What does a 'source with links to US Intelligence agencies' actually mean?

[MineralMan]

It sounds important, and such language is often used in stories that purport to tell us information about secret stuff and like that. Well, to illustrate the fact that I, personally, am a source with links to US intelligence agencies, I will prove that by revealing my links:

https://www.cia.gov/index.html
https://www.nsa.gov/
http://www.dia.mil/
https://www.fbi.gov/

And there you have it. Not only am I a source with such links, so is everyone who reads this post and makes a note of those links.

My point: Unnamed, anonymous sources are just that. They may or may not exist. They may or may not have useful information. As identified in random stories that are touted as news, such sources are essentially meaningless, and may be made up by the author of the story you are reading.

[leftstreet]

1. Please stop lecturing us on this

I'm sure you mean well, but DUers aren't stupid

In fact I'd bet many here, like myself, depend on DUers to verify and/or debunk most everything out there on the internet

[ret5hd]

4. You can't speak to our self-appointed grandfather like that!

Grandfather, can we sit 'round the campfire tonight and listen to tales of wisdom? We promise to be good and wash the dishes after!

[leftstreet]

5. lol

[zipplewrath]

19. Bingo

But you could get in trouble for this.

[SixString]

6. ....

[MineralMan]

8. Thanks for your advice.

I'll keep it in mind.

[Orrex]

2. Not long ago I drove past the FBI branch in Pittsburgh

I believe that qualifies me as a "source with links to US Intelligence agencies."

[MineralMan]

7. No. You're a source who has been 'close' to the FBI.

There are many variations.

[Orrex]

10. Dammit. I can't keep track.

Where can I get a program?

[MineralMan]

11. I'm not sure. Maybe I'll post some guidelines for using unnamed sources.

There are so many variations.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. I Was Once A Visitor To the FBI Building

So, i'm an "insider"

[MineralMan]

17. Indeed. So, let me ask you this:

What are the next steps the FBI will take in the Trump/Russia investigation: I promise I won't use your name when I report this on my blog.

It's always good to hear from a valuable inside source at the FBI. The more sources I have, the better.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Well, First. . .

. . .it's lunch time. So, they're doing that. Not sure right now about what's after that.

[MineralMan]

20. OK, so I can write this, then:

"A source inside the FBI has informed me that the Trump/Russia investigation is the hot topic in the FBI cafeteria. Meetings are underway at this time to discuss strategy."

Thanks for your hot tip!

[ProfessorGAC]

24. No Problem, MM

GAC

[MineralMan]

25. Cool!

[Ezior]

3. One more thing (WaPo, NYT, etc.)

It's important to note that established news media like the WaPo or the NYT often cite unnamed sources. That is different than a random twitter user's anonymous sources, because WaPo sources have repeatedly been correct, so they enjoy a high reputation (which is at risk if they often report BS that turns out to be false).

I think Mensch got 1 or 2 things right (FISA warrant for Trump server?), but all those other claims..? According to her, Jeff Sessions was supposed to be fired/jailed/forced to retire a few weeks ago. And that was just one of the many bogus reports. I don't trust her.

[MineralMan]

9. I'm skeptical of all unnamed sources, frankly.

However, as you point out, some news outlets are very careful in their use of such sources, and independently verify information before publishing in most cases. They also have long track records of accurate reporting, as you also point out.

[Orrex]

15. Her supporters appeal to false equivalency on that point, in fact

"So you must also reject NYT and WaPo because they use anonymous sources too, right?"

[Orrex]

13. Like a "psychic" cold-reader, she only needs to score a "hit" once in a while

One hundred misses will be written off, as long as she gets one right once in a while.

Of course, since we can't know which is which until well after the fact, she can keep plugging away, knowing that her defenders won't hold her failures against her.

[MineralMan]

14. And that's the secret of successful political bloggery.

As long as you get something right from time to time, people will read your every word. That way, they'll see your Donate button and any ads that appear in your blog. An entire career can be built on a few correct statements.

[tableturner]

12. We get it. We get it. We get it. We get it. We get it. We get it. We get it. Okay?

[nikibatts]

21. I think it means former Intel agents still with relations inside their previous agencies.

[MineralMan]

22. Ah. Well, it could mean that, of course.

It could mean other things, though. We don't know, though, do we?

[zipplewrath]

23. A bit more than that

Unless you're talking about the random blogger or something. But at the Times or similar (I'm a little dubious about the 24 hour networks) they have rules on these things.

But one does have to be careful to listen to the exact description. For example:

"A source with links to the US Intelligence agencies" means that they aren't actually IN those agencies. You'll also note it doesn't say a "government source". Also, in the absence of other information, they are indicating a SINGLE source. So this can be anyone from the wife of an employee, to an ex-employee, or even a Navy Seal with friends in the "US Intelligence agencies". Doesn't mean they are a bad source, but it does mean it is roughly speaking "second hand", and probably really about 3rd or 4th. Quite honestly, it'd be considered "hearsay" in many contexts.

I'm often less dubious about these sources when speaking about past events. When speaking about future events (firings, appointment, military actions, etc.) I'm VERY dubious because the pace of change can be quick and prognostication is hard when you have ALL the facts. It's virtually impossible when working from hearsay.

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. What it means depends on where you're reading it, really.

I used the example I used to demonstrate that one could truthfully say that a source had links in that situation. Now, it would be dishonest and deceptive to do so, but...

I'm also a former worker in the NSA building at Fr. Meade. I still chat frequently with others who were also involved in analysis of intelligence at that time, as well. So, I could be quoted as a source, using all sorts of terms. That would not mean that I had any idea of what is going on at the NSA at this time, since that was almost 50 years ago.

Weasel words used to identify sources are really, really common. Some people use them constantly, making their use even more suspicious, really. That's why corroboration from multiple news outlets is so important. If that doesn't exist, the credibility of a news outlet is suspect. We're seeing a lot of that lately.

[zipplewrath]

29. And independent

A trend that is a bit disturbing is the tendency of one news "source" to rely upon the reporting of another news source. So that story that is "everywhere" is all from one leak. Again, I tend to find the major newspapers insist on their own sources, or they will clearly credit the other paper or network as the source. "The New York Times reported this morning...."

[MineralMan]

30. Yes. There's too much incestuous blogging and other such nonsense

going on. The bigger the fabrication, the faster it seems to spread, really.

Google has gotten much, much better in its News search results. It used to show a lot of questionable results from questionable websites, but it has trimmed down the website list it looks at for news quite a bit recently.

[Hoyt]

26. Supposed source was wearing wire sunglasses.

[MineralMan]

28. Damn! I've been outed again!