of news and info sources.

There's a lot more than sources to consider when collecting news and info. It helps if you have a base of knowledge on the subject and apply that reasoning to what's offered, regardless of the source.

I think this post and others warning about this or that source are just projecting whatever bias they have about certain individuals in the hot seat this morning. I could be wrong, but I don't personally need anyone to lecture me about 'internet folks' and who I make my 'guru.'

This is all rather presumptuous, to say the least.

[MineralMan]

4. Yah, OK, then.

Read my signature line, please.

[bigtree]

5. you signature line has nothing to do with my response

Are we really debating Greenwald again? Is that what you're really arguing about here, or is it someone else you had in mind? If you mean to denigrate an individual source, call them out directly.

[MineralMan]

6. OK. Whatever you say.

[bigtree]

7. gullible

[moriah]

8. Then you can trash thread.

It seems like you're more upset with MM using Greenwald as an old example instead of all the RUMINT promolugation currently going on.

People at least need to take it AS rumor. It's not "breaking news". I've had to trash a lot of threads.

[bigtree]

9. I wrote what 'upset' me

...intending my response to stand in this thread as a rebuttal.

I want MM to either state specifically who, or what, he's objecting to. That's the way to critique what we read on the internet, not with the broad brush MM used in his op.

[moriah]

10. Seemed clear to me. But I of course may end up being utterly wrong nt

[Hortensis]

27. Entirely clear to me also. Good post, MM. Maybe should

starting calling you a wise man (but don't fear, I won't ). Your combination of intellect good sense, knowledge and political experience definitely add up to wisdom, however, and is a great asset to this forum.

[L. Coyote]

24. ...... and a waste of precious time. America (and the world), we have a problem.

We don't even have time to read all this concern crap.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

2. On another note, RUMINT is not information.

RUmor INTelligence is a contradiction in terms. It's bullshit until confirmed by reliable sources. Why are we so quick to jump on such nonsense and celebrate?

Let's check information before believing any nonsense that sounds good to us, OK?

[RKP5637]

3. Prophylactic words of wisdom, seriously, MM. It's far too easy to get sucked into what

someone is saying and into group think. Especially these days with all of the lies and misinformation, propaganda and psyops.

[Thinkingabout]

11. I read some articles and just wonder why anyone would believe this. It does not

take long to see the source and know this is crap like FOX gives their listeners.

[TexasProgresive]

12. My Father-in-law would quote Edgar Allen Poe

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”

― Edgar Allan Poe

Some might think it rather cynical, but it's not a bad philosophy for life.

[tblue37]

19. Here ya go:

<iframe width="533" height="300" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TexasProgresive]

23. ironically when that was popular

I heard "through the grapevine" that my long time girl friend was no longer gonna be mine. And it was true.

[MedusaX]

13. FWIW: the OP is simply encouraging us to maintain the highest degree of objectivity when evaluating

Information...

Especially that which we find most appealing....

It is easy to critically analyze that which we disagree with...

just as it is easy to place excessive value on the credibility of those who tell us what we want to hear.

IMO...
MM is saying we all need to

Stay Woke...

[Hortensis]

29. +1000. Even more succinct.

[mn9driver]

14. Agree. We have seen this before.

When indictments get handed down, it's real. Until then, not so much.

[MineralMan]

15. Yes. As much as I want to see Trump ridden out of DC on a rail,

I'm not look for straws to grasp or simply accepting false leads from Internet bloggers and twitterers.

I could sit in front of my PC and create an entire scenario that appeared to be real, if I chose to do so. I do not so choose. Others, however, are doing exactly that, weaving a cloth from invisible fibers and dust collected from under beds and sofas.

While they may appear to be real, our hopes and wishes are easily reinforced.

I want demonstrable evidence and genuine information. I'm not finding much of that so far. I'm hopeful that it will appear.

[Kathy M]

22. +1

[GliderGuider]

16. I apply the same skepticism to WaPo and NYT.

Of course, by the time they get around to reporting "news" in this twitter-powered catastrophe, it's generally quite stale (i.e. "olds" rather than "news".) It's fascinating to me how often their clean-up reporting simply corroborates the previous work of "someone on the Internet."

[Hortensis]

32. The delay is for investigatating and verifying, not "cleanup,"

even if that means 2 days to 2 weeks' delay.

It does NOT mean that someone without a 1000th of their cumulative connections and assets is somehow better and more quickly informed. It's far more likely that "someone on the internet" heard rumors arising from the discussions and actions of investigative journalists and is posting them as fact, and merely pretending they turned them up.

Btw, the NYT's formulary understatement may make less entertaining reading than other sources (it really does!), but it has been awarded 122 Pulitzer prizes for excellence in journalism, and nominated for a huge number more, the reason why I continue to subscribe in spite of its history-making corruption of journalistic principle regarding the Clintons.

[L. Coyote]

17. Great, now back to work everyone, coffee break is over. What's news?

More news breaking every day, a pace difficult to keep up with, even without the behind the scenes news. Gorsuch RECUSED?
With a secret FISA court having jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is involved and Roberts is the lead jurist.
It seems Gorsuch cannot be in the loop. Note Mensch is taking a careful approach and reporting frankly:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

18. Surmises and educated guesses are not news.

Those are what we're seeing from such people who tweet and write long speculative essays that are based on "sources" they don't identify. Could they be correct? Yes, they could. Could they be incorrect? Yes, they could, and that's more probable. Could they be false leads planted by "sources" with some sort of agenda? Certainly.

I don't know. You don't know. None of us know. While it's entertaining and thought-provoking to read this type of material, it will not lead to any results, because there is actually no real information being offered. There are rumors, suppositions, and speculations, but no real information in them.

They're entertaining, but not really useful, except to occupy our time and feed our imaginations.

They are not, however, news. News involves facts that are supported by evidence that can be examined. None of this internet musing is news, because there's no evidence that can be examined.

It's interesting, but not really useful.

[GusBob]

20. I tend to agree

Especially in this age of fake news

[Kentonio]

21. I don't agree with you that often

But you're absolutely on point here. Rec.

[MineralMan]

26. I appreciate that a great deal.

[cwydro]

25. Thank you. I just posted in another thread

how gullible many DUers are...

[BannonsLiver]

28. Her tweet about the entire GOP going down was the back breaker for me

The information messiah role many DUers have cast her in has made me skeptical for awhile now, and I find the level of devotion to her whenever she is questioned, critiqued or criticized a bit weird and misplaced.

[Nevermypresident]

30. Sincerely, why do so many fellow DU'ers feel they have to caution me to be skeptical

of bloggers, tweeters, etc. This has got to be the 5th or 6th thread on this subject!

I do have a filter. I also accept responsibility if I believe something they say which turns out to untrue. (and this goes for MSM as well)

[MineralMan]

31. DUers write all sorts of things on DU.

Nobody can read them all. So, most DUers are selective in what they bother to read.